Wag the Fucking Dog...

[chefmike]

Wag the Fucking Dog, shrubya...

The Shoe (Bomb) on the Other Foot
President Bush’s revelation about a foiled bomb plot shows the dangers of declassification for purely partisan purposes.

By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Updated: 6:37 p.m. ET Feb. 10, 2006
Feb. 10, 2006 - Poor Porter Goss. First, the longtime Florida congressman leaves his safe seat to become director of the CIA, only to find that he’s been neutered by a new bureaucratic setup where he reports to John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence. Then he writes an op-ed piece decrying intelligence leaks in The New York Times on Friday, the exact same day as a story appears identifying today’s biggest leaker of antiterrorism secrets in Washington—President George W. Bush.

For crass political reasons—namely to advance his position on the National Security Agency spying story—the president chose to use a speech to the National Guard Association to disclose details of a 2002 “shoe bomb” plot to blow up the U.S. Bank Tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles. While the plot had been revealed in general terms in the past, the White House this week arranged for Bush’s counterterrorism adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, to explain to reporters in a conference call exactly the kind of details that Goss claimed on the op-ed page helped the enemy. “We are at risk of losing a key battle,” Goss wrote. “The battle to protect our classification system.”

That system is at particular risk when it is exploited for political purposes. The president is allowed to declassify whatever he wants; that’s one of the privileges of being president. So in this case—unlike the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping—there is no issue of Bush breaking the law. But let’s be clear on what this was: a deliberate effort to use declassification for partisan purposes, in this case, defending the administration’s policy on NSA surveillance, which Karl Rove says publicly will be a big part of the 2006 midterm campaign.

The White House made perfect political use of the twilight zone of intelligence. While Townsend did not explicitly claim that the NSA surveillance program had foiled the Los Angeles plot, she tried to imply that it might have played a role. “We use all available sources and methods in the intelligence community but we have to protect them,” she told reporters. “So I’m not going to talk about what ones we did or didn’t use in this particular case.”

the rest of story here

[speck]

Oh please,

Why do you keep presenting opinion articles as fact?

I find it absoutely hilarious that lefties continually rag on conservatives who view FOX news, but find it perfectly acceptable to #1.) Tout BBC as unbiased(Brwhaahahahhahah!) and #2.) perpetually use opinion articles to back their positions.

[Kramer]

because some liberals cant get past losing the white house...................................twice!!


I cant wait till 2008! Polls already have Hillary trailing McCain and Guiliani!

[chefmike]

Oh please,

Why do you keep presenting opinion articles as fact?

I find it absoutely hilarious that lefties continually rag on conservatives who view FOX news, but find it perfectly acceptable to #1.) Tout BBC as unbiased(Brwhaahahahhahah!) and #2.) perpetually use opinion articles to back their positions.

Are you saying that these events, and the quotes pertaining to them are false?

The hypocrisy is obvious, as it always is with the neo-con agenda...and yes, there is an opinion....

Wag the Fucking Dog...

[chefmike]

because some liberals cant get past losing the white house...................................twice!!


I cant wait till 2008! Polls already have Hillary trailing McCain and Guiliani!

What makes you think that the religious right, who control the party that hypocrital TS fans like yourself support, would ever allow mccain or guiliani to be nominated?

oh, I forgot...you don't think...you just say baaahh, baaaahhh...

[Jamie Michelle]

because some liberals cant get past losing the white house...................................twice!!


I cant wait till 2008! Polls already have Hillary trailing McCain and Guiliani!

What makes you think that the religious right, who control the party that hypocrital TS fans like yourself support, would ever allow mccain or guiliani to be nominated?

oh, I forgot...you don't think...you just say baaahh, baaaahhh...

The Democrat and Republican politicians are on the same team. They are two arms on the same globalist elite beast.

Concerning your comment on "the religious right," both the parties belong to "the religious right," in the original sense of the political term "right" (i.e., as in "right-wing"). The terms "left" and "right" in the political sense go back to 1789 France. When the French Estates-General met on May 6, 1789, the Third Estate commoners, who wanted less taxes and government control (i.e., "laissez-faire"), were seated on the left side of King Louis XVI, and the Second Estate nobles and First Estate clergy, who were the conservatives and wanted to maintain the government's power, sat on his right. (Prior to the May 1789 convention of the French Estates-General [the first meeting of which was on May 5, 1789], the last time the Estates-General had met was in 1614.)

Also, "liberal" originally meant what we would call today (at least in the U.S. and Canada) "libertarian," i.e., laissez-faire free market, less taxes, less regulation, and gun ownership by the common people. Thus, in the original sense of the words, someone who wanted no taxes, legalization of all drugs, a free market, and armament of the common people would be a left-wing liberal.

Thus, both parties are right-wing in the original sense of the term. Which is to say, both parties are socialist (which is the most right-wing political philosophy ever devised, since it puts all power into the hands of government).

As far as the "religious" component of your comment goes, the political establishment is indeed quite religious. The god they worship is, quite literally, Satan. For more on that, see the below post by me:

Reply #40 on: November 05, 2004, 07:31:40 pm:

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.ph...11993;start=40

[chefmike]

because some liberals cant get past losing the white house...................................twice!!


I cant wait till 2008! Polls already have Hillary trailing McCain and Guiliani!

What makes you think that the religious right, who control the party that hypocrital TS fans like yourself support, would ever allow mccain or guiliani to be nominated?

oh, I forgot...you don't think...you just say baaahh, baaaahhh...

The Democrat and Republican politicians are on the same team. They are two arms on the same globalist elite beast.

Concerning your comment on "the religious right," both the parties belong to "the religious right," in the original sense of the political term "right" (i.e., as in "right-wing"). The terms "left" and "right" in the political sense go back to 1789 France. When the French Estates-General met on May 6, 1789, the Third Estate commoners, who wanted less taxes and government control (i.e., "laissez-faire"), were seated on the left side of King Louis XVI, and the Second Estate nobles and First Estate clergy, who were the conservatives and wanted to maintain the government's power, sat on his right. (Prior to the May 1789 convention of the French Estates-General [the first meeting of which was on May 5, 1789], the last time the Estates-General had met was in 1614.)

Also, "liberal" originally meant what we would call today (at least in the U.S. and Canada) "libertarian," i.e., laissez-faire free market, less taxes, less regulation, and gun ownership by the common people. Thus, in the original sense of the words, someone who wanted no taxes, legalization of all drugs, a free market, and armament of the common people would be a left-wing liberal.

Thus, both parties are right-wing in the original sense of the term. Which is to say, both parties are socialist (which is the most right-wing political philosophy ever devised, since it puts all power into the hands of government).

As far as the "religious" component of your comment goes, the political establishment is indeed quite religious. The god they worship is, quite literally, Satan. For more on that, see the below post by me:

Reply #40 on: November 05, 2004, 07:31:40 pm:

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.ph...11993;start=40

Not again with the satan worshipping globalist elite 9/11 bullshit...

why don't you tell us again how you met jesus?

and wherever you met him, please go back!!!

enuf already....

[Jamie Michelle]

because some liberals cant get past losing the white house...................................twice!!


I cant wait till 2008! Polls already have Hillary trailing McCain and Guiliani!

What makes you think that the religious right, who control the party that hypocrital TS fans like yourself support, would ever allow mccain or guiliani to be nominated?

oh, I forgot...you don't think...you just say baaahh, baaaahhh...

The Democrat and Republican politicians are on the same team. They are two arms on the same globalist elite beast.

Concerning your comment on "the religious right," both the parties belong to "the religious right," in the original sense of the political term "right" (i.e., as in "right-wing"). The terms "left" and "right" in the political sense go back to 1789 France. When the French Estates-General met on May 6, 1789, the Third Estate commoners, who wanted less taxes and government control (i.e., "laissez-faire"), were seated on the left side of King Louis XVI, and the Second Estate nobles and First Estate clergy, who were the conservatives and wanted to maintain the government's power, sat on his right. (Prior to the May 1789 convention of the French Estates-General [the first meeting of which was on May 5, 1789], the last time the Estates-General had met was in 1614.)

Also, "liberal" originally meant what we would call today (at least in the U.S. and Canada) "libertarian," i.e., laissez-faire free market, less taxes, less regulation, and gun ownership by the common people. Thus, in the original sense of the words, someone who wanted no taxes, legalization of all drugs, a free market, and armament of the common people would be a left-wing liberal.

Thus, both parties are right-wing in the original sense of the term. Which is to say, both parties are socialist (which is the most right-wing political philosophy ever devised, since it puts all power into the hands of government).

As far as the "religious" component of your comment goes, the political establishment is indeed quite religious. The god they worship is, quite literally, Satan. For more on that, see the below post by me:

Reply #40 on: November 05, 2004, 07:31:40 pm:

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.ph...11993;start=40

Not again with the satan worshipping globalist elite 9/11 bullshit...

why don't you tell us again how you met jesus?

and wherever you met him, please go back!!!

enuf already....

The facts are the facts, and the truth is the truth, and it is the provable fact that the political elite--such as the Bushes--worship Satan. They have been caught on video a number of times performing their dark, occultic, devil-worshipping rituals, such as at Bohemian Grove and at the Brotherhood of Death's (a.k.a. the Order of Skull & Bones) "Tomb." And it is the case that Freemasonry at the highest levels is Satan-worship, as the highest-level Freemasonic writers and authorities themselves admit in their own writings. So also it is the case that governments around the world are Freemasonic in their foundation and design, and that they make extensive use of Freemasonic, Illuministic, Satanic symbolism, such as the Devil's Pentagram for the layout of Washington, D.C. I'm sorry that the truth is too brutal and scary for you to come to terms with it, but denying the truth does not make it go away.

The political elite, such as George Bush, Sr., are also particularly found of having sex with young, child sex-slave boys.

[The American Nightmare]

[yadda yadda yadda]

Ban please.

Thanks.

[speck]

No, I'm saying that the quotes don't add anything. They are just kinda there without supporting any particular point the opinion writer is expressing.

Almost like the opinion writer has no fact to directly support their point of view so they just throw quotes in there to make it appear as though they do.

Oh please,

Why do you keep presenting opinion articles as fact?

I find it absoutely hilarious that lefties continually rag on conservatives who view FOX news, but find it perfectly acceptable to #1.) Tout BBC as unbiased(Brwhaahahahhahah!) and #2.) perpetually use opinion articles to back their positions.

Are you saying that these events, and the quotes pertaining to them are false?

The hypocrisy is obvious, as it always is with the neo-con agenda...and yes, there is an opinion....

Wag the Fucking Dog...