Vice President Dick Cheney predicted Wednesday that thousands of boxes
of documents captured from Saddam's Hussein's former regime will show
that the Iraqi dictator had a much closer relationship with Osama bin
Laden than was previously known.

"I think what we'll find as we get a chance to go through and analyze
these documents -- there's some 50,000 boxes of them that are now
being made available here over the next few months -- that we'll see a
pretty complete picture that Saddam Hussein did, in fact, deal with
some pretty nefarious characters out there," Cheney told Fox News
Radio's Tony Snow.

Asked if he was referring to Osama bin Laden, Cheney replied:

"Yes, we don't know the full scale of it there yet, and I don't want
to make a hard and fast prediction here. But there is reporting,
obviously, that we've seen over the years that there was some kind of
a relationship there between the Iraqis and Osama bin Laden."

An Iraqi intelligence document ordered released by the White House two
weeks ago detailed a Feb. 1995 meeting between bin Laden and an Iraqi
intelligence official that was personally approved by Saddam, where
bin Laden requested help in conducting "joint operations" against U.S.
forces then stationed in Saudi Arabia.

The document went on to note that Saddam agreed to help bin Laden with
propaganda broadcasts into Saudi Arabia and that "the development of
the relationship and cooperation between the two parties [would] be
left according to what's open based on dialogue and agreement on other
ways of cooperation."

The vice president stressed that nothing in the new documents
uncovered so far links Saddam to the 9/11 attacks. But he added:
"That's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not
there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government,
Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaida organization."

"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if
nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace
personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed,
the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of
defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see
police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line
of defense." --Walter Williams

Gunner wrote:
Vice President Dick Cheney predicted Wednesday that thousands of boxes
of documents captured from Saddam's Hussein's former regime will show
that the Iraqi dictator had a much closer relationship with Osama bin
Laden than was previously known.

"I think what we'll find as we get a chance to go through and analyze
these documents -- there's some 50,000 boxes of them that are now
being made available here over the next few months -- that we'll see a
pretty complete picture that Saddam Hussein did, in fact, deal with
some pretty nefarious characters out there," Cheney told Fox News
Radio's Tony Snow.

Asked if he was referring to Osama bin Laden, Cheney replied:

"Yes, we don't know the full scale of it there yet, and I don't want
to make a hard and fast prediction here. But there is reporting,
obviously, that we've seen over the years that there was some kind of
a relationship there between the Iraqis and Osama bin Laden."

An Iraqi intelligence document ordered released by the White House two
weeks ago detailed a Feb. 1995 meeting between bin Laden and an Iraqi
intelligence official that was personally approved by Saddam, where
bin Laden requested help in conducting "joint operations" against U.S.
forces then stationed in Saudi Arabia.

The document went on to note that Saddam agreed to help bin Laden with
propaganda broadcasts into Saudi Arabia and that "the development of
the relationship and cooperation between the two parties [would] be
left according to what's open based on dialogue and agreement on other
ways of cooperation."




Very very strange that ****wit US "intelligence" services didnt spill
the beans on Saddam being behind the organising of 9/11 a lot earlier?

k

Ken wrote:
Gunner wrote:

Vice President Dick Cheney predicted Wednesday that thousands of boxes
of documents captured from Saddam's Hussein's former regime will show
that the Iraqi dictator had a much closer relationship with Osama bin
Laden than was previously known.

"I think what we'll find as we get a chance to go through and analyze
these documents -- there's some 50,000 boxes of them that are now
being made available here over the next few months -- that we'll see a
pretty complete picture that Saddam Hussein did, in fact, deal with
some pretty nefarious characters out there," Cheney told Fox News
Radio's Tony Snow.

Asked if he was referring to Osama bin Laden, Cheney replied:

"Yes, we don't know the full scale of it there yet, and I don't want
to make a hard and fast prediction here. But there is reporting,
obviously, that we've seen over the years that there was some kind of
a relationship there between the Iraqis and Osama bin Laden."

An Iraqi intelligence document ordered released by the White House two
weeks ago detailed a Feb. 1995 meeting between bin Laden and an Iraqi
intelligence official that was personally approved by Saddam, where
bin Laden requested help in conducting "joint operations" against U.S.
forces then stationed in Saudi Arabia.

The document went on to note that Saddam agreed to help bin Laden with
propaganda broadcasts into Saudi Arabia and that "the development of
the relationship and cooperation between the two parties [would] be
left according to what's open based on dialogue and agreement on other
ways of cooperation."





Very very strange that ****wit US "intelligence" services didnt spill
the beans on Saddam being behind the organising of 9/11 a lot earlier?

k


Oh, SH was now "behind the organizing" of 9/11?

Seems like you're the ****wit.

--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:47:19 GMT, Gunner
wrote:
snip
Asked if he was referring to Osama bin Laden, Cheney replied:

"Yes, we don't know the full scale of it there yet, and I don't want
to make a hard and fast prediction here. But there is reporting,
obviously, that we've seen over the years that there was some kind of
a relationship there between the Iraqis and Osama bin Laden."
snip
I would be a great deal more impressed if these had been released
at once and independent examiners/translators allowed to see the
original documents in situ.

For all we know the documents say "your wife called and said to
pick up a loaf of bread and 2 quarts of milk on your way home
from work," or " (6) uniform pants, (6) uniform shirts, (1) blue
dress shirt -- no starch in the blue shirt, all on hangers."

Another serious problem is that the CIA is known to be expert in
the creation of documents and staging of incidents. They have
now had three years to create these documents, or these could
have been planted by some other countrie's security service with
an axe to grind. There is now no way to know.

What is known is that many if not most of the "terrorists"
arrested and convicted immediately after 9/11 only on the basis
of purjured/coerced testimony and suborned/created/suppressed
evidence. And these are our best and brightest....
see:
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.ph...0-080200-3355r
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...3/s1604305.htm

There may well be a "clear and present danger," but the Keystone
Kops are not the answer.


Unka George
(George McDuffee)

....and at the end of the fight is a tombstone white
with the name of the late deceased, and
the epitaph drear:
“A Fool lies here, who tried to hustle the East.”

Rudyard Kipling The Naulahka, ch. 5, heading (1892).

On 30 Mar 2006 05:18:25 -0800, "Ken"
wrote:


Gunner wrote:
Vice President Dick Cheney predicted Wednesday that thousands of boxes
of documents captured from Saddam's Hussein's former regime will show
that the Iraqi dictator had a much closer relationship with Osama bin
Laden than was previously known.

"I think what we'll find as we get a chance to go through and analyze
these documents -- there's some 50,000 boxes of them that are now
being made available here over the next few months -- that we'll see a
pretty complete picture that Saddam Hussein did, in fact, deal with
some pretty nefarious characters out there," Cheney told Fox News
Radio's Tony Snow.

Asked if he was referring to Osama bin Laden, Cheney replied:

"Yes, we don't know the full scale of it there yet, and I don't want
to make a hard and fast prediction here. But there is reporting,
obviously, that we've seen over the years that there was some kind of
a relationship there between the Iraqis and Osama bin Laden."

An Iraqi intelligence document ordered released by the White House two
weeks ago detailed a Feb. 1995 meeting between bin Laden and an Iraqi
intelligence official that was personally approved by Saddam, where
bin Laden requested help in conducting "joint operations" against U.S.
forces then stationed in Saudi Arabia.

The document went on to note that Saddam agreed to help bin Laden with
propaganda broadcasts into Saudi Arabia and that "the development of
the relationship and cooperation between the two parties [would] be
left according to what's open based on dialogue and agreement on other
ways of cooperation."




Very very strange that ****wit US "intelligence" services didnt spill
the beans on Saddam being behind the organising of 9/11 a lot earlier?

k

So far..no one has stated that Saddam was behind 9/11. Except the
Leftist Media trying to hang that on Bush.

However...its been common conjecture for quite some time that Saddam
was one of the rich uncles who gave them places to train, money,
support, instructors and a place to sleep. He hates the US as much or
more than Osama did..and having an "action arm" at his disposal would
have been a dream come true.

Gunner


"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if
nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace
personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed,
the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of
defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see
police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line
of defense." --Walter Williams

Ken wrote:

Very very strange that ****wit US "intelligence" services didnt spill
the beans on Saddam being behind the organising of 9/11 a lot earlier?

It would be strange. There are not indications that he was, and people
like you are the only ones claiming otherwise.

In article ,
says...
On 30 Mar 2006 05:18:25 -0800, "Ken"
wrote:



Very very strange that ****wit US "intelligence" services didnt spill
the beans on Saddam being behind the organising of 9/11 a lot earlier?

k

So far..no one has stated that Saddam was behind 9/11. Except the
Leftist Media trying to hang that on Bush.


You're forgetting the majority of troops in Iraq who think the invasion
was retaliation for Saddam's involvement in 9/11.

On the other hand, one of those mobile chemical weapons labs has finally
shown up. Has anyone told Cliff?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12009152/from/RL.2/

http://www.nbc10.com/slideshow/news/...il.html?qs=;s=
2;p=news;dm=ss;w=400

Ned Simmons

Gunner wrote:

And "Libs" are in trouble, why?

Dan

Ken wrote:

Very very strange that ****wit...

Ken, try expanding your vocabulary a bit.

"Ken" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gunner wrote:
Vice President Dick Cheney predicted Wednesday that thousands of boxes
of documents captured from Saddam's Hussein's former regime will show
that the Iraqi dictator had a much closer relationship with Osama bin
Laden than was previously known.

"I think what we'll find as we get a chance to go through and analyze
these documents -- there's some 50,000 boxes of them that are now
being made available here over the next few months -- that we'll see a
pretty complete picture that Saddam Hussein did, in fact, deal with
some pretty nefarious characters out there," Cheney told Fox News
Radio's Tony Snow.

Asked if he was referring to Osama bin Laden, Cheney replied:

"Yes, we don't know the full scale of it there yet, and I don't want
to make a hard and fast prediction here. But there is reporting,
obviously, that we've seen over the years that there was some kind of
a relationship there between the Iraqis and Osama bin Laden."

An Iraqi intelligence document ordered released by the White House two
weeks ago detailed a Feb. 1995 meeting between bin Laden and an Iraqi
intelligence official that was personally approved by Saddam, where
bin Laden requested help in conducting "joint operations" against U.S.
forces then stationed in Saudi Arabia.

The document went on to note that Saddam agreed to help bin Laden with
propaganda broadcasts into Saudi Arabia and that "the development of
the relationship and cooperation between the two parties [would] be
left according to what's open based on dialogue and agreement on other
ways of cooperation."




Very very strange that ****wit US "intelligence" services didnt spill
the beans on Saddam being behind the organising of 9/11 a lot earlier?


You really have to hand it to the republicans, once they start something
they never quit. Cheney and the boys have been trying to make the case that
they had to got to war in Iraq because of all the dastardly deeds of Saddam
Hussein for years now. Even after years of looking and countless
investigations there is nothing substantial connecting al Qaeda and Iraq but
Cheney never quits.

Unfortunately for him he started this lie and he has no choice but to keep
it going regardless of the evidence proving he's lying. Even when he was
caught on Meet the Press saying one thing and then was on TV with Gloria
Borger denying he said what he did to Tim Russert he still keeps on lying.
That's the mark of a born and well practiced liar. They keep lying even when
they are caught red handed. Cheney is going to maintain there was a
"relationship" between Osama and Saddam even thought there wasn't one. At
this point most people no longer believe anything Cheney says since he's
already been caught lying repeatedly, and it's likely one of the reasons for
his 18% approval rating. What is amazing though is that so many right
wingers still believe everything he says when his credibility is shot.
That's the true believers for you, they live in their own reality. There
ought to be a law prohibiting them from voting. When you can't tell a guy
like Cheney is a liar that ought to cost you the right to vote.

Hawke

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:24:14 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:
snip
On the other hand, one of those mobile chemical weapons labs has finally
shown up. Has anyone told Cliff?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12009152/from/RL.2/
snip
Is this from the same team that discovered the cache of
biological toxins/agents in a pit behind a house in Baghdad
disguised as a privy? Oh wait -- that was a privy...


Unka George
(George McDuffee)

There is something to be said for government by a great aristocracy
which has furnished leaders to the nation in peace and war for generations;
even a democrat like myself must admit this.

But there is absolutely nothing to be said for government by a plutocracy,
for government by men very powerful in certain lines and gifted with the "money touch,"
but with ideals which in their essence are merely those of so many glorified pawnbrokers.

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), U.S. Republican (later Progressive) politician, president. Letter, 15 Nov. 1913.

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:24:14 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 30 Mar 2006 05:18:25 -0800, "Ken"
wrote:



Very very strange that ****wit US "intelligence" services didnt spill
the beans on Saddam being behind the organising of 9/11 a lot earlier?

So far..no one has stated that Saddam was behind 9/11. Except the
Leftist Media trying to hang that on Bush.

You're forgetting the majority of troops in Iraq who think the invasion
was retaliation for Saddam's involvement in 9/11.

Cite, please? (translation: you appear to be pulling statements out of
your ass, and I would like to see your source for your statement so I
can evaluate it)

In article , says...
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:24:14 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 30 Mar 2006 05:18:25 -0800, "Ken"
wrote:



Very very strange that ****wit US "intelligence" services didnt spill
the beans on Saddam being behind the organising of 9/11 a lot earlier?

So far..no one has stated that Saddam was behind 9/11. Except the
Leftist Media trying to hang that on Bush.

You're forgetting the majority of troops in Iraq who think the invasion
was retaliation for Saddam's involvement in 9/11.

Cite, please? (translation: you appear to be pulling statements out of
your ass, and I would like to see your source for your statement so I
can evaluate it)



"85% believe the US invaded Iraq to retaliate for 9/11 attacks"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p01s04a-woiq.htm

Ned Simmons

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 23:15:44 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article , says...

Cite, please? (translation: you appear to be pulling statements out of
your ass, and I would like to see your source for your statement so I
can evaluate it)

"85% believe the US invaded Iraq to retaliate for 9/11 attacks"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p01s04a-woiq.htm

Excellent, thank you. That's the first time in months that a "cite
please" has actually worked.

OK, so who is telling them this? Because the only people saying it
_here_ are lefties trying to pretend Bush said it.

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 23:15:44 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:

"85% believe the US invaded Iraq to retaliate for 9/11 attacks"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p01s04a-woiq.htm

Excellent, thank you. That's the first time in months that a "cite
please" has actually worked.

OK, so who is telling them this? Because the only people saying it
_here_ are lefties trying to pretend Bush said it.

Getting a cite is unusual.

This study was examined in one of the blogs, but I cannot find the one
I read it in.

The US soldiers questioned came from a non-representitive group
(soldiers are supposed to kick that sort of question up the chain of
command to the people who handle pulic relations so the more
professional soldiers did not take part of the poll).

In addition, the actual question was whether the invasion of Iraq was
the _result_ of 9/11, not that it was _retaliation_ for 9/11. Almost,
but not quite the same thing.

But, as I said, I cannot relocate the discussion.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 23:15:44 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:
In article , says...

Cite, please? (translation: you appear to be pulling statements out of
your ass, and I would like to see your source for your statement so I
can evaluate it)

"85% believe the US invaded Iraq to retaliate for 9/11 attacks"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p01s04a-woiq.htm

Excellent, thank you. That's the first time in months that a "cite
please" has actually worked.

OK, so who is telling them this? Because the only people saying it
_here_ are lefties trying to pretend Bush said it.



Sorry, but it's not "lefties" spreading misinformation, as you are
suggesting. This was a poll conducted by Zogby in which it was found that
the vast majority of our troops thought they were in Iraq fighting in
retaliation for 9/11. And you ought to know where they got that idea anyhow.

The Bush Administration has been putting out propaganda supporting their
decision to go to war for years now. Without saying things outright they
have used every means of innuendo, reference, and exaggeration to propagate
the myth that the war in Iraq is payback for the 9/11 attack. From this poll
it's clear that at least some Americans have bought the administration's
baseless assertions.

Unfortunately this isn't the only thing they have used this type of
propaganda for either. They have been conning the people with the help of
the media from day one. Half of the public understands this. The problem is
the other half has been and continues to be happy consumers of totally
unsubstantiated mythology fed to them by the likes of Fox News and AM talk
radio. Luckily for us, the republicans will continue with their failed
policies until it is no longer half of the public that believes their
propaganda but only 25% will believe it. At that point they will be sent
packing. I sure wish the last 25% would hurry up and figure it out.

Hawke

Ned Simmons wrote:

The entire poll questionnaire here...
http://www.zogby.com/iraq.pdf

Thanks. I was not aware they posted the questions to this poll. In fact,
the people discussing the poll were pretty irritated that the questions
were not released. Considering what I saw was posted nearly a week ago,
I'd guess it just was not up yet.

The Christian Science Monitor author seems to think "retaliation" is the
only possible "reason". If I had taken the poll, I would be thinking the
reason for the invasion was to reduce the probability of more 9/11's.

In article .com,
says...

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 23:15:44 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:

"85% believe the US invaded Iraq to retaliate for 9/11 attacks"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p01s04a-woiq.htm

Excellent, thank you. That's the first time in months that a "cite
please" has actually worked.

OK, so who is telling them this? Because the only people saying it
_here_ are lefties trying to pretend Bush said it.

Getting a cite is unusual.

This study was examined in one of the blogs, but I cannot find the one
I read it in.

The US soldiers questioned came from a non-representitive group
(soldiers are supposed to kick that sort of question up the chain of
command to the people who handle pulic relations so the more
professional soldiers did not take part of the poll).

In addition, the actual question was whether the invasion of Iraq was
the _result_ of 9/11, not that it was _retaliation_ for 9/11. Almost,
but not quite the same thing.


This is the exact question, which clearly asks if the invasion was
retaliation for 9/11...

************************************************** *********************
Please rate the statements in questions 8 through 14 as reasons for the
Iraq invasion, using
the following scale:
1 =3F Not a reason
2 =3F Minor reason
3 =3F Major reason
4 =3F Main reason
5 =3F Not sure

8. To remove weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from Iraq
1 2 3 4 5. Not sure
9. To remove Saddam Hussein from power
1 2 3 4 5. Not sure
10. To establish a democracy that can be a model for the Arab world
1 2 3 4 5. Not sure
11. To stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq
1 2 3 4 5. Not sure
12. To retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks
1 2 3 4 5. Not sure
13. To secure Iraqi oil supplies
1 2 3 4 5. Not sure
14. To provide a long-term base for U.S. troops in the Middle East
1 2 3 4 5. Not sure
************************************************** *******************

The entire poll questionnaire here...
http://www.zogby.com/iraq.pdf

Ned Simmons

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:19:34 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:
snip
Unfortunately this isn't the only thing they have used this type of
propaganda for either.
snip
IMNSHO it does not appear this was some sort of Goebbels
"Ministry of Public Truth and Enlightenment" operation, but
rather a manifestation of "group think." In many ways this is
far more dangerous because the people running things believe what
they are saying. "Bay of Pigs" anyone?






Unka George
(George McDuffee)

There is something to be said for government by a great aristocracy
which has furnished leaders to the nation in peace and war for generations;
even a democrat like myself must admit this.

But there is absolutely nothing to be said for government by a plutocracy,
for government by men very powerful in certain lines and gifted with the "money touch,"
but with ideals which in their essence are merely those of so many glorified pawnbrokers.

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), U.S. Republican (later Progressive) politician, president. Letter, 15 Nov. 1913.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:19:34 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:
snip
Unfortunately this isn't the only thing they have used this type of
propaganda for either.
snip
IMNSHO it does not appear this was some sort of Goebbels
"Ministry of Public Truth and Enlightenment" operation, but
rather a manifestation of "group think." In many ways this is
far more dangerous because the people running things believe what
they are saying. "Bay of Pigs" anyone?

Unka George
(George McDuffee)

It was "group think" on the part of Bush and his advisors, but once they
made up their minds to go to war, sometime early in the first Bush term, it
went into the propaganda mode. After deciding to start the war with Iraq,
Bush's team went to a full court press of propaganda designed to sway public
opinion to their side. Aided in large part by a willing media, sad to say
their plan worked perfectly.

The problem with propaganda though is that it doesn't work forever. At some
point when the propaganda and reality part ways it stops working. Going into
a fourth year of a war we're "winning" most Americans aren't buying the
propaganda any more. Now that Bush has been discredited by most people not
only do they not trust Bush on the war but they no longer trust him on
anything else either. Just look at what he's doing with the immigration
issue. He's portraying his immigration plan as not being an "amnesty" for
illegal aliens. The public isn't buying it, 70% of them think it is. Once a
president loses the public trust he doesn't ususally get it back, and at
this point Bush can forget about it.

Hawke

In OT-Libs in trouble again on Sat, 1 Apr 2006 22:00:57
-0800, by Hawke, we read:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:19:34 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:
snip
Unfortunately this isn't the only thing they have used this type of
propaganda for either.
snip
IMNSHO it does not appear this was some sort of Goebbels
"Ministry of Public Truth and Enlightenment" operation, but
rather a manifestation of "group think." In many ways this is
far more dangerous because the people running things believe what
they are saying. "Bay of Pigs" anyone?

Unka George
(George McDuffee)

It was "group think" on the part of Bush and his advisors, but once they
made up their minds to go to war, sometime early in the first Bush term, it
went into the propaganda mode. After deciding to start the war with Iraq,
Bush's team went to a full court press of propaganda designed to sway public
opinion to their side. Aided in large part by a willing media, sad to say
their plan worked perfectly.

The problem with propaganda though is that it doesn't work forever. At some
point when the propaganda and reality part ways it stops working. Going into
a fourth year of a war we're "winning" most Americans aren't buying the
propaganda any more. Now that Bush has been discredited by most people not
only do they not trust Bush on the war but they no longer trust him on
anything else either. Just look at what he's doing with the immigration
issue. He's portraying his immigration plan as not being an "amnesty" for
illegal aliens. The public isn't buying it, 70% of them think it is. Once a
president loses the public trust he doesn't ususally get it back, and at
this point Bush can forget about it.

And the president and his congressional and judicial supporters
can say "So what? We'll just carry on regardless of public
opinion. As long as we can create inflated dollars we can
spend as we please."

We have a problem that hasn't existed since Lincoln suspended
the Constitution and took control of the US government by
military control.

The problems now are that:

1. Congress has supported Bush's policies and abdicated it's
duties thus transferring critical powers to the presidency.

a. Through unrestrained Executive Orders, Policy Directives
and Emergency Orders.

b. Through party and congressional conspiracies; the lack of
obligatory congressional oversight and management.

2. The US military has essentially become the private army of the
president.

3. Expanded powers now allow for civilian contractors to take
the place of traditional military operatives.

4. The infamous Patriot Act gives the president statutory
power to surveil and gather private information that may
be used blackmail political and legal opposition; and
circumvent key elements of the Bill of Rights.

Remember that this is the president that very early sought the
power to suspend elections. His reason - national security. He
damn near got it.


The public is still not aware of this precarious circumstance
largely because the news publishers refuse to lay out the big
picture.



Hawke




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In misc.survivalism Gunner wrote:

"I think what we'll find as we get a chance to go through and analyze
these documents -- there's some 50,000 boxes of them that are now
being made available here over the next few months -- that we'll see a
pretty complete picture that Saddam Hussein did, in fact, deal with
some pretty nefarious characters out there," Cheney told Fox News
Radio's Tony Snow.

You believed it then, so Cheney figures, maybe you'll believe it again?

He knows that he can fool all the people some of the time, and now he
thinks he can fool some of the people for a second time...

On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 01:33:13 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

In misc.survivalism Gunner wrote:

"I think what we'll find as we get a chance to go through and analyze
these documents -- there's some 50,000 boxes of them that are now
being made available here over the next few months -- that we'll see a
pretty complete picture that Saddam Hussein did, in fact, deal with
some pretty nefarious characters out there," Cheney told Fox News
Radio's Tony Snow.

You believed it then, so Cheney figures, maybe you'll believe it again?

He knows that he can fool all the people some of the time, and now he
thinks he can fool some of the people for a second time...

On the other hand...if they come up with the documentationl with fully
verified info, 8x18 color photos with the inscriptions on the back and
so forth.. you will claim its a lie, pure and simple.

Partisan hacks such as yourself cannot allow their world view to be
shaken.

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 02:47:39 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 01:33:13 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

In misc.survivalism Gunner wrote:

"I think what we'll find as we get a chance to go through and analyze
these documents -- there's some 50,000 boxes of them that are now
being made available here over the next few months -- that we'll see a
pretty complete picture that Saddam Hussein did, in fact, deal with
some pretty nefarious characters out there," Cheney told Fox News
Radio's Tony Snow.

You believed it then, so Cheney figures, maybe you'll believe it again?

He knows that he can fool all the people some of the time, and now he
thinks he can fool some of the people for a second time...

On the other hand...if they come up with the documentationl with fully
verified info, 8x18 color photos with the inscriptions on the back and
so forth.. you will claim its a lie, pure and simple.

On the other hand, if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses
when they hop.

Strabo wrote:
In OT-Libs in trouble again on Sat, 1 Apr 2006 22:00:57
-0800, by Hawke, we read:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
. ..

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:19:34 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:
snip

Unfortunately this isn't the only thing they have used this type of
propaganda for either.

snip
IMNSHO it does not appear this was some sort of Goebbels
"Ministry of Public Truth and Enlightenment" operation, but
rather a manifestation of "group think." In many ways this is
far more dangerous because the people running things believe what
they are saying. "Bay of Pigs" anyone?

Unka George
(George McDuffee)

It was "group think" on the part of Bush and his advisors, but once they
made up their minds to go to war, sometime early in the first Bush term, it
went into the propaganda mode. After deciding to start the war with Iraq,
Bush's team went to a full court press of propaganda designed to sway public
opinion to their side. Aided in large part by a willing media, sad to say
their plan worked perfectly.

The problem with propaganda though is that it doesn't work forever. At some
point when the propaganda and reality part ways it stops working. Going into
a fourth year of a war we're "winning" most Americans aren't buying the
propaganda any more. Now that Bush has been discredited by most people not
only do they not trust Bush on the war but they no longer trust him on
anything else either. Just look at what he's doing with the immigration
issue. He's portraying his immigration plan as not being an "amnesty" for
illegal aliens. The public isn't buying it, 70% of them think it is. Once a
president loses the public trust he doesn't ususally get it back, and at
this point Bush can forget about it.


And the president and his congressional and judicial supporters
can say "So what? We'll just carry on regardless of public
opinion. As long as we can create inflated dollars we can
spend as we please."

We have a problem that hasn't existed since Lincoln suspended
the Constitution and took control of the US government by
military control.

The problems now are that:

1. Congress has supported Bush's policies and abdicated it's
duties thus transferring critical powers to the presidency.

a. Through unrestrained Executive Orders, Policy Directives
and Emergency Orders.

b. Through party and congressional conspiracies; the lack of
obligatory congressional oversight and management.

2. The US military has essentially become the private army of the
president.

3. Expanded powers now allow for civilian contractors to take
the place of traditional military operatives.

4. The infamous Patriot Act gives the president statutory
power to surveil and gather private information that may
be used blackmail political and legal opposition; and
circumvent key elements of the Bill of Rights.

Remember that this is the president that very early sought the
power to suspend elections. His reason - national security. He
damn near got it.


The public is still not aware of this precarious circumstance
largely because the news publishers refuse to lay out the big
picture.

Damn that liberal media! Damn it to hell, I say!

Dan

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:14:46 -0700, dan wrote:


Damn that liberal media! Damn it to hell, I say!

Dan


Good boy! You are finally catching on!

Bravo son, bravo!!

Gunner

"I think this is because of your belief in biological Marxism.
As a genetic communist you feel that noticing behavioural
patterns relating to race would cause a conflict with your belief
in biological Marxism." Big Pete, famous Usenet Racist

In article , Gunner says...

Good boy! You are finally catching on!

Bravo son, bravo!!

Gunner move to texas, you would make a great cheerleader
for tommy delay. Do your best to keep up his spirits.

(begin quoted text)
===============================================

Tom DeLay Update

As youu already know, Ronnie Earle rushed to empanel a new
grand jury when Tom DeLay's lawyer moved to quash the, uhhh,
"indictment" he already had in hand. The reason? The law he was
indicted on was passed in 2003. The transaction supposedly violating that law
occurred in 2002.

Talk about loose ****. I guess Ronnie Earle was absent the day they
taught law in law school.

So now he's seeking a quickie money-laundering charge. It's bullshi
because Texas law states that money laundering occurs when money
obtained through illegal means is passed through a front. The money
was not raised through illegally, but through perfectly legal means.
Whether or not the subsequent transaction was shady is irrelevant. The law
applies to criminal proceeds; money laundering just does not apply.

Now the New Editor catches that a third grand jury refused to indict
delay. Funny how the media isn't reporting that.

It's also funny that no record of the grand jury's refusal to indict
can be found at the courthouse.
Note to Ronnie Earl: Hope you've already signed all the contracts for
your Hollywood Moment. 'Cuzzin' I'm thinking you just jumped the
shark.

"The Man Who Almost Got DeLay, But ****ed It All Up Because He Was an
Incompetent Hyperpartisan Hack" just isn't a good title.
================================================== ===================
(end quoted text)

Might want to re-think that title though.


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================