- WHY HAVE DEM PARTY LEADERS NOT POINTED OUT THE BUSH CABAL'S
LIES THAT TOOK US TO WAR? - AND LIES ABOUT 9/11?
-
- Bush and his NeoCon misadvisors,
totally ignored Scott Ritter's and Hans Blix's UN Iraq Weapons Inspection
Teams that found NO WMD in Iraq! They also ignored any U.S. Intelligence
that verified Iraq no longer had WMD and had NO ties to Bin Laden and Al
Qaeda! Instead, Bush and his war-lusting, pro-Israel NeoCons accepted and
invented LIES about Saddam and Iraq, to falsely "justify" attacking
and invading an INNOCENT and weak nation that was no threat to America
or any of its neighbors! Over 650,000 Iraqi civilians and thousands of
Americans have been sacrificed to their lies!
-
- And about the 9/11 attacks,
why have Dem leaders also FAILED to inform the American public that SEVEN
of the alleged "19 Islamic Hijackers" were found ALIVE later
in September. 2001 by British newspapers? The seven were never on
the 4 hijacked airliners! The SEVEN ALIVE makes the ENTIRE "19
Islamic Hijackers" list suspect as phoney, a possible FALSE FLAG invention
of an Intelligence Service to justify a (pre-planned) attack on Afghanistan!
Remember that Bush and Blair USED the 9/11 "terror" attack by
the "19 Islamic Hijackers" (supposedly sent by Bin Laden) as
their FOUNDATION EXCUSE to declare and launch their global "War On
Terror" (on Muslim nations)! Dem leaders are "strangely"
silent about all described above! When are they - or some challengers
- going to publicly TALK about these lies? AFTER the elections?
-
- Check the following about the
SEVEN ALIVE hijackers...
- (SEN. KYL): WHEN WILL PRETENSE
ABOUT THE 19 HIJACKERS CEASE? By Dick Fojut (early 2002)
- http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen03.html
- AT LEAST 7 OF THE 9/11 HIJACKERS
ARE STILL ALIVE
- http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html
- For many additional articles search
GOOGLE -
- 911 HIJACKERS,ALIVE
-
- -------------------------
-
- PELOSI AND DEAN SUPPORT BUSH'S (CONTRIVED)
"WAR ON TERROR."
-
- Though most rank and file Democrat voters
want us to quickly withdraw from Iraq, if Democrats win the U.S. House
next week, it seems amazing that Dem Party Chairman Dean has just assured
there will be no abrupt changes in U.S. occupation of Iraq! And Dem House
leader Pelosi assures there will be no effort to impeach Bush (for his
lies that took us into an unjust, unnecessary war). WHY these assurances?
-
- COULD ONE REASON BE THAT ISRAEL (which
pressured Bush and Congress to attack Iraq) WANTS OUR OCCUPATION TO CONTINUE?
-
- Are Democrat Party Leaders,
like Bush and the Republicans, so dedicated to "protecting" the
tiny State of Israel (or obedient to its powerful "Israeli Lobby,"
headed by AIPAC) that they want our fighting and some occupation in Iraq
to continue? And with Bush and his Republican leaders, also want us to
destroy the other Islamic nations Israel has targeted as enemies and future
threats to Israel? Check out the following 2 articles about RAHM EMMANUEL
and NANCY PELOSI...
-
- HOW RAHM EMMANUEL HAS RIGGED A PRO-WAR
CONGRESS
-
- Election 2006: The Fix is Already
In
- By JOHN WALSH Oct. 14/15, 06
- http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh10142006.html
- Excerpts only...
-
- Only 17% of rank and file Democrats are for "staying
the course," 53% want immediate withdrawal... 25% are for gradual
withdrawal. ...In contrast to voters' sentiment, 64% of the Democratic
candidates in the 45 closely contested House Congressional races oppose
a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. ...The position of these Dem candidates
is indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush.
- Who chose these Democratic candidates
that oppose rank and file Dems on the number one question on voters' minds,
the war on Iraq?
- Enter Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee... Who is Congressman Rahm Emanuel?
-
- Note - To answer who Rahm Emmanuel
is, do a GOOGLE search: RAHM EMMANUEL,MOSSAD (Rahm has long
ago been exposed as the undercover North American Mossad Chief in Clinton's
Administration.)
-
- ---------------
-
- (And WHO arranged for pro-Israel,
dual-citizen Rahm Emmanuel to become chair of the Democratic Campaign Comittee?)...
-
- WITH HAND ON HEART: PELOSI ADMITS
ISRAEL COMES FIRST
-
- By Joshua Frank May 31, 05
- http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jfrank.php?articleid=6157
- Excerpts only...
-
- Despite the fact that AIPAC was recently
busted for spying on the United States, Pelosi, along with many other top
bureaucrats from Washington, gushed effusions of praise on the foreign
power. "There are those who contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
is all about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza," Pelosi
said as she rallied AIPAC loyalists. "This is absolute nonsense. In
truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has
been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist."
-
- "One thing, however is unchanged,"
Pelosi added. "America's commitment to the safety and security of
the state of Israel is unwavering. America and Israel share an unbreakable
bond: in peace and war; and in prosperity and in hardship."
-
- "The greatest threat to Israel's
right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from
Iran. For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States
have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who
have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile
technology."
-
- ------------------
-
- CONGRESS' OBEDIENCE TO THE "ISRAELI
LOBBY"
- (Both House Republicans and Democrats recently
voted 410-8 totally supporting Israel's massive bombardment of Lebanon.
Lenin might have referred to the latter as)...
-
- BUSH'S USEFUL IDIOTS
- The Strange Death of Liberal America
- By Tony Judt
- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15407.htm
- Excerpts only...
-
- 10/25/06 "LRB" -- -- Why
have American liberals acquiesced in President Bush's catastrophic foreign
policy? Why have they so little to say about Iraq, about Lebanon, or about
reports of a planned attack on Iran? Why has the administration's sustained
attack on civil liberties and international law aroused so little opposition
or anger from those who used to care most about these things? Why, in short,
has the liberal intelligentsia of the United States in recent years kept
its head safely below the parapet?
-
- ...today's liberal intellectuals
have at last discovered a sense of purpose: they are at war with 'Islamo-fascism'.
-
- ...Bush's liberal supporters ...have
focused their regrets not on the catastrophic invasion itself (which they
all supported) but on its incompetent execution.
-
- Bush's Middle Eastern policy now
tracks so closely to the Israeli precedent that it is very difficult to
see daylight between the two. It is this surreal turn of events that helps
explain the confusion and silence of American liberal thinking on the subject.
...the United States now has an Israeli-style foreign policy and America's
liberal intellectuals overwhelmingly support it...
-
- There is, for example, a blatant
discrepancy between Bush's proclaimed desire to bring democracy to the
Muslim world and his refusal to intervene when the only working instances
of fragile democracy in action in the whole Muslim world - in Palestine
and Lebanon - were systematically ignored and then shattered by America's
Israeli ally. ...But America's leading liberal intellectuals have
kept silent.
-
- ...The alacrity with which many of
America's most prominent liberals have censored themselves in the name
of the War on Terror, the enthusiasm with which they have invented ideological
and moral cover for war and war crimes and proffered that cover to their
political enemies: all this is a bad sign. ... Intellectuals should not
be smugly theorising endless war, much less confidently promoting and excusing
it. They should be engaged in disturbing the peace - their own above all.
-
- Tony Judt directs the Remarque
Institute at New York University. He is the author of The Burden of Responsibility:
Blum, Camus, Aron and the French 20th Century and, most recently, Postwar:
A History of Europe since 1945.
-
- --------------------
-
- DIEBOLD CONTINUES TO LIE ABOUT 'GRAVE
NATIONAL SECURITY RISK' OF E-VOTING
- as Democratic Party Keeps Head in Sand
- http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3687
- Oct. 29, 2006
- Excerpts only...
-
- Sadly, it's a REPUBLICAN Who Is Speaking
Out About the Clear and Present Threat to Our Democracy.
-
- While the GOP Prepares to Yell 'Fraud'
This Year if NecessaryS "The equipment has been tested by independent
agencies and federal agencies," Diebold's Chief Disinformation Officer,
Mark Radke lied to Diane Sawyer in a recent Good Morning America interview
on ABC.
-
- Sadly, the only ones there to counter
Radke's knowing and misleading disinformation was a computer scientist
from Princeton, and a Republican governor. Not a Democrat in sight.
-
- The National Democratic Party, to
their eternal shame, has remained virtually silent about the grave national
security threat - as it has been described by almost every computer scientist
and security expert with whom the The BRAD BLOG has discussed the matter
- which our country now faces vis a vis the nationwide use of inaccurate,
uncountable, unaccountable, hackable and, yes, untested electronic voting
systems.
-
- To be crystal clear, Radke was simply
lying in his statement to Sawyer. He knows damned well that not a single
independent body - nobody, none, zeroSno computer scientist, security expert
or federal, state or local election official or organization - is allowed
to test Diebold's voting systems in full and release their findings publicly.
The same is true for the systems of every other voting machine company
in America.
-
- ------------------
-
- CATASTROPHE IN IRAQ...
-
- Analyst Petras, explains who are
the competing forces involved, and their conflicting views. Worth reading:
-
- TEXAS VERSUS TEL AVIV: US POLICY
IN THE MIDDLE EAST - By James Petras
- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15445.htm
- Oct. 30, 2006
- Excerpts only...
-
- The struggle within the US power
structure between the economic empire builders (EEB) and the civilian militarists/Zioncons
over US Middle East and global policy is now out in the open and intensifying.
-
- The Baker Commission is attempting
to reassert the supremacy of the market over the military in defining the
driving forces of empire building, that is, the economic interests of US
petrol and finance capital over Israeli military dominance in shaping US
Middle East interests.
-
- ... What the economic elite did not
foresee was the fact that the Zioncon policy-makers did not share their
political priorities: Zioncon policy was not directed toward creating a
stable regime friendly to US political-economic interests but toward physically
destroying any Arab or Muslim country capable of challenging Israeli domination
of the region.
-
- Destroying Iraq for Greater Israeli-US
dominance meant the dismembering of the Iraqi Republic, the imposition
of a brutal US colonial regime and the gradual introduction of ethnically-cleansed
tribal client regimes which would be subject to Israel interests and open
to foreign oil companies. The promise of the latter was a 'sweetener' thrown
in to secure big oil support or neutrality for the pro-Israeli (Israel-centered)
policy.
-
|
