Thursday, April 19, 2007

Buying the War

* here's a 5 min clip from Moyers' "Buying the War"

* someone at 911blogger:
"Lukery is the shizzle

It's amazing....4 months ago, Lukery's diaries there got 20 comments, and 10 recs. Half the comments would tell him to delete the diary cause it was a conspiracy theory.

Now, his/her(?) diaries always make the rec list, and get hundreds of comments."
we certainly have seen a change of heart over there recently. it must be my new-found measured tone and mild manners. or something.

* americablog:
"US and Australia to exchange refugees

Besides the legal questions, who thought this was a good idea? No wonder Howard and Bush are such good friends.
"Refugees are human beings, not products that countries can broker and trade," said Bill Frelick, refugee policy director for the US-based rights group.

"The United States and Australia have signed a deal that bargains with lives and flouts international law."

The mainly Asian refugees intercepted heading for Australia would be considered for resettlement in the United States, while Cuban and Haitian asylum-seekers hoping to live there could be despatched to Australia."
yay, us.

* wapo:
"Congressional Democratic leaders are moving to make their proposed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq "advisory" as they seek to reconcile two versions of war spending legislation into a single bill that they plan to pass next week, according to several House members.

The compromise language would keep the deadlines included in the original House bill but make them nonbinding, as the Senate version did, and would allow President Bush to waive troop-readiness standards, lawmakers said. Bush has vowed to veto legislation with timetables in it, calling it a schedule of surrender, but Democrats hope to show that they are being flexible and the president rigid by softening the terms. The compromises may cost Democrats votes among antiwar liberals, but they hope to pick up some Republicans."
my head hurts - but kathleen (who can't comment at the blog for some technolomolgical reason) adds:
"With Maliki asking yesterday that foreign troops be withcrawn by the end of 2007, surely Dems should get on the same page as the elected Iraqi gov't and set the same date. Perfect."
* cannon wonders whether the sibel story and the latest French/911 stories are related.

6 comments:

rimone said...

luke: we certainly have seen a change of heart over there recently. it must be my new-found measured tone and mild manners. or something.

lol, but congratulations, lukery.

«—U®Anu§—» said...

Amy talks with Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. This was my pick read of the day. Zinn says patriotism is opposing the war in the Middle East. Then he says something that really caught my attention:

...Vietnam is something that by the way, is still not taught very well in American schools. I spoke to a group of people in an advanced history class not long ago, 100 kids, asked them how many people here have heard of the My Lai Massacre? No hand was raised. We are not teaching - if we were teaching the history of Vietnam as it should be taught, then the American people from the start would have opposed the war instead of waiting three or four years for a majority of the American people to declare their opposition to the war.

If anybody wonders why I take the far extreme stand on such issues, it's because I've SEEN ALL THIS BEFORE. Living through it again is an unimaginable nightmare. Assuming we survive it, you just wait. The cost of everything will go so high in ten years you won't believe it.

Enlightenment said...

My problem with Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky is that they cling to the "official" myth of 9/11 with no interest whatsoever in even hearing any of the mountain of evidence against it.

Looking into the funding for Democracy Now will turn up massive contributions from the right-wing Ford Foundation. Why would they be funding someone supposedly so "liberal"? Because she is a gatekeeper. It's part of their "perception management" strategy. They try to control both sides of an argument, giving the illusion of real debate, but keeping it contained in a small box with no debate allowed to stray outside that box.

Chomsky has been a gatekeeper since the 1960s and he STILL clings to that "magic bullet theory" crap regarding J.F.K.

The author of "Rogue Nation", William Blum, is another gatekeeper.

Michael Moore is another. Notice how in "Fahrenheit 9/11" Moore goes on and on about Bush sitting in the classroom in Booker Elementary, blaming him for not jumping up and giving orders and "taking charge" when it was supposedly needed the most? This is a diversionary tactic; what he SHOULD have asked but completely ignored is the question "Why did Bush's Secret Service staff ALLOW Bush to sit there and to remain in that school for at least 35 minutes after Andy Card told him 'America is under attack'??" THAT is the real question. How could Bush's Secret Service staff have known so surely that Bush wasn't even a POSSIBLE target on that morning so as to allow him to stay there instead of whisking him away IMMEDIATELY to a much safer, less-publiscized location? The only way they could have felt confident enough to allow him to remain there would be if they KNEW Bush was not a target, meaning they had to have known the 9/11 plans beforehand, meaning 9/11 was an inside job. Moore is a gatekeeper.

Another one is Joe Cannon who goes out of his way to parrot the "official" myth regarding the "collapses" of the Twin Towers and WTC # 7. He may pretend to be a leftist but he has a profound distaste for the facts reminiscent of the most die-hard Bushistas.

Operation: Mockingbird didn't stop with the Church Committee and Pike Committee hearings.

lukery said...

E - the fact that they allowed him to sit there 'stunned' for so long sure is suspicious.

re Amy - she has had Sibel on a few times - but we couldnt get booked there for our most recent campaign :-(

Enlightenment said...

Well, she may have had Sibel on a few times (and don't get me wrong, I agree with Goodman's opinions on the vast majority of topics, if those are in fact her actual opinions), but the 9/11 truth community had to badger the hell out of her in order to get her to even address the issue and allow someone on her program to speak about it. 9/11 truthers had on numerous occasions at press conferences asked her what is her opinion on the "discrepancies" of the "official" myth and they said she got a frightened look on her face and refused to discuss it. When she finally DID agree to it, she had David Ray Griffen on there debating some government hack for a very brief time, and throughout she would talk over Griffen, tried to mock his arguments and make it so obvious she already had her mind made up and wouldn't let any inconvenient facts get in the way of it. So it really wasn't a deviation from her steadfast support of the "official" myth, just an attempt to make herself look less one-sided about 9/11 by actually deigning to allow it to be discussed on her program. But in that one single discussion she made it plain where she stands on the issue, facts be damned. Wheras if she was a REAL journalist she would have to allow herself to consider whatever evidence presents itself regardless of whether it coincides with what she would prefer to think. Preconceived notions are at cross purposes with real journalism.

Enlightenment said...

Bill Maher is another one, not sure how I forgot him. He'll take things right up to the edge, and say inflammatory things but unfortunately is steadfast in his myopic refusal to look at the details of 9/11, just dismissing anything but the "official" story out of hand. One has to wonder, what are these people going to say when the truth about 9/11 is conventional wisdom? Will they claim they knew it all along but didn't say anything for "the good of the country"? Regardless, their credibility will be, well, about on the level of the credibility of the U.S. military. Not a good place to be.