The Sheeple Analyst: Conned by the Neocons
|
|
|
Mr.
Sheeple:
Apparently, Saddam knew that Arabs and Muslims
carried out the 9/11 attack, so why do you adamantly insist
otherwise? It is doubtul and illogical that such comments would
have been made had the 9/11 attacks been a
U.S.
conspiracy. Of course, you are going to rationalize this
information, that is contrary to what you promote and want to
believe, by claiming the report is a lie. Saddam's threats of a 9/11-style attack before 9/11 weren't limited to that single report. In 1992, his son Uday used an editorial in Babil, the newspaper he ran, to warn of Iraqi kamikaze attacks inside America, saying, "Does the United States realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross countries and cities?" NewsMax.com Inside Cover Story Sheeple Analyst: How is drawing on the truthfulness and reliability of Saddam Hussein and his sons suddenly an approved way to establish the truth? This is one of those Tutti Fruiti processes in which you argue one way with one set of beliefs or assumptions and then turn on your heels and argue the opposite with another opposing set of beliefs or assumptions. It's a totally dishonest approach to discerning the truth and perfectly in harmony with the nonsense that emerges from Newsmax and the ilk. It shows just how desperately the neocons are peddling lies to retain power and influence. Mr. Sheeple: It's a multifaceted story. First, the liberal
imagines that the belief in question is rooted in ignorance. Opponents
of the liberal program simply don't know the facts about
responsibility and desert. But when liberals try to convey these
"facts," they get no uptake. Indeed, they get denial. This leads to
the stupidity hypothesis. Opponents of the liberal program aren't so
much ignorant of facts as incapable of reasoning from and about them.
In other words, they're stupid or unintelligent. They're incapable of
thinking clearly or carefully, even about important matters such as
equality, justice, and fairness. This explains the liberal mantra that
conservatives, such as Presidents Reagan and Bush, are stupid. (See
here for an explanation of this false liberal belief.) Note that if
conservatives are stupid, liberals, by contrast, are intelligent. It's
all very self-serving. Liberal
Rage by Keith Burgess-Jackson As to the intelligence of liberals, they can be just as misled and misinformed as the false conservatives. On my website, I have taken them to task for the Peak Oil propaganda being foisted on unsuspecting progressives and conservatives alike. I've learned to look at ALL positions carefully to discern the underlying strategy that is intended to more firmly establish the New World Order. That's why I recommended that you amend your position statement for your "educational reform effort" so that you would not be unwittingly fostering the basis for mind control and limiting the capacity of the human mind to function beyond the programming you advocate. So, as usual, you have mirrored yourself in the attempt to project yourself on me. If you even remembered the conservative platform of Taft, Goldwater, or Paul, you would begin to recognize how far from its roots you are right now. The functional difference among Stalinism, Nazism, and the New World Order is infinitesimally small.
Mr. Sheeple sent without comment: Mortimer B. Zuckerman The high cost of hindsight "Going into Iraq was a key step in the fight against Arab radicalism because Iraq was at the core of Arab rejectionism of, and hostility to, the West. Saddam Hussein represented a threat that was not based exclusively on his presumed possession of banned weapons but on his outsized ambitions, his unrestrained tyranny, his radicalism, and his hatred of the West. CIA Director George Tenet wrote to the Senate on Oct. 7, 2002, of "senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and of "credible reporting" revealing that "Iraq had provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs"--a capability that Iraq retained until Saddam's overthrow." http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040419/opinion/19edit.htm , "The FBI seemed unable to detect the plot and structurally unable to pass along whatever it did know, either to its leaders or to other agencies of the government." Sheeple Analyst: Because highest echelons of the FBI were threatening the freedom of any field agents who pursued the suspects further thus ending the investigation. Zionist Zuckerman says "The presumption in Clarke's charge is that terrorists, in pursuit of their program of mass murder, would refrain from conspiring with enemies who could have given them access to weapons of mass destruction." Sheeple Analyst: There was NO reliable evidence then and there has been NO evidence since the invasion of Iraq that there were WMD or that there was a certifiable capacity to produce them. So where were the so-called terrorists to get their WMD. Years of inspections, sanctions, and more inspections had confirmed that. Zionist Zuckerman says: Going into Iraq was a key step in the fight against Arab radicalism because Iraq was at the core of Arab rejectionism of, and hostility to, the West. Saddam Hussein represented a threat that was not based exclusively on his presumed possession of banned weapons but on his outsized ambitions, his unrestrained tyranny, his radicalism, and his hatred of the West. Sheeple Analyst: So to nip this thistle in the bud we attack a sovereign state in violation of International law, kill and maim its citizens, steal their national and individual wealth, insult and rape their women, bomb their mosques, imprison their men without charge or trial, shut down newspapers, assassinate would-be leaders, and expect that they will not become more determined than ever that Saddam was correct to oppose the West. That is a plan to make a bad situation worse. But that is exactly what has happened in Israel and the West Bank. Zionist Zuckerman says: CIA Director George Tenet wrote to the Senate on Oct. 7, 2002, of "senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and of "credible reporting" revealing that "Iraq had provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs"--a capability that Iraq retained until Saddam's overthrow." Sheeple Analyst: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested. Mortimer Zuckerman is an acknowledged Zionist, writing for the Jewish World Review in which he equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism of another day. Thus any political discussion of political Zionism is off-limits, instant censorship, end of discussion. To be able to see how the Zionists wag the dog, read: Operation Shekhinah Part One, January 2002 Operation Shekhinah a.k.a. Operation Iraqi Freedom By the way, I found the Annual Report on Terrorism mentioned by CNN as downplaying the importance of al-Qaeda in the greater scheme of things, corroborating Richard Clarke's thesis in their own words: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/ You will find my reference to this report in my reply to you which you can review at the bottom of /Politics%20and%20History/sheeple_analyst/Roving_curve_balls.htm Do you have any ideas or analysis of your own or do you lean only on "smart" people who support your ideology? Mr. Sheeple sent another of his favorite propaganda sheets, Newsmax, without any analysis or comment: Sunday, April 11, 2004 3:03 p.m. EDT How Bush Could Have Prevented the 9/11 Attacks A handful of Sept. 11 widows are outraged that President Bush didn't act on the Aug. 6, 2001, briefing he got from the CIA. Sheeple Analyst: Note the dismissive implication of the language: "handful" not many + "widows" weak women = not very significant "Everything is in [the President's Daily Brief, or PDB] but the date 9/11," complained Lori Van Auken, whose husband died in the Twin Towers, in comments to the New York Daily News. "You have the who, what, where, why and how. The only thing you don't have is the when." Actually, as far as the "who" goes, none of the hijackers' names appear in the Bush CIA briefing memo. Sheeple Analyst: "Who" didn't appear on the passenger lists, either, since there is ample evidence that identities were stolen. One so-called hijacker had been dead for two years; five were still alive in Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Still, the response is narrowly delimited when the PDB did refer to al-Qaeda. That should be "who enough." Certainly it offered enough to support a double check of all data and lines of communication. And the "what"? Nowhere does the memo warn that hijackers would use airplanes as kamikaze missiles. Sheeple Analyst: The word "hijacking" suggests that aircraft are to be used. How they were to be used is irrelevant. Action leading to tighter security at airports and closer vigilance of FAA and NORAD could have made hijacking more difficult. "Where"? The memo mentions "federal buildings in New York." But Bush could have closed every one of them and the World Trade Center, which is not a federal building, would have still been packed with 50,000 workers on the morning of 9/11. Sheeple Analyst: US Attorney David Schippers was hammering on doors in Washington DC and getting the doors slammed in his face for two months before 9-11. He knew where, when, and how. How about the "why" cited by Mrs. Van Auken? The CIA briefing says that "after US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington." But those attacks were launched by President Clinton, not Bush. Sheeple Analyst: The WHY actually points away from Osama bin Laden and toward Mossad, which apparently set up a false flag operation. Newsmax is unwittingly assembling the evidence that shows that it is unlikely that al-Qaeda was involved. Motivation was lacking. Qui bono? Who benefits from 9-11? Zionist Israel gets the power of the US and UK to attack its adversaries in the Middle East. And the "how"? The memo makes no mention of hijackers overtaking U.S. flight crews with small knives. Sheeple Analyst: The Mossad false flag operation only needs "Arab" hijackers with box cutters to shift blame to the target, the Muslim world. Of course, if President Bush had treated the Aug. 6 PDB as actionable intelligence, there are indeed several measures he could have taken that would have guaranteed that a Sept. 11-style attack on America would never have happened. * Because the CIA memo mentions only Osama bin Laden by name, Bush would have had to round up any and all of bin Laden's potential followers inside the U.S., i.e., every Muslim in America, and throw them into internment camps - just as FDR did with Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. Sheeple Analyst: Not necessary to round up all Muslims, just allow the FBI to do its job of investigating. They were stopped under penalty of time in prison by upper echelons in the FBI, including John Ashcroft. The whole al-Qaida apparatus was more likely misdirection because it would be unnecessary and fraught with difficulty. * Since reporters have been able to sneak any number of weapons past airport screeners even with post-9/11 security measures in place, President Bush would have had to close all of America's airports to completely eliminate the possibility of hijackings. Sheeple Analyst: Airport security could have been heightened BEFORE 9-11, but the hijacking has never been proved and would not be necessary to accomplish the attack. Notice how much attention is now given to al-Qaeda and hijacking. This is misdirection to cover the false flag operation. No amount of security at the airports could substitute for the lack of interception by the USAF. By keeping everybody focused on hijacking, no one attends to the anomaly in the Official Conspiracy Theory that totally destroys the hijacking explanation. There is no way that hijackers could manage to fly jumbo jets over USAF bases and not be intercepted on their erratic flight path toward their presumed target. There is no way that could happen once much less four times. This was a test of individual American's personal emergency warning system and most Americans failed miserably. * In order to protect against another Millennium Plot bombing attack - which the memo explicitly refers to - Bush would have had to order that all shopping malls, schools, museums, movie theaters, train stations, large office buildings and other potential high-value targets be closed till further notice. Sheeple Analyst: No. They could have simply allowed the demand of pilots that secure doors separate the passenger compartment from the cockpit and allow the presence of firearms in the hands of the pilots. * Because Millennium Plot potential bomber Ahmed Ressam tried to sneak across the Canadian border, Bush would have had to seal both the Canadian and Mexican borders until the war on terrorism was won. Sheeple Analyst: Not necessary if the FBI is allowed to investigate within the law. Curtailing the investigation of Saudis, especially the bin Laden's and flight students would suffice. However, this too was a misdirection hiding the real perpetrators of 9-11. * In order to assure the elimination of the bin Laden threat, Bush would have had to launch a pre-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. If the master terrorist ran to Pakistan, the U.S. would have needed to invade that country as well. Sheeple Analyst: There is no proof that bin Laden was a threat, then or in the past, other than a useful patsy for the Mossad. Mossad managed to get the US to attack Libya by placing in Tripoli a transmitter with a pre-recorded message that instigated a surprise attack on Gadafy. The attack on the USS Liberty was intended to get the US to attack Egypt. Had Bush taken the above steps, the economy would have been in shambles, the airline industry destroyed, most of the nation unemployed, the U.S. at war, and 6 million Muslims - nearly all of them innocent - would be behind bars. But the Sept. 11 attacks would have been prevented - at least for the few months that it would have taken for the Congress to impeach and remove President Bush from office for massive abuses of power. Sheeple Analyst: Since the FBI never provided credible evidence that al-Qaeda was even involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, cover to the Mossad/Zionist/Neocon false flag operation would not be available and the purpose of the operation would have nearly totally disappeared. Muslims could not have been blamed and the Mossad operation would have been aborted. For more information read 9-11 and the Mossad Do you ever do any careful analysis before sending such obviously skewed disinformation or are you so used to the skewing that you can't even notice anymore? Mr. Sheeple: Perhaps the Bush administration was, indeed, the victim of faulty intelligence due to lies. Not lies by Bush, but lies by leftovers from the Clinton intelligence organization. Perhaps Bush should have dumped the CIA leadership and rid it of those who gutted it during the Clinton era. "Well, you may remember David Kay's congressional testimony in the months leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Khidir Hamza frequently appeared with Kay. You remember Hamza, don't you? The "defector" who claimed to have been in charge of the Iraqi nuke program? The author of "Saddam's Bombmaker"? Hamza was also a sidekick of Richard Perle - then chairman of the Defense Policy Board - who vouched for Hamza's authenticity to congressional and administration pooh-bahs. The Hamza-Kay-Perle testimony was that the Iraqis were secretly reconstituting the nuke program the IAEA had reported totally destroyed. Iraq would have several nukes in a matter of months, not years, and would likely give them to terrorists. The only way to prevent you soccer moms from getting nuked in your jammies was an immediate pre-emptive invasion of Iraq by the United States." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37669 Sheeple Analyst: Some people just fall into getting lied to and seem to like it because they do it over and over. Richard Perle has been a liar, cheat, and swindler since the days of the Reagan-Bush regime and Iran Contra. All of Richard Perle's associates are liars because they believe the neo-liberal bullshit of Leo Strauss whose guiding light is Machiavelli. Till recently Perle was a card-carrying Democrat liberal and proud of it. Now with a bit of name change to neo-conservative they carry out the liberal policies of Zionism and Strauss under the banner of Tweedledum instead of Tweedledee. I told you months ago to go find out about these inveterate liars. What have you done with that advice? Nothing. You'd rather be lied to. I showed you how to identify some of the lies and you ignore that counsel. Why? Must be because you prefer the lie to the truth. Give me a different explanation. I'm all ears. "We" were lied to? Well not me. Once upon a time I believed bullshit, but I've had a peak behind the screen. Although I try to inform people, I can't help it if the American people have become so dumbed down that they can't discern liars from truth-tellers. But that requires a sense of history and American sheeple don't wish to bother with history because it's all in the past, they whine, we can't change that....unless of course they wish to use the past to argue some point from a foggy understanding of history. Then they get themselves into a hopeless quagmire of lies and counter-lies, arguing till they are too exhausted to go investigate. Nah. Just get your information from WND or Newsmax or Townhall where the liars go to find willing listeners. Place the blame on Clinton? Of course. He's a liar like the rest of them. But the sole blame? No way. It's about time that you and the rest of the Zionist neoconservative admirers take responsibility for the horror you have caused. Where does the buck stop? It stops with those who chose lies instead of the truth, who failed to do their due diligence study and then supported the liars with their votes, money, and advocacy. Mr. Sheeple: "Well, you may remember David Kay's congressional testimony in the months leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Khidir Hamza frequently appeared with Kay. Yes, I remember. That is why I stated in my comment with this article that perhaps the Bush administration should have dumped Perle and all the others associated with the Clinton CIA. My comments below with the pertinent words in red.RHB Perhaps the Bush administration was, indeed, the victim of faulty intelligence due to lies. Not lies by Bush, but lies by leftovers from the Clinton intelligence organization. Perhaps Bush should have dumped the CIA leadership and rid it of those who gutted it during the Clinton era. Sheeple Analyst: The neocons proposed violating Iraq to Clinton and he rejected it. Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Cheney, Libby, Armitage, Poindexter and that crew are NOT leftovers of the Clinton Administration. Hopefully your memory is not so bad that you can't remember the involvement of Poindexter and Armitage in treason against the United States in Iran Contra. That certainly was not Billy's doing. Where did you get THAT information. Bush has kept Tenet by his choice. Bush appointed the neocons. They were not holdovers. It's time to take responsibility for decisions instead of blaming someone else. What Happened to Conservatives? "Those who want to deceive will always find those willing to be deceived." Machiavelli in Chapter 18 of The Prince "You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." George W. Bush, joking at a Gridiron Club dinner, Washington, D.C., March 2001 Get the picture? Mr. Sheeple: What do you mean about "we" being wrong? Where the hell did you get that idea? Below, in red, is what I said in regard to the story from WND. Did you mean a refeference to the Clinton Administration as "we", meaning you indeed are a liberal Democrat though you claim to the contrary? For one who proclaims no allegiance to one party or another, you certainly wailed in self-rightous anguish regarding the supreme court allegedly giving the 2000 election to Bush, when in fact the supreme court merely overruled the Democrat-controlled Florida Supreme Court that was about to overrule Katherine Harris, the Florida Secretary of State who was going to act on the Florida election law! Perhaps the Bush administration was, indeed, the victim of faulty intelligence due to lies. Not lies by Bush, but lies by leftovers from the Clinton intelligence organization. Perhaps Bush should have dumped the CIA leadership and rid it of those who gutted it during the Clinton era." Your words in response below in blue.
For one who proclaims no allegiance to one party or another, you certainly wailed in self-rightous anguish regarding the supreme court allegedly giving the 2000 election to Bush, when in fact the supreme court merely overruled the Democrat-controlled Florida Supreme Court that was about to overrule Katherine Harris, the Florida Secretary of State who was going to act on the Florida election law! Interesting that you have on your website a box containing "leftist" and "progressive"radio stations, but you claim to have no allegiance to any party. Interesting also that you vent your fury toward Bush and the Republicans, but appeared to get angry and defensive when I have brought up wrong doing by the Clinton administration. Especially when I point out that Clinton administration's ineffectual dealing with the 1993 WTC bombing in which the Middle Eastern terrorists admitted they had expected (naively) to topple the tower like a fallen tree by blosing out one of the supports. This brings up another question: Since the al Quaida was behind the '93 WTC bombing, the embassy bombings during the Clinton era, isn't it therefore logical they were also behind the 9-11 situation rather than Bush as you claim, rather than it being a conspiracy? Isn't it possible that failure of the Clinton administration to act decisively only emboldened Al Quaida to plan and execute the 9-11 attack? Sheeple Analyst: YOU would like to put me in a Clinton Liberal box because that would make me an easier target. You do so at your own risk of being fooled by your own perfidy. Try being honest instead of reaching for a label. I defy labeling by my acts and my words. Creating a lie does not create a defense of your belief except in your own mind. Remember that little ditty you liked to project on me even though you own it? Legends in your own mind trick you again and again to play the fool, the village idiot, the sheeple. Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush illegally removed eligible voters from the electoral rolls. The Florida Supreme Court was the highest court in Florida and they were ruling on a STATE issue over which the FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION. THAT is a CONSERVATIVE plank for which a true conservative would fight tooth and nail, but you are apparently NOT a conservative. You would side with the liberal position that the state has no right to run its own affairs. Perhaps you have forgotten what it means to be a conservative. It does NOT mean being a Republican and it certainly does not call for the support of a group of traitors who would undermine the Constitution. Of course I would object to a violation of the Constitution! Why wouldn't I? Why wouldn't YOU? Just because the ruling got YOUR crook appointed to the Presidency shouldn't be your criterion...unless you have no scruples and believe that any means to the end like the rest of the Zionist traitors. I didn't even like Gore and I certainly didn't like Lieberman. Bush's decision was his decision to make or not. But the nonsense we are hearing that intelligence was at fault is a documented lie. Remember that the DCIA restrained Bush people several times to prevent them telling lies about WMD. That's a matter of record. You can't dodge or duck that fact. He chose Cheney. Cheney set up an office in the Pentagon to skirt the CIA and reported its findings directly to the Executive. How is Tenet to blame for that? No you'll have to give up on that tactic unless you can't help but be dishonest. The people at CIA were by definition chosen by Bush to be on his team. If not, they would have been dismissed. Bush has since confirmed his confidence in Tenet. Much of the "intelligence" that was fed to the Executive was cherry-picked by appointees of Cheney and Lewis, amateurish ideologues who were looking for ammunition rather than knowledge, just like you looking at my News page. You got what you looked for and drew unwarranted conclusions despite evidence to the contrary. You must get it by osmosis or perhaps it's a virus. Try taking Echinacea and Olive Leaf extract. Could be your organic computer has a virus. You went to my website looking for ammunition instead of knowledge. On the same page that you see leftist and progressive you can also find whole webpages AGAINST Kerry, Dean, Clark. You only find what you wish to find because your intent is not to learn anything, just argue and win no matter the means. Therein lies your sheeplehood. I just pulled Buzzflash from their extensive position of purveying the news to just a link. Many of the links ARE to conservative sites. I'm not defending Clinton when I reveal his dealings in drugs at Mena, when I remind readers that his regime brought NAFTA, OKC, Waco, Ruby Ridge, the first terrorism legislation, sanctions against clean water for Iraq and hundreds of thousands of children dead, repeated bombing of Iraq, illegal attacks on Sudan, Afghanistan, meddling in Rwanda to bring about a massacre.... How does that portray favoritism toward Clinton or Democrats? Your repetition of this issue betrays your insistence on forgetting what is true and substituting what you wish were true to fit your belief system. Your ignorance is by intent. You intend to cherry-pick information to fit your belief system instead of finding the truth. You choose to function as a small-time neo-con, a fan of Machiavelli and Perle. Continuing to read the neocon press as your primary source of information will probably do that to you. That's one way that mind control works. Repeat lies long enough and they begin to look like givens instead of propaganda. That's what you CHOOSE to do with your organic computer. You choose the programming. The facts persist despite the complaints to the contrary. Bush chose his team. His responsibility, no one else to blame. Bush chose to circumvent professional analysts and got the amateur "intelligence" of ideologues. His responsibility, no one else is to blame. They are STILL paying Ahmad Chalabi from whom they got much of the incorrect intelligence. That is Bush's choice, no one else is to blame. Tenet DID warn about faulty intelligence on WMD several times but the faulty intelligence was nevertheless used again and again by the Bush Administration. Bush's decision, his responsibility, no one else to blame. It's time to accept the ugly truth that YOU have been lied to repeatedly and YOU were warned about the lies, and yet YOU continued to seek the lies because they fit your belief system which by its character is the Machiavellian lying and dishonesty that the Straussians are trained to utilize at every possible instance. YOUR CHOICE. Mr. Sheeple: Yes, Bush kept Tenet on by choice, and that was the mistake to which I referred! He should have dumped Tenet and the upper echelons of the CIA as leftovers from the Clinton era. In fact, recent news stories note that the Clinton administration could have nailed bin Laden back in '98, bin Laden having been behind the '93 but was reluctant to do so. As a result, 9-11 occurred. As for the Iran-Contra situation, it is "treason" only in the minds of Left-wing Democrats who supported Daniel Ortega, the leftist, backed by the then Soviet Union, opposing the Contras who did not want socialist Ortega to get in power and make the nation socialist. The can see what happened to Cuba, a nation that was taken over by Castro to allegedly create an economic socialist utopia that has yet to materialize. You have not yet responded to explain what you ment by "we", when I said nothing of the sort in my comments when I sent you the WND article that raised your hackles. If the "we" was used by the author of the story, I suggest you take that issue up with him rather than me. Sheeple Analyst: Again, it's a matter of record. The FBI had an informant in the '93 WTC cell. The informant asked if he should substitute a harmless substance for the explosive and the FBI said no. Just to be sure you got that deeply programmed in your organic computer, read it again. Al-Qaeda did not show up in that sentence. Get it? For sure? So either al-Qaeda is working closely with the FBI or the al-Qaeda is a false flag operation. Was al-Qaeda involved in the '93 WTC bombing? Not without the FBI's active involvement and supervision. I've told you this before, gave you the links. You apparently didn't go find out, did you? It didn't fit with your belief system so you don't see what you can't believe. On the other hand, I have seen many things that ran counter to my belief system. Did I reject the truth, the reality, because it didn't fit my worldview? No. I actually use reality as a learning device, I don't make it a belief system for which I must find proof. That's the lifestyle of a religious fanatic. Belief is of greater importance than truth to the zealot. The CIA under Bush also had it's opportunity to collar bin Laden but nothing happened. The FBI under Bush had John O'Neill on the scent of those who struck the USS Cole, but his superiors said that the Saudis were off-limits, especially the bin Laden family. Bush-appointee John Ashcroft refused to listen to the US Attorney who brought impeachment against Clinton when the attorney, David Schippers, tried to get a warning to him about an impending attack in Manhattan using several heavy aircraft during the week of September 10. Under Bush the FBI field agents were warned off under threat of prison from further investigation of the suspected Arab flight students. Don't keep swallowing the propaganda crap about "it was Clinton's fault." Don't you have a belly full of those lies yet? Bush was in charge and the people under his charge made decisions that in the most innocent scenario allowed 9-11 to happen. Other evidence points toward their active involvement. It's time for you to take responsibility for covering up 9-11 and by being so supportive, before and after, of those who allowed it to happen. Iran-Contra was NOT about Daniel Ortega. That is more misdirection. Was there a Boland Amendment restricting support for the Contras or not? Is violation of the law NOT a treasonable offense. You and your buddies were all for canning Clinton because he lied about his sexual affair with Monica. But a violation of US law seems no problem if the ends justify the means. That's Machiavelli again. That's the ugly head of the neo-conservatives breathing poison into the constitutional process once more. Remember the Constitution. Congress passes laws, President signs or vetoes, laws are for everybody to follow. You don't mind funding war against women and children? Blowing up day schools and nurseries is not problem for you? Well, that's not the issue anyway. Violating law IS the issue. Then we can start looking at the transport of drugs into the US via military and CIA air assets, landing at military bases to be transported to their customers. That was part of the Iran-Contra Scandal. But the Democrats played by the Illuminati's rules and ended it or scuttled real prosecution by their hearings. Oh, yes. At the same time, the Reagan-Bush regime was actively transporting children around the country for sex, pornography or sale. That was tied up with the Satanic sex rituals emanating from Offutt AFB near Omaha. The witnesses have spoken and one of the children has been vindicated in Federal Court. I take up the issue with you not the author because you sent the story as is with no qualifications about "we" with the clear expectation that I would read it and respond. I suggest that if you would like to parrot someone's words, you should accept responsibility. Didn't you even read your own selection? Why would you send it if you didn't know what it said? Do you have a problem reading the propaganda of your choosing? You seem to expect ME to do so. At least I read what you send and comment on it. You have such a huge backlog from me that you have not responded to that you could spend the next year researching and studying to be able to properly respond as I have done with you. Do you only read the headlines? Oh, yes. At the same time, the Reagan-Bush regime was actively transporting children around the country for sex, pornography or sale. That was tied up with the Satanic sex rituals emanating from Offutt AFB near Omaha. The witnesses have spoken and one of the children has been vindicated in Federal Court. Mr. Sheeple: Well, you are eager to assail Bush and the Republicans but are reluctant to do the same about Clinton. You do have a box on your website recommending "progressive" and "leftist" talk shows of the Liberal left of a socialist nature, you have alleged immoral conduct on the part of Bush senior, but responded to an email of mine concerning Clinton's dallience of infidelity with Lewinsky by saying that he had the right to f*** anyone he wants to though my point was that taking part in such liasons during "duty hours" in an office off the oval office while talking on the phone with heads of State. There is also the matter of not being forthright in stating where you stand, what you propose as an alternative if niether the Democrats or the Republicans are fit to be in government
Sheeple Analyst: YOU are the one who whines about dwelling
in the past because you can't change it, remember. Now you wish for me to
dwell in the past even though we can't change what Clinton did? What's
wrong with you? Have you no memory of what you once advocated? Do I have
to keep reminding you of what you said many times as your excuse for not
looking to history for patterns? So stop your juvenile whining about the
past, you can't change it!!! 
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. 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 RightsAmendment 1Congress 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
