Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditDemocrats chose to outsource their policy on military tribunals to John McCain. And McCain did what he's done best the last year: capitulate to Bush.
"Senators Snatch Defeat From Jaws of Victory: US to be First Nation to Authorize Violations of Geneva," Georgetown University law professor Marty Lederman writes of the so-called "compromise" between Senators McCain/Graham/Warner and President Bush.
Says Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office:
"The proposal would make the core protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions irrelevant and unenforceable. It deliberately provides a 'get out of jail free card' to the administration's top torture officials, and backdates that card nine years.
"Also under the proposal, the president would have the authority to declare what is - and what is not - a grave breach of the War Crimes Act, making the president his own judge and jury. This provision would give him unilateral authority to declare certain torture and abuse legal and sound. In a telling move, during a call with reporters today, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley would not even answer a question about whether waterboarding would be permitted under the agreement.
"The agreement would also violate time-honored American due process standards by permitting the use of evidence coerced through cruel and abusive treatment. We urge lawmakers to stand firm in their commitment to American values and reject this charade of a compromise."
Adds the Washington Post editorial page:
"In effect, the agreement means that US violations of international human rights law can continue as long as Mr. Bush is president, with Congress's tacit assent."
In the end, McCain got loads of admiring press coverage. And Bush got almost everything he wanted.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
i'm wondering if prisoners can use classified evidence which could prove them innocent.
this is appalling news, i think i have to go throw up. or move to canada or mexico.
oh joy.
Posted by darladoon at 09/22/2006 @ 10:34am
i'm sure some idiotic conservative will chime in hear and celebrate the "good" news
Posted by darladoon at 09/22/2006 @ 10:39am
No celebration, DD....but I predicted it when Peter Rothberg brought it up yesterday.
Just as I'll predict that it'll pass the Senate with 20-25 DEMOCRAT votes, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and almost every one of them up for re-election this year.
Posted by Mask at 09/22/2006 @ 10:49am
Sad indeed that they capitulate...."Gee, let's settle on Torture Light"
On brighter news (AP) Friday, September 22nd, 2006 at 3:11am
Christian conservatives, traditionally a reliable Republican constituency, aren't necessarily a GOP gimme this time around. There is an undercurrent of concern that some evangelicals, unhappy that the GOP-led Congress and President Bush haven't paid more attention to gay marriage and other "values" issues, may stay home on Election Day or even vote Democratic.
and off of MSNBC
Friday, September 22nd, 2006 at 3:11am
SUNNYVALE, California - California's governor and New York's mayor have agreed to collaborate on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emission, saying they can no longer wait for Washington to act on global warming.
[and both Republicans I might add....]
and unsurprisingly
MSNBC News Services Updated: 9:20AM CST
WASHINGTON - The White House said Friday it was not U.S. policy to threaten Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks, challenging an accusation by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf that Washington warned it would bomb his country "back to the Stone Age" if it did not cooperate.
---so we ARE the schoolyard bully!
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/22/2006 @ 10:50am
"...or even vote Democratic."
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/22/2006 @ 10:50am
Did AP explain why Christian conservatives are going to vote for pro-choice Democrats?!??!
Posted by Mask at 09/22/2006 @ 10:57am
read it for yourself
Newsiness
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/22/2006 @ 11:07am
Funny Mask.....I don't see the words "Pro Choice" in my post.....are you wearing your $1 "Secret Decoder Glasses"? The point being is they realize that weighing the candidates on the issues rather than the flag they wave might be a smarrter choice. Go figure...
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/22/2006 @ 11:08am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/22/2006 @ 11:08am
Well, I read the entire article and got a SLIGHTLY different take from it than you did....if you go past the FIRST paragraph.
First off the voter interviewed who said, "I will vote conservative across the board, depending on the candidates' stance on abortion, gay marriage and their support of the military," Gregory said.
Doesn't sound like a "Democratic agenda" (atleast on the first two).
Later in the article it talks about how Dobson and his Focus on the Family goofs are massing a HUGE campaign against gay marriage. (While Human Rights Campaign is TRYING to counter it).
Again...hardly Religious Righties flocking to vote "D" in November.
Posted by Mask at 09/22/2006 @ 11:15am
you know, chavez was right, bush really is the devil.
Posted by darladoon at 09/22/2006 @ 11:17am
Posted by DARLADOON 09/22/2006 @ 11:17am
Pelosi and Charlie Rangel disagree with you.
(Ooops, wait...forgot...DD has everybody who's not Left of Russ Feingold here on "Ignore".....Emily Latella line here)
Posted by Mask at 09/22/2006 @ 11:19am
This reveals the shell game played by shell game played by GOP. I did not much expect from the democratic party which lives in perenial fear and deserves to be defeated. This country has a history of ignoring international laws whenever they get in the way of the administration, pretty much like Wild Wild West. McCain has transformed himself into a slithery politician.
Posted by kevin99999 at 09/22/2006 @ 11:23am
McCain's ALWAYS been slithery. Whether it's singing like a freakin' canary in Vietnam while being tortured or opposing torture on the grounds that it doesn't work (LMAO!!!), McCain's slithery.
Posted by woodyee at 09/22/2006 @ 11:30am
I think it is a sad day in this country when anyone celebrates authorization to torture.
I am sure I will be accused of any number of things, but to me it is simple: Do not do anything to the enemy that you would not want to have them do to your son or daugher.
Posted by Woody Fan at 09/22/2006 @ 12:31pm
mccain is also the devil, in disguise that is.
Posted by darladoon at 09/22/2006 @ 12:31pm
Hmmm... maybe we should torture Abramoff and Delay to make sure that we know the full details of their K Street operation.
Posted by bjkron at 09/22/2006 @ 1:42pm
Are matchsticks under the fingernails banned? I don't think that qualifies as organ failure or death-like pain. Just harmless fraternity pranks and a blowing-off of some steam.
We could strap Rush Limbaugh to a fire ant colony until he reveals his OxyContin source.
Posted by bjkron at 09/22/2006 @ 1:49pm
and speaking of the actual white house: grover norquist and ralph reed each have made at least 100 visits to the white house in the last 5 years. also, they each have met with the president, personally, at least half a dozen times.
Posted by darladoon at 09/22/2006 @ 2:16pm
A strong nation builds itself higher versus striking others down (particulary after an event like 9/11). We'd rather torture out of fear than display our humanity to the world like a beacon of strength. We'd rather topple countries than build a god damned tower in Manhattan to show the world our resilience. If Republicans were so strong and pro-American, they'd stop giving so much lip-service to the terrorists and put their money/efforts into a better US. That's the best revenge. Democrats emboldening terrorists?
Oh, but wait, if Republicans don't mention Osama and the fact that our families are going to die every 17 seconds they're not going to win in November, right Karl?
And if Chavez keeps opening his yap with devil comments, he might just as well start chairing the "Jeb '08" committee.
Posted by kimbo1 at 09/22/2006 @ 2:24pm
George Bush said the US doesn't torture. But we've tortured and we all know it, that's why we need retroactive laws. Now we're going to "redefine" torture to suit our purposes.
Look who's the "depends what the definition of 'is' is" crowd now?
Posted by kimbo1 at 09/22/2006 @ 2:28pm
George Bush said the US doesn't torture. But we've tortured and we all know it, that's why we need retroactive laws. Now we're going to "redefine" torture to suit our purposes.
Look who's the "depends what the definition of 'is' is" crowd now?
Posted by kimbo1 at 09/22/2006 @ 2:29pm
This is not over - Americans are going to find out about it. Some Americans are pro-torture, but we also have the courts. The Democrats may be weak, but SOMEONE WILL BE A MAN, maybe John Kerry, certainly Al Gore.
Posted by LiberalPride at 09/22/2006 @ 2:35pm
but SOMEONE WILL BE A MAN, maybe John Kerry, certainly Al Gore.
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 09/22/2006
That is pretty sexist of you.
Posted by John B at 09/22/2006 @ 2:42pm
Can any of you conservative types out there explain to me how it came to pass that the richest, most powerful, and most technologically advanced country the world has ever known, the same country that survivied its own civil war, was instrumental in defeating the Kaiser, and was co-equal in defeating the NAZIs, must now when faced with the threat of 10 - 20 thousand (at most) stateless, missleless, bambweilding fanatics, cannot defeat them without resorting to something this same country has consistently condemned and never (officially at least) used before, namely torture.
My own opinion is that the only reason this is suggested as needed is that the current intelligence-deprived administration (the same one that cant finish Iraq and couldnt provide timely help after a hurricane), NOT the country, cant defeat them without torture.
And whyy aren't democrats making this same point?
Posted by Skallagrim at 09/22/2006 @ 2:55pm
So Rio, muslim fanatics are special is what you are saying? Oh please, the fanaticism of these people is no less nor more than that of communist gorilla fighters or Nazi true believers. And how about them Japanese Rio, or were we wrong about them too in WW2? Also, if what you are saying is true, then we are doomed and might as well start praising Allah.
I'll not even respond to you comment about democrats destroying the military because only someone with absolutely no respect for historical truth could say that.
Posted by Skallagrim at 09/22/2006 @ 3:37pm
How about because their religion which arose out of the writings from one mans mind 700 yrs..... ---Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/22/2006 @ 3:30pm
As opposed to FOUR men's minds 30 years after Jesus?!??!? (Matt, Mark, Luke, John)? Christianity wins because it was a "committee"?
Posted by Mask at 09/22/2006 @ 3:39pm
What surprises me is the adulation that McCain momentarily garnered from those without a party (guess who). What has he ever been other than homicide with a happier looking face?
The fact that those opposing America's turn toward medievalism have to look to this reprobate for leadership is just one more illustration of the the complete illegitimacy of both wings of the political class. It has to be turned inside out.
Posted by fromredbird at 09/22/2006 @ 3:40pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/22/2006 @ 3:45pm
Quite serious....aside from your personal OPINION....why is a guy writing a book 700 years CE, any less credible than a guy writing a book in 50-65 CE (accepted time-frame for the writing of the "Gospels")? or four of them?
Posted by Mask at 09/22/2006 @ 4:00pm
Republicans are pro-torture ad nauseum.
This Pervez Musharraf thing that LeftOfCenter brought up, Pervez Musharraf said that 5 years ago some Bush officials threatend to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age if they didnt help us catch Osama Bin Laden. Thats fine with me if he said that, I dont have a problem with it - in that particular context. But I dont believe he really said that! And, why is Musharraf bringing it up today - 5 years later? Why is he bringing it up now? It seems he is distancing himself from George Bush - and for that I dont blame him.
Posted by LiberalPride at 09/22/2006 @ 4:14pm
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 09/22/2006 @ 4:14pm
More like CYA....with the rise in popularity of Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad, he's trying to tell his people "I didn't WANT to help the US, I HAD to, to save you guys from being bombed!"
Posted by Mask at 09/22/2006 @ 4:37pm
NEOSANSCONSERVATIVISM
Nixon keeps coming up as the closest definition of an exec that fits this current one as a model; all the same problems are there getting dredged up again. It's easy to be distrustful of the hsuB admin and its substantially incompetent and corrupt administration of everything nonprofit oriented. True conservatives should be the ones the most outraged and yelling bloody murder the loudest every time a soldier dies in Iraq, every time a vote to up the deficit ceiling comes up, every time a no bid contract is given without over sight, every time the constitution is violated, every time we step closer to redefining what evil isn't.
Face it the neo cons have tortured character out of the conservative ideal-- they're not re-repub's, they're new and void, neo-sans-conservative.
Neosansconservatism, think about it. hsuB, being the neosansco decider, is the leader of tortured techniques: language (mangled, sometimes beyond recognition), history (WWII=Iraq//Vietnam), laws (ignoring the Constitution, FISA, Geneva Conventions), redefining conservatism (budget busting economy, ‘tortured' war info gathering, unsecured borders, Katrina disaster neglect, etc.), which then stifles dems per there's really no counter to a tortured and weakened non-conservative ideal, which isn't based on an understood history, functional language, or practicing laws,...
It's the Rovian neosansco's that seem to be off their rocker. I'd go so far as to say that they have effectively figured out how to even muffle the right/left debate, which was meant to allow for restraint and create wise decisions. However without this the neosanscos are basing they direction on nothing other than the easiest marketing ploy, as there isn't or wasn't (per the election is so close) any debate, checks and balances, nor oversight. No wonder they're screwing everything up so badly. Decisions aren't base on knowledge of history and experience, they're based on means to an end-- and that end being greed. (Same if the liberal side was left unrestrained without a modicum of fiscal responsibility.)
Perhaps dems are stifled from the debate the same way 'real' conservatives have been stifled-- because I don't hear the outrage about the budget deficits or lack of oversight or the adventurous war(s) or unsecured borders or the k-street corruption or violating of the constitution or ‘any' of the traditional conservative values, nada, just the lowly wedge issues. I used to know conservatives that would fight tooth and nail to the bitter end to trim fat off bills, argue until they were blue in the face against using our troops for foreign adventurism, would go insane if there was a Delay or Ney in their ranks. Not anymore. Only recently Frist, one of the 20 most corrupt in congress, got up to propose a border plan, and now there's little opposition to the detainee adherence to the Geneva Conventions.
Making ‘tortured' definitions up as you go while only really worrying about creating the right ‘tortured' marketing images up just before another election in November with ‘tortured' election voting machines to say what you want them too. With no 'real' conservative belief system, except for ‘tortured' bloody profits for the rich-- as the rich get richer and the middle class and poor get even poorer. Is it really that far a stretch to conceive of the fact that the hsuB admin's deceitful fascination for dismantling a fly one wing at a time also applies to everyone of us and everything every single thing we do-- not just Iraq, Afghanistan, New Orleans, 9/11, our Constitution, education, social security, health care, our economy, energy, pollution, privacy, security, … but most of all, our perception of the truth.
Is this what our congress has agreed to let the hsuB admin to do to us too:
http://clearharmony.net/articles/200406/20143.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/22/2006 @ 7:01pm
I think the public need to see the pictures of what the proposed pact says is permissible torture and then put pictures of their kids in uniform in those positions-- that'll shock them into reality. Wake up folks-- this hsuB admin is putting your kids and all future troops at greater risk of being mutilated and having a very painful and excruciatingly horrible death.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/23/2006 @ 3:27pm
This is an argument I've never really followed; why will other countries actually care? Why will countries in the Middle East, or in any other area where our troops go, suddenly change their stance based on what the US does? How does it make sense to say that certain countries despise us and maybe even see us as the "Great Satan," but will suddenly see our willingness to torture as a justification to do the same? I'm not arguing that torture is OK, but what I am arguing is that this "other countries will start torturing our people" argument doesn't make any sense.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/24/2006 @ 02:39am
.
The reason that Bush linked the war in Iraq to 9/11 is because they are directly linked - though just not for the reasons he has led us to believe.
Bush 43 is merely the figurehead President.
The ACTUAL President is Bush 41.
How frequently do Bush 41 and Cheney communicate?
ALL THE TIME.
9/11 was a Bush 41 Operation - as is the War in Iraq and the coming atttack on Iran.
GHW Bush is actually running the show.
.
Are you ready for the truth about 9/11?
ARE YOU SURE?
George H.W. Bush was the mastermind of 9/11.
His two long-time surrogates, Cheney and Rumsfeld, planned and implemented it.
All of GHW Bush's business interests benefitted from 9/11, and most of the evidence of his crimes was covered up by it.
Sept. 11/2001 The attack occurs. The morning of the attack George Bush Sr. is meets with members of the Carlyle Group in Washington. Bin Laden's own brother is at the meeting. Members of the Bin Laden family are allowed to leave the U.S. without questioning two days later.
Most of the attention has been focused on 28 pages that have been ordered classified and blacked-out to the public.
People familiar with the missing pages claim that they deal with the Saudi government's relationship with the 9/11 hijackers.
"Because they're classified I can't tell you what's in those pages. I can tell you that the chapter deals with some information that our committee found in the FBI and CIA files that was very disturbing. It had to do with sources of foreign support for the hijackers."
"Carlyle Group was holding its annual investor conference on the morning of September 11th in the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington, D.C. At that meeting were all of the Carlyle regulars, James Baker, likely John Major, definitely George H. W. Bush, though he left the morning of September 11th. Shafiq bin Ladin, who is Osama bin Laden's half-brother, and was in town to look after his family's investments in the Carlyle Group. All of them, together in one room, watching as the uh the planes hit the towers."
George Bush Sr. was also at the conference, but Carlyle's spokesperson says the former president left before the terror attacks, and was on an airplane over the Midwest when flights across the country were grounded on the morning of September 11. They are informed of the WTC attacks while on their jet. Due to all planes being grounded, they have to land in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Former President Bush has made efforts to keep abreast of foreign affairs, partly by exercising his right to be briefed by CIA personnel about developments around the globe. Ha'aretz, "George Bush Sr. Vouches for Son's Support of Israel to the Saudis", July 16, 2001.
Mossad was the entity responsible for the Actual False Flag attack.
Ossama was not involved in it.
When Flight 11 hits the WTC at 8:46 a.m., President Bush's motorcade is crossing the John Ringling Causeway on the way to Booker Elementary from the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort on Longboat Key. [Washington Times, 10/8/2002] Sarasota Magazine claims that Bush is on Highway 301, just north of Main Street when he is told that a plane has crashed in New York City. [Sarasota Magazine, 9/19/2001] Around the same time, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, who riding in another car in the motorcade, is talking on his cell phone, when he blurts out: "Oh, my God, I don't believe it. A plane just hit the World Trade Center."
George W. Bush CONFESSED that he saw the FIRST PLANE HIT THE FIRST TOWER BEFORE he went into that classroom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F6kouXg40Q&mode=related&search
The ONLY way for George W Bush to have SEEN THE FIRST PLANE strike the first tower prior to entering the classroom was on CIA CLOSED CIRCUIT TV IN HIS LIMO – which further implies that the ONLY way that could happen is with FOREKNOWLEDGE that there would be an even to film, and transmit to the President's limo.
He confesses to this not just once…but TWICE:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bushflub.htm
In his public appearance in Florida Bush says "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower ..." He then realizes his mistake (implicitly mentioning the private broadcast to the TV in his limousine) and tries to cover it with a lie, claiming that what he was viewing was a TV in the schoolhouse, saying "the TV was obviously on", not realizing that there was no network TV broadcast of the first impact.
George W Bush Confessed that he SAW THE FIRST PLANE HIT THE FIRST TOWER LIVE ON TV.
The ONLY place it could have been shown LIVE ON TV was on a closed circuit channel run by those with foreknowledge of the pending event.
George HW Bush was the head of all planning. He was the ringleader of the 9/11 co-conspirators.
Cheney ran the operation for his longtime "Mafia Don", George HW Bush.
IN THE BUNKER WITH DICK CHENEY:
MR. MINETA: I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
.
9/11 WHISTLEBLOWER BOMBSHELL!!!
Military Sergeant Reveals The TRUTH OF 9/11:
http://www.v911t.org/SergeantLauroChavez.php
.
.
LOSING THE IRAQ WAR ON PURPOSE:
The following takes a few twists and turns to prove my point, but once you read through it, you will be hard pressed to conclude that Donald Rumsfeld ever had any intention to WIN & LEAVE Iraq.
It's time to view the global strategic game with fresh eyes, and realize that our assumptions about traditional victory and success run completely contrary to those of the GLOBALISTS who have stolen our country from us – and reside in our White House.
First there is this:
September 18, 2006 at 09:49:22
U.S.-Israel-Iran Alliance: The Great Game Updated
Excerpts:
"The public leadership is put in place by power brokers with unlimited global access to high-level military, intelligence, economic, and strategic analysts, policy-makers, influence brokers, and puppet-masters. The broader objective of extending the power of the military/industrial elite without regard to national interest.
The ideology of a ruling elite both determines and reinforces favored decision-making algorithms that, despite their complexity, generally result in the same rather obvious determinations: exploitation of labor, strategic use of military force, allocation of resources for purposes of social control rather than social empowerment, and even choosing which party and candidates can best represent the elite's interests in national elections.
This kind of strategic chess game has been going on for centuries unabated. Manipulating a few dozen national entities and a few core industries simply does not require a unique brand of "smarts".
Iraq is in ruins, U.S. corporate interests have taken the U.S. taxpayer debt incurred by the war and destruction and converted it into windfall profits, the U.S. has control of Iraqi oil, the country is in the midst of a violent conflagration that creates a power vacuum that strengthens both Israel and Iran, and we're building massive military bases and the world's largest and most heavily fortified embassy as a governor's mansion for our new 51st state. Of course, 3,000 U.S. troops have died with many more severely wounded, and who knows how many Iraqis. U.S. casualties are especially tendered by Americans as proof of the catastrophic handling of the war. But this concern represents a total misreading of the mindset of military command.
Perhaps it's time to get this straight: 3,000, even 10,000, dead soldiers means nothing to the Pentagon or the Defense Department. When will Americans get that through their heads?
Barton Kunstler, Ph.D
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_barton_k_060918_u_s__israel_iran _all.htm
More of my own thoughts follow:
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 07:54am
I was told directly by someone with intimate knowledge that the State Department had learned that Rumsfeld planned to FOMENT CHAOS in Iraq from the outset…and that literally all of the apparent failures in Iraq were part of Rumsfeld's goal prior to the invasion of Iraq. If ETERNAL OCCUPATION and PERMANENT BASES are your ultimate goal, this strategy makes sense – as peace and stability would eliminate the justification for US boots on the ground.
The recent revelation that Rumsfeld actually threatened to fire any General who continued to work on the planning for the aftermath of the invasion ("The future Of Iraq Project") makes total sense when you consider that the actual goal of Donald Rumsfeld was to "AVOID WINNING."
THE FUTURE OF IRAQ PROJECT:
Washington, DC, September 1, 2006 - The National Security Archive is today posting State Department documents from 2002 tracing the inception of the "Future of Iraq Project," alongside the final, mammoth 13-volume study, previously obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. "The Future of Iraq Project" was one of the most comprehensive U.S. government planning efforts for raising that country out of the ashes of combat and establishing a functioning democracy. The new materials complement previous postings on the Archive's site relating to the United States' complex relationship with Iraq during the years leading up to the 2003 invasion:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB198/index.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Future_of_Iraq_Project
RUMSFELD HAD THIS ADVICE, AND NOT ONLY CHOSE TO IGNORE IT, BUT THREATENED TO FIRE ANYONE WHO CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT IN THE LEAD UP THE WAR.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009469.php
Our troops, and the citizens of Iraq, are dying needlessly as the direct result of a dishonest strategy, intentionally designed to result in quagmire. They got the best advice the State Department had to offer, then intentionally chose to do EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE in order to guarantee failure, which in their view, meant success.
The Rumsfeld / Bush / Cheney plan from the outset, contrary to ALL LOGIC, was to both allow for the complete destruction of this civil society AND to stay there with troops in place forever.
IMPEACHABLE LIES REVEALED:
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's newly-issued chapters showed that top Administration officials, including the President, Vice President, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, repeatedly misrepresented intelligence community findings, to support the Iraq invasion with lies that Iraq was tied to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, and had advanced WMD programs.
RUMSFELD'S EVIL REVEALED…
HOW RUMSFELD STEAMROLLED THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE UTTER DESTRUCTION OF IRAQ AND THE QUAGMIRE – WHICH WAS ALWAYS HIS GOAL:
INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD HAASS ADVISOR TO COLIN POWELL ON IRAQ WAR PLANNING
Q. Why did we go to war?
A. I think the first thing to say about this war is that it was an elective war. It was a war of choice. We didn't have to go to war against Iraq; certainly not when we did, certainly not how we did it. It wasn't as though the Iraqis were poised to suddenly do something or break out. So the decision to go to war -- which obviously was the president's decision -- like everything else about this war, was an elective decision.
Q. Did we do enough to plan for the postwar?
Q. Is it fair to say that the Pentagon were too optimistic about the postwar situation?
A. I'll let you make the judgment and characterizations. I would just simply say that the aftermath has proven to be far more expensive in every sense of the word, in terms of human expense, in terms of the financial expense. I think in part, it was based upon some planning assumptions. I think part also, what made it a lot more difficult was in the immediate aftermath of the war, the degree of looting that took place. Looting doesn't really capture the degree of physical destruction that took place. [It] meant that the job suddenly grew in magnitude and some precious time was lost. So the entire undertaking became far more demanding because of what happened in the initial days and weeks afterwards. …
The question that I think is legitimate to ask is, should we have had more forces ready to deal with the so-called peace stabilization side of things? Should we perhaps have been more sober in our expectations of how the Iraqis would react once the thumb of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen was lifted? So one can argue that the coalition forces at that point, there simply weren't enough of them and they weren't involved enough to deal with it. Or to put it another way, there was too long of a lag between war fighting and then dealing with the war's aftermath.
Q. Your view on that would be that we didn't have enough troops on the ground.
A. In part number, in part mission; we were slow to transition from war fighting to dealing with the afterward. That either would have argued for additional forces or a more rapid transition from one mission to another. Though to be fair, it was a difficult call to make -- how fast to make that transition -- because you still had the reality or the possibility of residual resistance from the Iraqis.
Q. You were making recommendations about the postwar period while you were in the State Department. You made recommendations to Secretary Powell. What were your recommendations as to what that situation was going to look at and what it was going to require?
A. I'm not going to go into every detail of what sort of advice or recommendations I made. What I simply did was look at the history of these situations, really going back to Germany and Japan and looking back over the more than one dozen experiences the United States had had since the German and Japanese occupations after World War II and ask questions. What it was we could likely expect? What is it we needed to be prepared for?
My view was that we should be thinking very large; that we were talking about a situation that would be very demanding; that we should try to use local forces as much as possible; that while we should dismantle the upper level of those, say, who had been involved in the Ba'ath Party, we should try to take advantage of the lion's share of the army and police.
Interestingly enough, after World War II, the initial thinking about de-Nazification was to get rid of lots of people. But very quickly on, the United States and others realized that we really needed to work with the existing German forces and only get rid of the top level. So that was a lesson that I thought we should apply here.
But essentially, also I was arguing that we should make this as international as possible. There was no reason to hoard this to ourselves in some "victor gets the spoils" mentality, but rather that we should see this as something to be shared with others -- for two reasons.
ACTUALLY THERE WAS ONE REASON…THE PERSONAL GREED OF THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE.
"We did not want this to drain the human and financial resources of the United States."
YOU FAILED – IT DID.
Q. When did you hear Chalabi being flown into Nasiriyah?
A. Pretty much when everybody else heard about it. When it became public. …
Q. But you're in charge of policy, I mean, you're at a high level. Presumably, you would have known.
A. I learn never to use the word "presumably" when it comes to government. All I can tell you is, I didn't know about it in advance, and I don't know who of my colleagues might have known about it. … I don't know that anyone knew about it in advance. All I can say is, in my own view, such initiatives were and are unwise, because they're an attempt to get too involved in the internal politics of Iraq. I just don't think that's the sort of thing that's wise or sustainable.
Q. I spoke to General Garner. He told me that he was instructed by Secretary Rumsfeld to shelve the "Future of Iraq Project."
A. I can't speak to that. I don't know what sort of instructions or communications went on within the Pentagon. I would just simply hope it's not true, because I thought a lot of good work went into that project.
Q. That's what he said. He said that he looked at the papers. He talked to the some of the people in the State Department. He thought it was good work. He wanted to use the work. But then he was instructed not to. Does that surprise you?
A. Yes.
RUMSFELD & CHENEY TOOK THE BONE-HEADED INITIATIVE TO FLY IN CHALABI ON THEIR OWN, AND IN SO DOING, DESTROYED US CREDIBILITY WITHIN IRAQ.
HERE IS A POLICY EXPERT WHO FORMULATED POLICY FOR COLIN POWELL. HIS ADVICE WAS
A. TO KEEP THE POLICE AND MILITARY IN PLACE TO ENSURE LAW AND ORDER.
B. TO ALLOW THE IRAQIS TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND ELECT THEIR OWN LEADERS WITH NO OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.
C. TO BRING IN THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FOREIGN PARTNERS TO SHARE IN THE JOB OF SECURING THE COUNTRY, AND IN SO DOING, TO SHARE IN THE "SPOILS OF WAR."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/haass.htm l
The War in Iraq is about "SUCCESSFUL FAILURE."
In the words on Chalabi: "We are heroes in error."
Dead soldiers and civilians are of virtually no consequence to Rumsfeld and the rest of the criminals in charge. Picture a chessboard, and we are all merely pawns.
THE FAILURE IN IRAQ IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE PERSONAL HUBRIS AND GREED OF RUMSFELD, CHENEY AND BUSH ON BEHALF OF THEIR GLOBALIST OVERLORDS.
Your leadership does not represent your interests.
IMPEACH.
.
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 07:54am
.
I'd like to hear what you believe to be the most plausible explanation for the story of the "Dancing Israelis" who were caught filming and celebrating the impact on the Twin Towers on 9/11, turned out to be Mossad Agents with expertise in explosives and communications, failed seven polygraph tests, etc. They worked for Urban Movers, a known Mossad front in New Jersey.
They were held for over two months.
Their story was buried by the media.
The tape they shot was never publicly released.
They were quietly deported to Israel without charges being filed (imagine if they had been of Arabic descent).
They were deported by Michael Chertoff, the man who was also supposed to be in charge of tracking down the money that paid for the 9/11 operation (Operation Greenquest), the final report from which has never been released.
Chertoff is an Israel-First Zionist who actually defended the man who was found to have been responsible for funding the first WTC attack.
To me this signifies that they:
A. Had foreknowledge of the impending attack and the target.
B. May have played an earlier role setting charges within the Towers themselves.
C. May have been involved in helping Israeli company Zim Shipping move their offices out of the WTC in the days preceding 9/11 (which would also have provided cover for their other activities within the towers).
D. Committed the most egregious breach of Mossad conduct by acting so childishly in the midst of an operation - leading myself and others to question everything else we were being told about 9/11.
E. Were part of the broader Mossad Spy ring that had infiltrated the US preceeding the 9/11 attacks (known as the "Israeli Art Students Spy Ring).
My take on all of this is that Cheney outsourced the implementation of the 9/11 False Flag attacks to the False Flag experts...Mossad.
Cheney was in control of NORAD throughout the operation, and according to Norm Minneta, was monitoring the approach of an aircraft all the way into the Pentagon, and gave specific orders to a subordinate to let it happen.
Why was Daniel Lewin, a Mossad Agent, seated within mere inches of Mohamad Atta on that suicide flight?
What is your most plausible explanation for the behavior of these five Mossad Agents on the morning of 9/11?
What does it all mean to you?
Why were they celebrating just like a demolition team would be when watching their handy work as the building falls?
.
.
T H E
S M O K I N G E S T
G U N
O F
9 / 1 1
I cannot say if Tower 1 and 2 fell as a result of the heat from the fires from fuel aboard the aircraft or as a result of the impact of the strike itself or from some other means.
I can state however with absolute certainty that Building # 7 was brought down by means of (controlled demolition) I am both a builder and a former demolitions trained professional of nearly thirty years. I defy anyone to come forward with a valid hypothesis as to how a forty-seven story building with over 50 load bearing column points can drop into its footprint by any other means. The laws of Physics cannot be broken nor hidden. I was there and have photos of the aftermath.
Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, that's more than a smoking gun, Its MASS MURDER!
By: pierreleclerke on August 09, 2006 at 11:09pm
LARRY SILVERSTEIN ON NATIONAL TELEVISION:
We had already had such terrible loss of life that day.
I decided that the right thing to do was to go ahead and pull the building (down).
I ordered the firefighters pulled back from WTC 7.
And then we pulled it (down).
NOTE:
It takes several days and plenty of expertise to wire a skyscraper with explosives in order to drop it straight into its footprint.
And that is precisely what occured.
GUILTY
He ordered the firefighters to back away from the building at 3:00.
He fired the detonators at 5:00.
The Mossad Agents who wired the building were at that point already under arrest in New Jersey.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.03.15/news2.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_Israel is_Detained_Sept_11_Spies.htm
http://ww1.sundayherald.com/print37707
Now can you help me out with a plausible explanation for this:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
And this official DEA report:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/deareportisraelispying.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/Artstudents.htm
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/dancing-israelis-on-911.html
THE SILVERSTEIN CONFESSION:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=silverste in&hl=en
F O R E K N O W L E D G E
P L A N N I N G
I N S I D E
J O B
.
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 07:55am
.
Listening to Stephen Hadley attempt to define the law defined by Common Article 3, it now becomes crystal clear why Rumsfeld disbanded Iraq's Standing UNIFORMED Military at the time of our invasion.
They are attempting to redefine the Geneva Conventions to apply only to those captured "on the battlefield IN UNIFORM."
Since the "battlefield" is undefined, it is literally EVERYWHERE, and since the enemy is conveniently undefined, it pertains to EVERYONE...including you and me.
The US and Israel are on a mission to overthrow the middle east - and in so doing, create a CIVILIAN UPRISING of non-uniformed "insurgent" fighters, whom this administration finds it convenient to brand as "Al Qaeda"
There is no "Al Qaeda Organization."
"Al Qaeda In Iraq" is a Rovian Brand Strategy - just like "911"
People who find themselves occupied by a foreign invading force tend to fight back.
In other wars, our own government has branded them as "Freedom Fighters" when it serves the US Agenda.
The administration is attempting to create its own reality, based strictly on whether or not those who oppose our invading troops are wearing a uniform.
Sound anything like the Israeli occupation of Palestine, complete with check points and road blocks?
Who taught the US Troops torture techniques that would work specifically well on Arab detainees?
Coincidence?
Can US citizens traveling abroad on holiday become the victims of rendition? If Bush declares you an enemy, what are the limits? Can he declare that you are "Al Qaeda" and thereby subject you to the same interrogation practices and secret trials? Can he execute you?
Where does it stop?
.
Will all dissenters in the US be redefined as "enemy combatants?"
.
.
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 07:57am
.
TERROR AS POLITICAL TOOL:
http://proliberty.com/observer/20000906.htm
From the September 2000 Idaho Observer:
RAND analyst admits Defense Secretary fits profile of domestic terrorist?
"Astute observation" begs question: "Who are the real terrorists?"
The Department of Defense's definition of terrorism is:
"The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or try to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological."
"All acts of terrorism are politically motivated,"
"Why would Cohen, who has access to all chemical/biological weapons intelligence data, including that disseminated by RAND, scare the public with the imminence of a chemical/biological threat? Is he not mirroring the intent of 'terrorists' to leave a specific impression on a gullible public," asked Don Harkins of The Idaho Observer.
Chalk gave a thoughtful and lengthy answer to Harkins' question. Chalk explained that Cohen's public announcement was undoubtedly prompted by lobbyists who used the Clinton cabinet member as political leverage to fund their anti-terrorism programs and research.
"Earlier today Dr. Hoffman stated that 'all terrorist acts are politically motivated.' What you just described to me is that Cohen's threat of imminent chemical or biological attack was politically motivated. How, then, is Defense Secretary Cohen's behavior different from what you guys have described as that of a domestic terrorist?" Harkins asked.
With a smile that seemed to say, "touchet," Chalk said, "Your observation is very astute."
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 08:11am
.
"Every pretext for war is created by those with the capacity to profit from it."
Plunger
http://www.rense.com/general31/cyc.htm
The CIA's "Operation Cyclone" - Stirring The Hornet's Nest Of Islamic Unrest FriendsOfLiberty.com 10-27-2
Zbigniew Brzezinski not long ago revealed that on July 3, 1979, unknown to the American public and Congress, President Jimmy Carter secretly authorized $500 million to create an international terrorist movement that would spread Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and "de-stabilise" the Soviet Union... The CIA called this Operation Cyclone and in the following years poured $4 billion into setting up Islamic training schools in Pakistan (Taliban means "student").
Young zealots were sent to the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where future members of al-Qaeda were taught "sabotage skills" - terrorism.
Others were recruited at an Islamic school in Brooklyn, New York, within sight of the fated Twin Towers.
In Pakistan, they were directed by British MI6 officers and trained by the SAS.
The result, quipped Brzezinski, was "a few stirred up Muslims" - meaning the Taliban.
The Wall Street Journal declared: "The Taliban are the players most capable of achieving peace. Moreover, they were crucial to secure the country as a prime trans-shipment route for the export of Central Asia's vast oil, gas and other natural resources."
No American newspaper dares suggest that the prisoners in Camp X-Ray are the product of this policy, nor that it was one of the factors that led to the attacks of September 11.
Nor do they ask: who were the real winners of September 11?
The day the Wall Street stock market opened after the destruction of the Twin Towers, the few companies showing increased value were the giant military contractors Alliant Tech Systems, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon (a contributor to New Labor) and Lockheed Martin.
As the US military's biggest supplier, Lockheed Martin's share value rose by a staggering 30 per cent.
Within six weeks of September 11, the company (with its main plant in Texas, George Bush's home state) had secured the biggest military order in history: a $200 billion contract to develop a new fighter aircraft. The greatest taboo of all, which Orwell would surely recognize, is the record of the United States as a terrorist state and haven for terrorists.
This truth is virtually unknown by the American public and makes a mockery of Bush's (and Blair's) statements about "tracking down terrorists wherever they are."
They don't have to look far.
THERE IS NO OSAMA BIN LADEN.
AL QAEDA IS MERELY AN IDEA.
THERE IS NO "WAR ON TERROR"
THERE IS MERELY TERROR, CAUSED DIRECTLY BY THOSE WHO GAIN THE MOST FROM IT.
AFGHANISTAN'S OPIUM PRODUCTION IS AT ALL TIME HIGHS SINCE 9/11 AND OUR RESULTING INVASION.
GEORGE HW BUSH'S CIA/DEA DRUG IMPORTATION OPERATIONS ARE AS PROFITABLE AS EVER.
THE US IS LEADING THE "WAR OF TERROR."
GOOGLE: "FALSE FLAG"
.
THE NSA SPYING ON US CITIZENS IS PURELY TO TRACK THE POLITICAL ENEMIES OF THE COUP LEADERS.
THE AUTHORIZATION OF TORTURE TO BE USED AGAINST "ENEMY COMBATANTS" WILL APPLY TO YOU IF THEY DECIDE YOU ARE ONE.
THE FBI IS NOT SEEKING BIN LADEN IN CONNECTION WITH 9/11.
THEY KNOW WHO DID IT.
THE SHADOW PRESIDENT - BUSH 41. .
.
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 08:16am
.
THE MOST AMAZING LETTER YOU WILL EVER READ:
.
9/11 WHISTLEBLOWER BOMBSHELL!!!
Military Sergeant Reveals The TRUTH OF 9/11:
http://www.v911t.org/SergeantLauroChavez.php
.
.
.
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 08:17am
.
K A R L
R O V E
T H E
T E R R O R I S T
Despite his prior illegal actions, Karl Rove still retains his security clearance, and knew for WEEKS prior to London's latest fake terror alert what was coming. The odds that Rove himself advised London precisely what time to make this announcement are approximately 100%.
This gave Rove the time necessary to plan a full frontal assault on the minds of the American People.
Bill O'Reilly revealed Classified information in his recent live interview with Mossad Agent Michael Chertoff. While Chertoff wouldn't confirm or deny it, O'Reilly revealed that the FISA PROCESS was utilized to obtain warrants prior to placing wiretaps on some suspects in the US. While none of the suspects in the US was deemed to have been involved, this example was clear proof that the FISA Court WORKS – to the chagrin of Gonzales.
http://progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?page=opinion&id=1235
Neo-Con Madmen Strike Again - The London Fear Frenzy
Well before Wednesday the administration was aware of Britain's plans to launch a raid against a possible terror plot.
With the knowledge of a terror-scare coming soon, all day Wednesday the entire Neo-Conservative Republican political apparatus had been busy assailing their political enemy's supposed unwillingness to fight terrorism. On Thursday the Neo-Con assault intensified and finally peaked when news of the British scheme was made public. Then, in the most vile and unbecoming manner possible, Republicans accused Democrats of having forgotten the attacks of 9/11. Some Republicans were even gleeful enough to remind reporters that with the anniversary of 9/11 fast approaching their attack on Democrats, coupled with the London conspiracy would do wonders for their lagging poll numbers:
"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," one White House official said.
P L A Y
B I G ? ? ?
T E R R O R
I S
A
G A M E ? ? ?
For Karl Rove, terror is THE GAME.
The timing of the release of this information was not coincidental. Let's take a look at how many other circumstances coincided with this fake terror scare…
Lieberman was not the Democratic Party candidate - he was quite literally the Israeli candidate.
AIPAC lost to Lamont, cracking the door open for an anti-AIPAC rebellion at the polls.
Less than 36 hours later...
"TERROR IN THE SKIES" was the headline on all news programming in the United States - and CNN would have you believe that the entire world changed that day (again).
The world didn't change - but CNN's fear-mongering role in it on behalf of Israel has been clearly exposed.
All of the President's NeoCons have made it known since Lieberman's loss to Lamont, just how important Lieberman has been to their agenda - the Zionist Agenda.
They knew that Lieberman would lose, and Rove planned a full frontal attack for the aftermath – which by necessity always leads with a terror scare. Rove even called Lieberman directly to offer his help.
As part of the game – a CNN talking head asks the question…
"Lamont is the Al Qaeda Candidate???"
KARL ROVE WROTE THAT TALKING POINT.
CNN READ IT ON AIR.
"When did you stop beating your wife?"
Equally loaded questions.
CNN's behavior is not coincidental.
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 08:19am
9/11
9/11
9/11........
Hey Karl...here's one for ya...
Prior to 9/11, those numbers in that sequence signified an emergency number to call for help in the United States.
What was the significance of selecting that date for the attack?
Clearly, it was so that it tied into our prior media conditioning about 911.
You thought of that - didn't you Karl?
You selected the date for what it represents to Americans.
No man in a cave in the desert came up with that.
No one is more clever than you.
You picked the date for the attack, didn't you Karl?
You are sooooooooooo clever.
And now to imply that if only we had allowed the NSA to violate the Constitution prior to 9/11, it might never have happened...well you know that's bullshit, because the NSA WAS performing warrantless wiretaps prior to 9/11 - weren't they, Karl?
You and the boys were relying on Comverse wiretaps to keep track of what the intelligence agencies were up to.
That's how you knew to order the stand-down of the Able Danger Operation.
That's how you knew to order the FBI to stop all work on the Bin Laden family in advance of 9/11.
That's how you managed to run interference for the Mossad, the ISI, Cheney and others in advance of the actual event on 9/11.
Only a few of us actually know and appreciate your particular genius, Karl.
We know how many balls you are capable of juggling at the same time.
We know that you are the master of misdirection and manufactured reality.
We know you are the mastermind of THE 9/11 COVERUP.
We know, Karl.
We know.
We know.
We know.
.
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 08:22am
.
Karl:
Put your hand on the bible.
Now, under oath, do you swear that the NSA, AT&T, Comverse and others were NOT conducting Warrantless Wiretaps in advance of 9/11 during the early months of the Bush Administration, so help you God?
What's that Karl, I can't hear you, could you speak up please, you're mumbling.
You're not willing to swear to it under oath?
You mean the Bush Administration ALREADY WAS engaged in warrantless wiretaps prior to 9/11, and 9/11 happened any way?
Well shit, that changes everything, doesn't it Karl?
Maybe it's the case that 9/11 could never have happened WITHOUT your warrantless wiretaps prior to 9/11.
How else could you orchestrate all of the interference to enable the attacks to be pulled off on the exact same day and at the exact same time as NORAD had been ordered to stand down to conduct drills simulating planes being hijacked and flown into buildings?
We know Karl.
We know what you did.
We know.
We know.
We know.
.
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 08:24am
.
W H O
A R E
T H E
R E A L
T E R R O R I S T S ?
August 14, 2006 The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?
I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.
So this, I believe, is the true story.
None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.
In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.
What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.
In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot.
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html
T H E
T I M I N G
W A S
D E T E R M I N E D
B Y
K A R L
R O V E
T H E
T E R R O R I S T
. .
According to the US State Department, the definition of TERRORISM is not confined to the physical act of killing.
Terrorism occurs when a state utilizes fear tactics against its own people to accomplish political objectives.
The mere act or announcing a falsely construed terror alert - or overplaying the significance of a plot known not to be viable - is itself terrorism.
Tom Ridge admitted that many of the Terror Alerts announced under his command were in fact phony.
Remember the run on duct tape?
That was a clear case of state sponsored terrorism by the Government of the United States under the direction of Karl Rove against the people of the United States to achieve a political objective.
Karl Rove is a Terrorist under the definition ascribed by the US State Department.
.
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 08:26am
Last May, Cheney appeared on Larry King. He stepped in it big time, but few people caught it. I alerted Rude Pundit and he wrote about it.
an excerpt:
Then Cheney made this statement: "In a sense, when you're at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with." So, like, if, in a sense, the Gitmo campers are "prisoners of war," then, in a sense, don't they get Geneva Conventions protections?
Cheney and Gonzales have been playing a semantics game to justify torture, since "war" was never formally declared. It's pretty obvious why they chose to embark upon the path of war without ever formally declaring it - so they could not be held accountable for the War Crimes they knew they'd be committing.
Bush tells us every day that we're at war. Cheney and Gonzales tell us that we're not REALLY at war.
Problem is, Cheney is on tape stating not only that we are at war, but that we are holding "prisoners of war."
The Geneva Conventions DO APPLY, and Cheney is guilty of war Crimes.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/30/lkl.01.html
KING: They specifically said, though, it was Guantanamo. They compared it to a gulag.
D. CHENEY: Not true. Guantanamo's been operated, I think, in a very sane and sound fashion by the U.S. military. Remember who's down there. These are people that were picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan and other places in the global war on terror. These are individuals who have been actively involved as the enemy, if you will, trying to kill Americans. That we need to have a place where we can keep them. In a sense, when you're at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with."
So this is the war without end, and these prisoners will be held forever?
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 08:27am
Why is the Department of Homeland Security spending hundreds of millions of dollars to construct Concentration Camps in the United States?
Did you vote for that?
Why is the Department of Homeland Security assembling a totally separate National Police Force (ICE)?
Did you vote for that?
Why was our National Guard sent under-prepared into the kill zone with no way home other than a body bag?
Did you vote for that?
Why has our treasury been looted, leaving us vulnerable and exposed to the blackmail of our bankers?
Did you vote for that?
"Somethin's happenin' here, what it is ain't exactly clear, there's a man with a gun over there, tellin' me, I've got to beware."
STOP.
THINK.
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 08:29am
.
THE ARMAGEDDONISTS ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM.
GREATER ISRAEL - MORE TERRITORY BEING ACQUIRED DAILY
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/greater-israel-maps. htm
READ AND LEARN:
http://dublin.craigslist.org/pol/192560711.html
So there are two sides to this, yes - it takes two to tango - but the sad truth of the matter is that Arab antipathy to Zionism, in the first place, was nothing more than a reaction – the inevitable Hegelian Antithesis, to the Zionists' stated agenda of taking the terrain from the "River of Egypt to the Euphrates." This is revealed in the text of Alfred Lilienthal's famous interview with King Saud of Saudi Arabia, back in 1954.
http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/greaterisrael.htm
Today, in 2006, it is the in hardliners of the Likud, and ideological factions in Israel, like Bead Artzein,
http://utenti.lycos.it/Delenda_Carthago/israel_010904.html
and the [Rabbi] Kook faction - the "Greater Israel," tradition within the Orthodox,
http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/gush_underground.html
who support this latest bombing and invasion of Lebanon, which must, given the desperate straits of their situation, represent their final – and last - attempt to achieve a Jewish Empire in the Middle East. This time, it seems, they are about to "go for broke."
The hardliners in Israel, to whom Ariel Sharon was a "sell-out," still speak of Lebanon as the Lebanon – not a sovereign nation, but as a territory to be assimilated, and incorporated into Greater Israel. These folks are energetically supported by an "unholy alliance" with millions of American Christian fundamentalists, who believe that at any given moment now, they will be "Raptured" to heaven without having to die.
"… It is interesting to note that the popular edition of the Scofield Reference Bible was published in 1917 coinciding with the Balfour Declaration and in the words of Lord Cecil, 'the rebirth of a nation'; the youth edition of Scofield with the War of Independence in 1948; and the 'new' edition of Scofield with the occupation of Jerusalem and the West Bank in 1967."
http://www.cc-vw.org/articles/history1.html
This is the subtle root of why the "Rapturists" & the "Christian-Zionists," who have been brainwashed by decades of preaching emanating from this corrupt fountain, justify every dark deed that is done by the Israeli Defense Forces. By all means read the article, " Why Judeo-Christians Support War." There is deep information therein: http://www.serendipity.li/zonism/carlson01.htm
The roots of what is common in the ideologies of the Darbyites and the Likudniks reach back into the past. But 1977 was the year of their "coming out."
But Alas, the terrain from the Brook of Egypt ( perhaps the Suez - there is some debate on this point ) to the Euphrates, is already inhabited by the descendants of Abraham – for the most part, Arabs. The hard-liner Likudniks want - and their "Christian Zionist" allies expect, it to be inhabited by the "chosen" descendants, that's all. And, in concert with the current agenda of the Oil Cartels, they anticipate the whole Middle East to be largely depopulated of its troublesome natives, and be turned, conveniently, into a pumping station for Big Oil, which Israel will then control a cut of. Something in it for you - something in it for us - but a formula for Genocide. To accomplish this, Iran must be drawn out, and baited into a confrontation. Persia, after all, is one of the players in the Gog-Magog War against Israel.( Ezekiel 38 :5 )
After the mess is all over, those Palestinians who survive will be "transferred" to their new "state" beyond the Euphrates, in what is left of what is now Iraq. I kid you not. Such things are on the table at the State Department, and are being seriously advocated and promoted, behind closed doors, no less, by members of the Jewish lobby (AIPAC) in Washington. Such things are well known throughout the Middle East.
http://mideastchristians.virtualactivism.net/newsarticles/bookreviews/bo okreview.htm
The Israelis have technology that is exotic, and under-reported. - Lazar-guided "vacuum-bombs," such as were successfully experimented with, and fired from F-16's - and which utterly imploded and disintegrated whole apartment buildings in Beirut - during the first invasion of Lebanon by the Israelis, in 1982. http://www.inminds.co.uk/from-beirut-to-jerusalem.html
Something tells me that Damascus and Amman and Riyadh, and no doubt, Mecca and Medina have already been "wired for sound" by the Mossad, with Neutron-disintegration bombs, which can turn cities back into the dust of which they are made – And that these devices may, at the "correct" historical moment (the "Sampson Option") be detonated by merely flicking a few switches in that big bunker on the road south of Beth Shemesh, and - Poof – there will go Damascus, turned back into desert sand. But, conveniently, fulfilling the prophesy in Isaiah, 17 : 1, " Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a heap of ruins."
http://www.escapeallthesethings.com/damascus-israel-isaiah-nuke.htm
- Which, doubtless, will play BIG in Peoria... After all - these things are known, and believed, religiously, to be God's Will, by millions of Christians in America, who, like the plebeians of ancient Rome, conditioned and fed on bread and circuses, see the conflict in the Middle East as if it were a big Football match, and will always root for Israel. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1665741/posts
and,
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1664483/posts
...As American Christian fundamentalist pilgrims, and local Jewish Orthodox in Jerusalem, told me back in 1984, over and over again, " The next items on the prophetic calendar are Isaiah 17 and Ezekiel 38, & 39..."
This next war will fulfill Prophesy, the dominionist radio preachers in America never tire of hollering. And they are correct on that point, though morally, I believe, they are on shaky ground, both because the power brokers among them, as "God's little helpers" - and the power elite with whom these cadres are allied - have done their damnedest to bloody well make this next war happen, and also because they, collectively, are already complicit in the blood-guilt that the on-going war in Iraq has engendered, because they fully approve of the Crusade aspect of Bush's War On (of) Terror, casualties be damned. On this point, check out the book [published in 1983] by the late Grace Halsell, "Prophesy and Politics – Militant Evangelicals On the Road to Armageddon." And,
http://members.aol.com/gracehalsell/forcinggods.html
READ AND LEARN
.
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 08:30am
Tony Snow lied to the press:
He said:
"There is no dispute, there has never been a dispute that these are enemy combatants and not traditional prisoners of war."
THAT IS A LIE.
Dick Cheney himself characterized them as PRISONERS OF WAR on Larry King Live:
"In a sense, when you're at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with."
Cheney and Gonzales have been playing a semantics game to justify torture, since "war" was never formally declared. It's pretty obvious why they chose to embark upon the path of war without ever formally declaring it - so they could not be held accountable for the War Crimes they knew they'd be committing.
Bush tells us every day that we're at war. Cheney and Gonzales tell us that we're not REALLY at war.
Problem is, Cheney is on tape stating not only that we are at war, but that we are holding "prisoners of war."
The Geneva Conventions DO APPLY, and Cheney is guilty of war Crimes.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/30/lkl.01.html
KING: They specifically said, though, it was Guantanamo. They compared it to a gulag.
D. CHENEY: Not true. Guantanamo's been operated, I think, in a very sane and sound fashion by the U.S. military. Remember who's down there. These are people that were picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan and other places in the global war on terror. These are individuals who have been actively involved as the enemy, if you will, trying to kill Americans. That we need to have a place where we can keep them. In a sense, when you're at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with."
The Supreme Court effectively ruled that war crimes have been committed at Gitmo.
"When you're at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with."
Vice President Dick Cheney
TONY SNOW LIED.
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 08:32am
communist gorilla fighters
those damn commies have gone too far, gorillas are charming and peaceful creatures, and they deserve better than that.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 08:42am
Carlyle poised to bid for Libyan oil giant, says son of Gaddafi US private equity group with links to leading Republicans in talks to buy state-controlled Tamoil, valued at €3bn By David Owen and Sarah Wachter Published: 24 September 2006
US private equity giant Carlyle is in talks to acquire Libya's state-controlled oil refining and marketing operation, Tamoil.
Al-Saadi Gaddafi, the son of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the country's long-time leader, said Carlyle was one of four or five groups involved in an international tender to buy 100 per cent of Tamoil. It is thought the business will fetch close to €3bn (£2bn).
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1709085.ece
. . .
Yup, that sure explains why Gaddafi renounced terrorism recently, hailed at the time as a great success of the bush Regime.
NOW WE KNOW THE TRUTH.
Bush 41 and Carlyle decided it is far cheaper to buy the oil of some countries than it is to invade them, and they opted to simply buy Gadaffi's oil.
They couldn't very well be seen to be overtly doing business with a nation known to support terror as a tactic, so they required that Gadaffi renounce terror - then simply waited a few months to announce the oil deal that served as the basis for his earlier proclamation.
How disingenuous is this administration - to have implied that the only explanation for winning over Gadaffi was the show of strength in Iraq, when in fact it was ALL JUST BUSINESS?!
.
Posted by plunger at 09/24/2006 @ 08:57am
the Nazis were by all accounts avid torturers. since they are by now all dead, or very very geriatric, it is a great comfort to know that americans are stepping into the breach, to ensure that torture is alive and well into the new century.but of course WE torture only for the best of reasons, to keep everyone safe.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/24/2006 @ 09:22am
As my mom always used to tell me concerning some of my friends and their activities, "Just because they eat shit-- are you?" No mom...
One could go so far as to say our government just now told us how depraved they are and how low they're willing to take our nation in the name of cowardice. They have no better than an attitude of a wife beater. That wife beater truly believes in his right to beat his wife and for all the right reasons, but the bottom line is is that his attitude derives from his fear, weakness and cowardice. All the charateristics displayed currently by our repub congress and our hsuB admin. Not in my name.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/24/2006 @ 10:32am
I'm not arguing that torture is OK, but what I am arguing is that this "other countries will start torturing our people" argument doesn't make any sense.
Posted by THRAWN 09/24/2006 @ 02:39am
Still playing the shell game and ignorance as a debating tool? Well your quandry is obvious, it's not that 'they' will start torturing, it's that we lose the moral high ground for fighting 'them' in the first place. If we're just as morally corrupt as they are--- why are we fighting each other? Why not totally sell out us citizens, their war foder, just make friends with the terrorists as there is no dif between us and plot to take overthose other 'moral' countries...
Also once torture is accepted by our gov as a legal right to abstract info from baddies-- not long before they say it's ok to use on bad Joe public-- just like surveilance foreign wire tapping is now being used on us, the US public. Fear and cowardice is driving it because we now have greedy cowards in our exec office. Chickenhawks, they are squacking and the fearful are all following in line-- to their own gas chamber. And they never saw it coming... BS.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/24/2006 @ 10:45am
Still playing the shell game and ignorance as a debating tool? Well your quandry is obvious, it's not that 'they' will start torturing, it's that we lose the moral high ground for fighting 'them' in the first place. If we're just as morally corrupt as they are--- why are we fighting each other? Why not totally sell out us citizens, their war foder, just make friends with the terrorists as there is no dif between us and plot to take overthose other 'moral' countries...
I completely agree with this; I don't think we should stoop to the level of the people we're fighting. My whole point is that I believe there are lots of good arguments against torture, and you just made one of them. I just don't buy the one I mentioned earlier.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/24/2006 @ 1:25pm