Not only did I have some Xmas duties, but there was nothing in the papers for me.
Be it Somalia, Iraq (no one died there yesterday), Pakistan, Afghanistan, even Iran (surprisingly), there were no reports in the War Dailies.
The only thing the Globe gave me was the economic shit storm, tied in with the Times business lead.
"China bolsters Morgan Stanley"
"Cash-rich nations line up to invest in top US firms"
"$9.4 Billion Write-Down at Morgan Stanley"
Of course, this is all GOOD NEWS to the SMUG GLOBALIST MONSTER that poses as president of the United States!
While the fawning, ass-sucking press corp yuks it up with the shitter (while being shat on)!!!!
The MSM and the Washington press corp JUST PLAYING FOOLEYS!!!!
Doesn't wanna talk about the IMPEACHABLE CIA tapes destructions, o.k., yes, sir.
And NO ONE ASKED HIM ABOUT SPYING BEFORE THEY CAME INTO OFFICE!!!!!
New York Times Admits Bush Administration Spying Began in December of 2000... BEFORE TAKING OFFICE!
Never mind the SHEER ARROGANCE that EXCLUDED for that podium!!
EL DIABLO!!!!!!!!!!
What did enrage me this morning (before the asshole Anti Christ and his "press" conference) was seeing this on the front page of the New York Times...
"Iraqi Refugees Return, and Are Stranded"
after seeing this one month ago...
"Story Iraq: The New York Times' State Propaganda"
You now, nothing like PUSHING an AGENDA and LYING ABOUT IT, getting the MSM and public to bite, and then CONTRADICTING the BULLSHIT LATER when NO ONE is PAYING ATTENTION, huh?
To add insult to injury is this extract:
"C.I.A. to Cooperate With House on Tapes" by SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON — Current and former intelligence officials have said that the tapes of harsh interrogation of two Al Qaeda operatives in 2002 were made in part to document the methods being used for the first time by C.I.A. officers. But, they said, officials soon decided that taping sessions was a bad idea and could endanger interrogators if they were ever leaked.
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that discussions about the proposal to destroy the tapes involved four high-level White House lawyers: Alberto R. Gonzales, who served as White House counsel until early 2005; David S. Addington, who was the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and is now his chief of staff; John B. Bellinger III, who until January 2005 was the senior lawyer at the National Security Council; and Harriet E. Miers, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales as White House counsel.
In a statement on Wednesday, the White House press secretary, Dana M. Perino, criticized a subheading on the Times article that said, “White House role was wider than it said,” noting that the White House has “not publicly commented on the issue,” except to note the president’s “immediate reaction upon being briefed on the matter.” She called any suggestion that might be taken from the subheading to indicate that there was an effort by the White House to mislead the public on the videotapes issue “pernicious and troubling.”
Citing the Justice Department’s preliminary investigation, Ms. Perino said White House officials had been asked not to discuss the videotapes and declined to say who on President Bush’s staff was aware of the tapes. “We have not described, neither to highlight nor to minimize, the role or deliberations of White House officials in this matter,” she said.
The New York Times said it would publish a correction on Thursday."
Sigh!
And if you think the New York Times will pick up the cudgel because of Congress, well, you aren't paying attention:
"Mukasey Signals He’ll Be a Strong Bush Advocate" by PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey has signaled in his first weeks on the job that he intends to be a forceful advocate for some of President Bush’s most controversial antiterrorism policies, even if that means angering Congressional leaders who hoped that he would instead focus on repairing the strained relationship between the Justice Department and Capitol Hill.
Mr. Mukasey, in what was billed as a major policy speech on Wednesday to a panel of the American Bar Association, suggested that lawmakers who opposed legislation before Congress to broaden eavesdropping powers — and to offer legal protection for telephone utilities that cooperate — were undermining the ability to deal with terrorist threats:
“We’ve seen what happens when terrorists go undetected. We have to do everything possible within the law to prevent terrorists from translating their warped beliefs into action. To stop them, we have to know their intentions, and one of the best ways to do that is by intercepting their communications.”
He used the speech to step up the call for telephone utilities to have legal immunity for their past cooperation with the eavesdropping without warrants by the National Security Agency.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday that the letter “evidences none of the commitment to work with this committee that we heard during the attorney general’s recent confirmation hearings” and that it showed “no appreciation for the oversight role of Congress.”
Mr. Leahy said he feared that the attorney general, who took office on Nov. 9, was already part of “an effort to prevent accountability and to undermine checks and balances.”
Hey, YOU GUYS CONFIRMED HIM!!!!!!!
I was NOT FOR HIM at all!!!!
He's the 1993 WTC judge, and is IN ON 9/11!!!
"Michael Mukasey — federal judge in New York; presided over 1993 WTC bombing case; active in 9-11 cases, including Larry Silverstein’s insurance claims; oversaw the detained material witnesses of 9-11, including five dancing Israeli Mossad agents apprehended by FBI; recently appointed by Bush to be the next Attorney General; radical Zionist of Russian Jewish parentage; “dual citizen” of US and Israel"
There is limited evidence of a new spirit of cooperation with Capitol Hill.
Mr. Mukasey, in his speech on Wednesday:
"[I continue to believe there is a] positive collaborative process between Congress and the executive branch [over eavesdropping], and we’ll continue to work closely with Congress to put these needed authorities on a permanent footing.”
The White House and Mr. Mukasey are pressing Congress to approve bills to make permanent a broad expansion of the National Security Agency’s wiretapping and eavesdropping and provide legal protection to phone utilities.
Mr. Mukasey said it was crucial that the utilities have immunity from suits that accuse them of violating customers’ privacy rights and that ask them for billions of dollars in penalties:
“We simply cannot afford to discourage the private sector from helping us to detect and prevent the next terrorist attack. Such companies deserve our gratitude, not litigation.”
Yeah, sure!
If "TERROR" wasn't a FRAUD, and these guys weren't SPYING SINCE BEFORE THEY GOT IN, I might buy it, Muk!
Gee, HOW DID bin Laden get through on 9/11 when you guys were ALREADY TAPPING COMMUNICATIONS?
And WHY KEEP FLOGGING the "we need this for terror after 9/11," when you were ALREADY SPYING ON US ALL, huh?
As for the IMMUNITY ISSUE, not only is it UNCONSTITUTIONAL (Article I, Section 9: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"), but IF THEY DID NOTHING ILLEGAL, then WHY the NEED for IMMUNITY?
WHERE'S MY IMMUNITY for PAST FUCK-UPS?
All Muk is saying is WE ARE ABOVE the LAW!!!
What horror awaits me in the MSM papers tomorrow, readers?
As for the blogs, I can hardly keep up.
You know where to go readers.
