Stratagem
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
"It sickens me to be a Republican to see this"
From PBS's Newshour. Larry Johnson is a former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at the State Department.
This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.
So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat ...
I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.
O'Rielly has come to the conclusion that this story is no big deal and will go away. What a piece of shit.
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
O'LIELLY"S LOSING IT
Bill O'Reilly has began to lose it folks. Al Franken has finally gotten to him. Bill spent a hour yesterday on the radio attacking Franken for calling Brit Hume an asshole and a fuckin moron at a fundraiser for Howard Dean. He replayed the incident on t.v. and radio. He blasted Dean for having the deranged, drunk, vindictive Franken at the event. Bill never once brought up the reasons for Franken's outlash on Brit. What Mr. Hume said was "Two hundred and seventy-seven US soldiers have now died in Iraq which means that statistically speaking US soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California which is roughly the same geographical size." Click Here If that's not the stupidest most intellectually dishonest statement a news anchor could ever make, then I don't know what is. Why don't you tell the soldiers in Iraq that they are more safe there, where rocket-propelled grenades and suicide bombers are an everyday occurrence, than in California. He is a fuckin moron for that statement alone. You see Bill can call people every name in the book and it's o.k. as long as he doesn't use the "f" word or any other so called dirty words. Pin head is o.k. Moron without the fuckin in front of it is o.k. Idiot is just fine so come on Bill do us all a favor a finish up with your mental breakdown already. It's gotta be killing him that his new book is out now and it's ranked #5 on Amazon.com right behind Al Franken #4, who's been out for over a month now. As I'm writing this I'm listening to factor radio and he's still talking about Franken. It's just a matter of time folks.
Monday, September 22, 2003
U.N.- WE NEED YOUR HELP
Am I crazy or were the French, Germans, and Russians right about the war in Iraq? Remember people, France and Germany asked Bush for thirty more days before deciding on whether to go to war and Bush snubbed them. Now Bush is asking for their help and so far they have declined. Is anyone really surprised? This administration does not seem to understand what the meaning of the word diplomacy is. They felt they could say and do whatever they wanted and the rest of the world will fall in line. And if they did not they would be looked at as enemies to our country. Remember U.N. resolution 1441 was past unanimously, but it did say that before making the decision to go to war that the Bush administration would come back to the U.N. for a vote. When they realized they didn't have the votes, Bush snubbed them again and didn't go back. Remember the line "show your cards" Bush said in referring to the nations who would ultimately vote for the use of force. Instead of having these nations show their cards bush folded instead. Now he wants their help because he's realized what a mess he's made in Iraq. Believe me if things were going well Bush would have never gone back to the U.N.
I want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq more than anyone. My parents were born there and I still have relatives who live there. It just doesn't seem realistic. Democracy has never worked in the middle east, especially in Iraq. If it were to succeed this was not the way to do it. It was not the responsibility of the United States of America, my country which I love, to overthrow a dictator who posed no immediate threat to our country. In my opinion, Saudi Arabia poses more of a threat than Iraq did because for one, they do support terrorism. They act as our allies, but the truth is they are no better than Saddam. They don't put the knife in our back, they put it in our stomach and laugh in our face as we slowly die. More on them later.
Click Here for the TRUTH
Thursday, September 18, 2003
NO 9-11 LINK
Today Bush jr. said "we have no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussien and 9-11". Amazing isn't it. 7 out 10 Americans still believe the oppositte. Why you might ask? Because jr. and the neo-cons led us to believe that in the run up to war and now they are back tracking. They knew it all along. They lied to the soldiers, their families, the nation, and the world. What will it take for before we as a nation see jr. for what he is. A dangerous neo-con nut who used the office of the presidency to push his crazed agenda. Repeat the President of the United States, George W. Bush has said pubilcly that Saddam had no connection to the 9-11 attacks. NO CONNECTION. Am I crazy folks or has he admitted in that statement that he is a liar. The worst kind of a liar is one who lies to you knowing that you know he's lying but still expects you to believe it. Sad, sad day.
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Independent?
Are you a Democrat or Republican? Conservative or Liberal? Independent?
Labels,labels,labels. Are there really any independents out there? What the hell is an independent anyways? A moderate conservative or liberal. That’s all folks. People who don’t want to be perceived as partisan say they are independent. Just ask Bill O’Reilly. Most Americans have beliefs that lean right or left. Most Americans disagree on some of the issues but does that make them independent. If that were the case than Bill Clinton was our first independent President. I honestly believe there will never be a strong enough third party in this country that will ever occupy the White House. Sorry Greens, but I hold you personally responsible for this debacle of presidency we are currently dealing with. You took votes from Al Gore, thus thrusting the neo-cons into power. Now you tell me was it worth it. The opposite is happening in California today. Bill McClintok and Arnold Schwarzenegger are splitting the Republican vote, thus making Cruz Bustamante the next governor of California, (barring the recall passes). If Republicans are so morally superior to the Democrats than they would support McClintok in a heartbeat. Instead they smell a winner, a liberal with a R next to his name. The only thing conservative about the Terminator is he hates taxes. The only reason we associate hating taxes with Republicans is because of the repeated lie the right has been spewing about the left, and themselves for years now. First off, the Republicans only like tax cuts for the rich. The $300 the majority of Americans received was just a bribe to shut us up in their pursuit to shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle-class and poor. Don’t believe the hype. Democrats believe the exact opposite. They believe the rich should bear the majority of the tax burden because they are rich. It’s not socialism folks, it’s common sense. Would you rather be a rich person paying the majority of the taxes in this country, or a poor person paying a small portion of the taxes. Think about that people.
Monday, September 15, 2003
LISTEN TO DADDY
“Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in ‘mission creep,’ and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.
"We discussed at length the idea of forcing Saddam personally to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border — and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives," — From George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed (1998), pp. 489-90.
“If you’re going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you’ve got Baghdad, it’s not clear what you do with it. It’s not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that’s currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?”
Saturday, September 13, 2003
OVER THERE
You know I've been getting a good laugh of late hearing the new theory of why we went to war in Iraq. To fight the terrorist over there and not here. How stupid does the Bush administration think we are? Maybe they are right. We are fuckin stupid because when I turn the T.V. on all hear is the pundits and right-wing nut jobs arguing this theory.
O.K. people, let's start with a little common sense. The terroists are spread across the entire world with cells in just about every major and even minor countries. To think that all these cells will drop what they are doing, i.e, planning another attack here at home, and just fly off to Iraq to fight American soilders is intellectualy dishonest. Why would they wanna fight soldiers when they can fight civilians. So what exactly is the plan. Draw all of em there, kill em all and then declare victory. We are creating terroists as we speak with the occuption. Iraq is our Palestine and this war will never end. We have no business in this country and Bush has started a war we can't win. I know people don't care why Al Queda hates us but the main reason was that we have troops on the holy land (Saudi Arabia). I can see the recriuting posters now.
