Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby and the New Definition of "Honesty"

Dick Cheney worked in the White House of Richard Nixon, who had to resign as Congress began impeachment proceedings that grew out of his dishonest and disreputable stewardship of the presidency

Dick Cheney worked with the White House of Ronald Reagan, which was investigated by Congress and the courts for establishing – and then lying about -- a secret plan to violate the law by directing resources to its Iran-Contra co-conspirators in the Middle East and Latin America.

Dick Cheney worked in the White House of George Herbert Walker Bush, who pardoned former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, Robert C. McFarlane, Elliott Abrams and others who had been indicted, and in some cases convicted, by Iran-Contra prosecutors.

Dick Cheney left the public sector to work in the corporate sector, where he established close alliances with the executives of Enron and hired the Arthur Andersen accounting firm to manage Halliburton's books.

Dick Cheney then stepped back into the public service as the prince regent to a boy president whose administration stands accused of "fixing" intelligence in order to convince Congress and the American people to support an unnecessary – and ultimately disastrous – invasion and occupation of Iraq. As part of that initiative Cheney has repeatedly been caught promoting inaccurate claims about the supposed presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and an illusory "connection" between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.

Now, as he prepares to testify in the trial that is set to begin Tuesday on the charges of obstruction of justice and perjury that have been brought against his disgraced former chief-of-staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney says of Libby: "I believe he's one of the more honest men I know."

Cheney has refused repeated requests by members of Congress who want him to testify regarding Libby's actions and the efforts of the vice president's office to discredit retired Ambassador Joe Wilson, the man who exposed one of the administration's most serious assaults on the truth – the pre-war claim that Iraq was taking steps to rapidly develop a nuclear arsenal. Yet, the vice president told Fox News anchor Chris Wallace on Sunday that he plans to offer "my whole-hearted cooperation" to Libby's legal defense.

Wallace wanted to know whether the vice president was at all concerned by the many revelations regarding Libby's professional and personal problems. "But there's nothing that you have heard," the anchor asked, "nothing that you have read that shakes your confidence in Scooter Libby's integrity?

"That's correct," replied Cheney.

Libby, the vice president exclaimed, is ``one of the finest individuals I've ever known.''

There will be those who question whether the vice president can possibly be serious when he expresses confidence in what remains of Libby's integrity and describes his longtime aide as "one of the most honest men I know."

But let's put this in perspective. After almost four decades of working with the likes of Richard Nixon, the Iran-Contra conspirators, Enron and its accountants, Cheney might actually be telling the truth here.

In the circles in which Cheney has traveled throughout his career, Libby might come off as a paragon of virtue and veracity. That ought not much trouble prosecutors, however. The vice president is his own man, and he plays by his own set of rules. Just as Cheney has never felt constrained by any Constitutional definition of duty to the republic, nor has he ever provided even the slightest indication that he is familiar with the textbook definition of "honesty" – let alone with the notion that an official ought to value that quality in those with whom he chooses to associate.

John Nichols's book, The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press), is available nationwide at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com. Publisher's Weekly describes it as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says it "reveals the inner Cheney."

Comments (78)

1. "Just as Cheney has never felt constrained by any Constitutional definition of duty to the republic, nor has he ever provided even the slightest indication that he is familiar with the textbook definition of "honesty" – let alone with the notion that an official ought to value that quality in those with whom he chooses to associate. "

   Like Sandy Burgalar? Plaese...hypocitical horse shit.

   Posted by john maasch at 01/15/2007 @ 2:48pm

2. Notice anything else....uh, HSUBFOOLS AND Mr Nichols...in that litany of corruption that Cheney was associated with?

   None of it touched him, not legally anyway.

   Good, bad, or indifferent...it's an indication that a lot of people are just going to have to come to terms with the idea that "there is no justice in the Universe"....

   and Dick Cheney and George W. Bush will be tried in the court of public opinion and history...but nowhere else.

   Posted by Mask at 01/15/2007 @ 3:07pm

3. "Dick Cheney worked in the White House of George Herbert Walker Bush, who pardoned former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger,"

   Is that the same thing as Gore worked in the WH with the guy who pardoned Mark Rich and other deserving citizens?

   Isn't this selective finger pointing at its best? Kinda hypocritical?

   Posted by john maasch at 01/15/2007 @ 3:08pm

4. maasch, you truly are incapable of honest debate. how could nichols's accurate, and provable, claims be "hypocritical horse shit"?

   "because sandy burger (allegedly) lied 10 years ago?"

   that is the text book definition of a bad debate strategy. but i would expect nothing less of someone who has repeatedly supported the bush presidency even in the face of mounting evidence which proves that bush has become a catastrophic failure.

   Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 3:11pm

5. maasch's strategy is to look for examples of democrats who have lied, or who have otherwise done illegal things, rather than dispute the provable claims that nichols has made. textbook moron.

   Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 3:13pm

6. DD,

   Its about character, the subject of the aricle, especially on this day, but he sounds one sided...and yes,,even ten years ago, see, its about character...

   and it is an honest debate.

   Posted by john maasch at 01/15/2007 @ 3:15pm

7. "maasch's strategy is to look for examples of democrats who have lied, or who have otherwise done illegal things,"

   No, its about character and not one sided articles on chararcter..charater..

   do you understand darla? Character...YOU are text book, and more than one..

   Posted by john maasch at 01/15/2007 @ 3:17pm

8. Character.....nothing but character

   Posted by john maasch at 01/15/2007 @ 3:17pm

9. Another point....

   If Libby "walks", "Plame-gate" will go down with "Whitewater" as a scandal with no scandal.

   That means a lot of chicken ova on the front-forward section of the skulls of those who were telling us a year or so ago that it would "lead to Cheney and Rove and eventually topple them, if not Bush too!"

   Hmmm, Mr Nichols?...Mr Corn?...Ms vanden Heuvel? Of course Limbaugh and Hannity STILL think there was "something to" File-gate and Travel-gate, so won't be expecting any mea culpas.

   Posted by Mask at 01/15/2007 @ 3:28pm

10. Posted by MASK 01/15/2007 @ 3:28pm

    No, if Libby walks Plame-gate will go down like the OJ murders: an indictment doesn't guarantee that the guilty go down.

    Posted by nathanhale at 01/15/2007 @ 3:56pm

11. that is the text book definition of a bad debate strategy. but i would expect nothing less of someone who has repeatedly supported the bush presidency ...

    Posted by DARLADOON 01/15/2007 @ 3:11pm | ignore this person

    and I would expect nothing less from one of THE TOP intellectuals of the still-supporting-Bush wing of the Republican Party

    Posted by LiberalPride at 01/15/2007 @ 4:30pm

12. Maasch - imagine this: I've been accused of murder, and at my trial I announce that because others besides me have _also_ committed murder, and some of them are free, it's hypocritical of the prosecution even to bring a case. Obviously, the judge would call for order, and tell me not to change the subject with irrelevant non sequiturs... Yet your logic is exactly along the same lines: you "defend" the VP against the charge of lying by noting that other people, including certain Democrats, have _also_ lied in the past. But that's not a defense; it's irrelevant trivia.

    Posted by karpaty at 01/15/2007 @ 5:10pm

13. "Dick Cheney worked in the White House of George Herbert Walker Bush, who pardoned former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger,"

    Is that the same thing as Gore worked in the WH with the guy who pardoned Mark Rich and other deserving citizens?"

    it's not the same Maasch.

    in the first case the pres pardoned, as he was legally able to, a member of the gov't who had been convicted. in Clinton's case it was a private citizen with no connection to gov't who was pardoned.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/15/2007 @ 5:54pm

14. " you "defend" the VP against the charge of lying by noting that other people, including certain Democrats, have _also_ lied in the past. But that's not a defense; it's irrelevant trivia.'

    For once you are correct..I am not defending anyone...I am just pointing out the article is creasting a case for lying and utter disregard of the Constitution by a sitting VP, who has not been charged or even served of anything, while ignoring the admitted theif and liar who received special treatment after being convicted of stealing(government secret papers!!!only 15 had clearance to see these) ..you and I would have been tried and we would never have seen the outside world again...

    I am saying the article is an anti Cheney/Bush piece disguised as contempt for those who are corrupt and do not respect the Constitution.....

    Posted by john maasch at 01/15/2007 @ 5:58pm

15. so, here is maasch's argument: "it's about character"

    john, that is not an argument. that's a flippant observation worthy of the break room or bar stool.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 6:39pm

16. "john, that is not an argument. that's a flippant observation worthy of the break room or bar stool. "

    ?

    Posted by john maasch at 01/15/2007 @ 6:45pm

17. and cheney, now there's character. knowing what we now know about dick cheney---empirical observations of his character--we can safely say, without question, that he is now a man with very few friends (if any).

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 6:56pm

18. a man with 16% approval ratings? a man with character, in maasch's worldview.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 6:57pm

19. maasch, Pointing out Democrats who have done dishonest things (and there are plenty) is not a viable defense for V.P. Cheney. If you want to present a brighter side of Cheney's character, (I can't believe I have to make your arguement for you) you should bring up the fact that while Cheif of Staff for President Ford, Cheney helped run one of the most transparent presidencies in the last 50 years. I don't believe that was in the article.

    Posted by Beaux at 01/15/2007 @ 7:12pm

20. In the mean time, stop being the "hatchet man" and making impertantent arguements. Maybe you should take a class in Logic, Maasch.

    Posted by Beaux at 01/15/2007 @ 7:14pm

21. well, beaux, all weak debaters are either stubborn idealogues or just plain stupid. i don't believe maasch is stupid, so i'll go with the former, which in and of itself, is a sign of at least some stupidity.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 7:21pm

22. Clinton tried to cover up a personal sexual encounter after the fact. The Bush administration calculatedly exposed an American CIA agent . . . a CIA agent engaged in combatting nuclear weapon proliferation. The Republicans here and their party say, "That's OK. So what?"

    The core constituency of the Republican Party is so self-centered and self-serving that they see nothing wrong with committing treason to accomplish their self-serving goals.

    The American people can never again allow a party like that to exercise political power in our country.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/15/2007 @ 7:31pm

23. In the mean time, stop being the "hatchet man" and making impertantent arguements. Maybe you should take a class in Logic, Maasch.

    Posted by BEAUX 01/15/2007 @ 7:14pm

    If you're planning on teaching it you have a long row to hoe.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/15/2007 @ 7:32pm

24. "..and cheney, now there's character. knowing what we now know about dick cheney---empirical observations of his character--we can safely say, without question, that he is now a man with very few friends (if any)."

    Posted by DARLADOON 01/15/2007 @ 6:56pm

    Oh, he's got plenty of friends alright!!!...both on the left and the right. Don't kid youself on that note. We're too low on the food chain for him to even deal with us.

    Posted by ACook at 01/15/2007 @ 7:38pm

25. Folks, John isn't defending the VP outright, he's saying that the this article is not being totaly honest. He disagrees with Mr. Nichols that only those on the right are guilty of wrong doing, which is not true. All are guilty of doing something against the people and the constitution to which they were elected to honor and uphold.

    Posted by ACook at 01/15/2007 @ 7:47pm

26. He disagrees with Mr. Nichols that only those on the right are guilty of wrong doing

    unfortunately, mr. nichols never made this claim. and even if he did, he would have been partially correct in that the degree to which the democratic party has abused power is nowhere near the level at which mr. cheney's party has abused power.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 7:53pm

27. especially in in the last 6 years. just compare the level of criminal activity between the two parties. abramoff in and of himself outweighs ALL democratic criminals of the last 50 years, in terms of scope and magnitude.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 7:54pm

28. abramoff's web was so vast, so intricate, that all other high level political crimes of the last 50 years pale in comparison. i'm not kidding, or exagerrating.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 7:55pm

29. and of course, only a man with "character" would claim, just yesterday, that things are going "tremendously well" in iraq. what planet, or underground bunker, is cheney living in?

    all i gotta say is, cheney is the biggest fucking coward, nay PUSSY, on the face of the earth. anyone who's gotta hide in a fucking bunker, while at the same time encourages more war while not serving himself, is, by definition, a coward AND a pussy. fuck cheney, despicable bastard.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 8:11pm

30. "Dick Cheney worked in the White House of George Herbert Walker Bush, who pardoned former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger,"

    Is that the same thing as Gore worked in the WH with the guy who pardoned Mark Rich and other deserving citizens?"

    it's not the same Maasch.

    in the first case the pres pardoned, as he was legally able to, a member of the gov't who had been convicted. in Clinton's case it was a private citizen with no connection to gov't who was pardoned.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/15/2007 @ 5:54pm

    Other deserving citizens???? JR, you spoke too quick on this one....

    Marc Rich is a convicted felon (tax evasion among other things). I found an interesting tidbit on him...

    In 1983, Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted by U.S. Attorney and future mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani, on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran. Both of them fled to Switzerland before a court appearance, and they remained on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.

    On January 20, 2001, only hours before leaving office, President Bill Clinton granted Rich an extremely controversial presidential pardon. Since Rich's former wife and mother of his 3 children, socialite Denise Rich, had made large donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Bill Clinton's time in office, Clinton's critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought. Clinton explained his decision by noting that similar situations were settled in civil, not criminal court, and cited the clemency pleas from Israeli government officials, including Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate. She stepped down before the investigation was finished and was replaced by James Comey. Though Comey was critical of Clinton's pardons, he could not find any grounds on which to indict him.

    Here's some other intersting tidbits:

    Melvin Jay Reynolds: In August 1994, he was indicted for having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer. Despite the charges, he continued his campaign and was re-elected in November 1994. Reynolds initially denied the charges, which he claimed were racially motivated. On August 22, 1995 he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1, 1995.

    Reynolds, who had a wife and a child at the time of the incident, was sentenced to five years in prison and expected to be released in 1998. However, in April 1997, he was convicted on 15 unrelated counts of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators. These charges resulted in an additional sentence of 78 months in federal prison. Reynolds served only part of his first sentence. At that point, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted the sentence. As a result, Reynolds was released from prison and served the remaining time in a half way house

    Got some more "deserving types..

    Henry Cisneros (former HUD Secretary)

    Dan Rostenkowski (former US Congressman from HOR of IL)

    Roger Clinton, Jr. (his half brother)

    John Mark Deutch (Director of Central Intelligence)

    Dorothy Rivers (lead official in Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, plead guilty to theft of 1.2 million dollars in federal grant money)

    Man!! This list is long...

    Posted by ACook at 01/15/2007 @ 8:12pm

31. Darla, you really need to curb the foul language. I'm sure you can express your anger without the potty talk. I know you don't have much respect for a lot of people here, but at least show some self respect. Where's your dignity?!!

    Posted by ACook at 01/15/2007 @ 8:19pm

32. national liberal media

    "national" and "liberal" media. can one fairly describe an extensively private broadcast system as "national", and even "liberal", despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

    listen rio, there are no right wing media think tanks or non-profits devoted to the scientific, textual analysis of so-called "national media". why? because there is positively no conclusive evidence to support the claim that the "national media" are biased towards the "left" wing (or, in the right wing mind, the democratic party).

    and as regards cheney, i'll continue to use foul language to describe someone who repeatedly, and arrogantly, sends innocent young men and women to war without necessity. fuck cheney!

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 9:00pm

33. rio, if the "national media" is so left wing, then why did only 3% of all media networks dedicate skepticism of the iraq invasion in the 3 months prior to said invasion? 3% when a full 27% of americans expressed skepticism, at a minimum, or downright disagreement, at a maximum.

    rio, you are ignorant. just admit it.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 9:02pm

34. Dick Cheney, what a terrible human being. How does God cast blessings into that dark well. Is that what his soul is like, a dark well, and foul?

    LiberalPride and I, we feel that our hatred of Republicans, Conservatives, and Authoritarians, for the harm they cause to America, well, our venom has grown too poisonous for this particular message forum.

    Now, we must remove to that other forum, which is the HAL stock message forum on yahoo stocks, that is a place where we can really burn Republicans.

    I want to make it clear that this is a personal decision on our part, because we want to preserve the good debate here. The Nation didnt ask me not to post here or anything, why, they even let Reese and Plunger post here. But the HAL stock message board on Yahoo is more appropriate for the hate we want to unleash on behalf of intelligent people who must put up with the harm that Republicans, Conservatives, and Authoritarians, typically those who support the idiot George Bush and his Disaster in the Iraqi Territories.

    Posted by conshame at 01/15/2007 @ 10:08pm

35. This is off-topic, but since DD brought it up, it will provide a different perspective on the liberal media claim. I can't link to it, so forgive the length of the posts. For those uninterested, feel free to skip over the next several posts.

    Can You Trust The National Media? INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

    Posted 10/16/2006

    In July and August 2004, leading up to that year's presidential election, we ran a series of editorials on bias in the mainstream media. In view of the fact that the situation hasn't changed, and may have worsened heading into the Nov. 7 election, we are repeating the series over the next several days.

    This is an important election year. America was attacked on 9/11, and thousands of our citizens were brutally murdered. We are today engaged in a worldwide war on terrorism involving many nations. So you, by habit, faithfully watch the nightly news on TV or depend on your newspaper for up-to-date stories.

    But can you trust and rely on our national news media? Are they presenting the whole story, unbiased, evenhanded and objective? Yes, if you are a liberal Democrat.

    Key recent surveys and those taken since the 1980s now consistently document the fact that national news journalists vote overwhelmingly in national elections for Democrats and are much more liberal than the general voting public.

    "The Media Elite," a book written in 1986 by Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda Lichter, surveyed 240 journalists at ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report. It found that in the presidential elections of 1964, 1968, 1972 and 1976, on average, 86% of responding journalists in America's top media voted Democratic.

    In 2001, Rothman and Amy Black updated the "Media Elite" survey of national journalists and established that 76% voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988 and 91% for Bill Clinton in 1992. A Freedom Forum Poll reinforced the "Media Elite" survey when it documented that 89% -- nine out of 10 -- Washington reporters and bureau chiefs voted for Clinton in 1992 and 7% voted for George Bush.

    These stunning stats shatter the protective proposition that our national media are our independent "Fourth Estate," the ever-vigilant watchdog over government. If that's what they are, the Fourth Estate is now the least balanced of our branches.

    Bush got a higher percentage of votes in the liberal congressional districts of Berkeley, Calif., and Cambridge, Mass., than he did from reporters in Washington.

    More recently, Tim Groseclose of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Stanford and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago published "A Measure of Media Bias." They ingeniously counted the number of times a news outlet quoted certain think tanks and compared this with the number of times members of Congress cited the same think tanks when speaking from the floor.

    Comparing the citation patterns enabled them to construct an ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) score for each media outlet. They found that the "Fox News Special Report" was the only right-of-center news outlet in their sample, while the "CBS Evening News" was the most liberal, followed by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, "NBC Nightly News" and ABC's "World News Tonight."

    More surprising was the astonishing degree to which the mainstream press was liberal. Using the median ADA rating of the 435 members of the House of Representatives as the most appropriate definition of a centrist voter in America, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, USA Today and "CBS Evening News" are not just liberal. Their ratings are much closer to the Democrats' average ADA rating in Congress than they were to the center, and miles from the Republicans' average rating.

    The liberal point of view is very important in America. It is needed to provide balance and ensure everyone's ideas are heard.

    The crucial question now is: At a time of war and future terrorist risk to our country's safety and open way of life, will the liberal media's bias help defend and protect us or weaken and undermine us?

    Posted by usc1 at 01/15/2007 @ 10:09pm

36. Can You Trust The National Media? INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

    Posted 10/17/2006

    Part two in a series.

    As Election Day rolls near, and we battle fanatical Islamic terrorists who want to annihilate us with any weapons they can lay their hands on, there are some facts we all should recognize and remember.

    Our national journalists play the lead role in selecting the news, issues and points of view that will be repeated almost daily. They also determine what relevant news and views are de-emphasized or suppressed. In other words, your news is managed, interpreted and slanted.

    This would be acceptable if our media were well-rounded and balanced with Democrats, Republicans and independents. But that's not the case. Tuesday, in Part I of this series, we cited four surveys that prove how the media's view of the world tilts heavily left. But there's more.

    A 2003 survey by the Pew Research Center (with which Madeleine Albright, a Bill Clinton Cabinet member and Bush critic, is involved) showed that 34% of national journalists admitted to being liberal and only 7% admitted to being conservative. Also, by a ratio of 7-to-1, journalists felt they weren't critical enough of President Bush. By contrast, the poll showed that the public, by a 3-to-2 ratio, thought the press was too critical.

    Curiously, in 1995 when Clinton was president, Pew found that journalists felt they were too critical of the Democrat in the White House and didn't focus enough on his accomplishments.

    The minuscule 7% of admitted conservatives correlates with a 1996 poll by the independent Freedom Forum. It found that only 7% of Washington correspondents voted for the first President Bush in 1992 and that 89% voted for Clinton -- a 12-to-1 ratio of Democratic voters over Republican.

    "The Media Elite," a 1986 book by Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda Lichter, cites a survey by the Research Institute of International Change at Columbia University that found 56% of leading journalists described their fellow journalists as mostly to the left politically and only 8% as on the right -- another 7-to-1 ratio.

    Economist James Glassman had this to say in the Washington Post: "The people who report stories are liberal Democrats. This is the shameful secret of American journalism. That the press itself chooses to gloss over it is conclusive evidence of how pernicious the bias is."

    Most liberals deny the media are loaded with liberals or that liberal bias enters into their selection and presentation of national news. But 20 years of surveys and a more aware public clearly prove otherwise. As a result, some media liberals now try to hide in a safer category, claiming to be "moderates." The data, however, show that 85% to 90% consistently align with the Democratic Party's agenda, policies and positions.

    Of national journalists surveyed by Pew, 62% could not think of a national daily news organization in America that strikes them as particularly liberal in its coverage. Yet 82% were able to spot conservative outlets (mainly Fox).

    When you add Pew's 34% admitted liberals to the 54% now claimed as moderates, you get 88%. This more closely coincides with the 82% who can spot conservatives and the 85% to 90% who consistently vote and support the Democratic Party.

    Amazingly, only 20% saw the New York Times as especially liberal, and merely 2% saw CBS, CNN or National Public Radio as especially liberal.

    Liberal opinion is very important in America and contributes to our greatness. But what kind of judgment is this? Is it in the best interest of our nation in a serious time of war?

    Posted by usc1 at 01/15/2007 @ 10:11pm

37. Can You Trust The National Media? INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

    Posted 10/18/2006

    Third in a series.

    The first editorial in this series showed how different surveys at different times verified that 86% of journalists in America's most powerful national media vote Democratic in presidential elections and are far more liberal than our voting public.

    Now we'll give you evidence of how these journalists distort your news coverage and slant issues so that they trash Republican presidential candidates while aiding liberal Democratic candidates, their causes and their policies.

    In her explosive 1972 book, "The News Twisters," Edith Efron was the first to tape, transcribe and analyze every ABC, CBS and NBC prime-time nightly news show just before a national election.

    She found that from Sept. 16 to Election Day in 1968, ABC dispensed 7,493 words "against" the Republican candidate, Richard Nixon, and 896 words "for" -- an 8-to-1 ratio. NBC's word count was 4,334 against and 431 for (10-to-1). CBS was the most biased, dishing out 5,300 words against and 320 for -- a 16-to-1 ratio of bad press to good.

    Meanwhile, the liberal Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey, was the subject of more positive words and was consequently treated more fairly.

    In the 1984 presidential election, when Walter Mondale challenged incumbent Ronald Reagan, the same three network prime-time news shows were taped and dissected from Labor Day to Election Day by Maura Clancy and Michael Robinson. They focused only on those reports in which the "spin" for or against each candidate was unambiguous.

    According to Public Opinion magazine, Reagan got 7,230 seconds of bad press and 730 seconds of good, while Mondale enjoyed 1,330 seconds of good press and 1,050 seconds of bad. Reagan's vice president, George Bush Sr., got a goose egg -- zero seconds of good press vs. 1,500 seconds of bad.

    Top journalists claimed that Reagan was too old, fell asleep at meetings, was cut off from the public, was insensitive and said dumb things. There was 13 times more evening news comment when Reagan supposedly lost his first debate with Mondale than there was after he won the second.

    Leading up to Reagan's re-election run, the Institute for Applied Economics surveyed how network news shows treated economic news during the strong recovery in the last half of 1983. It discovered that "nearly 95% of the economic statistics were positive, yet 86% of the networks' stories were primarily negative."

    In what amounted to a dishonest misrepresentation of highly positive economic news, the networks concentrated coverage on people left behind by the recovery and the few regions still suffering from higher unemployment.

    More recently, we have the courageous 2002 book, "Bias," by Bernard Goldberg, a CBS reporter and producer for 28 years who exposes in an airtight case how liberal bias overwhelms straight news.

    Goldberg tells of how journalists determine what news they want to cover and the slant they want to impart. More damaging, they determine what news to minimize, bury or keep mum.

    "They take sides," Goldberg said. "A reporter can find an expert to say anything the reporter wants -- anything! Just keep calling until one says what you need him to say. It happens all the time."

    They also assign labels, Goldberg wrote. ABC's Peter Jennings, for example, referred to certain senators as very conservative but never referred to Democrats Tom Daschle or Barbara Boxer as liberals. A far-left professor is just a "noted law professor."

    "In the world of Jenningses and Brokaws and Rathers, conservatives are out of the mainstream and need to be identified," Goldberg explained. "Liberals, on the other hand, are mainstream moderates that think like they do and don't need to be identified.

    "They honestly believe what they are saying. And that's the biggest problem of all. They don't see their own bias."

    Perhaps this is why network news is losing credibility and viewers, and why talk radio has gained so much in popularity.

    It could also explain why a 2003 Opinion Dynamics Poll found that only 9% of Americans have a great deal of confidence in news media, ranking it lower than Congress, the Internal Revenue Service and the public school system.

    Posted by usc1 at 01/15/2007 @ 10:14pm

38. Can You Trust The National Media? INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

    Posted 10/19/2006

    Part four in a series.

    Don't ask the media establishment to dig up the facts on whether journalists' politics influence how they cover public policy. As CBS anchor Dan Rather once told Denver radio's Mike Rosen, according to the best-selling book "Bias": "When you start talking about a liberal agenda and all the 'liberal bias' in the media, quite frankly -- and I say this respectfully but candidly to you -- I don't know what you're talking about."

    Rather made the same claim on Tom Snyder's TV show. "It's one of the great political myths about press bias," he said. "Most reporters don't know whether they're Republican or Democrat, and vote every which way."

    If only that were so. Media liberals for years denied they were liberal. Today, they add to the deceit by claiming even if they are liberal, their professionalism would never let them distort your news.

    But journalists make constant judgments on what to cover and how to weigh different points of view. When it comes to complex and divisive economic and national security issues facing the U.S. this election year, we need them to give us a full and balanced story.

    Can we depend on news professionals to give fair weight to views that clash with their personal opinions? That would be easier to swallow if more media players showed concern for potential bias.

    Our first three editorials in this series proved reporters know full well whether they are Democrat or Republican: In six national elections, reporters voted Democrat 86% of the time. They were far more liberal than the public. Just 4% to 7% acknowledged being registered Republicans.

    Need more proof? By an overwhelming 12-to-1 ratio, Washington reporters favored Bill Clinton, and they supported John Kerry by the same lopsided 12-to-1 ratio, according to an informal survey by a New York Times reporter.

    The media masters have been caught red-handed in their subtle manipulation of public opinion toward their personal beliefs and preferences. In the last three days, we have presented compelling evidence from six comprehensive studies.

    Edith Efron's prodigious 1972 book "The News Twisters" analyzed pre-election network news coverage for use of positive and negative words. Maura Clancy and Michael Robinson recorded and rated positive and negative spin comments before the 1984 election (10-to-1 against Ronald Reagan).

    A 1983 survey by the Institute For Applied Economics showed nearly 95% of economic statistics were positive, yet 86% were reported negatively. Two Pew Research studies looked at journalists' identification with liberal and conservative labels and their views of political leaders.

    And the brilliant 2003 study "A Measure of Media Bias" by Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo scientifically documented that the national media slants your news left, with CBS and the New York Times leading the parade.

    Consider this evidence of leading media figures' increasingly cozy ties to the left: MSNBC's Chris Matthews was a Jimmy Carter speechwriter and top aide to former House Speaker Tip O'Neill. NBC's Tim Russert was a political adviser to Democratic Sen. Patrick Moynihan and New York Gov. Mario Cuomo. ABC's Jeff Greenfield was a speechwriter for Sen. Robert Kennedy. PBS' Bill Moyers was Lyndon Johnson's press secretary. ABC's George Stephanopoulos was Clinton's strategist and communications director.

    There's more: Tom Johnson, former president of CNN, was special assistant to President Johnson. CBS' Lesley Stahl once worked for New York Mayor John Lindsay. CBS News opinion columnist Dotty Lynch was the Democratic National Committee's polling director in 1981-82. David Burke, Ted Kennedy's chief of staff for six years, in 1988 became president of CBS for two years and later returned to Kennedy as a strategy adviser. Former NPR President Delano Lewis was chief campaign fundraiser for Washington Mayor Marion Barry.

    The list from the Media Research Center data goes on until you get a whopping 322 Democrats vs. 82 Republicans.

    How much do you think the left in the future should influence our national defense and security policy?

    Posted by usc1 at 01/15/2007 @ 10:16pm

39. "...and as regards cheney, i'll continue to use foul language to describe someone who repeatedly, and arrogantly, sends innocent young men and women to war without necessity. fuck cheney!"

    Posted by DARLADOON 01/15/2007 @ 9:00pm

    And what do you think you've accomplished by using foul language? You can't make the VP change who he is, regardless to how you feel.

    Don't become the very thing you dislike about him or anyone else...arrogant!!!

    Posted by ACook at 01/15/2007 @ 10:17pm

40. Can You Trust The National Media? INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

    Posted 10/20/2006

    Part five in a series.

    Our national media have become the national mouthpiece and protective watchdog for the Democratic Party and its agenda. Eighty-six percent of journalists vote Democratic in presidential elections. More than 300 key media posts are held by former aides, advisers, speechwriters, strategists or Democratic National Committee officials from Democratic administrations or political campaigns -- near monopolistic control.

    Journalists from Walter Cronkite to Dan Rather never told the public they were liberal, and they always denied any liberal bias in the media. They claimed they just reported the news. Yet as the Media Research Center states, "Since 1985, the percentage of Americans who perceive a liberal bias in the media has doubled from 22% to 45%. Even a plurality of Democrats now say the press is liberal."

    By far, the most insidious practice of the nearly 90% liberal-controlled national media is how they select which stories and facts to cover and promote, and the special slant they give to each story. More important are the stories they choose not to cover and which facts they omit because they don't support their story angle or political objectives.

    When Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser, and former Ambassador Joe Wilson, whose wife was a CIA operative, unleashed their relentless attacks on President Bush two years ago, they got nonstop coverage on national TV. Wilson got 40 stories on NBC, 30 on CBS, 18 on ABC, 96 in the Washington Post, 70 in the New York Times and 48 in the Los Angeles Times, according to a database search by Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz.

    John Kerry selected Berger and Wilson to be among his top foreign policy advisers on America's national security.

    Wilson claimed that intelligence about Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Niger was based on forged documents because the names and dates were wrong, that his CIA wife did not recommend him for the Niger assignment, and that Bush knowingly misled the country about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium from Africa.

    Later, a Senate Intelligence Committee looking into the claims confronted Wilson. Specifically, the committee asked him how he could say intelligence documents from Niger were forged, when he had never actually seen them. As it turns out, they weren't put in U.S. hands until eight months after he visited Niger.

    Wilson had to admit he, in effect, lied. He also lied about his own report. Rather than debunking intelligence about supposed uranium sales to Iraq, his report actually supported the case for most intelligence, according to the Washington Post.

    The Senate report further stated, based on CIA testimony and a Feb. 12, 2002, memo from Wilson's wife to the Counterproliferation Division, that his wife had definitely recommended Wilson for the assignment. British and European intelligence, meanwhile, confirmed illicit trade in uranium from Niger.

    So it was proved Wilson lied on four vital points. Bush had stated the intelligence facts honestly and correctly. The New York Times had to run a story titled "Intelligence Backs Claim Iraq Tried To Buy Uranium."

    So what's the point? The truthful story was buried and quickly forgotten. In the New York Times, it was covered three times and quickly forgotten, whereas it appears the Times carried Wilson's phony, later discredited, story 70 times. Is this ethical, honest coverage, or blatant, unbalanced liberal bias?

    Now for the 9/11 Commission report. It disclosed that Clinton delegated to Berger national security issues and getting Osama bin Laden. Berger was presented with recommended plans to capture or strike at bin Laden at least four times: from CIA Director George Tenet in the spring of 1998 and June 1999, counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke in December 1999 and the CIA again in August 2000. Intelligence knew where bin Laden was.

    In all cases, Berger said "no." He wrote notes on the plans with comments such as "Seven to 11 families in the Tarnack terrorist camp could be casualties," and "If he responds, we're blamed," or "If we captured him we might not have enough evidence to convict him," or "I will want more than verified location to provide assurance he will remain in place."

    Chapter 4 of the 9/11 Commission report shows no one could seem to agree and that Berger was always worried and unsure. So through apparent midlevel bureaucratic disorganization or incompetence, no one had the courage to make a decision and act.

    Over eight years, the administration squandered numerous opportunities to get bin Laden with amateurish, ineffective moves.

    Finally, Berger was caught at the National Archives stuffing into his pants pages of secret documents with his handwritten notes. So he quietly resigned as a top adviser to presidential candidate John Kerry on foreign policy, and the national media fell suddenly silent on the issues as if they weren't important in the defense of America.

    What were we to learn from all this, other than the fact that Kerry used questionable judgment in appointing as chief foreign-policy advisers people later totally discredited?

    Well, on the question, "Can you trust the national media?" -- the answer is no, you absolutely cannot trust them to tell you all the facts and report the news straight and fair, if it will expose or hurt Democrats in an election year.

    Winning the White House apparently has been more important than our security in a time of war.

    Posted by usc1 at 01/15/2007 @ 10:20pm

41. Media Bias: Do journalists have an agenda this election season? It sure looks that way. A study released Tuesday by a media watchdog group concludes that news coverage on network TV skews heavily toward Democrats.

    The study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs confirms what we've been saying for a long time: The media's liberal beliefs get in the way of honest reporting of elections and other key elements of our democracy, like the economy.

    The study looked at midterm election stories on the evening newscasts of the Big Three -- ABC, CBS and NBC. It found that in the run-up to Tuesday's election, 77% of the coverage of Democrats has been positive, while 88% of the coverage of Republicans has skewed negative.

    This bias is pervasive. It poisons our democracy and mocks the very idea of the Fourth Estate's vital constitutional role as an honest arbiter of information.

    Here are just a few recent examples from this election cycle:

    • The New York Times decides it will endorse no Republicans -- none -- for office in any race for House or Senate. This breaks a tradition dating back to 1972 of endorsing at least one GOP member each year -- usually a liberal such as former New York Rep. Hamilton Fish or Connecticut Sen. Lowell Weicker.

    • Major news outlets, such as Newsweek, publish glowing reports on Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's prospects for the 2008 presidency -- even though he's a political neophyte with virtually no legislative record of note.

    • News outlets go into a frenzy over critical remarks made by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh of actor Michael J. Fox's support for Missouri's Proposition 2. Limbaugh apologizes, but the media virtually ignore the issue behind the proposition: whether human embryos should be destroyed for use in stem cell research.

    • The Washington Post continues its unrelenting negative coverage of Virginia Sen. George Allen's race for re-election, especially his allegedly racist use of the word "macaca," while ignoring or downplaying major questions about his opponent, Democrat James Webb.

    • Good news on the economy -- including solid GDP growth, 6.4 million new jobs, rising wages, a new high for the Dow industrials and a record $13 trillion increase in household wealth -- is ignored. Some news organizations darkly hint that one piece of obvious good news -- falling oil prices -- is really a conspiracy by a secretive cabal of oil industry leaders, led by President Bush.

    • John Kerry remarks to students that if they don't study hard, they might get "stuck in Iraq." At the least, it suggests contempt for the brave young men and women serving there. Though his comments are made in Pasadena, Calif. -- right in the Los Angeles Times' backyard -- the Times doesn't report them. (It does find room for a three-part, 15-page, 26-photo saga on "Chad and Dave," a gay couple from Atlanta who had twins through surrogate birth).

    • CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" airs footage showing enemy snipers targeting U.S. troops in Iraq, and Rep. Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, calls the CNN video "terrorist propaganda." The media just yawn.

    We could go on and, yes, it's gotten that crazy. Everywhere you look, the evidence of media bias is overwhelming. Yet much of the media remain blindered -- almost as if they don't want to know how bad they've really become.

    Newspapers got a reminder of this when the Audit Bureau of Circulation reported this week that readership of major metropolitan papers continues to slide. In the six months ended in September, circulation at major U.S. newspapers slid 2.8%. Decliners were led by the egregiously and at times laughably liberal L.A. Times, which plunged 8%. (IBD was up 2.5%).

    Some of the drop is no doubt due to the advent of new media like the Internet. It's also clear that many people, disgruntled with the unchecked bias of the mainstream outlets, are finding their news, views and facts elsewhere.

    Some in the big media are getting the idea. For instance, Mark Halperin, political director of ABC News who is on tour with his new book, is acknowledging that reporters' bias "tilts the coverage quite frequently, in many issues, in a liberal direction."

    "Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace, a self-described Democrat, calls the media's blatant favoritism "astonishing." Meanwhile, liberal journalist Juan Williams agrees with the assertion that CNN is "in the tank" for the Democrats.

    Small concessions, but important ones. As they say in the self-help community, the first step to getting better is admitting you have a problem. In the media's case, the problem is extreme bias. For the sake of American democracy, let's hope for a successful recovery.

    Posted by usc1 at 01/15/2007 @ 10:27pm

42. well this should be fun. the most obvious problem laid bare in the arguments presented in these three articles posted by usc1 is the extraordinarily shallow assumption that members of the democratic are liberal. the second most transparently moronic assumption is that because one is liberal, one necessarily reports (as a journalist) only liberal observations despite the overwhelming abundance of external factors which continuously impinge on journalists' ability to take an identifiable stand on any issue. oddly, usc1 and his ilk of half-breeds uphold and even praise objectivity in the news room, but yet scorn any journalist actually taking a stand. this is the most obvious hypocrisy in their line of thinking.

    second, there are innumerable examples in the mainstream media, or as these guys call it the "national media," of journalists taking blatant right wing (or status quo) positions on a whole host of issues: number one, in the run-up to the invasion of iraq, there were only 3% of the entire msm spectrum who expressed skepticism---even though we now know that such skepticism was absolutely justifiable and correct. how is this an example of "liberal media bias"? can any intelligent right winger answer this question with reason and logic?

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 10:28pm

43. Sorry. Didn't mean to go all "Rese" on you guys. I'd forgotten how many articles there were.

    Posted by usc1 at 01/15/2007 @ 10:29pm

44. acook, dude, get a grip. you wanna debate or talk about boring stuff?

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 10:30pm

45. usc1, i am a media studies scholar, and let me tell you something about media criticism:

    there is no such thing as right wing media criticism

    why? because there is nothing to criticize from that position. the media markets are open and exploitative. there is nothing, and i mean nothing, impinging on CEOs from expressing rampant support for free trade, war, racism, sexism, you name it. it's a totally open and free system which repeatedly enforces status quo thinking.

    anyone, and i mean anyone, who disagrees with the above statement has no idea what they are talking about. the american media system is the most retarded and stupid media system in the western world. we have the most uneducated, pathetically backwards population in the western world. every other western country knows more about our political system and process than we do.

    does this make sense?

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 10:33pm

46. "Dick Cheney, what a terrible human being. How does God cast blessings into that dark well. Is that what his soul is like, a dark well, and foul?"

    God blessed him the same way he has blessed you, as he sees fit...tell me what is your soul like?

    "LiberalPride and I, we feel that our hatred of Republicans, Conservatives, and Authoritarians, for the harm they cause to America, well, our venom has grown too poisonous for this particular message forum."

    Posted by CONSHAME 01/15/2007 @ 10:08pm

    Careful, you might wind up marrying one of those Republican, Conservative, Authoritarian woman. You know God and the devil work like that. On one had it could be a blessing or on the other, pure torture. (They both have sense of humor..)

    Posted by ACook at 01/15/2007 @ 10:39pm

47. Darla, I am a lady...

    Posted by ACook at 01/15/2007 @ 10:40pm

48. acook---

    look, there are two takes on the issue of peace/violence. sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire..

    cheney is playing with the lives of the most vulnerable, even arrogantly and repeatedly flaunts it.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 10:44pm

49. "acook, dude, get a grip. you wanna debate or talk about boring stuff?"

    Posted by DARLADOON 01/15/2007 @ 10:30pm

    Get what grip?!! No self respecting woman should ever say those kinds of words. Not even on a male dominated thread like this one.

    Posted by ACook at 01/15/2007 @ 10:48pm

50. "self respecting woman"? isn't there some serious gender bias in that statment?

    so, i gotta vagina, i have to be......uh........docile?

    but seriously, i'm sorry. i should be more kind, you are right.

    but are you actually defending cheney?

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 10:49pm

51. acook---

    "look, there are two takes on the issue of peace/violence. sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire..

    cheney is playing with the lives of the most vulnerable, even arrogantly and repeatedly flaunts it.

    Posted by DARLADOON 01/15/2007 @ 10:44pm

    Then fight fire with peaceful words and not violent ones. Continue your protest, you don't have to stoop to that level. You've accomplished nothing by cussing.

    Have you not learned from the examples Dr. King set?

    Posted by ACook at 01/15/2007 @ 10:53pm

52. acook, king was great, but i don't imitate people. i'm not a follower.

    for peeps in the ghetto, king was only partially helpful. the panthers were a lot more effective across the bay than malcolm.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/15/2007 @ 10:58pm

53. "self respecting woman"? isn't there some serious gender bias in that statment?

    so, i gotta vagina, i have to be......uh........docile?

    but seriously, i'm sorry. i should be more kind, you are right.

    but are you actually defending cheney?

    Posted by DARLADOON 01/15/2007 @ 10:49pm

    No, I'm not defending Cheney...I'm defending black womanhood..

    Posted by ACook at 01/15/2007 @ 11:00pm

54. DD, if you are a leader, then lead with grace. I know you can get with the best of them, but you should never ever lower your standards of decency.

    Posted by ACook at 01/15/2007 @ 11:03pm

55. If anyone wants to be honest about anything then let's be honest about the Six Year Reign of the Republicans. Is there a better example of failure monkeys in recorded history?

    If you haven't spotted the failure monkeys yet then you're one of them.

    Posted by fromredbird at 01/16/2007 @ 12:31am

56. DD, if you are a leader, then lead with grace. I know you can get with the best of them, but you should never ever lower your standards of decency.

    Posted by ACOOK 01/15/2007 @ 11:03pm | ignore this person

    Hey ACOOK, get off your high horse. This isn't about being nice and polite. If that's your concern, go find a Miss Manners site. People who priss about dirty ole curse words need to get a life, and by the way, they're there in the English language for a reason--to express strong emotion. Not that's you'd care: probably a nascent fascist, barely contained, ready to censor and burn. Or just a person scared to be disillusioned by the people whom you thought to be your moral, political authority?

    Posted by tensity1 at 01/16/2007 @ 01:35am

57. I dont like going out all non-chalant, I want to close with a prayer.

    Dear Lord Jesus Christ,

    We ask in Your Name,

    Please destroy the Conservatives, throw them into Hell, burn them alive forever, and ever.

    Please show no mercy to the Republicans, please burn them alive forever in Hell, make them scream in fuccking pain forever, for the harm they have caused Your Nation.

    Please, Lord, torture and torment all Authoritarians, please destroy them in Your Lake of Fire, please torment them day and night without rest, for all eternity.

    Lord, we ask this not out of vengeance, not out of cruelty, but out of justice. These evil azssholes have wrecked peoples lives, they have turned the short lives of others into anguish and torment. They have blasphemed against You, they have demonized and slaughtered innocent people. They have tried to make your nation into a Dictatorship, they have shown no mercy.

    We hate them, Lord, not out of anger, but we pray You will show them Your anger, we pray that You will roast them in thousand degree heat with pure malice, with Divine Justice. There is no penalty for such evildoers, that is any less than to eternally be burned alive.

    And, may the smoke of their torment rise forever and ever, and comfort and delight the angels, and be as incense for Your temple.

    Authoritarians: Fucck You, Damn You to Hell Forever

    Conservatives: Fucck You, Damn You to Hell Forever

    Republicans: Fucck You, Damn You to Hell Forever

    Curse them for what they have done,

    Oh Lord, Thank You,

    AMEN

    Posted by conshame at 01/16/2007 @ 02:03am

58. Three years ago, I too viewed "conspiracy theories" regarding 9/11 as outrageous. Having conducted literally thousands of hours of my own research - not any more.

    The bottom line is that 9/11 REQUIRED a conspiracy, regardless of who you believe did it. The word "conspiracy" is a legal term. Larry Franklin and AIPAC conspired to transfer secret information on Iran to Israel. Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney conspired to out Valerie Plame as a CIA Agent. Jack Abramoff was charged with, among other things, "conspiracy."

    You have clearly stated that you "WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH." This single statement is the key to solving any crime. Until EVERY American really comes to that conclusion, the government and the media will continue to have us under their spell.

    How many times have you ever heard the words "conspiracy theory" used by the government or the media in a positive light? How about NEVER? Yet we all watch the who-done-it movies and TV shows that virtually REQUIRE the investigators to have a theory about the conspiracy in order to solve the crime.

    Having a theory about a conspiracy cannot be an inherently bad thing, yet we've all been conditioned since the Kennedy assassination to believe that EVERY theory about a conspiracy is inherently unpatriotic, insane, wacko - or whatever other negative adjective the Media and the government have conditioned us to believe. How did we all come to accept that only the law enforcement community has the where with all to "think like a criminal" - investigate the means, motive and opportunity, understand whether multiple players might be involved (the very definition of "conspiracy"), and develop a THEORY about the most logical explanation with respect to who committed the crime, and why?

    It is a fact that five Mossad Agents were arrested in New York on 9/11, after having been witnessed celebrating (Google: "Dancing Israelis"). Who else celebrated in New York on 9/11? Shouldn't we start to unravel the thread right there?

    This one incident is the beginning of a path of logic that DOES NOT FIT the official government explanation of 9/11. This was the starting point for all of my research. How is it that five foreign agents were apprehended, found to have explosive, cash and box-cutters in their possession, were interrogated for six weeks, failed seven polygraph tests, and were quietly released by Israeli Citizen, Michael Chertoff?

    Forget everything else you know or think you know about 9/11 and explain that single incident. You can't. It Happened. It can only mean one thing.

    Now - WHO WANTS TO KNOW THE TRUTH? How badly do you want to know? Pull the thread - and the entire story quickly unravels.

    Means: (Sysplan, Ptech, Comverse, Mitre, Raytheon) Motive: PNAC Implementation Opportunity: Installation of NeoCon Cabal

    The conspiracy was primarily between Likud (and their agents within the United States - Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Wurmser, Ledeen, Zelikow, Rhode, Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Miller, Zakheim, Alexander, etc.) and the GHW Bush controlled CIA and Shadow Government.

    GHW Bush is the largest drug dealer on earth. He uses CIA aircraft to run drugs. Afghanistan just had a bumper crop for ol "Poppy." This is one of the means by which the globalists are able to fund their agenda outside of the Congressional budget process. Congress has been totally neutered. they DO NOT control the spending of the Shadow Government. While acting as "Comptroller" at DOD in the months prior to 9/11, Dov Zakheim stole $7 TRILLION and off-shored it to Israel. THAT'S YOUR MONEY.

    Are you a coincidence theorist - or would you prefer to know the truth?

    Posted by plunger at 01/16/2007 @ 06:57am

59. Congress is completely impotent to stop the Cheney "Total War" plan laid out by Ledeen, Wurmser, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle and within the PNAC. The supposed "Power Of The Purse" does not exist any longer. Not long after Bush took office, Rumsfeld set about "disappearing" what he claimed was $2.3 TRILLION from the DOD budget. He made the announcement of its disappearance just one day prior to 9/11:

    T H I S W A S T H E F U N D I N G F O R T H E M I L I T A R Y C O U P

    http://benfrank.net/patriots/node/125/print

    CBS Reports Pentagon Cannot Account for $2.3 Trillion

    "'According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,' Rumsfeld admitted. $2.3 trillion -- that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America." -- CBS, 1/29/02 http://www.wanttoknow.info/050310pentagontrillionslost http://www.whereisthemoney.org/

    DOD Comptroller (and Mossad agent), Dov Zakheim stole it (the actual amount is $7 trillion) and off-shored it to Israel. Cheney doesn't need the money from Congress to continue the Globalist Domination Agenda on behalf of his clients (Rockefeller, The Crown, Israel, Exxon, Halliburton, etc.) - it was "set aside in advance of his 9/11 False Flag Operation.

    David Rockefeller & Dick Cheney - American Traitors: Cheney laughs about lying to his constituents in order to get elected: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdxLYuvvbgs&NR

    http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1047.shtml

    Dov Zakheim and the 9/11 Conspiracy: Dov and the World Trade Center: Perhaps not coincidentally in May 2001, when Dov served at the Pentagon, it was an SPS (his firm's) subsidiary, Tridata Corporation, that oversaw the investigation of the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. This would have given them intimate knowledge of the security systems and structural blueprints of the World Trade Center. From the '90s through 2001, WTC Security was handled by Securacom, a Kuwait-American firm, on whose board Marvin Bush, the president's brother, sat. After 9/11, Securacom was let go, changed its name to Stratosec, and was delisted from the Stock Exchange in 2002.

    C O I N C I D E N C E ? ? ?

    The proof of this will be revealed when the war continues despite Congress cutting off the funding. Waterboard Dov Zakheim and you will learn how the entire oiperation was PRE-FUNDED prior to 9/11. The plan proceeds apace. Chaos in Iraq was part of the plan. So is a false flag attack coming any day, designed to appear to come from Iran, in order to justify "first-use" of offensive nuclear weapons.

    Israel is 100% in charge. Chertoff is their coverup specialist in the US, and now Lieberman has been put in charge of the committee in charge of the oversight of Chertoff (fox/hen house). Chertoff was the head of Operation Greenquest - the coverup of the 9/11 money trail.

    Rummy and Cheney drilled for Armageddon for years: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200403/mann

    The Armageddon Plan: During the Reagan era Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were key players in a clandestine program designed to set aside the legal lines of succession and immediately install a new "President" in the event that a nuclear attack killed the country's leaders. The program helps explain the behavior of the Bush Administration on and after 9/11.

    9/11 co-conspirator - Former Comverse CEO Kobi Alexander is wanted on Federal Charges - yet he is in the WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM inside the US? Who is Cheney REALLY protecting? His own criminal enterprise, which GHW Bush is the head of.

    Posted by plunger at 01/16/2007 @ 07:05am

60. 202-456-1111 -White House Comment Line Call and say that you fully SUPPORT George Bush's NEW PLAN FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF 20,000 MORE TROOPS IN IRAQ!!!! Comment by Sir Greg Nevins -- January 11, 2007 @ 5:43 am

    This is an Israeli Hasbara Operative - take that to the bank. This is 100% Israel's War. The online "Hasbara" program is a Mossad Operation. Read and learn:

    HELP!!!!!!!! I'm SURROUNDED by NAZI'S over at the "UN VETO" thread! I can REALLY use some SUPPORT there. By: bluestateman on November 12, 2006 at 05:11am

    Note the emphasis of the word SUPPORT above? As in: Give Israel Your United SUPPORT (GIYUS). YOU'RE TOTALLY BUSTED Look at this:

    "We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference. So, please distribute this mail to all Israel's supporters.

    Do it now. For Israel. Amir Gissin - Director Public Affairs (Hasbara) Department. GIYUS currently claims 24,000 Megaphone users." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/06/giyus_megaphone/

    Click here: http://www.eretz.com/NEW/ Scroll down to this: GIYUS.ORG - Give Israel Your United Support

    "Many of us recognize that the internet is the new battleground for Israel's image. Now is the time to improve our efforts on this front by better coordinating our on-line efforts. An Israeli software company has developed a free, safe, and useful tool for this purpose: the Internet Megaphone. Please go to www.giyus.org and download the megaphone. You will then receive daily updates with links to important internet polls, problematic articles that require a response, and more."

    "PROBLEMATIC ARTICLES?" Oh - you mean TRUTHFUL! Yeah, that's a problem - when you're a FALSE FLAG TERRORIST. There is no way to trust any news out of Israel - or the US Government for that matter.

    Hasbara is specifically designed to promote the Likud's goals - not advance the truth: Nathan Guttman has characterized hasbara as "pro-Israel propaganda, " while Avi Hyman has said "while propaganda strives to highlight the positive aspects of one side of a conflict, hasbara seeks to explain actions, whether or not they are justified." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara

    HASBARA IN ACTION: For detailed studies of the fabrications of groups like CAMERA and MEMRI, visit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.ht ml This is must reading about MEMRI and its "credibility" http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1869.shtml http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article445.shtml http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7.shtml http://www.abunimah.org/features/020815memri.html http://electronicintifada.net/features/mediaonmedia/20010821camera.html http://www.abunimah.org/features/000403camera.html http://santacruz.indymedia.org/feature/display/13401/index.php

    MEGAPHONE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool

    Posted by plunger at 01/16/2007 @ 07:05am

61. MARTIAL LAW TO BE DECLARED TO COINCIDE WITH NUCLEAR STRIKE ON IRAN:

    If you have yet to figure out that "BIRD FLU" is the FALSE FLAG means by which this DICTATOR will be declaring MARTIAL LAW - it's time to wake up.

    The globalists have now caused three events in the last three days where massive bird kills have been discovered. They are doing this ON PURPOSE.

    You have been preconditioned by the GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED PROPAGANDA to believe that bird flu is contagious and deadly.

    In fact, less than 100 people have died of bird flu. There will be no pandemic - only 24/7 FEAR MONGERING designed to keep you off the streets and drive up the stock value of the pharmecutical company that supposedly makes the antibiotic we will all need - conveniently owned by Rumsfeld.

    Are we all just sheep? Will the Generals put a stop to this madness?

    Made in the USA! Bio-Terrorism, Fear Mongering, and Propaganda... who benefits ?

    This is a man-made virus from a government lab and likely distributed via vaccine. Ask the SEC how much Donald Rumsfeld will profit off Tamiflu? Email: enforcement@sec.gov

    The Bird Flu Hoax: http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/birdflu.htm

    Bush's Fowl Play: http://www.mises.org/story/1960

    NO FEAR! http://educate-yourself.org/mw/message17oct05.shtml

    Also, Lori has extensive articles @ CLG http://www.legitgov.org/flu_oddities.html

    And, Lew Rockwell / Bill Sardi: http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi45.html

    Do you know that 'bird flu' was discovered in Vietnam 9 years ago?

    Do you know that barely 100 people have died in the whole world in all that time?

    Do you know that it was the Americans who alerted us to the efficacy of the human antiviral TAMIFLU as a preventative.

    Do you know that TAMIFLU barely alleviates some symptoms of the common flu?

    Do you know that its efficacy against the common flu is questioned by a great part of the scientific community?

    Do you know that against a SUPPOSED mutant virus such as H5N1, TAMIFLU barely alleviates the illness?

    Do you know that to date Avian Flu affects birds only?

    Do you know who markets TAMIFLU?

    ROCHE LABORATORIES. DO you know who bought the patent for TAMIFLU from ROCHE LABORATORIES in 1996?

    GILEAD SCIENCES INC.

    Do you know who was the then president of GILEAD SCIENCES INC. and remains a major shareholder?

    DONALD RUMSFELD, the present Secretary of Defence of the USA.

    By: kagan on December 22, 2006 at 02:34am

    Posted by plunger at 01/16/2007 @ 07:05am

62. From Raw Story:

    "Democracy Rules" is here on behalf of the Israeli AGENDA, which includes new Hate Crimes Legislation which has been REintroduced in the Congress.

    Why is he here posting this seemingly off-topic rant? Because McCain is in the employ of Israel. The entire Middle East campaign is for Israel. Have you not noticed that McCain and Lieberman are joined at the hip these days? McCain protected Israel from investigation in the aftermath of the USS Liberty incident, and has clearly accepted cash for his efforts, enabling the unending blackmail which has caused him to sell his soul.

    On its face, this "Hate Crimes" legislation sounds reasonable, but it only has ONE purpose, and that purpose is to silence ALL negative commentary about Israel and its true AGENDA (Eretz Israel), POLICIES, ESPIONAGE, and FALSE FLAG TACTICS.

    Note that in fact, none of these matters pertain to any hate of any PEOPLE associated with a race or religion, as the STATE of Israel is neither. They are desperate to have a NATION that is protected from legitimate criticism and investigation.

    You only do that if you've got something to hide, right "Democracy Rules?"

    Don't be fooled. He and other Hasbara operatives will be filling all of the blogs with accusations of "Hate Speech" in order to push through their own AGENDA, which in effect is the abolition of Freedom Of Speech.

    Study this and expose the truth of this AGENDA. If Hate Crimes Legislation passes, it will be illegal in the United States to state that we are in Iraq (and soon Iran) on Israel's behalf, regardless of the truth of it.

    Lieberman and McCain were the featured guests at the AEI event McCain spoke at.

    They were also the featured guests at the recent JINSA Awards banquet held to honor McCain with their annual War Mongers Award (Scoop Jackson Award), given out annually to the American militarist who best serves the interests of Israel (last year it was General Peter Pace).

    McCain / Lieberman is your future - and this will NOT be determined by your votes. This is preordained.

    DO THE MATH

    Possible McCain-Lieberman Alliance

    Introducing McCain to a packed ball room of pro-Israel business executives, defense contractors, and Washington insiders, was Sen. Joseph Lieberman, fresh from being re-elected as an independent after losing the Democratic Party primary in Connecticut.

    Lieberman's glowing tribute to his Republican colleague did not go unnoticed. "McCain-Lieberman? There's something to that," JINSA board member Morris J. Amitay told the crowd.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/12/6/111221.shtml?s=lh

    "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

    McCain Says Major Financiers Will Back His 2008 Bid December 15, 2006

    One of the most prominent on the list of finance committee co-chairmen is the head of the New York Stock Exchange, John Thain. Mr. Thain, whose title is CEO of NYSE Group, Inc., previously served as president and CEO of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

    A New Jersey-based investment banker deeply involved in fund-raising efforts for the 2004 Republican convention, Lewis Eisenberg, is signing on with Mr. McCain. Mr. Eisenberg is a former Goldman Sachs partner who served as chairman of the Port Authority board at the time of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

    WHAT A COINCIDENCE!

    It was Eisenberg who passed the $15 billion Asbestos Liability represented by the Twin Towers onto Larry Silverstein, the man who confessed publicly to having Building 7 "PULLED" by explosives – despite the fact that no plane struck it:

    Rescuer 2: "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

    LISTEN to the firefighters and police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus

    Listen to the owner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYaUeGvYYxc

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0823-03.htm

    COLLEGE STUDENTS DYING FROM INHALED ASBESTOS: http://www.bupipedream.com/pipeline_web/display_article.php?id=3259

    ALL SO HALLIBURTON COULD REMOVE THE WTC ASBESTOS LIABILITY FROM ITS BOOKS - HALLIBURTON HAD ACQUIRED DRESSER TO SAVE THE BUSH FAMILY FROM THE LOSING POSITION IT WAS STUCK IN…all because of the pending Asbestos law suits

    Planning days in advance to bring down WTC7 by planting explosives inside it implies only ONE THING...FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTACK ON 9/11. Google: "Dancing Israelis"

    The Zionists did it. McCain is in their employ. Lieberman is absolutely his running mate. Apparently McCain doesn't realize that once they are "installed" in the White House, his own days on planet earth are numbered by dark forces who will not rest until Israel has installed a Zionist as President in YOUR White House.

    Follow the money. Google: Greenquest

    The conquest of the Middle East is being conducted at Israel's INSISTENCE - via BLACKMAIL.

    Their espionage has resulted in Israel controlling the nuclear targeting and launch codes of our US nuclear arsenal. As Sharon stated clearly "Israel CONTROLS the US."

    Expose the criminals in the Bush Cabal who are so guilty on so many levels that they have allowed the United States to fall into foreign control. Expose the blackmail. EVERYTHING that is happening is under the direct control of Israel. If the new hate crimes legislation passes, it will be illegal to even discuss it. THAT is the reason ISRAEL is promoting it through their AIPAC-owned puppets in Congress.

    Freedom of Speech is on the line. EXPOSE IT!

    Posted by plunger at 01/16/2007 @ 07:06am

63. If the owners of these forums came clean with us about the pressures they face to silence any/all criticism of Israel in these threads, the entire story would become far more clear to those who doubt the power of the Israeli "Hasbara" program.

    "Hasbara is specifically designed to promote the Likud's goals - not advance the truth:

    Nathan Guttman has characterized hasbara as "pro-Israel propaganda, " while Avi Hyman has said "while propaganda strives to highlight the positive aspects of one side of a conflict, hasbara seeks to explain actions, whether or not they are justified."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara

    One or two people can use the Megaphone software program to launch an e-mail barrage against a site owner demanding that certain posters be banned, lest the owner/operator be branded an "anti-Semite" or hate monger by the media machinery of the Zionists.

    Their tactics are brutal, and their results are proven. Hundreds of Free Speech Advocates have been banned from dozens of message boards for the simple "crime" of daring to question the influence of Israel in US policies, and for revealing the proven espionage by this foreign power within our borders, to our detriment.

    If you notice my name disappear from among your ranks, you'll have yet more proof of "The Agenda" in action, and TP's complicity therein.

    If on the other hand, TP stiffens its' spine and fights for FREE SPEECH over foreign interests, then I will simply say thank you for allowing the dialogue and debate to lead wherever free and open conversations choose - all within the guidelines of the site which provide for civil discourse.

    The topic of a major thread on this site must be the pending "Hate Crimes" legislation recently submitted to Congress - by Israeli interests - designed specifically to CRIMINALIZE FREE SPEECH in the event the topic turns to the policies (crimes) of Israel. They make it appear to be about protecting Gays and others, but this is simply a clever ruse. You've seen it right here...if you criticise Israel, you are branded an "anti-Semite." Once so branded by these thought police, then what? No one will dare mention the word "Israel," - which is of course their goal, to act without consequence. "Holocaust Denial" is their red herring. That is NOT the issue. The issue is free speech. Speech cannot be a crime in the United State. It is PROTECTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Remember that quaint document?

    Free Speech IS NOT NEGOTIABLE.

    The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith introduced the same legislation last January 6, three days after Congress convened. Extraordinary action must be taken NOW to back down ADL.

    Criminalizing speech in the United States is ABHORANT TO OUR VALUES.

    TP, are you listening? Can we expose the downside of this legislation?

    Israel is not a race, a religion or a gender. Israel is a country, not a person. No more special rules and special laws for this COUNTRY.

    http://washingtontimes.com/world/20041014-121528-8981r.htm

    Anti-Semitism office planned at State Department

    By Nicholas Kralev THE WASHINGTON TIMES

    President Bush plans to sign a bill passed by both houses of Congress that would establish a State Department office to monitor anti-Semitism around the world, despite the department´s strong objection, administration officials said yesterday.

    "The bill is expected to arrive at the White House on Thursday and the president intends to sign it," one official said.

    The House and Senate, acting shortly before the Nov. 2 election, passed the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act late last week.

    "It´s more of a bureaucratic nuisance than a real problem. We are not going to fight a bill that has gained such political momentum," a State Department official said.

    Establishing an anti-Semitism monitoring office and producing an annual report would duplicate work by other offices in charge of monitoring human rights and religious freedom, officials say.

    "We opposed creation of a separate office for the purpose and opposed the mandating of a separate annual report," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters.

    "We expressed the view that separate reports on different religions or ethnicities were not warranted, given that we already prepare human rights reports and religious freedom reports on 190 countries," he said.

    The legislation was introduced by Rep. Tom Lantos, California Democrat and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress, in response to the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe and the Middle East.

    Posted by plunger at 01/16/2007 @ 07:07am

64. Look - here's the deal:

    The biggest problem we face (a coup by a foreign power and treason within) cannot be openly discussed. The "special relationship" IS the problem. Dov Zakheim stole $7 trillion from the DOD and sent it to Israel. Want to know why Bush is unafraid of the supposed "power of the purse" and the threat by Congress not to fund his escalation? The money is not needed. They stole it in advance of 9/11 (witness Rumsfeld's admission of $2.3 trillion missing on 9/10/2001). The entire campaign is ALREADY FUNDED.

    Zakheim stole the money on behalf of the co-conspirators in the coup (the Bush Cabinet and Likud - in concert with The Crown). They looted the US Treasury IN ADVANCE OF 9/11.

    They did it because it was all part of the master plan. Chaos in Iraq is PART OF THE PLAN. The funding for the escalation is NOT coming from any budget that Congress has ANY CONTROL OVER. The money was already sent to Israel in advance of PNAC's "NEW PERLE HARBOR" and will now be tapped on an as needed basis - having lost the backing of the American people and congress.

    This ALL planned for.

    Ask Dov Zakheim about the $7 trillion.

    He and Kobi Alexander (former CEO of Comverse) were co-conspirators in the implementation of 9/11. Zakheim's "Sysplan" provided the fly-by-wire technology and Comverse / Ptech provided the software.

    Why is Kobi Alexander (wanted on Federal Charges) under the cover of the Witness Protection Program in the United States?

    Where is Kobi?

    Where is Dov?

    Expose That!

    Posted by plunger at 01/16/2007 @ 07:12am

65. David Rockefeller & Dick Cheney:

    American Traitors…Cheney laughs about lying to his constituents in order to get elected – as Rockefeller looks on:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdxLYuvvbgs&NR

    David Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations is the Master pulling the strings. 9/11 was the required pretext to implement the plan. Israel and America are his pet projects. The Federal Reserve Bank is his control mechanism. As the world's banker, War is simply too profitable to allow a peaceful world to exist.

    When you take note of the CFR's role in events, and view the roster of its members, and the influence they wield, it becomes clear that the CFR is the "Tower Of Power" - the actual Control Center for ALL policy.

    Kissinger is the go-between who ensures that Rockefeller's instructions are well understood inside the White House – regardless of who happens to be the current (P)resident.

    The ultimate Rockefeller creation and puppet, as well as the master of manipulation and intellectual dishonesty that continues to occupy high consulting positions for government, and the private sector; he is also a present member of the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission - he is the infamous "Dr. Henry Kissinger"

    THE INSTIGATOR OF ALL WARS, COUPS AND DICTATORSHIPS ON BEHALF OF THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL BANKSTER - DAVID ROCKEFELLER.

    Henry Kissinger makes regular visits to see President Bush: http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html

    THE LEAD UP TO WAR: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

    Pol Pot And Kissinger On war criminality and impunity: http://musictravel.free.fr/political/political3.htm

    Can Henry Kissinger be Extradited? http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/Kissinger_extradite.html

    Want a Cover-Up Expert? Kissinger's Your Man: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20021216/scheer20021203 http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=176

    The Bush Crime Family: Four Generations of Wall Street War-Making and War-Profiteering August, 2004: http://www.communitycurrency.org/BushCrimeFamily.html

    Photos from the CFR 1991 annual report near the end of the first Bush administration portray a snapshot of the Council near the end of the first Bush administration. David Rockefeller's picture is prominent throughout the report. Photographs include Cheney in Paris, October 1990; the President of Mexico and David Rockefeller, and Cyrus Vance with the Security General of the U.N. and David Rockefeller. That 1991 meeting was prescient looking at the Gulf and the Future of the U.N.

    Another photo is of Ahmed Chalabi, founder and former chair of Petra Bank, at a March 1991 round table discussion on the topic For Democracy in Iraq. He gave the current Bush administration misleading and fabricated information before the U.S. invaded Iraq last year.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08172005.html http://www.communitycurrency.org/joycelynn.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5074781/ http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/05/fed_chiefs_cale.html

    Posted by plunger at 01/16/2007 @ 07:18am

66. How is it that Jeb Bush just happened to declare Martial Law in Florida on September 10th, 2001, just one day prior to 9/11?

    How big of a Coincidence Theorist would you have to be to assume that was happenstance?

    How is it that on that very same day (the 10th), Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference during which he acknowledged that his Comptroller, Dov Zakheim, could not account for $2.3 TRILLION of DOD money?

    Wow - now THAT'S a coincidence!

    Posted by plunger at 01/16/2007 @ 07:23am

67. THEY HAD TO KILL HIM.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR200612 2601033.html

    A soldier resisting return to Iraq – depressed and despondent?

    KILL HIM!

    The message has now been sent from the McCain/Lieberman Warmongers For Israel Tribe - "Kill or be killed!" His only other alternative was to be sent to one of the new CONCENTRATION CAMPS for those who resist the EMPIRE:

    US CONCENTRATION CAMPS - IN WYOMING!

    FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE MEXICANS, BUT I WAS NOT MEXICAN, SO I DID NOT SPEAK OUT.

    NEXT THEY CAME FOR THE DRAFT DODGERS, BUT I WAS TOO OLD TO BE DRAFTED, SO I DID NOT SPEAK OUT.

    THEN THEY CAME FOR ME.

    Let's make "Swift Luck Greens" famous!

    What do you think it will take for Lou Dobbs and Keith Olbermann to get these images featured on their nightly shows and demand an explanation of Michael Chertoff? I want to see national TV news crews there at this location with cameras in hand. We paid for them - Cheney's KBR built them - let's see them on TV! Aren't they proud?

    http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=297

    Note that in the DHS "Swift Luck Greens" photos, the mine facility is known as the "East Annex"

    This implies that the main facility is further west of this location.

    I believe the "main" facility is the one referred to as the "Maximum Security" facility.

    Rag Shoshone coal mine closed Thursday. August 30, 2000.

    In 2000 – this was the production rate for the mine:

    Tons of Coal Mined in 2000: 1,209,795 Number of Employees in 2000: 67

    CYPRUS SHOSHONE COAL CORPORATION HANNA WY 82327

    Latitude: 41.92 Longitude: -106.521944

    This facility is huge and includes a runway large enough to land the worlds largest military aircraft. Who does Cheney plan to put there? Why are there huge facilities to house entire PRISON FAMILIES?

    THIS IS AN ARMY / DHS CIVILIAN FORCED LABOR DETENTION FACILITY.

    THERE ARE OVER 800 SUCH FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Inmate_Labor_Program

    Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs': http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/17936

    Read this guy's take: http://tinyurl.com/y48vxo

    EXPOSE THE FORCED LABOR PRISON CAMP IN WYOMING.

    Posted by plunger at 01/16/2007 @ 07:33am

68. Why was Dick Cheney meeting with a notorious "terrorist" supporter in the 1990's? Why did the CEO of Ptech confirm Cheney's close relationship to this man? What role did Ptech play in Cheney's activities on 9/11?

    http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=cheney&e vents=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titl es=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

    Mid-1990s: Al-Qadi Claims Good Relationship with Cheney

    Saudi multimillionaire Yassin al-Qadi will say in an interview shortly after 9/11, "I have also met with US Vice President and former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in Jeddah [Saudi Arabia]. I spoke to him for a long time and we still have cordial relations." The US had named al-Qadi a supporter of terrorism and frozen his assets two days before.

    Oussama Ziade, CEO of Ptech, a US computer company that al-Qadi had invested in and that will be raided for suspected terrorism ties, later will claim that al-Qadi "talked very highly of his relationship" with Cheney. Ziade will claim he only knew al-Qadi for a few years starting around 1994, so presumably the contact between al-Qadi and Cheney happens during the mid-1990s.

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=68463

    "Ptech was with MITRE Corporation in the basement of the FAA for two years prior to 9/11," Singh said. "Their specific job is to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force in the case of an emergency. If anyone was in a position to know that the FAA – that there was a window of opportunity or to insert software or to change anything – it would have been Ptech along with MITRE."

    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=68985

    Ptech "produced software that derived from PROMIS, had an artificial intelligence core, and was installed on virtually every computer system of the U.S. government and its military agencies on September 11, 2001,"

    Posted by plunger at 01/16/2007 @ 07:41am

69. That story about Halliburton acquiring the asbestos liabilities of Dresser Industries raises an interesting point...

    Cheney KNEW that Dresser had the most massive liability issue on planet earth (he had to have known) yet decided to pay good money to bring Dresser's problems under Halliburton's tent.

    This raises the question...who were the largest shareholders of Dresser - in need of a lifeboat to save their own personal bacon? Anyone named Bush? Anyone named Carlyle?

    The deal went like this:

    Cheney agrees for Halliburton to take on the Dresser asbestos liability.

    It is determined that Bush and Cheney will be (s)elected, and that the PNAC plan will be implemented - using 9/11 as the essential pretext.

    Ken Lay plays his role using his Enron smoke and mirrors tactics to create a faux energy crisis in California, causing the public to demand an energy-savvy administration be elected.

    With the asbestos liability and other matters hanging in the balance, the election of 2000 simply had to be rigged in order for the plan to go in to effect.

    Following the appointment of Bush and Cheney, the secret energy planning meeting established which oil companies would reap the rewards of the pending invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

    The timing and the pretext were predetermined, and 9/11 was greenlighted for 9/11/2001. Cheney outsourced the implementation to Mossad, and ran the show from his bunker on D Day under the cover of preplanned drills simulating the exact attack that was proscribed, with NORAD as coconspirator. At least 50 administration officials and countless foreign agents were in on it.

    Once the entire charade was concluded, the Administration generally, and Cheney specifically, had every reason in the world to blame Iraq.

    The Afghanistan mission could not provide Halliburton with enough revenue to offset the massive asbestos liability claim. Iraq and Iran are essential wars in order to provide cover for the infusion of the billion of TAX DOLLARS necessary to both profit Halliburton for its actual work AND cover the massive asbestos liability claims.

    Now you know why Halliburton was awarded the contracts without the need to bid for them. This was all prearranged.

    NOTE: Private enterprise pushed its legal/financial obligations onto tax payers using war as the excuse.

    The asbestos liability claims of Dresser Industries were ultimately paid by you and me, and our troops in the field, all to ensure that the investors in Dresser didn't take the multibillion dollar loss.

    Just one piece of a very large chessboard.

    Hang them for TREASON.

    Posted by plunger at 01/16/2007 @ 07:59am

70. Posted by CONSHAME 01/16/2007 @ 02:03am

    Okay, changed my mind about universal health care. We need it.

    Especially MENTAL health care! Obviously come 2008 when impeachment becomes impossible, a LOT more "CONSHAMEs" going to pop up and we'll need a nationalized and free system of therapy and drug regimens for these people!

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2007 @ 08:46am

71. Posted by CONSHAME 01/16/2007 @ 02:03am

    Disturbed..fits the stereotype..too looney and sick for the KOOK section...even they won't let it in.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/16/2007 @ 10:06am

72. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/16/2007 @ 10:06am

    See, I'm betting those "Halliburton concentration camps" are really psych wards. CS can get a bunk right next to Captain Paranoid Pieces and the Toilet Tool Wonder!

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2007 @ 10:16am

73. so, for mask and maasch to latch onto the arguments of the so-called 'kooks' makes their arguments seem........stronger? better informed? more reasonable? logical?

    first of all, it would really help if maasch and mask actually had arguments.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/16/2007 @ 10:16am

74. whats the big deal? no duh...the man's being pretty honest i think. scoot probably IS the most honest person "go fuck yourself" dick knows...

    look at his old friends...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/16/2007 @ 10:40am

75. conshame, you know you guys can post your thoughts at multiple sites, don't you?

    Posted by loveloki at 01/16/2007 @ 11:20am

76. Posted by DARLADOON 01/16/2007 @ 10:16am

    I do, DD....usually logical ones....

    and when I use them, it almost immediately means....

    you put me on your Ignore List...hehe!

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2007 @ 12:45pm

77. what would be a site to see is one of you actually saying something in defense of your brillant leaders,something relevant to the issue being discussed rather than attacking and criticizing the writer,or better yet(and far more common)changing the subject completely.mask,maasch the rest of you are the perfect example of the blind rep.follow your leaders till the end,despite overwhelming evidence that its not too bright,follow all you want,just do us a favor and get headed towards something that will envelope you and your idiotic ideology.

    Posted by ericseadler at 01/16/2007 @ 4:21pm

78. Is cretin cheney honest? I'd be laughing myself sick if it weren't for the deadly danger prezdint Demento and vice king Quasimodo have put us in without so much as a "by your leave". Since when has ANYONE in this vile "administration" been honest about anything, except by accident?

    Posted by Bil Mac Bean at 01/21/2007 @ 7:49pm