Discussion:
AMERICA THE EVIL: Shock & Awe
(too old to reply)
George Bush: 1 for 1 in 2004.
2004-11-05 17:58:03 UTC
Permalink
You should have seen the long faces at the market and in the streets,
even at the bank. Looked like everyone had lost a dear, loved one.
Everyone was in mourning. This must have been what it looked like when
Kennedy was shot. People in deep shock, moving zombie-like through the
familiar, but un-noticed routine of their lives, their minds sunken in
incredulity, uncomprehending how the Barbarians relentlessly dismantling
America, could have been "voted" back in for another 4 years. Another 4
years of lies, murder, mayhem and madness? Ugh!

In a recent essay, I spoke of the futility of the election process. See
http://www.rense.com/general58/voting.htm

Many persons e-mailed me in response to that post, accepting my premise.
However, most were still committed to voting for Kerry, intent on seeing
that Bush never got reelected. Trouble is, the majority of those people
were thinking that the GOP was depending on the voting process to get
their man back in the White House. The nation failed to rid itself of
the greater part of its domestic enemies because of its childish faith
in a broken system and its unwillingness to see what was directly in
front of it. Will we have elections in 2008? What will the people do
then to ensure that they are not fraudulent? Between now and then, will
we have demanded accountability and prosecuted everyone involved in the
on-going destruction of this nation? Will we have a full-blown police
state, or will we have salvaged our nation and restored it to its former
status, and better?

It is a known fact that the GOP did not win the 2000 elections. Thus the
President these last 4 years should have been Al Gore. What road would
our nation be on now had Gore occupied the White House? At any rate, as
a nation, we failed to address the problem of the Florida elections and
thus allowed someone who lost to be selected by corrupt justices to be
President. Next came 9/11, a fortuitous "Pearl Harbor" event that
allowed the Bush cabal to catapult the nation in the direction
desired--unlimited international conflicts without end for the seizure
of resources, and to redefine the geopolitics of the planet. Most
Americans were happy hating Bin Laden and sending their sons and
daughters off to kill innocent Muslims. Even as the body bags and the
lies piled up, Americans did not seem to waver in their determination to
line up like hapless lemmings behind the man, Bush. Now comes 2005.
"Another 4 years". Unfortunately, although some are ecstatic about that
little GOP ditty, "another 4 years" will certainly prove to be a curse
on both the US and the rest of the World.

In a sense, those who felt certain that Kerry would win are to be
excused for their naivete. After all, which other President in history
has stimulated such an abundance of books, calendars, stand-up comic
routines, films, DVDs, CDs, talk shows, bumper stickers and other
paraphernalia that captured the witlessness of the resident of the White
House? Even while the economy seemed to be going South, the revenue from
anti-Bush bumper stickers should have been enough to pay down the budget
deficit. He was a good stimulus for the economy, stupid! At any rate,
the screw-ups of this Administration, their lies, crimes and cover-ups
were thoroughly documented and put out there on the internet and in the
mainstream media, for all to see. There was enough information to
convince everyone that this Administration had to go. They were
convinced that he was going.

Surely this nightmarish scenario had to end. We watched as hundreds of
thousands of us got laid off, as our jobs went overseas while we trained
our foreign replacements. Our CEOs reaped huge bonuses as we stood in
the unemployment lines. The tax-cuts the rich received went to stimulate
jobs, but not here at home. Our communities were failing. The only hope
for our youth was to join the Armed Forces and sign up to murder
innocent people in exotic countries so they could go to college, or one
day buy a home where they could quietly die from DU poisoning. The
American Dream could only be purchased with Muslim blood. We didn't
flinch at that. We stood at attention and saluted as the body bags
arrived. "We have to fight those terr'ists, you know".

We were even prepared to give up all our freedoms and agree to
communally spit on the Constitution, while wrapping ourselves in the
flag and yellow ribbons, just so we could do shock and awe unto others
so they couldn't do shock and awe unto us. Are we totally nuts? Who in
his right mind would want 4 more years of this? How much more are we
prepared to give up for lies, the destruction of our once proud Republic
and the embroiling of the entire planet in unremitting bloodshed? No
other President has had more demonstrations against him both at home and
abroad. No one is more universally hated and despised. Yet, here he
is...bigger and bolder than ever. 4 more years of shock and awe on the
planet.

How foolish to think that having stolen the elections in 2002, that the
perps would contentedly allow themselves to be kicked out in 2004? Think
about it, folks. If you were able to stage a successful coup that gave
you total control over the most powerful military and financial
apparatus in History, and your control over the nation's legal apparatus
meant that you were safe from any kind of prosecution, why would you
want to give it up? Some years ago, I had to sue someone in Small Claims
Court, for the return of a deposit on a rental. If I had not done that,
this rascal would have made off with almost $2,000. He countersued. I
won. Obviously, this individual was prepared to take the risk of being
sued and countersuing, a small, low-cost inconvenience, in order to gain
$2000. What would the Bush Administration we willing to pay, or do, to
preserve the multibillion dollar gravy train set up as a result of its
policies over the past 4 years, most notably the launching of the phony
War on Terror? And when the cost of subverting the election process (by
forcing the States to spend millions on fraud-friendly voting systems),
can be passed on to "we the people", why should they worry?

Imagine mandating only paperless balloting, when the nation's best
computer engineering minds have told us that such a system is
untrustworthy. Imaging the fact that the companies providing the
machines are in the hands of men sworn to "reelecting" the incumbent.
Imagine that some of these men have criminal backgrounds, some of whom
are blackmailable. Is it reasonable to think that the system would not
be exploited to ensure the appearance that the incumbent was reelected?
(For the best analysis on this, please visit www.invisibleballots.com
and order their video "Invisible Ballots".)

It is clear to me that if we could put ourselves in the shoes of the
Administration, we would see that the Elections was just another little
nuisance event that had to be "handled". We the people were not really
going to be allowed to determine who got to sleep in the White House.
November 2 wasn't going to be Judgment Day. We could naively choose to
believe otherwise to our shame and peril. However, what was at stake was
infinitely too enormous to allow the people to decide by voting.
Elections '04 was just another item on a long list of things to be
"handled" in such a way as to ensure the uninterrupted continuity of the
agenda. We may speculate about the way this matter was handled, but when
we understand the enormity of what was at stake, we can easily see that
the powers that be had no other choice but to do whatever it took to
remain in control. For one simple thing, too many crimes in high places
have been and are being exposed. The only way to avoid prosecution is to
remain in power. Watch for an aggressive move to shut down any
investigation into the Executive crimes of the last 4 years.

Another piece of tell-tale evidence is the sickening attempts by the
newsfakers of CNN and Fox, and the talk show punditocracy, to spin the
so-called GOP "victory". There was no victory. There was merely another
coup. On the night of the election, one such presstitute made the
comment that a Bush win would mean that "morality trumped the issues". I
was shocked and in awe at the remorseless arrogance of these people.
What morality? You mean the fact that Bush claims to be anti-gay
marriage and anti-abortion? Since when was morality selective?

I recall a Chris Rock routine in which he made fun of Big Pharma TV
commercials. "They're bound to get you with one of those symptoms", he
quipped. 'Do you go to bed at night and wake up in the morning?' Huh?
That's me. I've got those symptoms. I need that medication!" Some voted
for Bush, believing that he is anti-gay and anti-abortion. However, the
point is that whether Bush is anti-gay marriage, or anti-abortion makes
no difference. Homosexuality will not go away and neither will abortion.
Talk is cheap and it gets votes. In 2000, one foolish woman told me she
was going to vote for Bush because he went to Church! Yikes! At any
rate, this press whore, ever ready to uphold the Fox tradition of
reporting narrow-minded opinion as hot news, told us that "morality had
trumped the issues".

Thus the critical issues facing the nation were not important to the
majority of people. But was that true? Quick, can anyone point out the
morality of uttering 237 lies (per Sen. Henry Waxman. See
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-18-04/discussion.cgi.30.html),
bearing false witness against our Muslim neighbors and launching Shock
and Awe on defeated and defenseless nations, murdering hundreds of
thousands of innocent women and children? I get it: Its immoral to kill
the child when he's in the womb, but it is perfectly moral to kill both
mother and child once he's born. Glad you cleared that up for me. If
this is the morality of the Immoral Majority that voted for Bush, the
world is headed towards a very bleak future indeed.

Next morning, flipping channels for some election coverage to confirm
what I already suspected when I went to sleep the night before, another
Fox presstitute, opining the News, declared that the fact that Merck
stock was "taking off" on the GOP win meant that "Republicans obviously
did not support cheap drugs from Canada". What? I quickly switched off
the infernal thing as if stung by a viper. Amazing! What Republicans
don't support cheaper drugs from Canada? The poor, fixed-income
Republican widows who are watching their vital medications escalate in
cost every week and who would love to get them even at the price they
paid for them last week? Or did that prattling head mean those fat cat
Republicans who are busy ripping off the nation, exporting jobs overseas
and turning the country into the newest member of Third World Developing
Countries? She didn't specify. Funny how these same Republicans support
the flooding of the country with the cheapest goods manufactured in
China, (even the American flags so instantly available right after 9/11,
that adorned every car and home), but not lower priced medications from
Canada for needy people. For anyone still watching Fox, my sympathies.
May your brains R.I.P.

Quo vadis, America? My guess is that 9/11 was not just a "Pearl Harbor"
for the warmongers. It also signalled the dawning of a new age of truth.
We live in a world of duality. With the big lie of 9/11 came the truth,
side by side. That truth has been spreading like wildfire from person to
person, via the internet, via books, CDs, DVDs, cinema, what have you.
Over the past three years, millions of people have been inoculated with
the serum of truth. This Administration has been so in-your-face, so
arrogant, so blatantly corrupt, that they have managed to expose things
that would have remained hidden for decades to come. We must be grateful
for that. Many sleepers have been awakened to the dangerous excesses of
the Bush Administration. They will not sit idly by just waiting for the
curse of the last 4 years to repeat. Many will certainly pack up and
leave. Others are going to recognize that America would have no foreign
enemies if she did not have the domestic enemies that she does. Many of
these people are going to become active patriots. My guess is that the
actions of the Bush Administration have unintentionally created a
turned-on population. It is clear now why the Patriot Act was conceived.
Patriots are definitely not welcome here.

Look for more synthetic terror strikes to generate more fear and to keep
the lemmings in line. And as General Tommy Franks has certified, the
Constitution will be history and the US will become another Banana
Republic. But take heart, America and the world. Everything is temporary.
The illegal and ill-conceived American Empire, one anathema to the very
Constitution of the US, and all that it was conceived to serve and
accomplish, will self-destruct in a fraction of the time it took to
create it. It will go the way of Rome and all the other hubristic
imperial endeavors of old. Undoubtedly, it is an evil empire in the
truest sense of the term, one based on greed, deception and hatred,
supported by mass-murder and repression, its leaders drunken on a lethal
mix of privilege, unaccountability, pride and arrogance. However, and
most importantly, truth, its most deadly enemy, has already begun to
attack the Empire's very marrow like the deadliest of auto-immune
diseases, and is slowly but inexorably eating away at it. It may achieve
its blighted goals in the short term, with great endeavor and bloodshed,
but it will not survive its success.

That is certain. Adolph Hitler taught us that.
Coffee
2004-11-05 18:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Bush: 1 for 1 in 2004.
You should have seen the long faces at the market and in the streets,
even at the bank.
Less brocoli and an air freshner will clear that up, skippy.
George Bush: 1 for 1 in 2004.
2004-11-05 23:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Bush: 1 for 1 in 2004.
You should have seen the long faces at the market and in the streets,
even at the bank.
I know you live in the gay neighborhoods, but things are much cheerier
in Real America.
jlruble
2004-11-06 18:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Bush: 1 for 1 in 2004.
Post by George Bush: 1 for 1 in 2004.
You should have seen the long faces at the market and in the streets,
even at the bank.
I know you live in the gay neighborhoods, but things are much cheerier
in Real America.
Man, wouldn't you hate to have to smell that closet they came out of?

SCOTTY
Sparky
2004-11-06 15:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Bush: 1 for 1 in 2004.
You should have seen the long faces at the market and in the streets,
even at the bank. Looked like everyone had lost a dear, loved one.
Everyone was in mourning. This must have been what it looked like when
Kennedy was shot. People in deep shock, moving zombie-like through the
familiar, but un-noticed routine of their lives, their minds sunken in
incredulity, uncomprehending how the Barbarians relentlessly dismantling
America, could have been "voted" back in for another 4 years. Another 4
years of lies, murder, mayhem and madness? Ugh!
In a recent essay, I spoke of the futility of the election process. See
http://www.rense.com/general58/voting.htm
Many persons e-mailed me in response to that post, accepting my premise.
However, most were still committed to voting for Kerry, intent on seeing
that Bush never got reelected. Trouble is, the majority of those people
were thinking that the GOP was depending on the voting process to get
their man back in the White House. The nation failed to rid itself of
the greater part of its domestic enemies because of its childish faith
in a broken system and its unwillingness to see what was directly in
front of it. Will we have elections in 2008? What will the people do
then to ensure that they are not fraudulent? Between now and then, will
we have demanded accountability and prosecuted everyone involved in the
on-going destruction of this nation? Will we have a full-blown police
state, or will we have salvaged our nation and restored it to its former
status, and better?
It is a known fact that the GOP did not win the 2000 elections. Thus the
President these last 4 years should have been Al Gore. What road would
our nation be on now had Gore occupied the White House? At any rate, as
a nation, we failed to address the problem of the Florida elections and
thus allowed someone who lost to be selected by corrupt justices to be
President. Next came 9/11, a fortuitous "Pearl Harbor" event that
allowed the Bush cabal to catapult the nation in the direction
desired--unlimited international conflicts without end for the seizure
of resources, and to redefine the geopolitics of the planet. Most
Americans were happy hating Bin Laden and sending their sons and
daughters off to kill innocent Muslims. Even as the body bags and the
lies piled up, Americans did not seem to waver in their determination to
line up like hapless lemmings behind the man, Bush. Now comes 2005.
"Another 4 years". Unfortunately, although some are ecstatic about that
little GOP ditty, "another 4 years" will certainly prove to be a curse
on both the US and the rest of the World.
In a sense, those who felt certain that Kerry would win are to be
excused for their naivete. After all, which other President in history
has stimulated such an abundance of books, calendars, stand-up comic
routines, films, DVDs, CDs, talk shows, bumper stickers and other
paraphernalia that captured the witlessness of the resident of the White
House? Even while the economy seemed to be going South, the revenue from
anti-Bush bumper stickers should have been enough to pay down the budget
deficit. He was a good stimulus for the economy, stupid! At any rate,
the screw-ups of this Administration, their lies, crimes and cover-ups
were thoroughly documented and put out there on the internet and in the
mainstream media, for all to see. There was enough information to
convince everyone that this Administration had to go. They were
convinced that he was going.
Surely this nightmarish scenario had to end. We watched as hundreds of
thousands of us got laid off, as our jobs went overseas while we trained
our foreign replacements. Our CEOs reaped huge bonuses as we stood in
the unemployment lines. The tax-cuts the rich received went to stimulate
jobs, but not here at home. Our communities were failing. The only hope
for our youth was to join the Armed Forces and sign up to murder
innocent people in exotic countries so they could go to college, or one
day buy a home where they could quietly die from DU poisoning. The
American Dream could only be purchased with Muslim blood. We didn't
flinch at that. We stood at attention and saluted as the body bags
arrived. "We have to fight those terr'ists, you know".
We were even prepared to give up all our freedoms and agree to
communally spit on the Constitution, while wrapping ourselves in the
flag and yellow ribbons, just so we could do shock and awe unto others
so they couldn't do shock and awe unto us. Are we totally nuts? Who in
his right mind would want 4 more years of this? How much more are we
prepared to give up for lies, the destruction of our once proud Republic
and the embroiling of the entire planet in unremitting bloodshed? No
other President has had more demonstrations against him both at home and
abroad. No one is more universally hated and despised. Yet, here he
is...bigger and bolder than ever. 4 more years of shock and awe on the
planet.
How foolish to think that having stolen the elections in 2002, that the
perps would contentedly allow themselves to be kicked out in 2004? Think
about it, folks. If you were able to stage a successful coup that gave
you total control over the most powerful military and financial
apparatus in History, and your control over the nation's legal apparatus
meant that you were safe from any kind of prosecution, why would you
want to give it up? Some years ago, I had to sue someone in Small Claims
Court, for the return of a deposit on a rental. If I had not done that,
this rascal would have made off with almost $2,000. He countersued. I
won. Obviously, this individual was prepared to take the risk of being
sued and countersuing, a small, low-cost inconvenience, in order to gain
$2000. What would the Bush Administration we willing to pay, or do, to
preserve the multibillion dollar gravy train set up as a result of its
policies over the past 4 years, most notably the launching of the phony
War on Terror? And when the cost of subverting the election process (by
forcing the States to spend millions on fraud-friendly voting systems),
can be passed on to "we the people", why should they worry?
Imagine mandating only paperless balloting, when the nation's best
computer engineering minds have told us that such a system is
untrustworthy. Imaging the fact that the companies providing the
machines are in the hands of men sworn to "reelecting" the incumbent.
Imagine that some of these men have criminal backgrounds, some of whom
are blackmailable. Is it reasonable to think that the system would not
be exploited to ensure the appearance that the incumbent was reelected?
(For the best analysis on this, please visit www.invisibleballots.com
and order their video "Invisible Ballots".)
It is clear to me that if we could put ourselves in the shoes of the
Administration, we would see that the Elections was just another little
nuisance event that had to be "handled". We the people were not really
going to be allowed to determine who got to sleep in the White House.
November 2 wasn't going to be Judgment Day. We could naively choose to
believe otherwise to our shame and peril. However, what was at stake was
infinitely too enormous to allow the people to decide by voting.
Elections '04 was just another item on a long list of things to be
"handled" in such a way as to ensure the uninterrupted continuity of the
agenda. We may speculate about the way this matter was handled, but when
we understand the enormity of what was at stake, we can easily see that
the powers that be had no other choice but to do whatever it took to
remain in control. For one simple thing, too many crimes in high places
have been and are being exposed. The only way to avoid prosecution is to
remain in power. Watch for an aggressive move to shut down any
investigation into the Executive crimes of the last 4 years.
Another piece of tell-tale evidence is the sickening attempts by the
newsfakers of CNN and Fox, and the talk show punditocracy, to spin the
so-called GOP "victory". There was no victory. There was merely another
coup. On the night of the election, one such presstitute made the
comment that a Bush win would mean that "morality trumped the issues". I
was shocked and in awe at the remorseless arrogance of these people.
What morality? You mean the fact that Bush claims to be anti-gay
marriage and anti-abortion? Since when was morality selective?
I recall a Chris Rock routine in which he made fun of Big Pharma TV
commercials. "They're bound to get you with one of those symptoms", he
quipped. 'Do you go to bed at night and wake up in the morning?' Huh?
That's me. I've got those symptoms. I need that medication!" Some voted
for Bush, believing that he is anti-gay and anti-abortion. However, the
point is that whether Bush is anti-gay marriage, or anti-abortion makes
no difference. Homosexuality will not go away and neither will abortion.
Talk is cheap and it gets votes. In 2000, one foolish woman told me she
was going to vote for Bush because he went to Church! Yikes! At any
rate, this press whore, ever ready to uphold the Fox tradition of
reporting narrow-minded opinion as hot news, told us that "morality had
trumped the issues".
Thus the critical issues facing the nation were not important to the
majority of people. But was that true? Quick, can anyone point out the
morality of uttering 237 lies (per Sen. Henry Waxman. See
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-18-04/discussion.cgi.30.html),
bearing false witness against our Muslim neighbors and launching Shock
and Awe on defeated and defenseless nations, murdering hundreds of
thousands of innocent women and children? I get it: Its immoral to kill
the child when he's in the womb, but it is perfectly moral to kill both
mother and child once he's born. Glad you cleared that up for me. If
this is the morality of the Immoral Majority that voted for Bush, the
world is headed towards a very bleak future indeed.
Next morning, flipping channels for some election coverage to confirm
what I already suspected when I went to sleep the night before, another
Fox presstitute, opining the News, declared that the fact that Merck
stock was "taking off" on the GOP win meant that "Republicans obviously
did not support cheap drugs from Canada". What? I quickly switched off
the infernal thing as if stung by a viper. Amazing! What Republicans
don't support cheaper drugs from Canada? The poor, fixed-income
Republican widows who are watching their vital medications escalate in
cost every week and who would love to get them even at the price they
paid for them last week? Or did that prattling head mean those fat cat
Republicans who are busy ripping off the nation, exporting jobs overseas
and turning the country into the newest member of Third World Developing
Countries? She didn't specify. Funny how these same Republicans support
the flooding of the country with the cheapest goods manufactured in
China, (even the American flags so instantly available right after 9/11,
that adorned every car and home), but not lower priced medications from
Canada for needy people. For anyone still watching Fox, my sympathies.
May your brains R.I.P.
Quo vadis, America? My guess is that 9/11 was not just a "Pearl Harbor"
for the warmongers. It also signalled the dawning of a new age of truth.
We live in a world of duality. With the big lie of 9/11 came the truth,
side by side. That truth has been spreading like wildfire from person to
person, via the internet, via books, CDs, DVDs, cinema, what have you.
Over the past three years, millions of people have been inoculated with
the serum of truth. This Administration has been so in-your-face, so
arrogant, so blatantly corrupt, that they have managed to expose things
that would have remained hidden for decades to come. We must be grateful
for that. Many sleepers have been awakened to the dangerous excesses of
the Bush Administration. They will not sit idly by just waiting for the
curse of the last 4 years to repeat. Many will certainly pack up and
leave. Others are going to recognize that America would have no foreign
enemies if she did not have the domestic enemies that she does. Many of
these people are going to become active patriots. My guess is that the
actions of the Bush Administration have unintentionally created a
turned-on population. It is clear now why the Patriot Act was conceived.
Patriots are definitely not welcome here.
Look for more synthetic terror strikes to generate more fear and to keep
the lemmings in line. And as General Tommy Franks has certified, the
Constitution will be history and the US will become another Banana
Republic. But take heart, America and the world. Everything is temporary.
The illegal and ill-conceived American Empire, one anathema to the very
Constitution of the US, and all that it was conceived to serve and
accomplish, will self-destruct in a fraction of the time it took to
create it. It will go the way of Rome and all the other hubristic
imperial endeavors of old. Undoubtedly, it is an evil empire in the
truest sense of the term, one based on greed, deception and hatred,
supported by mass-murder and repression, its leaders drunken on a lethal
mix of privilege, unaccountability, pride and arrogance. However, and
most importantly, truth, its most deadly enemy, has already begun to
attack the Empire's very marrow like the deadliest of auto-immune
diseases, and is slowly but inexorably eating away at it. It may achieve
its blighted goals in the short term, with great endeavor and bloodshed,
but it will not survive its success.
That is certain. Adolph Hitler taught us that.
Thanks for an excellent piece.
dvus
2004-11-07 15:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Bush: 1 for 1 in 2004.
You should have seen the long faces at the market and in the streets,
even at the bank. Looked like everyone had lost a dear, loved one.
Except, of course, for the majority of American who voted for GWB at the
polls. The Libs have a hard time getting around the fact that althought
they're sure they know how this country should be run the majority of people
don't agree with their policies.

It must be difficult to know that although you're smarter than the average
Joe Paycheck and could redistribute and spend his money in a much better way
than he, that you have to settle for the results of those stupid elections
the dummies keep insisting on having. Things would probably be much better
if you could come up with a way to just impose a Lefty leader and Congress
on the country so you could get about the job of building a nice gigantic
government.

dvus
towelie
2004-11-07 22:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by dvus
Things
would probably be much better if you could come up with a way to just
impose a Lefty leader and Congress on the country so you could get
about the job of building a nice gigantic government.
The Republicans are already doing a spiffy job at building a huge
government.
Richard Miller
2004-11-07 22:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by dvus
Except, of course, for the majority of American who voted for GWB at
the polls. The Libs have a hard time getting around the fact that
althought they're sure they know how this country should be run the
majority of people don't agree with their policies.
It's hard to take that seriously when 72% of Bush voters thought Saddam
was behind 9/11. How can one honestly say they support Bush when that
support is based on a complete lie?
--
Richard Miller
Tommy Vercetti
2004-11-08 01:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Miller
Post by dvus
Except, of course, for the majority of American who voted for GWB at
the polls. The Libs have a hard time getting around the fact that
althought they're sure they know how this country should be run the
majority of people don't agree with their policies.
It's hard to take that seriously when 72% of Bush voters thought Saddam
was behind 9/11. How can one honestly say they support Bush when that
support is based on a complete lie?
--
Richard Miller
Its just unbelievable isn't it.

--
S.G.
e-mail: ***@hotmail.com

" It's only after you've lost everything,
that your free to do anything."
Tyler Durden
Rick Rollins
2004-11-08 02:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Miller
Post by dvus
Except, of course, for the majority of American who voted for GWB at
the polls. The Libs have a hard time getting around the fact that
althought they're sure they know how this country should be run the
majority of people don't agree with their policies.
It's hard to take that seriously when 72% of Bush voters thought Saddam
was behind 9/11. How can one honestly say they support Bush when that
support is based on a complete lie?
And from what poll have "we" learned this fact?
2004-11-08 03:24:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 02:48:07 GMT, "Rick Rollins"
Post by Rick Rollins
Post by Richard Miller
Post by dvus
Except, of course, for the majority of American who voted for GWB at
the polls. The Libs have a hard time getting around the fact that
althought they're sure they know how this country should be run the
majority of people don't agree with their policies.
It's hard to take that seriously when 72% of Bush voters thought Saddam
was behind 9/11. How can one honestly say they support Bush when that
support is based on a complete lie?
And from what poll have "we" learned this fact?
some dumbshit phone poll or exit poll which doesn't showcase a dynamic
demograph. Polls are bullshit and are usually biased.
Richard Miller
2004-11-08 21:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Rollins
Post by Richard Miller
Post by dvus
Except, of course, for the majority of American who voted for GWB at
the polls. The Libs have a hard time getting around the fact that
althought they're sure they know how this country should be run the
majority of people don't agree with their policies.
It's hard to take that seriously when 72% of Bush voters thought Saddam
was behind 9/11. How can one honestly say they support Bush when that
support is based on a complete lie?
And from what poll have "we" learned this fact?
Well, I can't find the specific article in which I read it, but we have
the Inter Press Service News Agency:

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25967

Three out of four self-described supporters of President George W Bush
still believe pre-war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or
active programmes to produce them, and that Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein gave "substantial support" to al-Qaeda terrorists, according to
a survey released Thursday, which was conducted in mid-October by the
University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes
(PIPA) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm.

Or this:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409c.asp

A February 2003 poll found that 72 percent of Americans believed that
Saddam was “personally involved in the September 11 attacks.” A
January 2003 poll found that almost half of Americans believed that one
or more of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi — even though not a single
hijacker hailed from that country. Seventy-three percent believed that
Saddam “is currently helping al-Qaeda.”

Bush played the Saddam-9/11 link like a master violinist. A Christian
Science Monitor analysis published on March 14, 2003, noted,

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost
solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He
referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same
breath with Sept. 11. Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly
on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an
impression that persists among much of the American public: that the
Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks.... The White House
appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain
American support for a possible war against Iraq.

Or this:

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4898.html

A new poll shows that as of mid-March, 57% of Americans believed that
Saddam Hussein had given substantial support to al-Qaeda. Worse, 45%
actually say that "clear evidence" has been found in Iraq to support
this allegation! As for weapons of mass destruction 45 percent say they
believe Saddam had them before the recent war, and 22 percent say that
he had a major program for developing them.

There is no documentary or physical evidence for any of these
assertions.

The only good thing about the poll is that it showed that a majority of
Americans now believes the Iraq war will not bring greater peace and
stability to the Middle East (56% did believe it in May 2003), and 51%
believe that Iraqis want US troops out of their country (this may
actually be overly simplistic).

The poll was commissioned by the ' University of Maryland's Program in
International Policy Attitudes, conducted by Knowledge Networks from
March 16 to 22, was released yesterday. It surveyed 1,311 adults and had
a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

Or this:

http://tb.us.publicus.com/article/20041030/Opinion/110290013

a recent study found that a great many supporters of President Bush hold
inaccurate views about the war in Iraq and several of his foreign policy
positions. For example, 75 percent of Bush backers falsely believe
Saddam Hussein provided substantial support to al Qaeda or was involved
in the 9/11 attacks, while 56 percent said that the 9/11 Commission
found such ties. Also, 72 percent still believe that Iraq either had
weapons of mass destruction or a major program to develop them, contrary
to the Charles Duelfer report. In addition, the survey found that
majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly believe that he backs the
Kyoto global-warming treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the
International Criminal Court, and the treaty banning land mines.
--
Richard Miller
Leythos
2004-11-08 21:43:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Miller
Well, I can't find the specific article in which I read it, but we have
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25967
Three out of four self-described supporters of President George W Bush
still believe pre-war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or
active programmes to produce them, and that Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein gave "substantial support" to al-Qaeda terrorists, according to
a survey released Thursday, which was conducted in mid-October by the
University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes
(PIPA) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm.
Notice the qualification of "Pre-War", and then look at the satellite
images of Trucks, convoys, leaving Irag and heading to Syria. Sure, the
stuff was not there after we gave them 60 days to move it.

Don't forget, Kerry had full Intel briefings (same info as Bush) and
Kerry supported attacking Iraq, and did support that action until about
a year ago when he decided to run for President.
--
--
***@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Doc Knutsen
2004-11-08 22:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leythos
Post by Richard Miller
Well, I can't find the specific article in which I read it, but we have
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25967
Three out of four self-described supporters of President George W Bush
still believe pre-war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or
active programmes to produce them, and that Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein gave "substantial support" to al-Qaeda terrorists, according to
a survey released Thursday, which was conducted in mid-October by the
University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes
(PIPA) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm.
Notice the qualification of "Pre-War", and then look at the satellite
images of Trucks, convoys, leaving Irag and heading to Syria. Sure, the
stuff was not there after we gave them 60 days to move it.
Jaysus on a hopping pogo stick....you *still* believe there were WMDs
and they were shoved over to Syria, to be hidden. WHY ON GOD*S GREEN
EARTH were they not used when Sadam was invaded, and faced capture and
death penalty? Why? Iraq was invaded by overwhelming military force,
would it not be reasonable to assume that they would defend themselves
by all means at their disposal? Did Sadam send his arsenal to Syria so
that his country could be occupied, and he could sit on Death Row going
"Ya-Boo, told you we had noe WMDs?" Sorry about the capitals, I have a
stiff neck from shaking my head in disbelief at the naivity of some people..
And if all dose WMDs are now parked in Syria, why does you brave Mr
Cheney not occupy that country as well? After all, the reason for
occupying Iraq *was* their possession of WMDs that were a threat to you,
was it not. Are these weapons a lesser threat in Syrian hands?
Doc
Post by Leythos
Don't forget, Kerry had full Intel briefings (same info as Bush) and
Kerry supported attacking Iraq, and did support that action until about
a year ago when he decided to run for President.
GoatChomper
2004-11-08 22:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc Knutsen
Jaysus on a hopping pogo stick....you *still* believe there were WMDs
and they were shoved over to Syria, to be hidden. WHY ON GOD*S GREEN
EARTH were they not used when Sadam was invaded, and faced capture and
death penalty? Why? Iraq was invaded by overwhelming military force,
would it not be reasonable to assume that they would defend themselves
by all means at their disposal?
Aside from the fact that we can pretty much discard the Syrian thesis, you
ask why they weren't used? For the same reasons none of the world's nuclear
powers have cranked them off at an enemy for over a half-century now, not to
mention their great utility as bargaining chips.
Leythos
2004-11-08 22:26:49 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@NOSPAMknutspeed.com>, ***@NOSPAMknutspeed.com
says...
Post by Doc Knutsen
After all, the reason for
occupying Iraq *was* their possession of WMDs that were a threat to you,
was it not.
Actually, it was one of many reasons presented to the public, but it's
the one that all the anti-bush people key in on - showing their complete
ignorance of the reasons.
--
--
***@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
towelie
2004-11-08 22:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leythos
Post by Doc Knutsen
After all, the reason for
occupying Iraq *was* their possession of WMDs that were a threat to
you, was it not.
Actually, it was one of many reasons presented to the public, but it's
the one that all the anti-bush people key in on - showing their
complete ignorance of the reasons.
Bush used so many excuses that I can't keep them straight. It seemed he had
a new excuse every other week. And he had the nerve to call Kerry a "flip
flopper."
--
"Them white boys had me on crystal meth" - some crackhead in GTA:SA

aa #2133
ap #19
Leythos
2004-11-08 22:52:49 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@uni-berlin.de>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by towelie
Post by Leythos
Post by Doc Knutsen
After all, the reason for
occupying Iraq *was* their possession of WMDs that were a threat to
you, was it not.
Actually, it was one of many reasons presented to the public, but it's
the one that all the anti-bush people key in on - showing their
complete ignorance of the reasons.
Bush used so many excuses that I can't keep them straight. It seemed he had
a new excuse every other week. And he had the nerve to call Kerry a "flip
flopper."
Nope, the reasons, not excuses, were presented to the public many times,
only the MEDIA left them out. The Media only presented the WMD argument
after the Democrats took it as their hype-storyline. Bush never has
denied that we could not find WMD, and he's never stated that it was the
only reason. You really need to get out into the world more and start
listening to more than CBS, 20/20, and CNN.
--
--
***@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
towelie
2004-11-09 00:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leythos
says...
Post by towelie
Post by Leythos
Post by Doc Knutsen
After all, the reason for
occupying Iraq *was* their possession of WMDs that were a threat to
you, was it not.
Actually, it was one of many reasons presented to the public, but
it's the one that all the anti-bush people key in on - showing their
complete ignorance of the reasons.
Bush used so many excuses that I can't keep them straight. It
seemed he had a new excuse every other week. And he had the nerve
to call Kerry a "flip flopper."
Nope, the reasons, not excuses, were presented to the public many times,
only the MEDIA left them out. The Media only presented the WMD
argument
after the Democrats took it as their hype-storyline. Bush never has
denied that we could not find WMD,
Dumbya has admitted there were never WMD in Iraq.
Post by Leythos
and he's never stated that it was
the
only reason. You really need to get out into the world more and start
listening to more than CBS, 20/20, and CNN.
I don't get any of my news from television, thank you very much.

It's funny, if I cite an alternative/independent news source I get called a
"kook" and what not. If I cite a mainstream media source, I get this kind
of thing. It's damned if you do and damned if you don't with you right-wing
extremists.
--
"Them white boys had me on crystal meth" - some crackhead in GTA:SA

aa #2133
ap #19
Leythos
2004-11-09 00:38:30 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@uni-berlin.de>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by towelie
Post by Leythos
says...
Post by towelie
Post by Leythos
Post by Doc Knutsen
After all, the reason for
occupying Iraq *was* their possession of WMDs that were a threat to
you, was it not.
Actually, it was one of many reasons presented to the public, but
it's the one that all the anti-bush people key in on - showing their
complete ignorance of the reasons.
Bush used so many excuses that I can't keep them straight. It
seemed he had a new excuse every other week. And he had the nerve
to call Kerry a "flip flopper."
Nope, the reasons, not excuses, were presented to the public many times,
only the MEDIA left them out. The Media only presented the WMD argument
after the Democrats took it as their hype-storyline. Bush never has
denied that we could not find WMD,
Dumbya has admitted there were never WMD in Iraq.
No, Bush has not said that once. In fact, I can't recall one single time
where I've seen a report that any senior military official stated that
Iraq NEVER had any WMD. Did you miss the part about the UN Inspector
that said they did not find any WMD at places that Sadam "permitted"
them to inspect, and that he also said that chemical and bio weapons
were a large part/desire of Sadam's planning - that they had the
supplies on hand to build them once the UN Sanctions were lifted? The
only part you got from the "main stream" news was that the UN inspector
stated that there were no WMD, they left the rest of his statements out
of their reports. Read his report yourself and see if you still think
Iraq was no threat to the world.

Did you miss the other part about large convoys of trucks leaving Iraq
for Syria and Pakastan during the 60 day warning period we provided?
Post by towelie
Post by Leythos
and he's never stated that it was
the
only reason. You really need to get out into the world more and start
listening to more than CBS, 20/20, and CNN.
I don't get any of my news from television, thank you very much.
It's funny, if I cite an alternative/independent news source I get called a
"kook" and what not. If I cite a mainstream media source, I get this kind
of thing. It's damned if you do and damned if you don't with you right-wing
extremists.
Neither do I, I get it from the field, Intel reports, and other
resources that are close to the information. I have not insulted you,
called you a kook, or any other thing in this thread.

I have no issues with "Alternative/independent" news sources, as long as
they've been proven to be reliable most of the time - where the ones I
mentioned have proved to provide news based on political flavors that
best suites their game.
GoatChomper
2004-11-09 04:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by towelie
Post by Leythos
says...
Post by towelie
Post by Leythos
Post by Doc Knutsen
After all, the reason for
occupying Iraq *was* their possession of WMDs that were a threat to
you, was it not.
Actually, it was one of many reasons presented to the public, but
it's the one that all the anti-bush people key in on - showing their
complete ignorance of the reasons.
Bush used so many excuses that I can't keep them straight. It
seemed he had a new excuse every other week. And he had the nerve
to call Kerry a "flip flopper."
Nope, the reasons, not excuses, were presented to the public many times,
only the MEDIA left them out. The Media only presented the WMD argument
after the Democrats took it as their hype-storyline. Bush never has
denied that we could not find WMD,
Dumbya has admitted there were never WMD in Iraq.
Post by Leythos
and he's never stated that it was
the
only reason. You really need to get out into the world more and start
listening to more than CBS, 20/20, and CNN.
I don't get any of my news from television, thank you very much.
It's funny, if I cite an alternative/independent news source I get called a
"kook" and what not. If I cite a mainstream media source, I get this kind
of thing. It's damned if you do and damned if you don't with you right-wing
extremists.
Meanwhile, the leftists among us will guffaw and call you a kook if you cite
Fox News.
Sparky
2004-11-09 19:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leythos
says...
Post by towelie
Post by Leythos
Post by Doc Knutsen
After all, the reason for
occupying Iraq *was* their possession of WMDs that were a threat to
you, was it not.
Actually, it was one of many reasons presented to the public, but it's
the one that all the anti-bush people key in on - showing their
complete ignorance of the reasons.
Bush used so many excuses that I can't keep them straight. It seemed he had
a new excuse every other week. And he had the nerve to call Kerry a "flip
flopper."
Nope, the reasons, not excuses, were presented to the public many times,
only the MEDIA left them out. The Media only presented the WMD argument
after the Democrats took it as their hype-storyline. Bush never has
denied that we could not find WMD, and he's never stated that it was the
only reason. You really need to get out into the world more and start
listening to more than CBS, 20/20, and CNN.
Jesus, please include a warning when you're going to shovel the BS this
deep - I'm wearing good shoes!
Sparky
2004-11-09 19:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leythos
says...
Post by Doc Knutsen
After all, the reason for
occupying Iraq *was* their possession of WMDs that were a threat to you,
was it not.
Actually, it was one of many reasons presented to the public, but it's
the one that all the anti-bush people key in on - showing their complete
ignorance of the reasons.
LOL - the key term above is "reasons", as one reason (excuse) was proven
to be BS, Bush trotted out another one. IIRC the last one was to
liberate the Iraqis, who's that going, anyway?
Sparky
2004-11-09 04:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leythos
Post by Richard Miller
Well, I can't find the specific article in which I read it, but we have
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25967
Three out of four self-described supporters of President George W Bush
still believe pre-war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or
active programmes to produce them, and that Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein gave "substantial support" to al-Qaeda terrorists, according to
a survey released Thursday, which was conducted in mid-October by the
University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes
(PIPA) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm.
Notice the qualification of "Pre-War", and then look at the satellite
images of Trucks, convoys, leaving Irag and heading to Syria. Sure, the
stuff was not there after we gave them 60 days to move it.
You're seriously claiming that Saddam moved tons of WMD under the
collective nose of the US military & intelligence community? If they're
that lame Saddam deserved to win.
Leythos
2004-11-09 11:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sparky
Post by Leythos
Post by Richard Miller
Well, I can't find the specific article in which I read it, but we have
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25967
Three out of four self-described supporters of President George W Bush
still believe pre-war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or
active programmes to produce them, and that Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein gave "substantial support" to al-Qaeda terrorists, according to
a survey released Thursday, which was conducted in mid-October by the
University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes
(PIPA) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm.
Notice the qualification of "Pre-War", and then look at the satellite
images of Trucks, convoys, leaving Irag and heading to Syria. Sure, the
stuff was not there after we gave them 60 days to move it.
You're seriously claiming that Saddam moved tons of WMD under the
collective nose of the US military & intelligence community? If they're
that lame Saddam deserved to win.
What do you expect, in order to allow the UN proper time to resolve the
failure to comply, not that the 10 years before wasn't enough, we gave
Sadam an ultimatum that provided almost 60 days before the attack - what
do you think he was doing with those truck convoys at desert sites that
were tracked going to Syria and Pakastan? He wasn't moving powdered milk
and orange juice there!

Come on, do a little digging here - you will start seeing the truth if
you really want too.
--
--
***@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
Sparky
2004-11-09 19:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leythos
Post by Sparky
Post by Leythos
Post by Richard Miller
Well, I can't find the specific article in which I read it, but we have
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25967
Three out of four self-described supporters of President George W Bush
still believe pre-war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or
active programmes to produce them, and that Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein gave "substantial support" to al-Qaeda terrorists, according to
a survey released Thursday, which was conducted in mid-October by the
University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes
(PIPA) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm.
Notice the qualification of "Pre-War", and then look at the satellite
images of Trucks, convoys, leaving Irag and heading to Syria. Sure, the
stuff was not there after we gave them 60 days to move it.
You're seriously claiming that Saddam moved tons of WMD under the
collective nose of the US military & intelligence community? If they're
that lame Saddam deserved to win.
What do you expect, in order to allow the UN proper time to resolve the
failure to comply, not that the 10 years before wasn't enough, we gave
Sadam an ultimatum that provided almost 60 days before the attack - what
do you think he was doing with those truck convoys at desert sites that
were tracked going to Syria and Pakastan? He wasn't moving powdered milk
and orange juice there!
Come on, do a little digging here - you will start seeing the truth if
you really want too.
I've already seen it, and Bush ain't it.
GoatChomper
2004-11-08 07:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Miller
Post by dvus
Except, of course, for the majority of American who voted for GWB at
the polls. The Libs have a hard time getting around the fact that
althought they're sure they know how this country should be run the
majority of people don't agree with their policies.
It's hard to take that seriously when 72% of Bush voters thought Saddam
was behind 9/11. How can one honestly say they support Bush when that
support is based on a complete lie?
Because that isn't the sole issue.
Kill KolGATES vol.MAX
2004-11-08 20:40:10 UTC
Permalink
"Richard Miller" <***@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:***@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
| In message <***@uni-berlin.de>, dvus
| <***@adelphia.net> writes
| >Except, of course, for the majority of American who voted for GWB at
| >the polls. The Libs have a hard time getting around the fact that
| >althought they're sure they know how this country should be run the
| >majority of people don't agree with their policies.
|
| It's hard to take that seriously when 72% of Bush voters thought Saddam
| was behind 9/11. How can one honestly say they support Bush when that
| support is based on a complete lie?
| --
| Richard Miller

Just wave your white flag CHE-follower and dream 'of incoming socialism to US.
Free healt service and equality...

Ha ha

K
Kill KolGATES vol.MAX
2004-11-09 13:30:20 UTC
Permalink
"Richard Miller" <***@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:***@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
| In message <***@uni-berlin.de>, dvus
| <***@adelphia.net> writes
| >Except, of course, for the majority of American who voted for GWB at
| >the polls. The Libs have a hard time getting around the fact that
| >althought they're sure they know how this country should be run the
| >majority of people don't agree with their policies.
|
| It's hard to take that seriously when 72% of Bush voters thought Saddam
| was behind 9/11. How can one honestly say they support Bush when that
| support is based on a complete lie?
| --
| Richard Miller

ISLAM, you idiot was behind it
Richard Miller
2004-11-09 19:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kill KolGATES vol.MAX
| >Except, of course, for the majority of American who voted for GWB at
| >the polls. The Libs have a hard time getting around the fact that
| >althought they're sure they know how this country should be run the
| >majority of people don't agree with their policies.
|
| It's hard to take that seriously when 72% of Bush voters thought Saddam
| was behind 9/11. How can one honestly say they support Bush when that
| support is based on a complete lie?
| --
| Richard Miller
ISLAM, you idiot was behind it
Funny, I thought it was just the particular Islamic fanatic who happens
to be the brother of the Bush family's main business partners.
--
Richard Miller
Lloyd Parker
2004-11-08 11:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by dvus
Post by George Bush: 1 for 1 in 2004.
You should have seen the long faces at the market and in the streets,
even at the bank. Looked like everyone had lost a dear, loved one.
Except, of course, for the majority of American who voted for GWB at the
polls. The Libs have a hard time getting around the fact that althought
they're sure they know how this country should be run the majority of people
don't agree with their policies.
In the 18th century, a majority agreed with slavery too. In the early
20th, with segregation.
Post by dvus
It must be difficult to know that although you're smarter than the average
Joe Paycheck and could redistribute and spend his money in a much better way
than he, that you have to settle for the results of those stupid elections
the dummies keep insisting on having. Things would probably be much better
if you could come up with a way to just impose a Lefty leader and Congress
on the country so you could get about the job of building a nice gigantic
government.
dvus
GoatChomper
2004-11-08 22:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Bush: 1 for 1 in 2004.
Post by dvus
Post by George Bush: 1 for 1 in 2004.
You should have seen the long faces at the market and in the streets,
even at the bank. Looked like everyone had lost a dear, loved one.
Except, of course, for the majority of American who voted for GWB at the
polls. The Libs have a hard time getting around the fact that althought
they're sure they know how this country should be run the majority of
people
Post by dvus
don't agree with their policies.
In the 18th century, a majority agreed with slavery too. In the early
20th, with segregation.
Two issues heartily endorsed by and fought for by the Democrats.
2004-11-08 00:25:18 UTC
Permalink
On 05 Nov 2004 17:58:03 GMT, "George Bush: 1 for 1 in 2004."
Post by George Bush: 1 for 1 in 2004.
You should have seen the long faces at the market and in the streets,
even at the bank. Looked like everyone had lost a dear, loved one.
Everyone was in mourning. This must have been what it looked like when
Kennedy was shot. People in deep shock, moving zombie-like through the
familiar, but un-noticed routine of their lives, their minds sunken in
incredulity, uncomprehending how the Barbarians relentlessly dismantling
America, could have been "voted" back in for another 4 years. Another 4
years of lies, murder, mayhem and madness? Ugh!
In a recent essay, I spoke of the futility of the election process. See
http://www.rense.com/general58/voting.htm
Many persons e-mailed me in response to that post, accepting my premise.
However, most were still committed to voting for Kerry, intent on seeing
that Bush never got reelected. Trouble is, the majority of those people
were thinking that the GOP was depending on the voting process to get
their man back in the White House. The nation failed to rid itself of
the greater part of its domestic enemies because of its childish faith
in a broken system and its unwillingness to see what was directly in
front of it. Will we have elections in 2008? What will the people do
then to ensure that they are not fraudulent? Between now and then, will
we have demanded accountability and prosecuted everyone involved in the
on-going destruction of this nation? Will we have a full-blown police
state, or will we have salvaged our nation and restored it to its former
status, and better?
It is a known fact that the GOP did not win the 2000 elections. Thus the
President these last 4 years should have been Al Gore. What road would
our nation be on now had Gore occupied the White House? At any rate, as
a nation, we failed to address the problem of the Florida elections and
thus allowed someone who lost to be selected by corrupt justices to be
President. Next came 9/11, a fortuitous "Pearl Harbor" event that
allowed the Bush cabal to catapult the nation in the direction
desired--unlimited international conflicts without end for the seizure
of resources, and to redefine the geopolitics of the planet. Most
Americans were happy hating Bin Laden and sending their sons and
daughters off to kill innocent Muslims. Even as the body bags and the
lies piled up, Americans did not seem to waver in their determination to
line up like hapless lemmings behind the man, Bush. Now comes 2005.
"Another 4 years". Unfortunately, although some are ecstatic about that
little GOP ditty, "another 4 years" will certainly prove to be a curse
on both the US and the rest of the World.
In a sense, those who felt certain that Kerry would win are to be
excused for their naivete. After all, which other President in history
has stimulated such an abundance of books, calendars, stand-up comic
routines, films, DVDs, CDs, talk shows, bumper stickers and other
paraphernalia that captured the witlessness of the resident of the White
House? Even while the economy seemed to be going South, the revenue from
anti-Bush bumper stickers should have been enough to pay down the budget
deficit. He was a good stimulus for the economy, stupid! At any rate,
the screw-ups of this Administration, their lies, crimes and cover-ups
were thoroughly documented and put out there on the internet and in the
mainstream media, for all to see. There was enough information to
convince everyone that this Administration had to go. They were
convinced that he was going.
Surely this nightmarish scenario had to end. We watched as hundreds of
thousands of us got laid off, as our jobs went overseas while we trained
our foreign replacements. Our CEOs reaped huge bonuses as we stood in
the unemployment lines. The tax-cuts the rich received went to stimulate
jobs, but not here at home. Our communities were failing. The only hope
for our youth was to join the Armed Forces and sign up to murder
innocent people in exotic countries so they could go to college, or one
day buy a home where they could quietly die from DU poisoning. The
American Dream could only be purchased with Muslim blood. We didn't
flinch at that. We stood at attention and saluted as the body bags
arrived. "We have to fight those terr'ists, you know".
We were even prepared to give up all our freedoms and agree to
communally spit on the Constitution, while wrapping ourselves in the
flag and yellow ribbons, just so we could do shock and awe unto others
so they couldn't do shock and awe unto us. Are we totally nuts? Who in
his right mind would want 4 more years of this? How much more are we
prepared to give up for lies, the destruction of our once proud Republic
and the embroiling of the entire planet in unremitting bloodshed? No
other President has had more demonstrations against him both at home and
abroad. No one is more universally hated and despised. Yet, here he
is...bigger and bolder than ever. 4 more years of shock and awe on the
planet.
How foolish to think that having stolen the elections in 2002, that the
perps would contentedly allow themselves to be kicked out in 2004? Think
about it, folks. If you were able to stage a successful coup that gave
you total control over the most powerful military and financial
apparatus in History, and your control over the nation's legal apparatus
meant that you were safe from any kind of prosecution, why would you
want to give it up? Some years ago, I had to sue someone in Small Claims
Court, for the return of a deposit on a rental. If I had not done that,
this rascal would have made off with almost $2,000. He countersued. I
won. Obviously, this individual was prepared to take the risk of being
sued and countersuing, a small, low-cost inconvenience, in order to gain
$2000. What would the Bush Administration we willing to pay, or do, to
preserve the multibillion dollar gravy train set up as a result of its
policies over the past 4 years, most notably the launching of the phony
War on Terror? And when the cost of subverting the election process (by
forcing the States to spend millions on fraud-friendly voting systems),
can be passed on to "we the people", why should they worry?
Imagine mandating only paperless balloting, when the nation's best
computer engineering minds have told us that such a system is
untrustworthy. Imaging the fact that the companies providing the
machines are in the hands of men sworn to "reelecting" the incumbent.
Imagine that some of these men have criminal backgrounds, some of whom
are blackmailable. Is it reasonable to think that the system would not
be exploited to ensure the appearance that the incumbent was reelected?
(For the best analysis on this, please visit www.invisibleballots.com
and order their video "Invisible Ballots".)
It is clear to me that if we could put ourselves in the shoes of the
Administration, we would see that the Elections was just another little
nuisance event that had to be "handled". We the people were not really
going to be allowed to determine who got to sleep in the White House.
November 2 wasn't going to be Judgment Day. We could naively choose to
believe otherwise to our shame and peril. However, what was at stake was
infinitely too enormous to allow the people to decide by voting.
Elections '04 was just another item on a long list of things to be
"handled" in such a way as to ensure the uninterrupted continuity of the
agenda. We may speculate about the way this matter was handled, but when
we understand the enormity of what was at stake, we can easily see that
the powers that be had no other choice but to do whatever it took to
remain in control. For one simple thing, too many crimes in high places
have been and are being exposed. The only way to avoid prosecution is to
remain in power. Watch for an aggressive move to shut down any
investigation into the Executive crimes of the last 4 years.
Another piece of tell-tale evidence is the sickening attempts by the
newsfakers of CNN and Fox, and the talk show punditocracy, to spin the
so-called GOP "victory". There was no victory. There was merely another
coup. On the night of the election, one such presstitute made the
comment that a Bush win would mean that "morality trumped the issues". I
was shocked and in awe at the remorseless arrogance of these people.
What morality? You mean the fact that Bush claims to be anti-gay
marriage and anti-abortion? Since when was morality selective?
I recall a Chris Rock routine in which he made fun of Big Pharma TV
commercials. "They're bound to get you with one of those symptoms", he
quipped. 'Do you go to bed at night and wake up in the morning?' Huh?
That's me. I've got those symptoms. I need that medication!" Some voted
for Bush, believing that he is anti-gay and anti-abortion. However, the
point is that whether Bush is anti-gay marriage, or anti-abortion makes
no difference. Homosexuality will not go away and neither will abortion.
Talk is cheap and it gets votes. In 2000, one foolish woman told me she
was going to vote for Bush because he went to Church! Yikes! At any
rate, this press whore, ever ready to uphold the Fox tradition of
reporting narrow-minded opinion as hot news, told us that "morality had
trumped the issues".
Thus the critical issues facing the nation were not important to the
majority of people. But was that true? Quick, can anyone point out the
morality of uttering 237 lies (per Sen. Henry Waxman. See
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-18-04/discussion.cgi.30.html),
bearing false witness against our Muslim neighbors and launching Shock
and Awe on defeated and defenseless nations, murdering hundreds of
thousands of innocent women and children? I get it: Its immoral to kill
the child when he's in the womb, but it is perfectly moral to kill both
mother and child once he's born. Glad you cleared that up for me. If
this is the morality of the Immoral Majority that voted for Bush, the
world is headed towards a very bleak future indeed.
Next morning, flipping channels for some election coverage to confirm
what I already suspected when I went to sleep the night before, another
Fox presstitute, opining the News, declared that the fact that Merck
stock was "taking off" on the GOP win meant that "Republicans obviously
did not support cheap drugs from Canada". What? I quickly switched off
the infernal thing as if stung by a viper. Amazing! What Republicans
don't support cheaper drugs from Canada? The poor, fixed-income
Republican widows who are watching their vital medications escalate in
cost every week and who would love to get them even at the price they
paid for them last week? Or did that prattling head mean those fat cat
Republicans who are busy ripping off the nation, exporting jobs overseas
and turning the country into the newest member of Third World Developing
Countries? She didn't specify. Funny how these same Republicans support
the flooding of the country with the cheapest goods manufactured in
China, (even the American flags so instantly available right after 9/11,
that adorned every car and home), but not lower priced medications from
Canada for needy people. For anyone still watching Fox, my sympathies.
May your brains R.I.P.
Quo vadis, America? My guess is that 9/11 was not just a "Pearl Harbor"
for the warmongers. It also signalled the dawning of a new age of truth.
We live in a world of duality. With the big lie of 9/11 came the truth,
side by side. That truth has been spreading like wildfire from person to
person, via the internet, via books, CDs, DVDs, cinema, what have you.
Over the past three years, millions of people have been inoculated with
the serum of truth. This Administration has been so in-your-face, so
arrogant, so blatantly corrupt, that they have managed to expose things
that would have remained hidden for decades to come. We must be grateful
for that. Many sleepers have been awakened to the dangerous excesses of
the Bush Administration. They will not sit idly by just waiting for the
curse of the last 4 years to repeat. Many will certainly pack up and
leave. Others are going to recognize that America would have no foreign
enemies if she did not have the domestic enemies that she does. Many of
these people are going to become active patriots. My guess is that the
actions of the Bush Administration have unintentionally created a
turned-on population. It is clear now why the Patriot Act was conceived.
Patriots are definitely not welcome here.
Look for more synthetic terror strikes to generate more fear and to keep
the lemmings in line. And as General Tommy Franks has certified, the
Constitution will be history and the US will become another Banana
Republic. But take heart, America and the world. Everything is temporary.
The illegal and ill-conceived American Empire, one anathema to the very
Constitution of the US, and all that it was conceived to serve and
accomplish, will self-destruct in a fraction of the time it took to
create it. It will go the way of Rome and all the other hubristic
imperial endeavors of old. Undoubtedly, it is an evil empire in the
truest sense of the term, one based on greed, deception and hatred,
supported by mass-murder and repression, its leaders drunken on a lethal
mix of privilege, unaccountability, pride and arrogance. However, and
most importantly, truth, its most deadly enemy, has already begun to
attack the Empire's very marrow like the deadliest of auto-immune
diseases, and is slowly but inexorably eating away at it. It may achieve
its blighted goals in the short term, with great endeavor and bloodshed,
but it will not survive its success.
That is certain. Adolph Hitler taught us that.
Larry Storm
2005-06-09 19:47:00 UTC
Permalink
I don't think so!

Going for stats by saying "I don't think so" in response to EVERY post!!!!!

LS
Post by George Bush: 1 for 1 in 2004.
You should have seen the long faces at the market and in the streets,
even at the bank. Looked like everyone had lost a dear, loved one.
Everyone was in mourning. This must have been what it looked like when
Kennedy was shot. People in deep shock, moving zombie-like through the
familiar, but un-noticed routine of their lives, their minds sunken in
incredulity, uncomprehending how the Barbarians relentlessly dismantling
America, could have been "voted" back in for another 4 years. Another 4
years of lies, murder, mayhem and madness? Ugh!
In a recent essay, I spoke of the futility of the election process. See
http://www.rense.com/general58/voting.htm
Many persons e-mailed me in response to that post, accepting my premise.
However, most were still committed to voting for Kerry, intent on seeing
that Bush never got reelected. Trouble is, the majority of those people
were thinking that the GOP was depending on the voting process to get
their man back in the White House. The nation failed to rid itself of
the greater part of its domestic enemies because of its childish faith
in a broken system and its unwillingness to see what was directly in
front of it. Will we have elections in 2008? What will the people do
then to ensure that they are not fraudulent? Between now and then, will
we have demanded accountability and prosecuted everyone involved in the
on-going destruction of this nation? Will we have a full-blown police
state, or will we have salvaged our nation and restored it to its former
status, and better?
It is a known fact that the GOP did not win the 2000 elections. Thus the
President these last 4 years should have been Al Gore. What road would
our nation be on now had Gore occupied the White House? At any rate, as
a nation, we failed to address the problem of the Florida elections and
thus allowed someone who lost to be selected by corrupt justices to be
President. Next came 9/11, a fortuitous "Pearl Harbor" event that
allowed the Bush cabal to catapult the nation in the direction
desired--unlimited international conflicts without end for the seizure
of resources, and to redefine the geopolitics of the planet. Most
Americans were happy hating Bin Laden and sending their sons and
daughters off to kill innocent Muslims. Even as the body bags and the
lies piled up, Americans did not seem to waver in their determination to
line up like hapless lemmings behind the man, Bush. Now comes 2005.
"Another 4 years". Unfortunately, although some are ecstatic about that
little GOP ditty, "another 4 years" will certainly prove to be a curse
on both the US and the rest of the World.
In a sense, those who felt certain that Kerry would win are to be
excused for their naivete. After all, which other President in history
has stimulated such an abundance of books, calendars, stand-up comic
routines, films, DVDs, CDs, talk shows, bumper stickers and other
paraphernalia that captured the witlessness of the resident of the White
House? Even while the economy seemed to be going South, the revenue from
anti-Bush bumper stickers should have been enough to pay down the budget
deficit. He was a good stimulus for the economy, stupid! At any rate,
the screw-ups of this Administration, their lies, crimes and cover-ups
were thoroughly documented and put out there on the internet and in the
mainstream media, for all to see. There was enough information to
convince everyone that this Administration had to go. They were
convinced that he was going.
Surely this nightmarish scenario had to end. We watched as hundreds of
thousands of us got laid off, as our jobs went overseas while we trained
our foreign replacements. Our CEOs reaped huge bonuses as we stood in
the unemployment lines. The tax-cuts the rich received went to stimulate
jobs, but not here at home. Our communities were failing. The only hope
for our youth was to join the Armed Forces and sign up to murder
innocent people in exotic countries so they could go to college, or one
day buy a home where they could quietly die from DU poisoning. The
American Dream could only be purchased with Muslim blood. We didn't
flinch at that. We stood at attention and saluted as the body bags
arrived. "We have to fight those terr'ists, you know".
We were even prepared to give up all our freedoms and agree to
communally spit on the Constitution, while wrapping ourselves in the
flag and yellow ribbons, just so we could do shock and awe unto others
so they couldn't do shock and awe unto us. Are we totally nuts? Who in
his right mind would want 4 more years of this? How much more are we
prepared to give up for lies, the destruction of our once proud Republic
and the embroiling of the entire planet in unremitting bloodshed? No
other President has had more demonstrations against him both at home and
abroad. No one is more universally hated and despised. Yet, here he
is...bigger and bolder than ever. 4 more years of shock and awe on the
planet.
How foolish to think that having stolen the elections in 2002, that the
perps would contentedly allow themselves to be kicked out in 2004? Think
about it, folks. If you were able to stage a successful coup that gave
you total control over the most powerful military and financial
apparatus in History, and your control over the nation's legal apparatus
meant that you were safe from any kind of prosecution, why would you
want to give it up? Some years ago, I had to sue someone in Small Claims
Court, for the return of a deposit on a rental. If I had not done that,
this rascal would have made off with almost $2,000. He countersued. I
won. Obviously, this individual was prepared to take the risk of being
sued and countersuing, a small, low-cost inconvenience, in order to gain
$2000. What would the Bush Administration we willing to pay, or do, to
preserve the multibillion dollar gravy train set up as a result of its
policies over the past 4 years, most notably the launching of the phony
War on Terror? And when the cost of subverting the election process (by
forcing the States to spend millions on fraud-friendly voting systems),
can be passed on to "we the people", why should they worry?
Imagine mandating only paperless balloting, when the nation's best
computer engineering minds have told us that such a system is
untrustworthy. Imaging the fact that the companies providing the
machines are in the hands of men sworn to "reelecting" the incumbent.
Imagine that some of these men have criminal backgrounds, some of whom
are blackmailable. Is it reasonable to think that the system would not
be exploited to ensure the appearance that the incumbent was reelected?
(For the best analysis on this, please visit www.invisibleballots.com
and order their video "Invisible Ballots".)
It is clear to me that if we could put ourselves in the shoes of the
Administration, we would see that the Elections was just another little
nuisance event that had to be "handled". We the people were not really
going to be allowed to determine who got to sleep in the White House.
November 2 wasn't going to be Judgment Day. We could naively choose to
believe otherwise to our shame and peril. However, what was at stake was
infinitely too enormous to allow the people to decide by voting.
Elections '04 was just another item on a long list of things to be
"handled" in such a way as to ensure the uninterrupted continuity of the
agenda. We may speculate about the way this matter was handled, but when
we understand the enormity of what was at stake, we can easily see that
the powers that be had no other choice but to do whatever it took to
remain in control. For one simple thing, too many crimes in high places
have been and are being exposed. The only way to avoid prosecution is to
remain in power. Watch for an aggressive move to shut down any
investigation into the Executive crimes of the last 4 years.
Another piece of tell-tale evidence is the sickening attempts by the
newsfakers of CNN and Fox, and the talk show punditocracy, to spin the
so-called GOP "victory". There was no victory. There was merely another
coup. On the night of the election, one such presstitute made the
comment that a Bush win would mean that "morality trumped the issues". I
was shocked and in awe at the remorseless arrogance of these people.
What morality? You mean the fact that Bush claims to be anti-gay
marriage and anti-abortion? Since when was morality selective?
I recall a Chris Rock routine in which he made fun of Big Pharma TV
commercials. "They're bound to get you with one of those symptoms", he
quipped. 'Do you go to bed at night and wake up in the morning?' Huh?
That's me. I've got those symptoms. I need that medication!" Some voted
for Bush, believing that he is anti-gay and anti-abortion. However, the
point is that whether Bush is anti-gay marriage, or anti-abortion makes
no difference. Homosexuality will not go away and neither will abortion.
Talk is cheap and it gets votes. In 2000, one foolish woman told me she
was going to vote for Bush because he went to Church! Yikes! At any
rate, this press whore, ever ready to uphold the Fox tradition of
reporting narrow-minded opinion as hot news, told us that "morality had
trumped the issues".
Thus the critical issues facing the nation were not important to the
majority of people. But was that true? Quick, can anyone point out the
morality of uttering 237 lies (per Sen. Henry Waxman. See
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-18-04/discussion.cgi.30.html),
bearing false witness against our Muslim neighbors and launching Shock
and Awe on defeated and defenseless nations, murdering hundreds of
thousands of innocent women and children? I get it: Its immoral to kill
the child when he's in the womb, but it is perfectly moral to kill both
mother and child once he's born. Glad you cleared that up for me. If
this is the morality of the Immoral Majority that voted for Bush, the
world is headed towards a very bleak future indeed.
Next morning, flipping channels for some election coverage to confirm
what I already suspected when I went to sleep the night before, another
Fox presstitute, opining the News, declared that the fact that Merck
stock was "taking off" on the GOP win meant that "Republicans obviously
did not support cheap drugs from Canada". What? I quickly switched off
the infernal thing as if stung by a viper. Amazing! What Republicans
don't support cheaper drugs from Canada? The poor, fixed-income
Republican widows who are watching their vital medications escalate in
cost every week and who would love to get them even at the price they
paid for them last week? Or did that prattling head mean those fat cat
Republicans who are busy ripping off the nation, exporting jobs overseas
and turning the country into the newest member of Third World Developing
Countries? She didn't specify. Funny how these same Republicans support
the flooding of the country with the cheapest goods manufactured in
China, (even the American flags so instantly available right after 9/11,
that adorned every car and home), but not lower priced medications from
Canada for needy people. For anyone still watching Fox, my sympathies.
May your brains R.I.P.
Quo vadis, America? My guess is that 9/11 was not just a "Pearl Harbor"
for the warmongers. It also signalled the dawning of a new age of truth.
We live in a world of duality. With the big lie of 9/11 came the truth,
side by side. That truth has been spreading like wildfire from person to
person, via the internet, via books, CDs, DVDs, cinema, what have you.
Over the past three years, millions of people have been inoculated with
the serum of truth. This Administration has been so in-your-face, so
arrogant, so blatantly corrupt, that they have managed to expose things
that would have remained hidden for decades to come. We must be grateful
for that. Many sleepers have been awakened to the dangerous excesses of
the Bush Administration. They will not sit idly by just waiting for the
curse of the last 4 years to repeat. Many will certainly pack up and
leave. Others are going to recognize that America would have no foreign
enemies if she did not have the domestic enemies that she does. Many of
these people are going to become active patriots. My guess is that the
actions of the Bush Administration have unintentionally created a
turned-on population. It is clear now why the Patriot Act was conceived.
Patriots are definitely not welcome here.
Look for more synthetic terror strikes to generate more fear and to keep
the lemmings in line. And as General Tommy Franks has certified, the
Constitution will be history and the US will become another Banana
Republic. But take heart, America and the world. Everything is temporary.
The illegal and ill-conceived American Empire, one anathema to the very
Constitution of the US, and all that it was conceived to serve and
accomplish, will self-destruct in a fraction of the time it took to
create it. It will go the way of Rome and all the other hubristic
imperial endeavors of old. Undoubtedly, it is an evil empire in the
truest sense of the term, one based on greed, deception and hatred,
supported by mass-murder and repression, its leaders drunken on a lethal
mix of privilege, unaccountability, pride and arrogance. However, and
most importantly, truth, its most deadly enemy, has already begun to
attack the Empire's very marrow like the deadliest of auto-immune
diseases, and is slowly but inexorably eating away at it. It may achieve
its blighted goals in the short term, with great endeavor and bloodshed,
but it will not survive its success.
That is certain. Adolph Hitler taught us that.
Loading...