There Can No Longer Be Any Doubt
that "Al Qaeda" (al-CIA-duh) works in service of the US.
Holy mother of god, they are just flaunting it in our faces now.
Holy mother of god, they are just flaunting it in our faces now.
posted by spooked at 1:10 PM
15 Comments:
death to the terrorist!
get 'em over there!
BUSHCO '08
odd how the sunni terrorists are the bad guys in iraq yet the sunni terrorists in iran are being funded by bushco via their saudi allies. what's up with that pinch?
h.
The Democrats are whining about secrecy and the Intelligence Committee not being informed, instead of impeaching the President for committing acts of war against a sovereign nation without a declaration of war from Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Worthless.
The secrecy does not please Democrats who have recently taken the reins of power in Congress from the Republicans.
Senator Ron Wyden, a member of the Intelligence Committee, said, "The Bush administration has frequently failed to meet its legal obligation to keep the intelligence committee fully and currently informed.
You know, I usually hate to be a rude, nasty interloping troll, but it’s so much fun here at Spooky’s House of Hilarity!
Ningen...are you really that stupid or do you just play an idiot on TV?
"...impeaching the President for committing acts of war against a sovereign nation without a declaration of war from Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution."
You must mean, unless I went to the Spook School of Logic, Operation Iraqi Freedom. You quiet obviously have not heard of something called the War Powers Act, a little thing passed by congress in 1973 that makes it permissible for the President to commit combat troops to a hostile environment without a declaration of war.
Go read the thing, come back and then educate all of us on what part of the War Powers act the President circumvented. Until then, keep your impeachment bullshit where it belongs – shoved up your ass.
Take a look at it. Educate yourself and perhaps you won't appear so stupid in the future.
http://gopher.udel.edu/htr/Psc105/Texts/warpowers.html
Then try:
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html#_1_34
I've read the War Powers Resolution, Pinch. Whether or not that's what the framers of the Constitution intended, if what Hersh is saying is true, the President is in violation on Iran, as the president has not reported to Congress within the 50 days or whatever it requires.
Thank you for the FAS article - it's a great list of all the times the WPR has been invoked. It doesn't mention how Clinton ignored a 50-50 vote of Congress against the war on Serbia, which the WPR requires to continue after a certain period, and how the courts said that was a political question.
The War Powers Resolution should be repealed. But I will restate - impeach Bush for violating the War Powers Resolution, and most importantly, impeach him for lying to the American people about Iraq and about 9/11.
Repeal of the WPR might mean you'd have to go get a real job, Pinch, so I can see you opposing that.
Given your lack of ability to make an argument without abuse, I can see you might have a problem outside the socialist military environment, where you are forced to be nice to your superiors.
the democrats are also seeking to change the U.S. role from an "unlimited mission" to "an anti-terrorist mission to go after Al Qaeda in Iraq, to support and train the Iraqi army, to protect our own diplomatic personnel and other personnel in Iraq,"
you said it, Ningen-- worthless. high level political games, good cop/bad cop. it is all the same.
check this one out: http://911blogger.com/node/6491. oh the irony. this clown continues to have the biggest disinfo artists on his show about... disinfo! amazing luck he has by perfectly selecting those who disrupt the most to talk about.. organized disruption! are the blogger babies really this dumb?
You know, I usually hate to be a rude, nasty interloping troll, but...
that's exactly what you are, what you have been and what you always will be.
heya instabitch, in case you hadn't noticed, no one seems to pay much attention to you anymore. you can stay if you're on you're best behavior and if.... you finally take a stance on 9/11. whadya say, instabitch-- care to state your position?
instabitch, do you:
a) believe the official government story regarding the events of 9/11 to be the whole truth?
or do you:
b) believe 9/11 was psyop against the american people and designed with the global elites interests in mind?
No consultation, no reporting by Bush. Of course, once forces are committed, Congress has to "support the troops" by funding them to make sure they stay there until the carnage gets to be too much for the American people to accept.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32267.htm
Pinch, instead of hassling us with your no-brain abuse, why don't you do something to help your fellow soldiers who are coming home wounded, physically and psychologically, and being spit on by the government that ruined their lives?
Thanks for the link, shep. I see Jim "Booby Trap" Hoffman is back. His argument is that the Pentagon is going to produce photographic evidence "proving" physically impossible events, so the no planes at the Pentagon is a "booby trap."
I wish commenters there would focus more on the merits of his arguments, rather than just calling him disinfo, which is fine but should be secondary to showing him wrong. He is right on many things - it's the things he's wrong on that tend to be interesting.
He is right on many things - it's the things he's wrong on that tend to be interesting.
i have mixed feelings about Hoffman myself, but i don't know him and haven't heard him speak. his website seems to be one of the few i've found with a nice background to WTC construction and history. as far as i know, he supports the boeing 757 crash at the pentagon and i pretty much write him off at that point-- doesn't negate his website however. additionally, i have read of the some tactics employed him and his supporters at 9/11 related events, involving leafleting, disruption and such. i could dig up a link if need be.
his pentagon 'booby trap' argument is that same thing that Alex 'fruitloopz' Jones has been saying for months. lame position if you ask me.
regarding your comments on the blogger, i think you hit the nail on the head. one of the obvious lines Albanese loves to use is that 'eyewitness evidence trumps physical evidence'. he has said that many times. i don't know if you're a lawyer but from what i've read about eyewitness vs. physical evidence, physical evidence always pulls more weight in court than eyewitness. plenty of eyewitness' get the details wrong recalling events and i believe studies have shown this.
Thanks for the great article, shep. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable.
Usually it's psychology PhDs that know the most.
Speaking of which, when I was fighting advertising in schools a while back, I spent some time in the business library and learned about how many psychology PhDs are funded by companies and do the most arcane research on manipulating humans. One example - the pause of a radio announcer before saying a word or phrase - PhD proven to make you remember it.
A lot of these folks are funded by the military - I know a guy who got his PhD funded by the Air Force, at least in part, if I recall correctly. He studied a concept that I think might relate to 9/11 TV Fakery - how the brain fills in what's behind occluded objects. I haven't seen him in years, though, and don't know what he would think.
He's well-esconced in academia, as he should be because he's brilliant, but I have the feeling it creates a reluctance ground ed both in peer pressure and possibly fear. It's the ones with the credentials that have to most to fear, especially if more start stating the obvious.
I know, Pinch, he would think I was a lunatic. That's not why I am not writing him - he already knows that.
Let me rephrase:
"It's the ones with the credentials that have the most to fear, because if one speaks more will more start stating the obvious."
In the interest of full disclosure and fair use, I posted the engineering article I used to come to the conclusion that the videos are faked:
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/02/engineering-article-on-which-i-relied.html
I promised I would post it a while back but have been busy.
"...are you really that stupid or do you just play an idiot on TV?"
I guess we have THAT question answered.
Quite a response, Pinch.
ya, way to go pinch - not surprising that was about the most analytical thing you've said to date.
foxy the snowman says..
"I Don’t Know" if bin laden is leader of al qaeda
duh.
Post a Comment
<< Home