rofl Jim Frye is in drag today as Leni Reifenstahl apologizing for his masters
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:35 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Obama *ATTACKED AND INVADED PAKISTAN*? When did that happen? When did > he even TALK ABOUT going to war with Pakistan? > > Answers: He hasn't done any of that. > > Have we been attacking *terrorists who are IN Pakistan* with drones? > > Answer: Yes we have. That's not a war, kiddies. > > Oops. > > In a message dated 5/17/2010 5:31:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > * What a curious, and sudden, > reversal<http://www.house.gov/pelosi/StatementonIraq91202.html>: > now we have Democrats claiming to have “inside” information that justifies a > war, whilst Republicans are skeptical. Well, not so curious, really, since > the Democrats now have a war of their own, the war against Pakistan, to > defend. > > **Obama’s Gulf of Tonkin > **A war of their own: Democrats target Pakistan > *by Justin Raimondo <http://original.antiwar.com/author/justin/>, May 17, > 2010 > > The claim by the US government that the Times Square would-be bomber, Faisal > Shahzad <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_Shahzad>, was “trained” and > “directed” by the Pakistani Taliban is looking more bogus by the moment. The > latest<http://www.necn.com/05/14/10/Employer-Suspect-arrested-in-Maine-raid-/landing.html?blockID=234961&feedID=4215>: > one of at least three people arrested in connection with the alleged “plot,” > Mohammad Shafiq Rahman, hadn’t seen Shahzad in years, and even admitted to > his employer that he knew the accused. One Larry Adlerstein, who had hired > Rahman to do some computer work for his art business, told reporters: > > *“Just a few days ago he had a conversation with Rahman about the > attempted bombing in New York City [in the course of which] his employee > made a surprising admission. ‘As a matter of fact’ [said Rahman] ]I know > this guy accused of trying to bomb Times Square. I haven’t seen him in 8 or > 9 years but I know him.’ > > “Adlerstein says Rahman described the suspected bomber, Faisal Shahzad as > ‘an undirected person….no political positions, just a drifter.’”* > > Rahman has been > arrested<http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineHeadlineNews/tabid/968/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3479/ItemId/12217/Default.aspx>on > trumped-up immigration charges, but ask yourself: if you were part of a > terrorist plot, and had assisted someone already in custody, would you admit > to knowing the accused? This is just plain ordinary common sense: but that’s > not what inspires our intrepid G-men. > > In an > attempt<http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gv0gQgNBrtPjYTx4XusYLsjf8Kwg>to > follow the money trail, and find – or invent – a foreign link, US > investigators have spread their net far and wide, apparently including any > individuals who ever had significant financial dealings with Shahzad *over > a ten year period*. This has led, so far, to arrests – all on immigration > charges – in Brookline, and Watertown, both in > Massachusetts<http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100516suspects_linked_to_times_square_plot_held_in_local_pens/>, > and one in Maine. There is no information coming out of the immigration > cops, since they aren’t answerable to anyone – and refuse to even confirm > the identities of those being held. The authorities often use vague and > constantly-shifting immigration laws, easily violated by non-lawyers, to > wring information out of green card holders and non-citizens in general. No > need to ship them off to Guantanamo, or Bagram – just let > ICE<http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman260410.htm>deal with them. > > Yet as those who know the detainees are coming forward to present a fuller > picture<http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/05/15/detainee_case_questions_grow/>, > it looks like there’s nothing at the end of the money trail but the > administration’s Taliban conspiracy theory asserted as fact. > > It took a Republican senator, Kit > Bond<http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iTdeCWcpX_vafLRF2JoCGy4U2n8Q>, > to point out the obvious: that US Attorney General Eric Holder is “playing > games” – political games – with the case. The senior Republican on the > Senate intelligence committee, Bonds averred that he has seen no convincing > evidence “so far” of Shahzad’s purported link to the Pakistani Taliban. > Holder “is only interested in looking tough on terrorism on TV, since he’s > now told the intelligence community to skirt the national security law and > give only the details he wants and when to Congress.” The administration is > invoking “national security” to shield what it knows about the alleged plot > from Congress, while going on > television<http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/09/holders-long-delayed-sunday-talk-show-debut-a-success/>announcing > the “link” had been established. > > Dianne Feinstein, the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee, > claims<http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/13/gop.senator.times.square.probe/>she > has definitive evidence of the Taliban link, but refuses to debate the > matter with Bond “in public.” What a curious, and sudden, > reversal<http://www.house.gov/pelosi/StatementonIraq91202.html>: > now we have Democrats claiming to have “inside” information that justifies a > war, whilst Republicans are skeptical. Well, not so curious, really, since > the Democrats now have a war of their own, the war against Pakistan, to > defend. > > This war, covert up until a few months > ago<http://www.thenation.com/article/secret-us-war-pakistan>, > first reared its head when Hillary Clinton paid a tempestuous > visit<http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/11/01/hillarys-ill-will-tour/>to > Pakistan and directly accused her hosts of sheltering Osama bin Laden. > The resulting firestorm marked a new low in US-Pakistani relations, and one > has trouble believing it was merely a random temper tantrum on Hillary’s > part. You’ll recall that during the presidential campaign, Obama openly > declared > his > intention<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233_pf.html>to > go into Pakistan, given the chance to do so, and it’s entirely > unsurprising he’s doing just that. > > First, however, his administration must come up with a rationale, and > apparently they’ve settled on the > pathetic<http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100506_Faisal_Shahzad_bought_fireworks_in_Pa_.html>act > of a demented “lone > wolf<http://www.newser.com/story/88110/gen-petraeus-times-square-bomber-acted-alone.html>” > – as Gen. David Petraeus characterized Shahzad – as being good enough for > government work. In short, the Shahzad case is Obama’s Gulf of Tonkin > incident. > > The parallels are striking, and instructive: in both cases, the government > constructed a completely made up story in order to pursue a preordained path > to war. Just as there was no > attack<http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:M0fIthbvQC8J:search.barnesandnoble.com/Secrets/Daniel-Ellsberg/e/9781429506953+site:search.barnesandnoble.com+Ellsberg+Sample+Chapter&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us>on > any US ship in the Tonkin gulf, so there was no attempted Taliban plot to > blow up Times Square – just another American nut who went > postal<http://www.amazon.com/Going-Postal-Rebellion-Workplaces-Columbine/dp/1932360824/antiwarbookstore>. > And this time, too, the media is falling down on the job, refusing to > question what increasingly looks like a crude fabrication. > > As for the Pakistanis, they too > believe<http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C05%5C12%5Cstory_12-5-2010_pg7_33>Shahzad > was a lone nut: Pakistan’s ambassador to the UN, Hussain Haroon, > described him as a “misguided soul” who acted alone. While acknowledging > Washington may have other intelligence, in an interview with CBS News Haroon > averred: “All I am saying is that the evidence I have points in one > direction that it does not have the signature of the Taliban. This is not, > and I repeat *not*, a Pakistan terror threat.” > > The ambassador went on to note Shahzad is not even a Pakistani citizen, and > he brought up Hillary’s accusation – reiterated this > month<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7711099/Pakistani-officials-know-where-Osama-bin-Laden-hiding-Hillary-Clinton.html>– > that his government is hiding bin Laden. Haroon and the Pakistanis see the > looming threat of direct and massive US intervention in Pakistan, and are > doing everything possible to stave it off. Yet the floating of this absurd > conspiracy theory is a clear signal that the Obama-ites are hell-bent on > war. > > The irony here is that, as Haroon reminded his American audience, Pakistan > has captured and handed over to the US more actual terrorists – i.e. top > al-Qaeda operatives – than our own > FBI<http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/FBI_documents_contradict_Sept._11_Commission_0228.html>, > or any other law enforcement agency anywhere. This is how we thank them – by > setting them up for an invasion on bogus charges of “harboring” terrorists. > > When it comes to reporting the Shahzad case, it’s incredible that the > “mainstream” media isn’t challenging the administration’s narrative. > Although maybe, given the media’s longstanding > infatuation<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnMevMJLdtE>with the President, > this is just a case of love being blind. > > As it turns out, Shahzad was fingered in a leak to the > media<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004355-503544.html>even > *before *he was arrested. This has all the earmarks of a manufactured > story, straight out of the Bush administration’s neocon-written > play-book<http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf>[.pdf]. > Except that the tall tales told by the boys over in the > Pentagon’s policy > shop<http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/01/00019/>were a helluva lot > more credible and believable, on the face of it, than > this ill-smelling narrative about Shahzad and his tenuous “connections.” > > Here at Antiwar.com, we’ve been > pursuing<http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/05/09/has-faisal-shahzad-started-a-war/>this > story – > challenging<http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/05/04/faisal-shahzad-an-ordinary-man/>it, > offering alternative > explanations<http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/05/06/is-faisal-shahzad-crazy/>for > Shahzad’s actions, all the while wondering why we seem to be a lone > voice in the wilderness. Well, actually, there’s no need to wonder: the > media sure doesn’t have a very good record of speaking truth to power – or > even questioning the assertions of the powerful, no matter how arbitrary and > fact-free they may be. These glorified stenographers are happy enough > feeding on “leaks” from their favorite government insiders, but are > remarkably incurious when it comes to pursuing the motive behind the > leakage. > > That’s why Antiwar.com is so necessary – and why *you need to act now* to > ensure that we’re still around asking the questions the “mainstream” doesn’t > even dream of broaching. > > Speaking frankly, our current fundraising drive is seriously deficient, and > rapidly heading toward disaster. If this goes on much longer, the only media > outlet with any reach that’s challenging the administration’s big lie won’t > be exposing much of anything. Because we’ll be out of business – gone, * > kaput.* > > I’m not exaggerating. Unless our fundraising picks up significantly, we’ll > have to start laying people off – and, in a surprisingly brief time, we’ll > have to close our doors. Antiwar.com has always operated on a shoe-string – > and now the string is about to break. > > It isn’t just our survival that’s at stake. This financial crisis is > hitting us at a moment when the danger of a greatly-expanded war in Pakistan > looms large. Unless we can expose the utter falsity of their ludicrous > conspiracy theory involving Shahzad, this administration will surely take us > into a greatly expanded war on Pakistani soil. The need for Antiwar.com has > never been greater. So please give, today, right now, before we have to call > it quits. > > http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/05/16/obamas-gulf-of-tonkin/ > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
