A society of sheep must in
time beget a government of wolves.- Bertrand de Juvenal
Liars are usually easily discredited; it's the truth-tellers
who need to be destroyed
Mr. Sheeple:
"I don't know how good
Clarke was at counter-terrorism, but as a media performer he is a
total dummy. He seemed to think that he could claim the lucrative
star role of Lead Bush Basher without anybody noticing the huge
paper trail of statements he has left contradicting the argument
in his book."
Sheeple Analyst:
If Richard Clarke is
self-destructing, why all the fuss and bother about him? If his
"lies" are so obvious, why are you and all the Bush defense team
huffing and puffing so much. Actually, the impact of Clarke has
shifted to the words of the Bush Administration themselves. A
White House report from April 2001 (four months before 9/11) shows
that the Bush Administration officially declared it "a mistake" to
focus "so much energy on Osama bin Laden." The report directly
contradicts the White House's continued assertion that fighting
terrorism was its "top priority" before the 9/11 attacks1.
forgotten
Specifically, on April 30, 2001, CNN reported that the Bush
Administration's release of the government's annual terrorism
report contained a serious change: "there was no extensive mention
of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden" as there had been
in previous years. When asked why the Administration had reduced
the focus, "a senior Bush State Department official told CNN the
U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin
Laden."2. So go to the White House's report of 4.30.2001 and read
it. Prove that they didn't really say it. Or go meditate a while
on why you spend so much energy defending the indefensible. The
Bush Liars' Club has proved unworthy of your salute. If Ideology
and worship of Bush were not so entwined in your identity you
could easily see the lie. As you defend that to which you have
invested your identity you make your self seem foolish and
adolescent. It's not a pretty picture. Sheeple can be maddeningly
dense at times.
Mr. Sheeple:
"Former
Clinton terrorism czar Richard Clarke refused to testify before
the Senate Y2K Committee in 1999 citing the same rule invoked by
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in recent days, with
the Bush White House saying the regulation prevents her from
testifying publicly before the 9/11 Commission."
NewsMax
So much for the clamor over Condoleeza Rice's refusual to testify.
If valid for Clarke as a Clinton administration appointee, it is
equally valid for Dr. Rice!
Sheeple Analyst:
Are you forgetting
that Clarke WORKED for the Bush Liars' Club, had been a registered
Republican through 2000, and had spent more time in government
working for Republican Administrations than for Democrats?
You sure are a
good little boy for protecting and defending the Indefensible Bush
Liars' Club. It takes a lot of moxie and chutzpah to go into the
trenches and fight for their right to continue lying. Should I
nominate you for an award or something? Could we have a plaque
made to acknowledge your willingness to do battle on behalf of
child molesters, liars, murderers, thieves, and scoundrels. Don't
expect anything gold-plated, though. You seem to have followed the
Zionist neocon traitors in emphasizing the time working for
Clinton instead of including his employment by Reagan, Daddy Bush,
and his registration as a Republican until 2000. Maybe we could
get a cute little mean kid doll that looks like Calvin at his
worst and hang a medal on his chest that says, Little Liar and
Defender of Big Liars. I'll see what I can do.
Mr.
Sheeple:
Hmmmm! Clarke praises Bush for his anti-terrorism efforts when Clarke
Resigned and retired in March of 2003, then a year later published a book
villifying Bush. Now, which is the real Clarke?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_adviser_3
Sheeple Analyst:
You
claim that Clarke praises Bush for his anti-terrorism efforts. If you
read past the headlines a bit, you find this in the article:
But the letter contains no praise of Bush's anti-terror actions before or
after the attacks - only on the day of. Clarke does commend Bush for his
"intuitive understanding" of the importance of cybersecurity.
Do you
see how important it is to be thorough? The news item totally contradicts
your knee jerk reaction. Your hmmmmming got in the way of your reading.
You began to see ammunition without checking its validity or reliability.
You were concocting a defense of the Bush Liars' Club before you had even
finished. It's that kind of laxity and inattention that typifies sheeple.
Perhaps you should order his book, read it, and then tell me about his
praise. If that hmmmmm represents thinking you might understand how, if
you were a Richard Clarke, you keep your counsel until the right moment
and perhaps after significant hmmmmmming. If you don't have your ducks in
a row, it might be wiser to wait until the opportune time to spring the
truth on the American public, especially after you have a book ready for
release. Otherwise it is too easy to be overwhelmed by the disinformation
machine of the likes of Karl Rove.
It also can signify
that the Illuminati have used up George and they are ready to dump him to
place a Jew, a Skull and Bonesman, a Zionist, a liar and stooge in his
place. Kerry could carry on the Bush policies of murder and violence with
"clean hands" and postpone the leftist reaction till later. Liberals and
progressives would breath a sigh of relief that Bush is gone, congratulate
themselves for getting rid of a madman, celebrate a "return to sanity" and
meanwhile Kerry is overseeing the return of the draft, an extension
of Zionist hegemony in this country and around the world and a more
muffled version of the USA Patriot Act.
Now
both Clarke and O'Neill can be more credible if they are to be used in the
future to further the Illuminati agenda. Just because they came out
against the Bush Liars' Club this would make them more effective later.
The
Illuminati plan is to use Goyim where necessary, but replace them with
their own Chosen People as soon as possible, after their cattle can no
longer get out of the pasture and are too dumbed down to recognize a
fence, barbed wire, and electrification of the enclosure.
You
see, there is much more to understand about this than a headline.
Half-thinking, half-reading, leads to half-assed analysis. That is the
nature of sheeple.
Mr. Sheeple:
In this paragraph, quoted
from his resignation letter, Clarke praises Bush for "the courage,
determination, and leadership" he demonstrated on 9-11. But then in his
book, he turns on Bush for allegedly having no plan, and taking issue with
his approach to dealing with the problem.
"It has been an enormous privilege to serve you these last 24 months,"
said the Jan. 20, 2003, letter from Clarke to Bush. "I will always
remember the courage, determination, calm, and leadership you demonstrated
on September 11th."
Sheeple Analyst:
Read carefully. Even a
preposition is vital to clarity. Like the preposition "on." He did NOT say
"before," "leading up to," "prior to." He did NOT say "after,"
"following." You must learn to read with both eyes open, organic computer
programmed to receive input before proceeding to output, and heart set at
"no holds barred pursuit of truth."
It should no great problem for Bush to display calm. He often doesn't seem
engaged anyway. O'Neill thought so, too. It would be no problem for Bush
to display courage if it was no skin off his nose and the American
Corporate press performed admirably avoiding any discussion of glaring
contradictions, anomalies, and inconsistencies in the Official Conspiracy
Theory. Determination to send American soldiers off to far away places to
murder more people comes easily to supporters of Zionism and Ariel Sharon,
the butcher of Lebanon. Where he subsequently lead America--into the
largest deficits ever with coordinated tax cuts in a failing economy,
lying to Congress and the American people to get us into a dual quagmire
in Afghanistan and Iraq in which tens of thousands were killed hundreds of
millions maimed, and the most precipitous trashing of the US Constitution
ever. But on 9-11 it probably looked to most people as though it were
leadership.
Mr. Sheeple:
Perhaps you should have
read Richard Clarke's book before "shoving Clarke's anti-Bush book in my
face" in an email the other day. In '99, Clarke saw an Iraq-al-Qaida link"
via Iraqi nerve gas experts in Sudan, but on '60 minutes', he denies any
connection. Since you do not like liars, then Clarke's anit-Bush book
should then lack credability in your mind.
"But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's
current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National
Islamic Front in Sudan," the paper reported.
However, Sunday night in an interview with Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes,"
Clarke denied Saddam had any connection to al-Qaida.
Sheeple Analyst:
Once
again, you make unsubstantiated charges based on a belief that you are
getting the truth from WND. It's VERY simple to do a little research
before embarking on playing the sheeple fool. I just copied El-Shifa into
Exact Phrase in Google Advanced Search. Then I typed VX into the top box
and hit SEARCH. I just took the top result, but I could have taken a bit
more time to dig more deeply, but I have a lot of other things to do than
do your research for you.
So here is some of what I found in a few minutes:
In '99, the US had not admitted that their "intelligence" gathered by an
Egyptian operative antagonistic to Sudan gathered samples from soil near
the El-Shifa plant. Since then, voluminous evidence has shown that there
are several alternative explanations for the alleged presence of EMPTA and
the Osama connection was non-existent.
The Plant was not a chemical weapons facility, and it was not involved in
the production of chemical weapons or even chemicals used in the
production of chemical weapons. Just because Richard Clarke felt there was
evidence connecting bin Laden and Iraq.
Here we get a chance to see the Zionist / Illuminati Liars Club at work
through their puppet, Clinton. Now they are pulling the strings of Bush
and the Bush Liars. Whereas there was THOUGHT to be evidence there is now
almost no possibly that the CIA and the other "intelligence" agencies had
ANY conclusive evidence to justify the attack. It is not at all hard to
imagine that Clarke changed his mind on the evidence. Only a liar and a
fool would continue the lie when the evidence screamed that they were
lying. Here is a brief filed in United States District Court for the
District of Columbia:
The Osama connection disappeared:
when
a U.S. intelligence officer acknowledged to the press on August 25, 1998
that there was no direct financial relationship between the Plant and
bin Laden. On September 2, 1998, Secretary of Defense Cohen acknowledged
that the financial connection between the Plant and bin Laden was at
most "indirect." In fact, the United States has found no evidence of
even an "indirect" financial link between the Plant and bin Laden. The
claimed connection was instead based on the assumption that El-Shifa was
part of the Sudan Military Industrial Complex Corporation, which in turn
was believed to have received financial support from Osama bin Laden.
The Plant is, however, 100% owned by El-Shifa, and the Sudan Military
Industrial Complex Corporation has never had any ownership interest in
either the Plant or in El-Shifa. Moreover, the Plant produced civilian
medicines and was never part of anything that could be regarded as
Sudan's "military industrial complex."
Mr. Idris is not a member or supporter of the political party that
controls the government of the Sudan and the Sudan Military Industrial
Complex Corporation. To the contrary, he is a well-known supporter of a
Sudanese political party that opposes the current government of the
Sudan, and he regularly writes a thoughtful, dispassionate column in a
Cairo-based newspaper that is critical of the current Sudanese regime.
The claim that the Plant produced EMPTA was eventually abandoned by U.S.
officials. In fact, while Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public
Affairs Kenneth Bacon stated at a press briefing on September 8, 1998,
that "we believe now, as we did at the beginning, that this plant does
make EMPTA," his remarks were later "corrected" to read: "this plant had
evidence of EMPTA present." In addition, according to a report on August
21, 1999, an "administration official" told The Washington Post that
statements made the night of the attack claiming knowledge that the
Plant produced EMPTA were "inaccurate." "We never had evidence of that,"
the official said. "The correct statement, and it has been corrected,
was that EMPTA was present at the plant."
According to the United States, a soil sample from the Plant showed the
presence of EMPTA. This sample was taken from surface soil in the
vicinity of the Plant months before the attack by an Egyptian operative.
The United States claimed that the presence of EMPTA proved involvement
in chemical weapons production because the chemical has no known use
other than as a component in the production of VX nerve gas.
In fact, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ("O.P.C.W."),
an international organization in the Hague responsible for monitoring
international compliance with the chemical weapons treaty, classifies
EMPTA as a schedule 2b compound, that is, a compound that can be used to
make chemical weapons but that has commercial applications as well.
According to the O.P.C.W., EMPTA can be used "in limited quantities for
legitimate commercial purposes" such as fungicides and antimicrobial
agents.
The claim that EMPTA was present in the soil near the Plant was false.
Neither EMPTA nor any other chemical weapons precursors were
manufactured at, stored at, or transported to the Plant.
The U.S. claim that EMPTA was found in soil near the Plant was a
fabrication or a mistake resulting from seriously flawed procedures.
a. A report or memorandum prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency on
or about July 24, 1998 found that the soil sample taken and relied upon
by the United States did not provide conclusive evidence of chemical
weapon-related activity and recommended that more soil samples be taken
to help determine whether the Plant was involved with making chemical
weapons.
b. The claim that EMPTA was found in the soil near the Plant is
implausible on its face because, if present in ground soil, EMPTA breaks
down quickly into a substance known as EMPA, which then would remain and
be detectable in the soil for years. {p.10}
c. The agent who supposedly collected the soil sample from El-Shifa was
not a U.S. intelligence agent but an Egyptian operative. Given Egypt's
antipathy toward Sudan, a possible motive for providing false evidence
must have been evident to the U.S. government.
d. The chain of custody for the soil sample was inadequately documented,
and there is therefore no way to exclude the possibility of tampering or
contamination.
e. The testing methods used by the U.S. in this case did not comport
with O.P.C.W. standards for reliability. Among other things, analysts
reportedly performed a lab test only on a single soil sample at a single
laboratory, in breach of the most basic testing protocols, including the
use of multiple labs to guard against false positives. EMPTA is
chemically similar to several commercially available products, including
the familiar suburban weed-killer called "Round Up." In addition, the
chemical structure of EMPTA resembles fonofos, an agricultural pesticide
that is commercial available in Africa. As a consequence, if not
carefully preserved and quickly tested, testing on a single soil sample
could readily have misidentified the key ingredient.
Public Criticism of the Initial Justifications
Starting after the day of the attack, the U.S. decision to destroy the
Plant encountered a firestorm of criticism as journalists investigated
the Plant and the justifications offered for its destruction. Within ten
days after the attack, those justifications had been refuted in the mass
media around the world. For instance:
a. The Chicago Tribune reported on August 28, 1998 that "American and
European chemical weapons experts say the information presented so far
to justify the attack on the Sudan factory is inconclusive." "Since the
attack, ... the Clinton Administration has altered its arguments,
sometimes in the face of ambiguous evidence. Officials now admit that
the plant produced medicines sold commercially in Sudan. Scientists in
the U.S. and Europe maintain that the chemical EMPTA has potential
commercial applications as well as being a precursor for VX nerve gas.
New reports also raise questions about the plant's links to bin Laden's
financial empire."
b. That same day, The Wall Street Journal reported that an Italian
pharmaceutical executive intimately involved with the Plant had
confirmed that the Plant was not a chemical weapons facility. Dino
Romanatti, whose Milan company supplies powders that generic drug-makers
form into pills, told The Wall Street Journal that he was given the run
of the Plant in long visits in February and June 1998. He stated that
the managers even left him and his staff alone in the factory when they
worked late and gave them keys to the main office to make international
phone calls. Romanatti stated: "I didn't see any equipment - and there
wasn't even the space - for any production of chemicals.... The
availability of tools in the factory was close to zero, a saw. To
imagine a plant that makes chemical weapons is absolutely incredible....
[N]either the management nor the management style changed after the sale
to Salah Idris."
c. The New York Times stated on August 29, 1998 that "some of the key
statements made by Administration officials to justify the attack have
proven to be inaccurate, misleading or open to question." The officials'
"descriptions of the plant as a highly secretive, tightly secured
military-industrial site, their initial statement that the plant
produced no commercial products, and their statements that the exiled
Saudi millionaire, Osama bin Laden, directly financed the plant, do not
appear to be factual."
d. On that day, Agence France Presse likewise reported that "experts
say" unanswered "questions have cast a shadow of doubt over U.S.
assertions that a key nerve gas ingredient was being made" at El-Shifa.
e. The Economist also reported {chargeable} at that time that "there was
a growing consensus among diplomats and journalists in Khartoum that
American intelligence had boobed." The author stated that, after
spending "more than two hours clambering over - and under - the smoking
ruins," he "found nothing to suggest that it was anything but a plant
producing medicine for humans and veterinary drugs for animals. There
was no sign of the hidden laboratories or storage rooms underground
which some had darkly hinted at."
American and European engineers and consultants who helped build,
design, and supply the Plant have stated that it was not a chemical
weapons facility. Tom Carnaffin, a British mechanical engineer who
served as El-Shifa's technical manager during its construction from
1992-1996, said that the Plant "just didn't lend itself to making
chemical weapons." He has also stated that the Plant mixed
pre-formulated chemicals into medicines and lacked the space to
stockpile or manufacture other chemicals. "It wasn't a large plant. Part
of it was used to make veterinary medicines and ointments and part for
human medicines. There was never anything like [making chemical weapons
precursors]. It was a very open situation. Many people from different
countries visited the factory. It would have been a very difficult thing
to do [making precursors]. That wasn't the intent of the factory at
all."
Henry R. Jobe, a retired pharmaceutical consultant who helped design the
Plant in 1996, as well as other plants in the Middle East, said that the
Plant's choice of equipment did not include any of the laboratory
equipment needed to make chemical weapons.
O.P.C.W. criticized the U.S. action. In an article appearing in The New
Yorker on October 12, 1998, a senior O.P.C.W. inspector was reported to
have stated that EMPTA was unlikely to have been found unaltered in the
ground, as the U.S. asserted, because EMPTA is highly reactive and once
in the earth would react with other chemicals and begin to break down.
In fact, the inspector said that, given EMPTA's reactive nature, it was
incredible to suggest that EMPTA could be isolated from a sample taken
from the soil outside El-Shifa if it "came out of a smokestack or in
effluent." "The only way this material could be in the ground is if
somebody had emptied a flask ... and then taken a sample. That's
credible."
Repeated examinations of the evidence by journalists have found the
justifications offered by the U.S. for the attack to be factually
unsupported. For instance:
a. On July 25, 1999, The Washington Post summarized evidence refuting
the government's justifications and reported that "[a] growing chorus of
critics around the world seemed unconvinced by the administration's
'compelling' evidence...."
b. On October 27, 1999, The New York Times stated that "[r]eporters
visiting the ruined building saw bottles of medicine but no signs of
security precautions and no obvious signs of chemical weapons
manufacturing operation."
c. The New Republic concluded in its November 22, 1999 issue that,
"[n]ow, more than 14 months later, after repeated investigative reports
and repeated evasions by the Clinton administration, it is clear that
the missile attack [on the Plant] was a mistake. It's time to say so."
{See also John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman, "George Tenet Undermines the
CIA: The Operator" (The New Republic, Sept. 9 2003}
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/el-shifa-ddc-d1.html
In May,
there was a huge break in the story of the recent U.S. missile attack on
Sudan. But you'd hardly know it from reading the U.S. press.
In a tremendous reversal on the part of the U.S. government, the
Treasury Department decided to unfreeze the assets of Saleh Idris, the
owner of the El Shifa factory that was destroyed in last August's
attack. Idris' assets had been frozen while the U.S. government tried to
prove charges that he was linked to alleged terrorist mastermind Osama
bin Laden.
Idris has maintained all along that the plant produced pharmaceuticals,
not the nerve gas components that the U.S. government had claimed--and
media had uncritically repeated--as the justification for the bombing.
(Click here for a review of the media's coverage of the issue at the
time.)
The Treasury Department's decision to unfreeze Idris' assets will
probably end legal action around the case. In other words, it
represents--at least to some observers--an implicit admission from the
U.S. government that it had no justification for bombing Idris' factory.
http://www.fair.org/extra/9906/sudan.html
When will
you learn to question everything? Especially those who have consistently
lied and misled. IF you are interested in learning the truth, then you
would not continue to believe liars. Ideology rules in your life not
truth. You have proved that over and over. How can you discern liars? Do a
little research. You have the facility to do so. Don't be so lazy just
accepting the brief and unsubstantiated news clips, half-awake to what is
happening. That is the fatal condition of sheeple.
Mr.
Sheeple:
I, too, did
a Google search on "Richard Clarke Lies", and came up with this and
several other columns where Clarke lied when trying to pin the terrorist
situation on Bush. Either way, Clarke is lying because even liberal
websites often contrary to Bush note that much of what Clarke has been
saying is contrary to what is in his celebrated book.
http://www.jayreding.com/archives/004395.php
Sheeple
Analyst:
Your
ability to not see is awe-inspiring in its own way. Of all the material I
just sent you, you learned absolutely nothing. Did you even read it? Did
you question nothing? Who is the first president who hired Richard
Clarke? Was it Clinton? No he was third. So who was first? Reagan, then
Bush Sr., Clinton, and Dubya. Did you accept their characterization of
Clarke as gospel without checking? That's how your organic computer gets
programmed. It's the software you put in and you don't seem to have a
virus protection program to protect you from the crap.
When you
search for Richard Clarke to discern the truth you will find what I found
and reported to you. Facts in a context of looking for truth. When
you went to Google Search for "Richard Clarke lies," looking for lies you
found a lie. Not Clarke's, but your own. And you found the opinions of
others who were not looking for the truth, but searching to support their
ideology with lies--a Mutual Admiration of the Lie Society. What was the
purpose of that?
When you go to a website that refers to Richard Clarke as a Clinton
Administration employee to the exclusion his employment by the other
presidents, you can clearly see that such a website is NOT going to be
looking to ascertain the truth. This is called "disinformation." Even
though it is not a full blown lie, it is only partially true and the
implication creates a lie as you infer from that characterization that
Richard Clarke was ONLY working for Clinton. Obviously, they are using
words to trick and lie. Richard Clarke worked for FOUR Presidents, not
just for Clinton.
Looking for ammunition for argumentation instead of truth consistently
skews your results and provides you with lies to use as tools of
persuasion. Have you considered that the most powerful tool you could use
is the truth? You seem to prefer belief in an ideology (and trying to pin
THAT on ME) and apparently the truth must be bent or skewed to fit that
worldview. Then you would not have to dig around in the muck to try to
come to the defense of the war criminals, murderers and liars.
Just because Clarke thought something 5 years ago, doesn't mean he is
lying if he does not think that way now. Once upon a time, I thought
differently than I do now. If I hadn't changed my mind, I would have never
learned anything. Discovering truth is a survival tactic. Living a lie can
be very exciting and adventurous, but it is not a healthy way to stay
alive.
Unless. perhaps, you define truth as ideology, then allegiance is
your definition of lying. Ideology and allegiance are then your key
attributes, and discerning the truth and using lies to defend your
ideology is your method of operation. That is the way of Machiavelli: any
lie in service of the ideology is a good. This is a central tenet of the
neoconservatives who have trashed the Constitution and Bill of Rights as
they turn the power of America to the service of Zionism, the New World
Order and the Illuminati.
I would not spend too much time with Jay Reding or his ilk given their
inability to be truthful because of the subsequent ideological ranting and
venting. Nowhere do they ask themselves why Reagan, Bush and Dubya even
hired Clarke given his "poor performance" and "liberal pedigree." The foot
soldiers of the New World Order are too programmed to do themselves or
anyone any good because they can only take orders, even orders that are
subliminal or beyond their mental capacity or will to discern. Will
you march with the NWO goon squad or with Truth and Patriotism?
Mr. Sheeple:
Yes, I am
aware that Richard Clark worked for four presidents! In your quest to
emphasize your point by shoving Richard Clarke's book in my face is to
focus on your anti-Bush rhetorice but overlooking the fact that Richard
Clarke has come under question because what he states in his book, states
in testimony before the commission, and what he has said in the past, is
contradictory. Now, Sen. Bill Frist is seeking to declasify information so
it can be used to point out that Richard Clarke is lying!
Sheeple Analyst:
Well if
you are aware that Richard Clarke is a career man, not a partisan
ideologue, you would have noticed the spin of the websites you go to for
information. Never trust a truth bender. Without notice they will slip you
a lie and you"ll never realize that they just programmed you. If you were
so aware of it you might even have mentioned it unless you thought like
the author that you could omit important information and imply something
that was not true. That's the degree of dishonesty that is necessary to
manipulate the truth.
So let's look at the ground covered thus far:
-
You sent
an article from a man who twisted the credentials of his antagonist to
make him look partisan....and you find no problem accepting his
information despite the obvious attempt to manipulate information. If you
were aware of the truth but accepted the work of a liar, what does that
make you?
-
I did NOT
shove any book at you. You've made that up again.
-
You're
more interested in defending Bush no matter the consequence, no matter the
lying to yourself and others that is required. Look at your singular focus
of proving Richard Clarke to be a liar. What are you defending that
evinces such a narrow focus?
-
You've
dodged around the obvious probability that what Clarke knew and believed
in 1999 or 2000 or 2001 need not be what he believes now. How is a
reassessment of evidence any evidence of lying? I wonder if you have EVER
changed your mind. That could account for your inability to even read and
respond to this probability. Perhaps like dirty underwear there does come
a time when the stench is so bad that it becomes at least subliminally
noticeable even to yourself. And then, if he is like Colin Powell or
Condoleeza Rice, he would tell whatever lie the boss expects. They've both
already told some doozies. Rice doesn't even dare take an oath to tell the
truth.
-
You have
identified your self with an ideology which is your truth. You are
committed to that ideology no matter how much you must hide from seeking
the truth. You must defend that ideology no matter the lies you must tell
yourself and others because your identity is the ideology. You have so
identified with the ideology that you think that is who you are. But the
ideology is the "what" on a planetary experience of "whatever." Since you
have identified with the "what" of your existence instead of the "WHO"
that you truly are, you are ensnarled in the "what" and at the effect of
the "whatever" forever. See the WHO-what sutras in my writing about the
Natural Freedom Dream Catcher at
/dream_catchers/natural_freedom_dream_catchers.htm
-
You
cannot hear what I say, read what I write, attend to what I suggest
because it would threaten your identity, the framework you hold on to with
a white knuckle grip. The framework is your crutch and fear prevents you
from soaring free. Thinking freely outside the box would be tantamount to
risking all that you believe yourself to be, walking the high wire without
a net. You've built for yourself a little virtual world to be safe in,
like a model railroad, an imitation reality with parameters that you can
control and feel secure. That is the general condition that limits
sheeple. It's a spiritual condition, not just a mental one, and this might
not be your time to overcome that fear or aspire to freedom.
-
Seems as
though Richard Clarke is getting very close to the truth because of all
the scurrying, name-calling, and dodging going on by the Bush Liars' Club.
They did the same when Paul O'Neill blew the whistle a couple months ago.
Now the Bush Liars' Club is name-calling instead of facts and evidence to
refute the whistleblowers. The BLC looks a lot like the cartoon in Jewish
World Review about the 9-11 Commission of hand-picked Illuminati stooges.
All of this is quite a marvel to watch as sheeple like you scurry around
after them, emulating their antics, and looking SOOOOooooooo foolish.
But I
also look at the progressive sheep huffing and fluffing behind THEIR
gurus, trying to remain politically correct and hopelessly befuddled by
leftist propaganda such as: "Anybody but Bush". Silly. "Peak Oil." Based
on an antiquated hypothesis of what oil is, where it comes from and the
likely manipulation of prices based on an artificial shortage,
progressives are beginning to consider the most horrendous and unnecessary
solutions. If I am anti- anything, it is anti-stupidity. But it is
probably not possible to wake the town and tell the sheeple.
Truth is so much easier and much kinder on the soul.
If you run out of resources you can always haul out the old "Legend in
Your Own Mind" caboose. Do you have that on wheels yet? You usually resort
to that when running on empty.
Mr.
Sheeple:
"...testimony that was classified merely
to diminish public knowledge of 9-11"
Your narrow
and suspicious mind always thinks the worst. It apparently never occurred
to you that material can also be "classified" to prevent the opposition
from discovering what the U.S. knows about terorists and terrorism as a
means of keeping them guessing. To publish everything is to tip them off
to possible informants who could be eliminated. Also, there is no point in
"telegraphing" potential moves so that the opposition could make moves to
counteract potential moves against them. Anyone who has been in the
military would understand that simple but basic fact.
By declassifying that information and revealing it, could be of detriment
to the United States in dealing with terrorism. In a sense, it is like
playing poker: holding the information close and not "tipping the hand".
Sheeple Analyst:
If the
documents Frist refers to were not important enough to remain classified,
then they were not important enough to classify in the first place.
Withholding such information from Americans prevents their real
participation in a republic of, by and for the people. Do you
remember that American ideal? Perhaps you have forgotten who this
government is supposed to be working for--we can't do OUR job if
the necessary information is withheld from WE THE PEOPLE. When the
government hides the truth from the people, the GOVERNMENT is the
opposition. That's why the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution
were supposed to be about because information and knowledge ARE the source
of money and therefore power.
Cattle are NEVER suspicious of the farmer,
his motives and intentions. They are content to graze, to be herded,
milked, their offspring disappear. They don't give much thought to much of
anything but being led.
And so it is with sheeple. They have no problem being lied to. Nor is it a
problem that the intentions of the government are NOT in their best
interest and they quickly forget such betrayals of their trust that do
come to their very short attention. They are content to play with their
toys and visit amicably about nothing in particular, while people they
assume are their elected representatives conspire to control, manipulate,
steal, poison, murder, and rape unsuspecting civilians, children, women,
elders, or the sick and infirm. Sheeple often seek adventure in vicarious
exploits in video games, televised sports, and train tracks going nowhere
special but around and around through bucolic false scenes and imitation
trees. For some, being sheeple is an art form and they can do no more than
support the system that keeps them content and secure in a prison of their
own making.
Seems to me that a mind that cannot grasp the broad sweep of history and
contemporary events is better described as narrow. It has to be obvious to
all but the mentally impaired that thinking that ones government has ones
best interests at heart in all that they do cannot be held up to the light
of reality, truth, and the evidence of history. With no difficulty it is
possible to document the truth of such an assertion.
Sheeple believe in coincidence theory. This is a belief that everything
that happens, does so without intention or hidden purpose. Life just
happens. If something bad happens, the sheeple can just say that "shit
happens" and let it go at that. Sheeple have a difficult time with cause
and effect when ideology reigns supreme. When someone suggests
causes behind the effect that is outside their Ideology they wag their
heads and proclaim loudly and sagaciously that "that's just a conspiracy
theory!" And of course it must be so because conspiracies cannot remain
secret from their inattention, short memory and short attention span and
would of necessity fall apart within a short time. When someone DOES blow
the whistle, the sheeple bleat softly about partisan attacks and that it
COULDN'T be true. If one might persist to question the ideology, the
sheeple get agitated and use whatever lie or innuendo that they can think
of even though most of the glib cheap shots are self-descriptive
projections of their own ego-mind. Reality frightens sheeple and they hide
in their virtual reality, a legend in their own mind.
Sheeple will believe in terrorism because they have been convinced that it
just happens and it originates outside the control and influence of their
own revered leaders. They must be TOLD by "authorities" what external
causes and competing Ideologies might be related to the "observed"
effects. Details, inconvenient facts, anomalies that defy the laws of
physics, testimony of direct witnesses can all be dismissed if they do not
fit the Official Ideology
Anyone who has been in the military has been programmed to be a sheeple. A
few manage to escape a lifetime of being a sheeple, but the probability is
very low. Those who go to schools and universities are also programmed but
to a lesser extent. For most, simple dumbing down is adequate to make them
complacent, unquestioning, and malleable.
Sheeple cannot feel secure without a shepherd and quickly forget the
shearing and the slaughter. Cause and effect is a disturbing thought
outside the Ideology only for those troublesome people who always question
even themselves and in so doing learn to live outside of and beyond
ideology. Ideology is the name of the pasture in which the sheeple
graze.
Mr.
Sheeple:
"For months,
Levin personally had held up the confirmation hearings of Bush's
appointees who were to design the U.S. antiterrorism strategy -
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, Assistant Secretary
of Defense for International Security Programs J.D. Crouch and Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Peter W. Rodman -
refusing for apparently partisan purposes to allow them to take office
until late July 2001.
While Levin was holding up their appointments, the incoming Pentagon
policy team had no legal or political authority to do their vital jobs - a
fact that helps explain why it took eight months for the Bush
administration to draw up a strategic operational plan to destroy al-Qaida."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37790
Sheeple
Analyst:
Sometimes
it isn't necessary to re-invent what already exists. Clinton policy
advisors were trying to get to the Bush team with information to activate
an anti-terrorism program that had been developed by the bureaucracy. Bush
team made a policy decision to ignore all of that as they reported.....
...on April 30, 2001, CNN reported that the Bush Administration's release
of the
government's annual terrorism report contained a serious change:
"there was no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin
Laden" as there had been in previous years. When asked why the
Administration had reduced the focus, "a senior Bush State Department
official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much
energy on bin Laden."
That's why the Executive Branch has career staff who can maintain
continuity from one administration to another. It has always been so. Why
should the sycophantic Bush babblers blubber about the problem being the
fault of someone else? Accept what they SAID: they were changing the
terrorism policy because of what they felt was a mistake.
Richard Clark confirmed that and so did Sibel Edmonds and Paul O'Neill.
The Bush Liars' Club has whistles blowing all over the place and you and
your Bush Smile Kisser allies are performing a Keystone Kops Klan fire
drill to quiet the whistleblowers. It's quite a circus watching the clowns
perform. The difference is that the clowns are conscious of what they are
doing and the KKK is not. Flocks of busted inner children cavort giddily
to ideologically preserve their wounded vicarious Identity . If that isn't
secular churchianity, it at least makes for bemused people-watching as
grown men behave like idiots in a churchyard. What a planet!!
This is a crazy world. What can be done? Amazingly, we have been mislead. We have been taught that
we can control government by voting. The founder of the Rothschild dynasty, Mayer Amschel Bauer,
told the secret of controlling the government of a nation over 200 years ago. He said, "Permit me
to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." Get the picture?
Your freedom hinges first on the nation's banks and money system. Freedom is connected with Debt Elimination for each individual. Not only does
this end personal debt, it places the people first in line as creditors to the National Debt ahead
of the banks. They don't wish for you to know this. It has to do with recognizing WHO you really
are in A
New Beginning: A Practical Course in Miracles, an informational study.
Disclaimer - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The myriad of facts, conjecture, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information in the articles, stories and commentaries posted on this site range from cutting edge hard news and comment to extreme and unusual perspectives. We choose not to sweep uncomfortable material under the rug - where it can grow and fester. We choose not to censor skewed logic and uncomfortable rhetoric. These things reflect the world as it now is - for better and worse. We present multiple facts, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information.
Journalism is (or used to be) the profession of gathering and presenting a broad panorama of news about the events of our times and presenting it to readers for their own consideration. We believe in the intelligence, judgment and wisdom of our readers to discern for themselves among the data which appears on this site that which is valid and worthy...or otherwise. See full legal disclaimer
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (attributed to Voltaire), but certainly embodies what the 1st amendment of the constitution refers to as the freedom of speech
Bill of Rights
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Queen
Victoria
