Trapped in a Hall of Mirrors?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by resinate, Aug 11, 2006.

  1. Ok. All day I have been trying to reconcile these two facts.

    1. The Bush and Blair administrations have repeatedly lied about security threats for ulterior motives. Further, the last time we had color coded terror warnings was the last national election.

    2. Terrorists are real and have conducted terror attacks using airplanes a # of times.

    How do you sort this out?
  2. You surrender your intellect...and watch Fox News, and listen to Hannity, Rush, Coulter, etc.

    I think the speed with which the Republican machine began to politicize today's threat, the comments by Cheney regarding the election in Connecticut, etc. tell the whole story.


    Will people violate more laws to gain power, or to keep it?

    We are safer now, uh huh...

    Imagine how dangerous it has been carrying toothpaste and bottled water onto planes all these years....

  3. Bush seeks political gains from foiled plot

    by Olivier KnoxThu Aug 10, 2:53 PM ET

    US President George W. Bush seized on a foiled London airline bomb plot to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

    Weighed down by the unpopular war in Iraq, Bush and his aides have tried to shift the national political debate from that conflict to the broader and more popular global war on terrorism ahead of November 7 congressional elections.

    The London conspiracy is "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," the president said on a day trip to Wisconsin.

    "It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America," he said. "We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people. But obviously we still aren't completely safe."

    His remarks came a day after the White House orchestrated an exceptionally aggressive campaign to tar opposition Democrats as weak on terrorism, knowing what Democrats didn't: News of the plot could soon break.

    Vice President Dick Cheney and White House spokesman Tony Snow had argued that Democrats wanted to raise what Snow called "a white flag in the war on terror," citing as evidence the defeat of a three-term Democratic senator who backed the Iraq war in his effort to win renomination.

    But Bush aides on Thursday fought the notion that they had exploited their knowledge of the coming British raid to hit Democrats, saying the trigger had been the defeat of Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut by an anti-war political novice.

    "The comments were purely and simply a reaction" to Democratic voters who "removed a pro-defense Senator and sent the message that the party would not tolerate candidates with such views," said Snow.

    The public relations offensive "was not done in anticipation. It was not said with the knowledge that this was coming," the spokesman said.

    Snow said Bush first learned in detail about the plot on Friday, and received two detailed briefings on it on Saturday and Sunday, as well as had two conversations about it with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

    But a senior White House official said that the British government had not launched its raid until well after Cheney held a highly unusual conference call with reporters to attack the Democrats as weak against terrorism.

    An aide to Lieberman, who would have been one of the first Democrats to hear of the plot because he is the top Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said the lawmaker first heard of it late Wednesday.

    On Wednesday, Cheney had suggested that Democrats believe "that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won't, we can't, be," he said.

    While some Democrats have opposed some steps in the war on terrorism, and more and more are calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, no major figures in the party have called for a wholesale retreat in the broader conflict.

    But Bush's Republicans hoped the raid would yield political gains.

    "I'd rather be talking about this than all of the other things that Congress hasn't done well," one Republican congressional aide told AFP on condition of anonymity because of possible reprisals.

    "Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.
  4. Well-in the movies, they always just smashed all the mirrors, after a vicious and bloody fight.
    That doesnt help much, huh.
    res, your not a mod anymore?
  5. Yeah Z, hard to ignore the calendar as well as the near proximity to the Lieberman defeat and its implications for the party of war and terror.

    Acronym, yes. I am months into enjoying my retirement from Chit Chat modding. :cool:
  6. bsmeter


    Watch this video series and you'll find out who the real threat is
  7. bsmeter


    More on the FB Lie. Since no one believes the Criminal Intelligence Agency, the FB Lie has been moved to the fore front of the propaganda effort.


    Judicial Watch Investigation Uncovers FBI Documents Concerning Bin Laden Family and Post-9/11 Flights

    (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has invoked privacy right protections on behalf of al Qaeda terror leader Osama bin Laden. In a September 24, 2003 declassified “Secret” FBI report obtained by Judicial Watch, the FBI invoked Exemption 6 under FOIA law on behalf of bin Laden, which permits the government to withhold all information about U.S. persons in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when the disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (2000))

    Before invoking privacy protections for Osama bin Laden under Exemption 6, the FBI should have conducted a balancing “test” of the public's right to disclosure against the individual's right to privacy. Many of the references in the redacted documents cite publicly available news articles from sources such as The Washington Post and Associated Press. Based on its analysis of the news stories cited in the FBI report, Judicial Watch was able to determine that bin Laden’s name was redacted from the document, including newspaper headlines in the footnoted citations.

    “It is dumbfounding that the United States government has placed a higher priority on the supposed privacy rights of Osama bin Laden than the public’s right to know what happened in the days following the September 11 terrorist attacks,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is difficult for me to imagine a greater insult to the American people, especially those whose loved ones were murdered by bin Laden on that day.”

    The redacted documents were obtained by Judicial Watch under the provisions of the FOIA and through ongoing litigation (Judicial Watch v. Department of Homeland Security & Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. 04-1643 (RWR)). Among the documents was a declassified “Secret” FBI report, dated September 24, 2003, entitled: “Response to October 2003 Vanity Fair Article (Re: [Redacted] Family Departures After 9/11/2001).” Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on October 7, 2003. The full text of the report and related documents are available on the Internet by clicking here (Adobe Acrobat Reader required).

    © Copyright 1997-2004, Judicial Watch, Inc.

    Folks you really can't make this shit up even if you wanted to!! :D
  8. bsmeter


    And it gets even better.

    Check out the FB Lie website and you see this!!

    <a href=""><img src="" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by" /></a>

    But then, you do a simple google search and you find this?!!!! HUuuuuuuuuhhhhh?!!!!!!!! :confused:

    <a href=""><img src="" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by" /></a>

    If the guy has been proven to be NOT INVOLVED in 9/11, why is he still wanted by the FB Lie 4 years after the zionist initiated 9/11 . Even the FB Lie itself has said the guy is innocent!! And guess what, most of the supposed hijackers whose photos are posted have been found alive else where and have been proven innocent.


    I'll let you answer that question.

    Folks, you really can't make this shit up even if you wanted to. Even Holly-weird would have a hard time coming up with this type of plot. :D
  9. bsmeter


    LOL. Fox is shit for the brains.

    <a href=""><img src="" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by" /></a>
  10. sometimes a simple google search can be insufficient...
    #10     Aug 11, 2006