by Larry Simons
January 31, 2007
I couldn't have said it any better Don. You hit the nail on the head when you said "this is his (O' Reilly's) contribution (giving "free" books to troops) to the men and women fighting and dying in this idiotic war for this country". "It's beyond repugnant", says Imus. I couldn't agree more.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
by Larry Simons
by Larry Simons
January 31, 2007
On last night’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, O’ Liar won 2 slots on the "Worst Person in the World" segment: runner up and winner of the coveted award. Billo got the gold for launching a "buy a book (of "Culture Warrior") and a troop in Iraq gets a free copy" campaign. I can picture it now. A soldier is in the midst of enemy gunfire, fearing for his life on a daily basis with the threats of roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades, fearing being captured, tortured or killed by insurgents, fearing suicide bombers in every nook and cranny of Iraq…….and yet they long for a copy of "Culture Warrior" by Bill O’Reilly to make it through the hell of war. Hell, maybe Billo can REALLY be generous and send a free copy to the families of all the dead Americans and Iraqis. That would be well over 600,000 copies Billo. Are you that generous?
But as Olbermann pointed out in his lastest "Worst Person in the World" segment, Billo is charging $26.00 for his book on his website. When you spend the $26, a free copy is sent to a soldier, who I’m sure would be thrilled to skim the chapters in between pulling shrapnel from his buddies kneecap and watching insurgents shoot his fellow servicemen execution style. Olbermann then makes the point that he could just buy the book cheaper on another website (which it is cheaper on……well…..ALL of them) and send the book to the soldier PLUS the extra money he saved. Olbermann then says, "Why do you hate the troops Billo?" I thought it was an excellent point. O' Liar acts as if he is generous by sending a "free" book to a soldier, but doesn't tell his elderly audience that he is charging practically DOUBLE the amount for the book on his own site than you'd pay for it at walmart.com, target.com, amazon.com, etc.. So, basically, O' Liar loses NO money by sending the extra book out. Now THAT'S generosity and sacrifice for our brave soldiers!! They give up time with their families, their own freedom and their own lives if they have to....and this prick can't even give them a goddamned FREE book! He TELLS you it's free, but as I pointed out, he loses ZERO dollars. I did some research and browsed other sites that sell the book. Here’s what other sites charge for "Culture Warrior":
Wal-Mart.com $13.65 (savings of $12.35-------for a troop!)
Target.com $ 15.60 (savings of $10.40-------for a troop!)
Amazon.com $15.60 (savings of $10.40-------for a troop!)
Barnes and Noble.com $16.38 (savings of $9.62-------for a troop!)
Powell's.com $17.95 (savings of $8.05-------for a troop!)
So, WE are accused of hating the troops when in about 5 seconds, we just thought of a BETTER campaign than Billo’s? Unreal, isn’t it? Olbermann’s plan would get the book to the troop, plus an extra 13-15 bucks! Billo's offer.....only a freaking book! Come on Bill, SHOULD'NT you pay the troops to read your trash? Of course, I know Keith was saying this in jest. A better gift for the troops would be to NOT send them ANYTHING by O’Liar. Hey Billo, maybe if you had people buy a book and send something to a troop they can USE.....like...uh......ANYTHING but you're book, they'd be happy! How about a, "buy a book, and we send the troops some armor" campaign? I mean, after all Billo, they have to be ALIVE to read the book, don't they?
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
by Larry Simons
January 30, 2007
Director Aaron Russo, who made the film "America: Freedom To Fascism" talks on local Colorado TV in September 2006 about the fraudulous activties of the IRS (how there is NO law that says Americans have to pay taxes on their labor) and the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 literally overnight while Congress was away on Christmas vacation. Russo also discusses why the IRS forces Americans to pay income tax. Russo explains that the Federal Reserve is a private bank that was created in 1913 by the government to make the money Americans use. So, when the government needs money now, they have to borrow it when they had the legal authority to create the money in the first place and NOT to have paid interest on it. As it stands now, they borrow money from the Federal Reserve and pay taxes on what they have borrowed. Guess where they get the money to pay these taxes? You guessed it, from you and me, every year when we pay taxes to the IRS! So, to sum it up: The government creates an institution they didn't have to create to do a job they could have done themselves. When they need money from this institution, they get taxed for it when they wouldn't have been taxed doing the job themselves. To get the money needed to pay that tax they create the Federal Income Tax in 1913, so that Americans pay the government the money they need to pay the taxes to the Central Banks. UNBELIEVABLE, isn't it? The income tax is the greatest fraud ever imposed on the American people, but as Russo says, we just go along with it and don't say a word and if we DON'T pay the tax, we are jailed which he says is the sign of a police state...when governments force unjust laws on its citizens and jail them for noncompliance of those unjust laws. It's simply astonishing. Russo also explains we are headed toward totalitarianism because of the fascist government we have.
Russo also explains the difference between democracy and a Republic. A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope. A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise. The video clip ends with Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) being his honest, patriotic self when he tells Russo about the non-existant IRS law and the impending police state in America. This is simply a video clip you MUST watch!
Monday, January 29, 2007
by Larry Simons
January 29, 2007
In my Martin Luther King, Jr story 2 weeks ago on this site, I made the observation that King would be treated just as bad today if he were still alive and that the right-wing, fear mongering nut-jobs would demonize King as a traitor if he made similar statements about Iraq as he did about Vietnam. I said that Mike Gallagher would want King sent to a detention camp, and that everyone on FOX News would call King un-American or that he even hated his country. Here we have Lush Fuckballs actually tell a caller that not only will he stand with the people "the caller calls" criminals in Washington (they actually ARE criminals: Libby, Ney, Foley, Delay) but that people like the caller frightens Lugnuts more than "dealing with" al Qaeda (as if Rush Dickballs ever has to personally deal with them) When is the last time we saw that loud-mouthed tub of lard deal with al Qaeda? Don't you think that would have made the news? It's easy to be for a war when you have your big fat ass planted in a studio behind a microphone all day. Yeah, that's right people...incase my point wasn't clear, here it is: Limbaugh would have told Martin Luther King, Jr that he was FOR al Qaeda and that Limbaugh fears KING more than al Qaeda. Maybe that's true. Maybe the government feared King because of his understanding of the Constitution and what Patriotism really is....and because of King's immense world wide influence, he had to be silenced. Limbaugh would have been first in line to volunteer for the job of assassinating King as this video clip clearly illustrates.
Friday, January 26, 2007
by Larry Simons
January 26, 2007
You will see in the clip above that Blitzer is simply asking questions that Cheney can't handle so he lashes out at the person who is REALLY to blame...Wolf Blitzer, rather than the ones he really SHOULD be angry with...his fellow Republicans and most Democrats (about Iraq) and to Focus on the Family (about his daughter's pregnancy). What I find interesting is that James Dobson's organization made these comments about Cheney's daughter and Dobson is just like all the Neo-cons at FOX News, war mongering supporters of Bush. Cheney orchestrates 9/11 and he heas the right to get pissed at anyone? This just shows you a glimpse of the sinister personality of Cheney. Watch closely how Blitzer even seems to be outwardly scared. He should be. He’s sitting right beside the man who told Norman Mineta on 9/11 that he KNEW the plane approaching the Pentagon was 50 miles away…20 miles away…10 miles away and the “plane” was allowed to crash anyway. I’d be scared too Wolf if I was sitting beside the most evil man in America.
Here's a excerpt:
BLITZER: Here's what Jim Webb, senator from Virginia said in the Democratic response last night — he said, "The president took us into this war recklessly. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable and predicted disarray that has followed."
And it's not just Jim Webb; it's some of your good Republican friends in the Senate and the House are now seriously questioning your credibility, because of the blunders and the failures. Gordon Smith…
CHENEY: Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash.
BLITZER: ..your daughter, Mary. She's pregnant. All of us are happy she's going to have a baby. You're going to have another grandchild. Some of the — some critics are suggesting — for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family, "Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question of what's best for children. Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn't mean that it's best for the child." Do you want to respond to that?
BLITZER: She's, obviously, a good daughter –
CHENEY: I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf.
And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question.
BLITZER: I think all of us appreciate –
CHENEY: I think you're out of line.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
January 23, 2007
Fox News' repetition of the right-wing smear that Barack Obama attended a radical Islamic school could not go unnoticed by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann for long. Olbermann delivered a double-hit on Fox News on Monday (January 22, 2007). Two-for-one video.
Olbermann poked fun at Fox News for its new advertising campaign, which claims that Fox News is the only channel that doesn't offer the usual "left-wing bias." Olbermann offered a satirical competing ad campaign for MSNBC, which promises that it is the only channel that doesn't offer the usual "government propaganda" and "we don't bring you stuff Fox made up about Obama."
Olbermann went on to name Fox News, the Fox Nothing Channel, saying it no longer deserves the title of a "news" channel. And he named it, along with the New York Post, the Washington Times, and Insight Magazine the "worst person" in the world for last Friday's made-up story about Obama's early education as a child living in Indonesia with his mother and step-father.
Both clips are in the video.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Bill O’ Liar contradicts himself, then spins, then lies, then spins again, then lies again on the Shawn Hornbeck story!
by Larry Simons
January 23, 2007 I tell ya...it just doesn't get any better than this. I couldn't have created more spin, lies and hypocrisy if I had written the script myself! On tonight's O' Liar "fact"-or, loofah-boy had 2 of his favorite spin shills on: Bernie Goldberg and Jane Hall. But, before I explain what the three stooges said on tonights show, let's re-cap what rolled out of the lips of Bill O' Reilly (B.O.R.---- appropriate initials) when he spoke with Greta Van Susteren (GVS) last week when this story broke:
GVS: First of all we don't know all the facts, Don't forget that Elizabeth Smart likewise had an opportunity to leave and she did not. She was on the public street for some reason when young people are picked up and taken under the influence of adults they are very receptive of what adults do. So I would not dismiss the Stockholm syndrome --
BOR: The difference in the Smart case, and correct me if I am wrong, was this guy was always around the little girl and she wasn't gone for the long period of time as this guy was. Now what we have learned -- and this is why I don't believe in Stockholm -- this guy Shawn Hornbeck gone four years from 11-15. Authorities actually say that he taunted his own parents on his website. He's got these piercing this is a troubled kid in my opinion --
GVS: The piercings, a lot of kids do the piercings. As far as the taunting goes on the website I think what can be established is that someone on this particular login taunted the parents. Was it done from this particular computer? If it was done from this particular computer that means that Michael Devlin did it, or Shawn did it or someone with access to the computer... let's not forget he is a kid.... He may be 15 now...
BOR: No, I am not buying this if you're 11 years old or 12 years old or 13 and you have a strong bond with your family. Even if the guy threatens you this and that. You're riding your bike around, you got friends -- the kid didn't go to school. There's all kinds of stuff, if you can get away, you get away. If you're 11 --
GVS: Bill it seems bizarre to me, I agree it seems bizarre. Why not run, why not yell, why not scream? But the thing I keep going back to is, what was Patti Hearst's story...
BOR: I didn't buy that Patti Hearst story for a second.
GVS: Why was she so willing to sign up with her kidnappers and like wise Elizabeth Smart, she had opportunity -- nice kid, nice family, why was she unwilling to run...?
BOR: Let me answer your question. This is what I believe in the Hearst caseand in this case. The situation that Hearst found herself in was exciting. She had a boring life, child of privilege. All of a sudden she's in with a bunch of charismatic thugs and she enjoyed it. The situation here with this kid is looks to me to be a lot more fun then when he had under his own parents. He didn't have to go to school, He could run around and do what he wanted.
GVS: Some kids like school --
BOR: Well I don't believe this kid did. And I think when it all comes down what's going to happen is there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances...
Fast forward to tonights show (with guests Bernie Goldberg and Jane Hall): My own comments will be inserted in dark purple.
BOR: The facts of the case say that Shawn Hornbeck had plenty of time and plenty of room to escape, which I pointed out--and as soon as I pointed it out Jane, I was demonizing the kid. I didn't see it that way. I was reporting the story. (Immersed in your OPINIONS)
JH: You did seem to be saying, (He DID say it Jane, don't pander to him) "Why didn't this kid escape when he could?"
BOR: Is that not a legitimate question to put forth---is it not? (Yes, but for the cops..not YOU!)
JH: ...you seem to be blaming him when in fact he was probably undermined in some kind of mental prison.....(BOR cuts her off)
BOR: Can you point to one sentence that I said that placed blame on him? I consistantly said he was the victim. (Yeah, I can: "The situation here with this kid is looks to me to be a lot more fun then when he had under his own parents. He didn't have to go to school, He could run around and do what he wanted." Hell, I'll give you TWO: "Well I don't believe this kid did. And I think when it all comes down what's going to happen is there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances...)
JH: I think you said, "Why didn't he escape when he could?" (Jane, stop saying "think", he DID say it)
BOR: That's not blaming him, Jane! It's doing the job--my job is to be a journalist. (It's not blaming him? You're basically saying he STAYED with this guy when he didn't HAVE to---that's not blaming? A journalist? Hold on, i need to laugh for a real long time............ok, I'm done)
JH: Didn't you also say, "He might have enjoyed the life and like not going to school? (Yes he did) That's on a website----maybe it's not the whole story. (Pandering again Jane. Why don't you just say you might be completely wrong that he EVER did a story on it at all?)
BOR: Of course it's not the whole....and it's ridiculous. I raised the question that there was an element of his captivity that the boy just talked about Bernie, where he didn't have to go to school, he didn't have to do anything but sleep and play video games. (I love the way you spun that one Bill, you couldn't dare say it out loud again that you said "The situation here with this kid is looks to me to be a lot more fun then when he had under his own parents" and "there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances...)
Then later O' Liar says:
BOR: And again...that was my reporting and that's true! I haven't said one thing that isn't true. (You mean INCLUDING your opinions?) ...I did base all of my statements and questions on KNOWN FACTS coming out of the police investigations. (Really Billo? "he liked his circumstances" was true? "... "looks to me to be a lot more fun then when he had under his own parents" is true? "this is a troubled kid in my opinion" is true? Hmmmmmm. They sound an awful lot like OPINIONS Mr. Falafel. I assume that's why you even used the word "opinion")
Then Bernie Goldgerg bellows:
BG: All of these people who was saying it was Stockholm Syndrome----they were jumping the gun! They didn't know if it was Stockholm Syndrome. They were conjecturing and they were wrong! ANY kind of conjecturing in the absense of facts is useless.
THEN! The VERY NEXT THING Billo says is this: "This is not Stockholm Syndrome..I don't know what it is, but it's not Stockholm Syndrome"
Didn't Bernie JUST SAY ANY conjecturing is useless, and people who were saying it IS Stockholm Syndrome don't know and they're wrong??? How does Billo know it's NOT? Isn't that JUST as wrong? Hey Bernie, you must have majored in deductive reasoning:
Conjecturing is useless------>Billo was conjecturing------>Billo is useless!
Monday, January 22, 2007
Study the wording carefully: "not to start a war without the approval of Congress." The Dems are not warning the Bush administration not to start the war. Far from it. They are only asking Bush-Cheney-Rice to start it after giving Congress a piece of the action, and going through the (allegedly legitimizing) process of collusion and "consensus."
We can, therefore, assume that what the Democrats want is to be presented with another round of cooked intelligence and lies, and "closed door" backroom deals; to be informed, the same way they were informed prior to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq -- both of which the Democrats overwhelmingly approved. Perhaps the Dems want to be presented with another thick pile of documents, as they were with the USAPATRIOT Act, which they also overwhelmingly approved.
The fact is, virtually every single criminal action taken by the Bush administration since 2001 has come with the approval of Congress, and the spineless Democrats. Every "war on terrrorism" atrocity. Every malodorous federal appointment. Every deathblow dealt to the Constitution. Every act of war.
The Bush administration is in the process of provoking and setting up Iran for an attack. The White House press office is lying, claiming that there is no plan to attack Iran. (But that is the job of the White House press office.) Condoleeza Rice has already admitted that Bush personally gave orders for the Iran operations "several months ago." The Dem leadership has not questioned any of these latest criminal acts.
Meanwhile, Pelosi and Reid have refused to cut or cap funding for Bush's "surge," thereby ensuring that more young Americans are sent to the Middle East meat grinder to die. They refuse to entertain the idea of impeaching any members of the Bush administration, despite the fact that impeachable offenses have occurred on a daily basis for years.
The Democrats have even done the Bush administration proud by pushing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission into law, pushing America one more step towards a full police state. Not one of the insipid legislative motions made during their first "100 Hours" means a thing next to this.
It is the Democrats, Washington's supreme enablers, who must be "held accountable," for their duplicity, and for their refusal to fulfill the only two demands Americans voters made upon them in November: stop the war, and remove the Bush administration from power.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Iraq's western desert, killing 30 Marines and a sailor. On the same day, six other U.S. forces died in combat bringing the total to 37. The second highest day was on March 23, 2003 when 28 service members were killed as American forces were pushing toward Baghdad on the third day of the U.S.-led invasion.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
On Countdown, Olbermann said of O'Reilly: "It boggles the mind that, in 2007, a public figure can still blame the victim -- a victim who is a teenage boy -- and not lose his job over it." He later added: "We've all gotten a lot of amusement from Mr. O'Reilly's baseline idiocy, but this is reprehensible. It reeks of perversity and inhumanity. Simply put, Mr. O'Reilly no longer deserves any place on the public stage."
OLBERMAN: And as a commentator insists, a second victim did not escape because he was having a lot more fun than he did at home. That boy's parents reveal they believe their son was sexually abused. Why does the commentator still have a job?
OLBERMAN: It boggles the mind that, in 2007, a public figure can still blame the victim -- a victim who is a teenage boy -- and not lose his job over it. But Bill O'Reilly has told his audience that Shawn Hornbeck, abducted at age 11, more than four years ago -- rescued just a week ago -- never escaped because he didn't want to.
"The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents," O'Reilly said. "He didn't have to go to school; he could run around and do whatever he wanted." A lot more fun indeed -- like suffering sexual abuse at the hands of his kidnapper as Shawn Hornbeck's parents today said they believed happened.
Friday, January 19, 2007
by Larry Simons
January 18, 2007
Like a trip to the bathroom to take one of those painful shits that feels like broken glass is slicing its way through your anal crevasse.......Ann Coulter's mouth is back.......you know it's bound to happen at some point...you dread it, but you know it's coming...you just don't know when, where you will be or how painful it will be. On Wednesday nights Hannity & Colmes show, Alan Colmes was discussing Bush's new Iraq policy with Satan herself Ann Coulter (why these FOX News baffoons think she is an expert on military policy, God only knows). At one point in the segment, Coulter even says , "The number of American deaths have been going down every year.." Yippie Ann! Time for celebration! If it's one thing that makes me happy about Iraq, it's that fewer Americans are dying every year! Jesus, where do they find people on this planet that actually call death a POSITIVE thing?????
Monday, January 15, 2007
Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)
by Larry Simons
January 15, 2007
Today, Martin Luther King, Jr. would have turned 78 years old if not for our own government silencing him with a bullet on April 4, 1968. Other than today just being a day off of work for Americans, we all, in some way should remember and reflect on the many famous speeches and sermons King delivered from the pulpits and the podiums. I felt that it would be most appropriate today (not only because today is King's birthday, but also because of the fact that we are in a very similar quagmire (Iraq) that we were in when King lived) to reflect upon one in particular sermon King delivered on April 30, 1967 at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, GA. This sermon displays King's wisdom, in that it shows that he is aware of the fact that many were clueless about then, and especially now, that even our founding fathers knew the importance of dissent and how patriotic it is. This sermon displays King's bravery, in that knowing how much President Johnson wanted to be seen as a compassionate advocate of civil rights, King had to know how much Johnson despised the message of dissent about the war in Vietnam.
What is sad is, that if King were still alive today, to some extent he would be treated the same way he was in 1968. FOX News would vilify King as a traitor or a communist, or both. How do I know? We've already seen this happen with others. O'Reilly would tell him to shut up repeatedly, cut his microphone off and boot him off his show. Mike Gallagher would want him sent to an detention camp. Sean Hannity would call him a left-wing, liberal, American-hating kook and agree with Gallagher that he should be locked up until the war ends. I'm sorry to say, Dr. King, that things haven't changed too much since you once graced the streets of America with your presence. You are truly missed by those of us who still know what America stands for, what the Constitution says, what liberty means, what dissent means and what patriotism really is. The O'Reillys, Gallaghers, Hannitys and Coulters of the world will mourn you out of false homage because they know it's the right thing to do....but we know for a fact, as we look at the following segment from one of your finest sermons, that they don't give a damn about one thing you ever said.
(In honor of the great Martin Luther King, Jr.)..........
".....I preach to you today on the war in Vietnam because my conscience leaves me with no other choice. The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," says Jesus, "and the truth shall set you free." Now, I've chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence is betrayal.
The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing, as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we're always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on. Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony. But we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for in all our history there has never been such a monumental dissent during a war, by the American people.
Polls reveal that almost fifteen million Americans explicitly oppose the war in Vietnam. Additional millions cannot bring themselves around to support it. And even those millions who do support the war [are] half-hearted, confused, and doubt-ridden. This reveals that millions have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism, to the high grounds of firm dissent, based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Now, of course, one of the difficulties in speaking out today grows the fact that there are those who are seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty. It's a dark day in our nation when high-level authorities will seek to use every method to silence dissent. But something is happening, and people are not going to be silenced. The truth must be told, and I say that those who are seeking to make it appear that anyone who opposes the war in Vietnam is a fool or a traitor or an enemy of our soldiers is a person that has taken a stand against the best in our tradition...."
Sunday, January 14, 2007
President Bush makes no secret of his distaste for looking backward, for assessing past results.
Any meaningful assessment of the president‘s next step in Iraq must consider his steps and missteps so far.
So, let‘s look at the record. Before Mr. Bush was elected he said he was no nation builder. Nation building was wrong for America. Now he says it is vital for America. He said he would never have put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.
He told us about WMDs, mobile labs, secret sources, aluminum tubing, yellow cake. He has told us the war is necessary because Saddam was a threat, because of 9/11, because of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, because of terrorism in general, to liberate Iraq, to spread freedom, to spread democracy, to keep the oil out of the hands of potentially terrorist controlled states, because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.
In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Moqtada al Sadr, Osama bin Laden. He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi army and deBaathified the government. He short changed Iraqi training. He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence. He sent in troops without life saving equipment, gave job to foreign contractors and not the Iraqis, staffed U.S. positions in Iraq based on partisanship, not professional experience.
We learned that America had prevailed, mission accomplished, the resistance was in its last throws. He has said that more troops were not necessary and more troops are necessary, and that it‘s up to the generals, and then removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.
He told us of turning points, the fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government, the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam. We would be greeted as liberators with flowers, as they stood up, we would stand down. We would stay the course. We would never stay the course. The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, was terrorists, was Baathists.
The war would pay for itself. It was cost 1.7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars. And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Paul first ran for President as the Libertarian candidate in 1988, receiving a massive 400,000 votes. He now commands the support of those all across the political spectrum, from libertarians through anti-war Democrats to real paleoconservative Republicans.
Paul has been in and out of Congress since the 70's and is universally hated by the Republican elite, who routinely back Democrats against him just to try and get him out of office. The former Vietnam flight surgeon is the perfect candidate for President and activists from every corner of every political persuasion should mobilize now in an attempt to help Paul shatter the power monopoly of the Republican and Democrat establishment who have worked together for decades to slit America's throat in the interests of power, greed, and ego - all working towards the realization of a new world order.
The Texan represents a dying breed in Congress, those who actually cast their votes in accordance with the Constitution and not at the discretion of lobbyists or the fear that the elite will tarnish their political careers if they don't continually support the establishment. As a result Ron Paul is the elite's worse nightmare, simply having him on the ticket itself will be a massive public relations blow, and that's why media organs will probably be activated to try and discredit him before 2008.
Paul was one of only a handful of Republicans to vote against the illegal invasion of Iraq, contenting rightly that the Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. In bucking a trend, Paul was anti-war long before the majority of the country came around to a similar way of thinking following the catastrophe of the occupation.
While Democrats soft-peddle and cozy up to Bush, creating phony arguments about the level of troop presence in Iraq and ignoring the majority will of the country to bring the troops home immediately, Ron Paul's opposition to unnecessary wars of intervention has remained steadfast throughout his entire political career.
If a gargantuan effort is made from now until the end of 2008 to heighten Paul's media profile and forward him as America's last hope, he truly has a significant chance of giving Jeb Bush, Rudy Giuliani or whichever elitist puppet the Republicans choose to put forward a real run for their money.
At the very least it's a chance to attract attention to some serious issues and hold the establishment's feet to the fire. But with the favor of the political landscape continually swinging away from the scam repeatedly run by the Republicrats and Democans, we should really start off on a positive footing and consider the fact that Ron Paul, though still an underdog, has a real chance of becoming the next President.
According to the Associated Press, "Paul bills himself as "The Taxpayers' Best Friend," and is routinely ranked either first or second in the House by the National Taxpayers Union, a national group advocating low taxes and limited government."
On every single issue of national importance - borders, the war, limited government, U.S. sovereignty, tax and the federal reserve - Ron Paul stands for populist ideals that the country is screaming out for after seven years of hell under Bush, preceded by eight years of disgrace under Bill Clinton.
Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act, opposes the draft, advocates the abolition of the income tax, urges the re-introduction of the gold standard, and stands against initiatives to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty such as CAFTA and the FTAA.
From reforming Marijuana laws to supporting an unregulated Internet, to supporting the 2nd amendment, Ron Paul hits home with keystone populist issues across the board.
During several appearances on The Alex Jones Show, Ron Paul has consistently upheld his commitment to civil liberties, slammed the militarized police state that Bush has created and also called for immediate impeachment proceedings to be brought against the current incumbent of the White House.
President Ron Paul could truly return America to the great nation it once was and his decision to run is an exciting development that we should all embrace and stand beside him in the fight to restore some form of dignity to the office of President that has been completely absent since the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963.
"Congressman Ron Paul is a dream candidate, a super patriot, a total Constitutionalist, an American hero."
"We MUST elect him President."
Friday, January 12, 2007
Bush responds to the total failure in Iraq by sending over 20,000 more troops and now he threatens Iran and Syria. Olbermann: "Mr. Bush, this is madness"
by Keith Olbermann
Countdown with Keith Olbermann
January 11, 2007
And lastly, as promised, a Special Comment about the President's address last night.
Only this President, only in this time, only with this dangerous, even Messianic certitude, could answer a country demanding an exit strategy from Iraq, by offering an entrance strategy for Iran.
Only this President, could look out over a vista of 3,008 dead and 22,834 wounded in Iraq, and finally say "where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" — only to follow that, by proposing to repeat the identical mistake in Iran.
Only this President could extol the "thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group," and then take its most far-sighted recommendation — "engage Syria and Iran" - and transform it into "threaten Syria and Iran" — when Al-Qaeda would like nothing better than for us to threaten Syria, and when President Ahmmadinejad would like nothing better than to be threatened by us.
This is diplomacy by skimming; it is internationalism by drawing pictures of Superman in the margins of the text books; it is a presidency of Cliff Notes.
And to Iran and Syria — and, yes, also to the insurgents in Iraq — we must look like a country, run by the equivalent of the drunken pest, who gets battered to the floor of the saloon by one punch, then staggers to his feet, and shouts at the other guy's friends, "ok, which one of you is next?"
Mr. Bush, the question is no longer "what are you thinking?," but rather "are you thinking at all?"
"I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended," you said last night.
And yet — without any authorization from the public who spoke so loudly and clearly to you in November's elections; without any consultation with a Congress (in which key members of your own party like Senator Brownback and Senator Coleman and Senator Hagel are fleeing for higher ground); without any awareness that you are doing exactly the opposite of what Baker-Hamilton urged you to do, you seem to be ready to make an open-ended commitment (on America's behalf) to do whatever you want, in Iran.
Our military, Mr. Bush, is already stretched so thin by this bogus adventure in Iraq, that even a majority of serving personnel are willing to tell pollsters that they are dissatisfied with your prosecution of the war.
It is so weary, that many of the troops you have just consigned to Iraq, will be on their second tours, or their third tours, or their fourth tours — and now you're going to make them take on Iran and Syria as well?
Who is left to go and fight, sir?
Who are you going to send to "interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria"? Laura and Barney?
The line is from the movie "Chinatown" and I quote it often. "Middle of a drought," the mortician chuckles, "and the water commissioner drowns. Only in L.A.!"
'Middle of a debate over the lives and deaths of another 21,500 of our citizens in Iraq… and the President wants to saddle up against Iran and Syria.'
Maybe that's the point: to shift the attention away from just how absurd and childish, is this latest war strategy (strategy, that is, for the war already under way, and not the one, on deck).
We are to put 17,500 more troops into Baghdad and 4,000 more into Anbar Province to give the Iraqi government "breathing space."
In and of itself, that is an awful and insulting term.
The lives of 21,500 more Americans endangered, to give "breathing space" to a government that just turned the first and perhaps the most sober act of any Democracy — the capitol punishment of an ousted dictator — into a vengeance lynching so barbaric, and so lacking in the solemnities necessary for credible authority, that it might have offended the Ku Klux Klan of the 19th Century.
And what will our men and women in Iraq do?
The ones who will truly live — and die — during what Mr. Bush said last night will be a "year ahead" which "will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve"?
They will try to seal up Sadr City and other parts of Baghdad, in which the civil war is worst.
Mr. Bush did not mention that while our people are trying to do that, the factions in the civil war will no longer have to focus on killing each other but rather, they can focus anew on killing our people.
Because last night the President foolishly all but announced that we will be sending these 21,500 poor souls over — but, no more after that — and if the whole thing fizzles out, we're going home.
The plan fails militarily.
The plan fails symbolically.
The plan fails politically.
Most importantly, perhaps, Mr. Bush, the plan fails because it still depends on your credibility.
You speak of mistakes, and of the responsibility "resting" with you. But you do not admit to making those mistakes.
And you offer us nothing to justify this clenched fist towards Iran and Syria.
In fact, when you briefed news correspondents off-the-record before the speech, they were told, once again, "if you knew what we knew… if you saw what we saw…"
"If you knew what we knew," was how we got into this morass in Iraq, in the first place.
The problem arose, when it turned out that the question wasn't whether or not we knew what you knew but whether you knew what you knew.
You, sir, have become the President who cried wolf.
All that you say about Iraq now, could be gospel. All that you say about Iran and Syria now, could be prescient and essential.
We no longer have a clue, sir. We have heard too many stories.
Many of us are as inclined to believe you just shuffled the Director of National Intelligence over to the State Department, because he thought you were wrong about Iran.
Many of us are as inclined to believe you just put a pilot in charge of ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because he would be truly useful in an air war next door in Iran.
Your assurances, sir, and your demands that we trust you, have lost all shape and texture.
They are now merely fertilizer for conspiracy theories.
They are now fertilizer indeed.
The pile has been built slowly and with seeming care.
I read this list last night, before the President's speech, and it bears repetition, because its shape and texture are perceptible only in such a context.
Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said nation-building was wrong for America. Now he says it is vital.
He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Last night he promised to embed them, in Iraqi units.
He told us about WMD. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubes. Yellow-cake.
He has told us the war is necessary because Saddam was a material threat. Because of 9/11. Because of Osama Bin Laden. Al-Qaeda. Terrorism in General. To liberate Iraq. To spread freedom. To spread Democracy. To prevent terrorism by gas price increases. Because this was a guy who tried to kill his Dad.
Because 439 words in to the speech last night, he trotted out 9/11 again.
In advocating and prosecuting this war he passed on a chance to get Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. To get Muqtada Al-Sadr.To get Bin Laden.
He sent in fewer troops than the Generals told him to.
He ordered the Iraqi army disbanded and the Iraqi government "De-Baathified."
He short-changed Iraqi training. He neglected to plan for widespread looting. He did not anticipate sectarian violence.
He sent in troops without life-saving equipment. Gave jobs to foreign contractors, and not Iraqis. He staffed U.S. positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.
He and his government told us "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".
He has insisted more troops were not necessary. He has now insisted more troops are necessary.
He has insisted it's up to the generals, and then removed some of the generals who said more troops would not be necessary.
He has trumpeted the turning points: The fall of Baghdad; the death of Uday and Qusay; the capture of Saddam; A provisional government; a charter; a constitution; the trial of Saddam; elections; purple fingers; another government; the death of Saddam.
He has assured us: we would be greeted as liberators with flowers; as they stood up, we would stand down. We would stay the course; we were never about "stay the course." We would never have to go door-to-door in Baghdad. And last night, that to gain Iraqis' trust, we would go door-to-door in Baghdad.
He told us the enemy was Al-Qaeda, foreign fighters, terrorists, Baathists, and now Iran and Syria.
The war would pay for itself. It would cost 1.7 billion dollars. 100 billion. 400 billion. Half a trillion. Last night's speech alone cost another six billion.
And after all of that, now it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Democrats, Republicans, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.
Oh, and one more to add, tonight: Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Mr. Bush, this is madness.
You have lost the military.
You have lost the Congress to the Democrats.
You have lost most of the Iraqis.
You have lost many of the Republicans.
You have lost our Allies.
You are losing the credibility, not just of your Presidency, but more importantly of the office itself.
And most imperatively, you are guaranteeing that more American troops will be losing their lives, and more families their loved ones. You are guaranteeing it!
This becomes your legacy, sir: How many of those you addressed last night as your "fellow citizens" you just sent to their deaths?
And for what, Mr. Bush?
So the next President has to pull the survivors out of Iraq instead of you?
Good night and good luck.
January 11, 2007
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in response that the administration might abandon the increase if the Iraqi government doesn't do its part, but he provided no timetable. ``I think most of us, in our minds, are thinking of it as a matter of months, not 18 months or two years,'' he told the House Armed Services Committee.
Bush and top members of his national security team sought to rally support for the troop buildup a day after he unveiled his plan for turning around a conflict that has lasted nearly four years and cost more than 3,000 American military lives.
Instead, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice found themselves embroiled in the first pitched exchanges in a battle that is likely to dominate Congress for months or longer and is already shaping the 2008 presidential election.
``I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out,'' Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a potential 2008 presidential contender, told Rice. While he is a Republican, administration officials were defending the plan for the first time to the Democratic-controlled Congress.
Bill Nelson, D-Fla., noted his own past support for the administration on the war but said he could not continue. He declared, ``I have not been told the truth over and over again by administration witnesses, and the American people have not been told the truth.''
A new AP-Ipsos poll found approval for Bush's handling of Iraq hovering near a record low - 29 percent of Americans approve and 68 percent disapprove.
Bush, visiting with troops at Fort Benning, Ga., cautioned that the troop increase ``is not going to yield immediate results. It's going to take awhile.''
His plan, outlined in a prime-time address to the nation on Wednesday, would raise troop levels in Iraq by 21,500 - from 132,000 to 153,500 - at a cost of $5.6 billion. It also calls for the Iraqi government to increase its own forces and to do more to quell sectarian violence
``American patience is limited, and obviously if the Iraqis fail to maintain their commitments we'll have to revisit our strategy,'' said Gates.
At one point Gates, just three weeks on the job, told lawmakers, ``I would confess I'm no expert on Iraq.'' Later, asked about reaching the right balance between American and Iraqi forces, he told the panel he was ``no expert on military matters.''
Committee members pressed Gates, who replaced Donald H. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, on an exit strategy for the U.S.
``At the outset of the strategy, it's a mistake to talk about an exit strategy,'' he said.
Gates, in testimony to the committee and earlier at a news conference, said he was requesting increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 troops over the next five years.
He also said the Pentagon would recall to duty sooner than planned some National Guard and Reserve troops who have served yearlong tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.
As Rice testified to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., likened Bush's plan to a ``hail Maliki pass'' - jokingly combining Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's name with the football ``Hail Mary'' desperation pass.
The U.S. led a coalition that invaded Iraq in March 2003, despite failing to win U.N. Security Council support. The government of Saddam Hussein quickly crumbled and Bush declared major combat operations over two months later.
Bush's war effort initially had strong support, both in Congress and among other Americans. Yet that support has eroded as violence has continued.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he hoped to bring up a nonbinding resolution next week expressing opposition to any troop buildup. A similar move is expected in the House.
Reid, in a Senate speech, said Bush ignored the results of November's midterm elections that ended 12 years of GOP control of Congress, the advice of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and that of his own top generals. ``In choosing to escalate the war, the president virtually stands alone,'' Reid said.
The Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, threatened a filibuster - a delaying tactic - to block any legislation expressing disapproval of the buildup plan.
McConnell conceded that GOP lawmakers as well as Democrats are troubled by Bush's new policy, but he said, ``Congress is completely incapable of dictating the tactics of the war.''
Options for critics of the war to try forcing its end are limited, given the slim margin of Democratic control, especially in the Senate. But votes stating symbolic opposition to the troop buildup could embarrass many Republicans leery of supporting Bush's plan.
Rice appeared in the morning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in the afternoon before the House counterpart. She was grilled sharply by members of both parties.
Not a single member of the Senate panel expressed outright support for the president's plan. One after another offered skepticism on various points - from the rationale for the war to al-Maliki's sincerity and resolve, from the need for additional troops to the administration's ruling out talking to Iran and Syria.
``You're going to have to do a much better job'' explaining the rationale for the war, ``and so is the president,'' said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio. He said Bush could no longer count on his support for the war.
Rice acknowledged widespread skepticism among Americans. ``I want you to know that I understand and indeed feel the heartbreak that Americans feel at the continued sacrifice of American lives,'' she said.
Rice engaged several tense exchanges with members, including with Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and longtime critic of Bush's Iraq policy. She disputed his characterization of Bush's buildup as an ``escalation.''
``Putting in 22,000 more troops is not an escalation?'' Hagel asked. Responded Rice: ``I think, senator, escalation is not just a matter of how many numbers you put in.''
``Would you call it a decrease?'' Hagel asked.
``I would call it, senator, an augmentation that allows the Iraqis to deal with this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad,'' she said.
When Rice disputed Hagel's contention that Iraq was in the throes of civil war, Hagel shot back: ``To sit there and say that, that's just not true.''
Said Committee Chairman Joe Biden of Delaware: ``I believe the president's strategy is not a solution, Secretary Rice. I believe it's a tragic mistake''
Rice told senators there was a ``national imperative not to fail.''
The Senate panel was flush with 2008 presidential hopefuls and possible contenders, including Hagel, Biden and Democrats John Kerry of Massachusetts, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Barack Obama of Illinois.
Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., another presidential hopeful, said after a meeting at the White House that he was concerned about al-Maliki's capabilities as well as ``whether these are sufficient number of troops.
But, he said, ``I do think we can succeed.'' McCain is among a handful of lawmakers who have called for more - not fewer - U.S. troops in Iraq.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Bush's War Machine Revs Up. How Many Soldiers Have to Die Before this Dangerous Fool Realizes That It's Over?
January 9, 2007
Back in November, an overwhelming majority of voters sent a loud anti-war message to President Bush by punishing Republicans and giving decisive victories--and control of both houses of Congress--to Democrats. Did he get the message? What do you think? In true Bush "it's-my-ball" arrogance and stubbornness, the Decider-in-Chief will go before the American public tomorrow evening and make his request to send 20,000 more soldiers to Iraq in a "troop surge" designed to regain control over Baghdad. That's right. Election, shmection, I'm the Decider. Remember, this is a guy who, with 51% of the vote in '04, proudly claimed he had a "mandate." It's been 3 1/2 years and 3000 dead soldiers since the worst military blunder in U.S. history began. It's such an obvious failure that even the generals on the ground are saying more troops will not accomplish Bush's goals. Mind you, this is the same president that's on record as saying that the generals will be the ones to decide when and if more troops are needed. And the same president who said that sending more troops will send a message to the enemy that they're winning. But this dangerous fool couldn't care less what anyone thinks because, as long he doesn't pull out, he hasn't lost. As long as he keeps us fighting, in his delusional head, there's still a chance of winning. It's like those internet stocks I still hold from the 90's that are virtually worthless. I haven't lost anything until I sell, right? Does this maniacal war-monger really think that by sending 20,000 more troops we'll be getting any closer to achieving our long-range goals in that country (whatever the hell those goals are)? That we'll secure Baghdad? That we'll regain control of the Sunni Triangle and send a strong message to Muqtada Al Sadr's al Mahdi army and other Shiite militia that Democracy will prevail? Of course not. Just like every other time the U.S. intensified its military efforts. This is a country that mocks the U.S. A country led by a defiant Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who's made it clear he's running the country, not Bush. A country that punished it's former torturous dictator by hastily hanging him and taunting him. They've clearly come a long way, huh? Un-Curious George should be proud of the thriving Democracy he's created.With Iraq already mired in large-scale civil war, the last thing we should be doing is sending more young men and women to die in Bush's quagmire. It's pathetic the level of denial our president is in. And if it's not denial, it's something worse: intentionally ignoring the facts on the ground, choosing to send soldiers to die because he can't stomach the thought of losing. Well, some battles are won and some are lost. And this one's over. Someone needs to stop this maniac before he kills again and again and again.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
We all know O’ Liar is just pissed off at Keith Olbermann (for stealing his viewers, no doubt) and is taking it out on the entire staff at NBC News. Funny how when O’ Liar is attacked by a celebrity like Rosie O’ Donnell, a newspaper or magazine, he doesn’t hesitate to name names and show audio clips or read the criticizing articles on the air. But when he’s attacking Olbermann, he never mentions his name. It’s always "that NBC commentator" or "far-left elements at NBC" or whatever he uses to avoid saying Olbermann’s name.
During the interview with Mitchell, Billo claimed there are no conservative thinkers at NBC. Mitchell cowardly avoided his specific question by saying, "I wouldn’t be able to name any liberals either". Why is it that even I can think of at least two (Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough) right off the freaking bat and someone who WORKS there can’t? Of course, I’m sure this made O’ Liar feel like he had made his point by silencing her. Who do these people think they’re fooling? Any thinking person (this excludes the FOX News sheep) can see that this was just a staged circus act so that Mitchell could defend NBC while at the same time not specifically mentioning Joe Scarborough because O’ Reilly KNOWS about Scarborough’s direct and specific challenge to O’ Reilly to a debate. NO ONE (besides Olbermann, maybe) has been more critical of Bush and his war policies, FOX News, Republican corruption, electronic voting machines, Rumsfeld, and now recently Saddams execution over the past 6 months than Joe Scarborough………..REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE Joe Scarborough, that is….but do you see O’ Liar saying SHIT about that? Of course not! And Mitchell couldn’t think of at LEAST Joe Scarborough? Here are some excerpts from "Scarborough Country" over the past month:
Friday, January 5, 2007
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
January 3, 2007
During his speech at yesterday's funeral service for Gerald Ford, former President George H.W. Bush bashed JFK "conspiracy theorists" and defended the Warren Commission report, another odd public outburst indicative of a crime family whose decades of misdeeds may finally be catching up with them.
"After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness," said Bush. "And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it and Jerry Ford’s word was always good."
The only thing Ford was good for was running defense for criminals when he pardoned the remorseless Richard Nixon and others after Watergate, allowing larcenous felons to walk free and leaving the legacy in place that it's OK to break the law if you are the President, a form of absolutism that has been keenly inherited by the current crop of crooks, including Dick Cheney who praised Ford for 'allowing the nation to heal' by protecting a cadre of organized crime gangsters.
Of course, all of this had nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, bricklayers or office clerks," writes Kurt Nimmo, "It had to do with breaking the law, with "dirty tricks," snooping on political opponents, sabotaging Democratic presidential candidates, going after Daniel Ellsberg for the public service he provided by bringing the Pentagon Papers to light, ordering the FBI to investigate CBS News reporter Daniel Schorr, discussing the possibility of having newspaper columnist Jack Anderson assassinated, and other crimes (evading taxes, accepting illicit campaign contributions, ordering secret bombings, and harassing opponents with executive agencies, wiretaps, and break-ins), all of it culminating in Watergate."
There's no doubt that Ford, not unlike Saddam Hussein who died days after, knew where the bodies were buried and Bush was simply eulogizing his noble service in sweeping the JFK assassination under the rug, shielding Poppy himself from serious questions about his own involvement in events at Dealey Plaza.
As Wayne Madsen comments, "The elder Bush cannot really remember where he was on November 22, 1963. He later claimed he was in Tyler, Texas although there is evidence that he was checked into the Dallas Sheraton Hotel that day. Mr. Bush, the conspiracy theorists will continue to say what they will until you start telling the truth about Zapata, deMohrenshildt, Mongoose, New Orleans, and JM/WAVE."
Bush senior's outburst marks the second time in the same amount of months that he has felt the need to publicly attack those who would normally be relegated to the fringes of political discourse by big media consensus.
During an appearance with his wife Barbara on Fox News in November, George Bush senior slammed Internet bloggers for creating an adversarial and ugly climate, echoing the rhetoric of fellow Neo-Cons and the White House itself in trashing the reputation of the world wide web and the political blogosphere.
The fact that Bush is being pressured into bad mouthing so-called "conspiracy theorists" and bloggers proves that the chorus of dissent is beginning to make these cretins lose some sleep at night.
The Bush family as a whole is starting to exhibit some seriously offbeat behavior that suggests their decades of underhand chicanery, murders, cover-ups and scams are finally beginning to catch up with them.
Last month Bush senior burst into tears during a speech at his son Jeb's leadership forum. Jeb Bush himself recently declared that he "had no future" in politics. George W. Bush's obvious deteriorating mental acumen, characterized by a consistent supply of "Bushisms," has led several commentators to conclude that the current President is in the early stages of pre-senile dementia. The Bush daughters' behavior doesn't seem to be maturing with age either after U.S. Embassy officials strongly urged them to cut short last month's escapade in Argentina.
by Larry Simons
I find it odd and very ironic that daddy Bush would conveniently attack conspiracy theorists during the funeral of the very man who altered the evidence in J.F.K.'s death to dupe a country into believing there was no conspiracy. In other words, the conspiracy in J.F.K.'s death is actually very real, which is the very reason Gerald Ford moved the bullet hole from J.F.K.'s upper back to the back of his neck. The initial draft of the report stated: "A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."Ford wanted it to read: "A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." Ford later ADMITTED his alteration in the report by giving his reason for it. He said in a telephone interview in the late 90's, "My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory,'' he said in a telephone interview from Beaver Creek, Colo. ''My changes were only an attempt to be more precise.''
Funny, we simply believe the very words and actions of others who later admit their wrongdoing, and WE are "conspiracy THEORISTS"! Simply amazing! Perhaps the most important witness in the entire J.F.K. assassination is the man who was sitting in the front seat, Governor John Connally. Here is an excerpt from a report done by Don Fulsom in November of 2006 which includes the very testimony of Governor Connally himself speaking with Arlen Spector:
"The most important eyewitness to the assassination was Gov. Connally. Questioned by Warren Commission counsel and now-U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, Connally's testimony to the Warren Commission solidly supports the Zapruder film:
Mr. Specter: In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Gov. Connally: The second one.
Mr. Specter: And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Gov. Connally: Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot … and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything. It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet.
Gov. Connally's vivid memories of those horrific moments never changed. And they fit a more-than-three-bullet scenario. Connally firmly believed different bullets struck him and President Kennedy. In a later interview for a TV program, Connally recalled hearing a rifle shot over his right shoulder "because that's where the sound came from." He said he saw "nothing out of the ordinary," and was in the process of turning to look over his left shoulder "when I felt a blow in the middle of my back as if someone had hit me with a double-fist … it bent me over and I immediately saw I was covered with blood and I knew I'd been hit, and I said, ‘Oh my God, they're going to kill us all.'" Connally then heard another shot and said, "I knew that the President had been fatally hit, because I heard Mrs. Kennedy then, I heard her say, ‘My God, I've got his brains in my hands.'"
In a separate comment, Connally said, "There were either two or three people involved, or more, in this – or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle."
I guess Governor Connally was a "conspiracy NUT" too by saying there was a "first" and "second" shot, which, by definition means "conspiracy" (two or more involved/to conspire). So, we simply believe Connally's words and we are "conspiracy theorists" who hate America. I guess Connally hated America too. It boggles the mind doesn't it? Also, isn't it quite odd that daddy Bush claims he doesn't remember where he was on November 22, 1963? (who, who was alive in 1963 does'nt know that?) And daddy Bush was also at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Washington D.C. on 9/11 with Shafig bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's brother.....another amazing coincidence! Wherever there's a national tragedy, Bushie-boy just seems to be there! Also, quite mind-boggling. Do me a favor daddy Bush, please never come to Hagerstown, Maryland!