← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 13603 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2004-05-07
2004-05-07 20:51 | User Profile
Pretty solid slam raht heah:
[url]http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/opinion/2004506A17.html[/url]
2004-05-07 21:05 | User Profile
I don't know if I'd call that "naming Izzy." Hollings tactfully says that the war was part of a plan to bring peace the area, which he presumably thinks is a worthy goal.
A more truthful approach would have been to say that the war was an attempt to rally the country behind Bush until the tax cuts took hold, and secondarily to serve the interests of the fanatic Zionists who, for whatever reason, perceive Iraq as a threat to Israel.
2004-05-07 21:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE]But George W. Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined. [/QUOTE]
For those Americans who get easily confused, who believe "the Inauguration" occurred on 9/10, it would've helped if Hollings told the whole truth: that the Neo-Domino Theory was drafted long [I]before the 2000 election[/I], over a year before 9/11, by the very same people who subsequently ascended to power with Bush: Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, Feith, etc.
[QUOTE]Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area. [/QUOTE]
Again, not precise enough: he needs to add that this doctrine, wholly concerned with Israel, went under the rubric of the Project For A New American Century for the express purpose of masking said doctrine's true beneficiary. That this document and its authorship has not been seized upon by our Free Press as a major foreign-policy scandal resulting in, if not charges of treason, at the very least a wave of resignations, speaks to how deep the parasite is embedded within our govt and institutions. "70 Al-Qaeda sleeper cells in US" concern me less than PNAC, AIPAC and JINSA, who've been wide-awake and implementing their plans for a long, long time now.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans by now probably [I]don't[/I] buy the okeydoke; they don't wholly trust our Israeli 'partners', and likely have come to resent the ubiquitousness of Israel in every move we make and every law we pass. But they sense the futility of resistance as well, and how scary-fast and efficiently the institutions of our 'free society' can transform into a synchronized DefCon network at the first audible sound of a discouraging word. When Joe Sixpack angrily parrots FoxNews or FR-speak and waves his made-in-Malaysia mini-American flag in your face, he's also meekly admitting that [I]it's best not to think about the other stuff[/I].
2004-05-07 23:39 | User Profile
Quite bold. Im surprised. Normally a Senator would rather be castrated than speak the truth.
Ofcourse he doesnt use extreme language. But thats the whole point. If youre smart, youll get the message. And the message is, "We went to fight in that hellhole to make the place better for little Israel".
Rational men will let their minds take it from there - engage in enquiry and dig up the facts. You dont need massive resoruces either. Just a computer and an internet connection and the truth is there to see. But you have to be led first. No one who has been brainwashed since birth will suspect this instinctively. No better way to be led there than be told by a Senator.
2004-05-07 23:51 | User Profile
That's pretty close to naming the Jew for a sitting US senator.
He doesn't tell the whole truth, but on the whole, definitely pretty bold.
Let's hope this starts a domino effect among US Senators.
2004-05-08 01:44 | User Profile
Read Hollings' statement again. He is clearly laying the blame at Bush's feet, as though Bush cynically appropriated the well-meaning suggestions of his policy wonks to further his own sinister ends, and not the other way around.
[QUOTE]With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]President Bush realized his chances at negotiation were no better. He came to office imbued with one thought -- re-election. Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq.[/QUOTE]
Now Fritz is a party loyalist and this [I]is [/I] an election year. But his party's alternaBush is merely John "100% - not 99, 100%" Kerry, which might explain his lack of focus.
And focus is what's called for, not inflammatory rhetoric. My goodness, if the think-tankers behind PNAC were tethering America's fortunes and destiny to ANY OTHER NATION ON EARTH...France, Russia, Liechtenstein....there'd be no thumbs-ups for such breadcrumb trails as Hollings'. Instead, the sheer number of voices angrily denouncing the whole corrupt cabal would be such that a moderator would have to limit each speaker to five minutes or less, else we might never get to go home to bed.
2004-05-08 04:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Read Hollings' statement again. He is clearly laying the blame at Bush's feet, as though Bush cynically appropriated the well-meaning suggestions of his policy wonks to further his own sinister ends, and not the other way around.
Now Fritz is a party loyalist and this [I]is [/I] an election year. But his party's alternaBush is merely John "100% - not 99, 100%" Kerry, which might explain his lack of focus.
And focus is what's called for, not inflammatory rhetoric. My goodness, if the think-tankers behind PNAC were tethering America's fortunes and destiny to ANY OTHER NATION ON EARTH...France, Russia, Liechtenstein....there'd be no thumbs-ups for such breadcrumb trails as Hollings'. Instead, the sheer number of voices angrily denouncing the whole corrupt cabal would be such that a moderator would have to limit each speaker to five minutes or less, else we might never get to go home to bed.[/QUOTE]
Yep. When you put it that way, it's hard to disagree with your analysis. As usual, I might add. Someone on another thread, it may have been Oklahomaman, observed that Jews are always incredibly adept at setting up patsies to take the blame when their schemes blow up. Obviously, having played the White Gentile elite like a well tuned violin for about the millionth time, they've maneuerved Bush, Cheney, and Company into that position. George W. will take the fall this November for the Iraq debacle, and go into the history books a one term loser just like his father who did very little for Israel. The Jews have been playing this game ever since they slithered into Eastern Europe from Central Asia. Too bad some barbarian tribe didn't engage in a little genocide back then. The world would be more stable today.