Bush destroyed his reputation when he started repeating the lies fed to him by all the war crazy neocons he was surrounded by. At least among people who are more interested in hearing the truth than the neocon co opted republican party's talking points and excuses.
You mean this?
After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors.
But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.
It was kept secret and remains so today.
President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).
A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.
http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
Bush covering up for his family's good buddies? No! It can't be true.
Syria's War: The Next Phase
"Moderate" myth is dropped as West prepares to leverage terror threat to end war in their favor.
December 13, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - The alleged fleeing of General Selim Idriss of the so-called "Free Syrian Army" (FSA), was more symbolic than anything else. Whether or not he really fled, and whether he is in Turkey or Qatar is of little consequence. The so-called "moderates" he commanded were nothing more than a smokescreen, a cheap veneer applied to the hardcore Wahabist extremists of Al Qaeda's Al Nusra franchise and similar fronts that have formed the core of foreign-backed militancy turned against the Syrian people from the very beginning of the conflict.
It was as early as 2007 when it was revealed that the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia were planning on building up extremists within and around Syria for the purpose of eventually overthrowing the government. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh warned about this in his extensive report titled, "The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" which prophetically stated (emphasis added):"To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."While the initial conflict was disingenuously portrayed as the spontaneous militarization of unarmed protesters fighting against a "brutal regime," in reality Al Nusra was already inside the country and operating on a national scale. The US State Department itself would reveal this in its December 2012 "Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for al-Qa'ida in Iraq," which stated:
< snip >
Geopolitical maneuvering reveals the framework for this next phase.
During the West's disingenuous nuclear negotiations with Iran, a feigned rift was opened between the US and Saudi Arabia. In Reuters' report titled, "Saudi Arabia warns of shift away from U.S. over Syria, Iran," it stated:Upset at President Barack Obama's policies on Iran and Syria, members of Saudi Arabia's ruling family are threatening a rift with the United States that could take the alliance between Washington and the kingdom to its lowest point in years.Of course, Saudi Arabia owes its entire existence to the United States - from its oil infrastructure, its military, and even its brutal internal security forces - any real rift between the US and the Saudis would be a gust of wind upon a shaky house of cards.
In reality, the rift is nothing more than political cover for the West as Saudi Arabia plans a more open and aggressive proxy campaign against Syria. As it directly arms and builds up legions of Al Qaeda, this rift will afford the United States who will in fact still be assisting Saudi Arabia in its proxy war, a degree of plausible deniability.
CONTINUE . . .
Okay when reading this it might be helpful to use this definition of "Al Qaeda" . . . NATO backed Islamic militants from all over the world that pass the time by murdering Christians and ransacking churches.
Washington’s Al Qaeda doesn’t exist and never did
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by poncho, Dec 12, 2013.
Page 3 of 7
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
I imagine the Ukraine govt has learned from other countries that have accepted the IMF bailouts and ended up with more debt than they started out with.
I suggest you get yourself a copy of "Confessions Of An Economic Hitman" and read it. Who knows maybe the Ukrainians have already read it and understand that the IMF is a global loan sharking racket.
You can listen to John Perkins explain how the "corptocracy" works by CLICKING HERE. -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Isn't this about where you start calling me a "conspiracy theorist" to make yourself seem more credible? -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Poncho, if you were not told before that Saudi Arabia aided in the Nine Eleven attacks, it is because a government in a war has the rights to secrets. As for your Democrat point that Al Qaeda didn't amount to a hill of beans, that has been proven false by every terrorist attack since because Islam is coordinated. I don't know why you side with the Democrats on foreign policy, but let me tell you that the Democrats have been second-rate on foreign policy since President Truman left office sixty years ago.
-
I would have thought you'd figured that out when Obama continued and expanded "Bush's" foreign policy.
The corporate sponsored "think tanks" like PNAC, Brookings and Heritage formulate the policy and the govt carries it out.
I'll agree with you that the democrats can't hold a candle to the republicans when it comes to scare mongering but then they don't have a 9/11 to play off. Maybe that's why they resort to strong arm tactics like intimidation and coercion to get their way.
The existence of two separate foreign policies? Nope. It just ain't so. I will admit that the democrats are more for covertly arming different factions and using the classic divide and conquer technique (create chaos and civil war) to pursue "regime change" where as the neocon faction of the republican party has a more gung ho in your face bomb them to smithereens and cover up later attitude about foreign policy but it's still the same "regime change" policy the think tanks formulated.
What about a government waging a fake war or at least waging a war under false pretenses like the neocons did with Iraq, do they still have a right to secrets?
I don't side with the democrats on foreign policy either. I side with the founding fathers and Ron Paul who sides with the founding fathers. Non Interventionism CMG, non interventionism not to be confused with isolationism. The democrats are all about interventionism whether it be in other nation's affairs or our everyday lives.
I'm about as far away from siding with the democrats as can be when it comes to foreign policy. I'm just not a fan of the corporations dictating any govt policy through their control of these think tanks and I do my best to hold to this conviction no matter which party is in power.
That's probably why I get flack from both democrats and neocons which are just "progressives" pretending to be conservatives anyways.
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Obama represents the Democrat foreign policy--let Iran acquire ICBMs and atomic bombs and retreat in Eastern Europe to avoid standing up to Russia. You are under the impression that the Democrats know what they are doing in foreign policy because you want the destruction of Bush's policy.
-
The "international community" he works for, Wall Street, the UK, Saudia Arabia. Qatar and Israel would never stand for it. They want war not peace. 20+ years of constant war and fear mongering should give ya a clue to their real intentions there CMG ole buddy.
No CMG there's no need to worry about Obama and the international community ever using peaceful negotiations as anything but a cover while they make their plans to destroy another sovereign nation.
I'm under the impression there is no truth coming from the democrats and it's feared and scorned by their progressive neo conservative cousins that believe America has to be the last great global hegemon or the world will come to end.
What are we doing in the Ukraine right now? Oh we're just trying to negotiate, read as coerce the Ukrainians into letting NATO have squatting rights to a thousand plus miles of the Russian border.
Retreat to Eastern Europe? :laugh: That's rich. -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Sorry but I said retreat in Eastern Europe, meaning retreating from the installation of missiles in Poland. The Democrats want to accommodate the Russians.
If you think that the GOP wants to allow Iran to have ICBMs and the atomic bomb, you are mistaken. Nor were we for what happened in North Africa, Iraq, and Afghanistan under the Democrats.
Eisenhower said peace through strength and that is still a good policy. We have to stand up to Iran and the other Islamic states of the Middle East and North Africa.
The GOP has a distinct foreign policy from the Democrat foreign policy as led by Obama.
It seems to me, Poncho, that you support the Obama policy. -
The CFR, and the neo-cons, et al, will feed the Republicans their foreign policy. That's why they are always attacking the tea party freshmen.
There is no 'two-party' system in today's f.p., they vote for the same garbage, and then spend all their time trying to convince their base that they represented them.
Case in point...Hilary voted for the Declaration of War on Terror, and then ran around accusing W of acting 'unilaterally', to retain her base. -
I didn't hear any neocons complaining about what happened in North Africa, Iraq, and Afghanistan when Bush and Cheney and the PNAC partners got the push for global hegemony party started. My conclusion, you are of the bomb em and strafe em first then send in the ground pounders to make the way safe for the cental bankers and Wall Street investors persuasion.
The covert proxy style warfare of the dems is slow and boring compared to the big booming in your face direct assault style warfare of the neocons. I think you're probably just bored from the lack of the big bloody fast paced action sequences of the neocon style of warfare. Am I right?
Teddy Roosevelt said "speak softly and carry a big stick". Man how times have changed since Teddy's day.
The neocons otoh prefer the more direct approach of starting with the bombs and strafing then sending the troops in to vanquish anyone left that resists Washngton and Wall Streets diktats along with those of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. Then the private central bankers and Wall Street investors move in and split up the plunder. Other than that the policy is the same. Become the only global hegemon and keep the coffers of the weapons industry and private contractors full until the private central bankers and Wall Street investors can safely divvy up the goods..
It keeps every body happy unless you count the hundreds of thousands that lose their life and limbs getting caught up in Washington's war making business as usual.
Peace is the last thing any of them want. Peace time profits are just chump change compared to war time profits and a never ending war? CHA CHING!!!
You should really take the time to read some of the corporate sponsored think tank's "recomendations" like I suggested awhile back it might clear up some of your confusion.
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Poncho, the neo-cons are out of power for good. We are not talking about nation-building. We are talking about standing up to Russia in Eastern Europeand the Ukraine as well as stopping Al Qaeda in North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
That differs vastly from the Obama policy and your ideas, which are much like Obamas.
Obama is allowing Iran to build ICBMs and the atomic bomb. He has abandoned Iraq and left Afghanistan a no-win bloodbath for the American military. He has allowed North Africa to fall into decay. He will not confront China/North Korea. Latin America has been given over to commies and transnational narcotraffickers.
Then you have the nerve to say that your policy and Obama's policy is the same as the GOP. Just not true. Romney warned that our main enemy was still Russia. Obama said that we could be more flexible with Russia after he was re-elected. Romney has warned about China, also. Romney visited Poland and seemed to suggest that he would have put missiles in Poland.
I would say that the GOP is against your policy, Poncho, and is not the policy of Obama/Clinton/Kerry. Stop and think, the GOP dislikes Kerry on all counts. We consider him a liar.
We want Iran bombed and their atomic capability destroyed. -
Later when I have more time I'll create a list of neocons in the Obama administration and post it for all to see. Even though I know you'll just close your eyes and deny it.
Show me the proof Iran is building nuclear weapons CMG show me the proof.
They want these wars to last forever and ever so the profits will never dry up. Why do think they have so many lobbyists and congress critters on their payroll??? Wars = big profits never ending wars = never ending big profits! There is no incentive to end wars or make peace at all. And the corporations who profit from war and carnage control the media and make sure we're all scared and living in fear that if we stop buying all their bombs and bullets some rag tag Islamist group that we probably fund and arm is going to kill us all! Wake up and smell reality man.
Who trained the "Narco Traffickers"? WE DID at the school of the America's!!! Who's been caught moving drugs into the United States most often? Our own intelligence agencies!!! Who supplied the west coast with cocaine that was converted into crack back in the 80's the CIA!!! Who's making sure the Afghan poppy crop stays unmolested? OUR MILITARY!!! Who's paying the Taliban not to attack our convoys with American tax dollars? The US government that's who!!!
You need to get a grip on reality and stop listening to all the corporate sponsored war mongering fear peddlers CMG.
Romney wanted to be the next corporatist puppet in the WH and his foreign policy "advisory team" were all rank and file NEOCONS!!!
I can see you are confused about this because you can't seem to pull your head out of the false left vs right paradigm long enough to even glimpse reality so I'll try to make it real simple.
There is no "Obama policy" there is no "GOP policy" there is only one bankster driven corporate policy. Do you know what a relay race is? It's a foot race involving several runners. The first runner starts out and runs a certain distance then passes a "baton" to the next runner then that runner runs a certain distance then hands the "baton" off to the next runner in the race until the last runner crosses the finish line. That is "our foreign policy". There is no democrat policy, there is no GOP policy there's one continuous policy where the party in power goes as far as it can then hands the "baton" off to the party coming into power.
It may look like separate policies because each party has different ideas and methods to carry it out but it is the same policy. Become the only global hegemon by any means. Period!
This is a fine example of the lame brain "Rumsfeldianism" the neocons espoused back when the neocons were being called the "crazies" in Washington. Donald Rumsfeld claimed the Russians had a silent nuclear submarine and when all the intell agencies said they couldn't find any evidence what so ever that would suggest the Soviets had a "silent sub" Rumsfeld said that the "lack of evidence is the evidence"!!!
How stupid can we be to keep believing these crazy lying liars in Washington that fund and arm terrorists as proxy foreign fighters in their "regime change' efforts while accusing nations they want to bomb bomb bomb of sponsoring terrorism?
The hubris and hypocrisy of this "foreign policy" to be become that last hegemon standing is so thick it would take a chainsaw run by a locomotive engine to cut through it. -
Was it something I said CMG?
Something like "show me the proof Iran is building nuclear weapons" maybe? -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Yesterday Alan Dershowitz was on Book TV in a rerun of a November statement complaining that it was poor business for Obama to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for verbal promises. It is amazing when liberal Democrats support the GOP.
For the record, the GOP opposed Obama on Benghazi, Libya, on the installation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and on the attempt to lead us to another Little Big Horn in Syria.
I think that the GOP has said that Obama gave Syria a red line but gave Iran a green light.
So there is a GOP foreign policy and it is distinct from the Democrat/Obama foreign policy and it is very distinct from your foreign policy, Poncho. -
Hey how about a little history lesson while we wait for you to come up with the "proof" Iran is building nukes?
Do you remember the foreign policy George W. Bush was running on during his first presidential campaign CMG? Let me remind you. It was "my" foreign policy. Non intervention and non nation building. Yeah no kiddin. Do you remember why he ran on that foreign policy? Let me remind you. It was because republicans/conservatives were sick and tired of the democrat's interventionist nation building foreign policy.
But what happened after George W. Bush stepped into office? He adopted the democrat's interventionist nation building foreign policy and the GOP adopted it as it's own.
And guys like you have been defending the democrat's foreign policy ever since.
You was neo-conned CMG. I was not. I stuck with the republican/conservative ideals of limited constitutional government, fiscal responsibility and a non interventionist non nation building foreign policy.
But evidently you gave up on those traditional republican/conservative ideals to feel a little safer or vindicated or maybe even a little exceptional.
When the republicans became the democrats under the neocon "leadership" and guys like you decided to follow them I decided not to. So of course that made me the radical all of a sudden. All because I wouldn't give up my republican/conservative values and become a democrat like most all the other republican/conservatives did.
You aren't going to shame me into apologizing for not adopting the neocon political ideals of Leo Strauss, Leon Trotsky and Niccolo Machiavelli CMG. It just ain't gonna happen dude.
I much prefer to stick with the traditional old time American values our founders held. You remember those right? The values that made this country the freest most prosperous and envied nation in the world. Not the most indebted, feared, spied on, controlled and hated nation in the world. Those are all the fruits of "your" foreign policy not "mine". -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Poncho, no one has sufficient information outside of intelligent communities to prove Iran's nuclear capability, but there is little doubt that they are working on an atomic bomb with help from North Korea/China and Pakistan.
The evidence is that the Democrats are split on the issue of supporting Obama's policy of giving Iran a release from sanctions in exchange for verbal assurances of good intentions--a rerun of Munich. Israel does not believe and Saudi Arabia does not believe.
It is touching that you have rallied behind Obama on this issue but to say that you have some sort of GOP talking point on the military threat of Islam is just not true. The GOP has rejected Obama and you on Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Iraq, not to mention China, North Korea and Latin America. -
It's touching to hear you putting so much faith in the say so of a dictatorial regime that sponsors terrorists that murder Christians and owns 3 billion dollars worth of News Corp aka Fox News.
Personally I find the people in the corporatist establishment GOP that claim we're fighting a war against terrorism to have little or no credibility when they are the same people that fight the hardest to fund and arm Saudi Arabia's Al Qaeda linked groups.
The people you are defending are very long on fear based propaganda and hypocrisy and very short on proof. They can pump out the fear and make plenty of accusations and threats but without proof they are just blowing smoke.
Just like you. But like I said what can we expect from a bunch of interventionist big government democrats running around pretending to be republicans?
No one believes the lies and fear mongering anymore. The real republicans and conservatives in the GOP aka the "tea party" is the biggest threat to the neocon corporatist establishment GOP there is right now. It's no surprise to me nor should it be to anyone watching and paying attention that the neocons are afraid of being exposed for the blood thirsty sponsors of terrorism and chaos they are.
This is why they have gone on the attack against the "tea party" and that's why you have to try to make it look as though anyone that disagrees with these corporatist RINOS is siding with Obama and a threat to "national security". I call the argument you are trying to use the "Georing Factor" because this is exactly the argument the Nazis used to demonize anyone that disagreed with their plan for global hegemony. I believe it's a valiant effort on your part to demonize real republican conservatives as the real danger to the U.S. but I believe ultimately it will fail.
People are waking up to the lies and naked hypocrisy of "your" interventionist foreign policy. People are looking at the bitter fruits of "your" interventionist policy that I mentioned before and asking themselves if it's worth it to destroy our own freedom our economy and long held American principles of fair play and justice just to make the Saudi Royal family and a bunch of international banksters and corporations happy and fat.
You can side with the hypocrites who sponsor terrorists that murder our Christian brothers and sisters in the middle east and North Africa while claiming to be fighting terrorism if you want to but don't expect me to support them. I don't care what you call me or how many times you claim the world will end if Washington doesn't protect Saudi Arabia's terrorist proxy forces. And I don't care how many times you keep repeating fear based propaganda that cannot be back up with solid evidence.
I will not now nor will I ever support a policy that funds and arms terrorists allows and facilitates the murder of Christians and destroys the country I love along with our hard won freedoms and liberties. It just ain't gonna happen.
Unlike your Trotsky loving Machiavellian heros in the in the GOP I don't believe Washington has the right, the moral standing or the brains to rule the world. Everything else Washington tries to fix ends up a huge expensive failure so why should trying to "fix the world" by force of arms and terrorist proxy forces be any different? -
Just for fun lets take a look at what might be fueling the race to bomb Iran. In a word OIL!
Iran has OIL. It's swimming in it. Can you imagine what would happen if Iran were allowed to sell that OIL on the open market? The price would drop!
Who could be threatened by reduced OIL prices? The American people? No. We'd love it! If the price of OIL dropped the price of practically everything else would drop right along with it. Heating our homes would by cheaper. The price of food would be cheaper. Our whole economy is based on the price of OIL! Everything would be cheaper and we'd all live better lives!
Who would be threatened by a reduction in the price of OIL? The big western energy companies that support our government through payola and the Saudi OIL sheiks that's who.
Why bomb Iran? Because they might someday maybe possibly try to acquire a nuclear weapon? No, because they have OIL and that OIL is a bigger threat to the western PTB and their terrorist sponsoring Saudi Arabian buddies than Iran having a nuclear weapon.
The economy of the United States would probably take off like gang busters if the price of OIL dropped. So why bomb Iran and occupy it?
To keep OIL prices up so the corporate fat cats that control Washington and Wall Street can keep bleeding us for every nickel we have. It always seems to come down to three things if we pay close attention CMG, more money, more power and more control. If the western corporations can control Iranian OIL they can maintain the price by creating a false scarcity there by maintaining the big profits they have become addicted to.
Hey where's all that Iraqi OIL that was going to give us dollar a gallon gas and pay for "Operation Iraqi Cakewalk"? Still in the ground! Right where the PTB always wanted it to stay!
So, all your huffing and puffing and claiming Iran is the greatest threat to world peace is like all the other neocon war mongering lies and distortions pumped out by the neocons and their corporate sponsors mainstream media propaganda outlets.
Pure unadulterated bunkum backed only by more pure unadulterated bunkum on top of even more unadulterated bunkum and all backed up by constantly driving the fear of the unknown to make us all subservient little slaves to Wall Street.
Lies lies and more lies.
It's like watching the same re run on tv over and over and over . . .
It's time to change the channel already. Try using your head to reason things out for yourself instead just taking these known fear mongering liars and and blood thirsty interventionist's at their word.
In the end it always comes down to three things. More money, more power and more control!
Page 3 of 7