It's discouraging to see what shit the Week-Ender at the New York Times must eat every week-end, readers.
The paper is nothing but a trove of Zionist bullshit and propaganda, and it is really discouraging to me.
This is what passes for "news" in AmeriKa?
This is what passes for a "free press?"
This is what Americans are told of our world when they sit down for a leisurely Sunday mourning read of the War Daily that shows up on their doorstep?
Reader, you are BETTER OFF COMING HERE to MY BLOG -- even with the foul language and the rage!!!!!
At least I TELL YOU the TRUTH!!!!
AmeriKa's MSM -- which I depended on for so long -- tells you NOTHING BUT LIES!!!!!!!!!!!
Sooooooobbbbbb!!!!!!
I guess NO ONE DIED YESTERDAY in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Palestine, since the MSM just pushes the same god-damn lie about surge success!
"Iraq Attacks Fall 60 Percent, Petraeus Says"
Yeah, well, if you repeat it and repeat it and repeat it, well.... the public tends to eat that shit up as truth!
I'm really, really hurt by the MSM coverage of the wars.
They lied us into them by pushing Bush bullshit, and when they semi-apologized, I thought they would get better.
But AmeriKa's MSM has FAILED US, Americans.
They are WORSE THAN EVER, and I AM TIRED of their WAR-PROMOTING, PEOPLE-DIVIDING AGENDA-PUSHING!!!!!!
Aren't you, readers?
Aren't you sick of front-page stories like this in the New York Times?
"Have Team, Will Travel, Losing Badly"
With EVERYTHING going on in the world, THIS gets FRONT-PAGE TREATMENT, huh?
Sounds like the New York Times is a LOSER PAPER to me!
And this is their PRIZED PIECE of FRONT-PAGE PROPAGANDA SPEW TODAY!
"Local Pakistani Militants Boost Qaeda Threat" by CARLOTTA GALL
I mean, it is page-one, state propaganda, folks!
It's jaw-dropping, hey!
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — According to American officials in Washington, an already steady stream of threat reports spiked in recent months. Many concerned possible plots to kill prominent Pakistani leaders, including Ms. Bhutto, President Pervez Musharraf and Nawaz Sharif, another opposition leader.
It is also one that many in Pakistan have been loath to admit, but that Ms. Bhutto had begun to acknowledge in her many public statements about the greatest threat to her country being in religious extremism and terrorism.
Those warnings have now been borne out with her death and in the turmoil that has followed it. Rioting over the last two days has left at least 38 people dead and 53 injured, and cost millions of dollars of damage to businesses, vehicles and government buildings, according an Interior Ministry spokesman. Protesters have accused the government of failing to protect Ms. Bhutto, or even conspiring to kill her.
Or even!
Imagine that!
Pfffffffffttttttttt!
Here is the turn-in!
Sniff, sniff?
The government has tried to deflect that anger, blaming militants linked to Al Qaeda, specifically Baitullah Mehsud, for having masterminded the attack. But on Saturday, through a spokesman, Mr. Mehsud denied he was responsible and dismissed the allegations, adding fuel to the notion of a government conspiracy.
Maulavi Omar, the spokesman, in a telephone call from the tribal region of South Waziristan:
“Neither Baitullah Mehsud nor any of his associates were involved in the assassination of Benazir, because raising your hand against women is against our tribal values and customs. Only those people who stood to gain politically are involved in Benazir’s murder.”
Yeah, and we ALL KNOW WHO THEY ARE!!!!!!!
Hey, MUSHARAFF!!!!!!!
One of Pakistan’s leading newspapers, The Daily Times, noted Saturday that such denials were a common tactic used to obscure the origins of the militants’ attacks, and in particular to extend the myth that the bombings are the work of foreign elements, rather than of Pakistanis.
Hello, Times, uh, NINE-ELEVEN!!!!??????
"Prop 202: 9/11 Revisited"
Al Qaeda in Pakistan now comprises not just foreigners but Pakistani tribesmen from border regions, as well as Punjabis and Urdu speakers and members of banned sectarian and Sunni extremists groups.
Najam Sethi, editor of The Daily Times, wrote in a front-page analysis:
“Al Qaeda is now as much a Pakistani phenomenon as it is an Arab or foreign element.”
You mean THIS "Al-CIA-Duh?"
Also see: "Al-CIA-Duhs" Catch-and-Release Program
Senior American intelligence officials said all credible threat information in recent weeks had been passed to Pakistani authorities, mainly through the United States Embassy in Islamabad. But the officials said they were not aware of any specific reports of an attempt on Ms. Bhutto’s life in Rawalpindi.
WTF?! Knew about it, but couldn't stop it?
How often we gonna be shoveled this shit.
A senior American intelligence official:
"[It was clear from his reading of recent threat reports that] the political process was not going to go untouched. [Militants almost surely would go to any length] to create political disarray.”
This is such garbage propaganda, readers!
CUI BONO?
The official said while Ms. Bhutto had perhaps the longest list of enemies among Pakistan’s most prominent politicians:
“It almost didn’t matter which one was attacked — Musharraf, Bhutto or Sharif. The militants were looking for multiple target sets, whether in the capital area, which would carry more weight, or in Karachi or Peshawar.”
Keep shoveling, "administration official."
You ever get tired of hucking shit?
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Delaware Democrat who heads the Foreign Relations Committee, after Ms. Bhutto’s death, Mr. Biden, in a statement:
“The failure to protect Ms. Bhutto raises a lot of hard questions for the government and security services that must be answered.”
Pffffffffttttt!
Ummmm, Joey, NINE-ELEVEN?!!!!!!!!!!
A Defense Department official said Saturday:
“I don’t know how foolproof you can make any security when people are willing to kill themselves.”
Pffffffffffftttt!
Then DISMANTLE the GOD-DAMN POLICE STATE, shitter!
Ready for a BIG SPOONFUL of ZIONIST BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA, readers?
Better BIB UP!!!!
The tribes on the border have a long history of fighting invading armies. But since 2001, when Qaeda and Taliban forces fled the American intervention in Afghanistan and took refuge in Pakistan’s tribal areas, the Pakistani militants have steadily grown in strength and boldness.
Today they have been bolstered by the foreigners among them. Those include a smaller number of hard-core Arabs, like Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri, Al Qaeda’s second in command, as well as a larger number of Uzbeks, Tartars and Tajiks who have influence them to take on new agendas, Pakistani security officials familiar with the region said.
The Arabs in particular have brought money and fighting and explosives expertise, as well as ideology that includes religious justifications of tactics like suicide bombings and beheadings, which Afghans and Pakistanis had not used before, they said.
More and more, those tribes and foreign networks have overlapping operations and agendas.
Brig. Javed Iqbal Cheema, the director of the National Crisis Management Cell and main spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said Friday as he accused Al Qaeda of Ms. Bhutto’s assassination:
“The country is facing the gravest challenge from these terrorists and extremist elements. They are systematically targeting our state institutions in order to destabilize the country. [Mr. Mehsud is of the] same brand of Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists, and is behind most of the recent terrorist attacks that have taken place in Pakistan.”
This is the same guy who said Bhutto died hitting her head!
Where's my grain of salt to take?
I mean, the guy denied it, and I believe the "insurgent" before I believe lying governments!
That's where you have left us, lying AmeriKan MSM!!!!!!
Some security officials in the North-West Frontier Province have warned, however, that it has become the norm for the government to blame Mr. Mehsud for just about any attack, without providing real evidence.
Oooooooooooh!!!!!!!
So Mehsud is a SCAPEGOAT for EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!
Just like bin Laden, huh?
Oooooooooooh!!!!!!!
Sigh!
Nevertheless, let's RUN WITH THE LIE, 'eh, New York Times?
Pffffffffffftttttt!
Mr. Mehsud is in fact one commander in a broader terrorist network who runs just one of an estimated five groups that train and dispatch suicide bombers from Pakistan’s isolated tribal areas, according to officials.
Yup, and all headed up by the ISI and CIA no doubt!
Another man known to be sending out suicide bombers is Qari Zafar, a militant from southern Punjab who was connected to the banned Sunni extremist group Sipa-e-Sahaba and then Jaish-e-Muhammad.
Mr. Zafar escaped capture in Karachi and is now based in South Waziristan, where he trains insurgents on how to rig roadside bombs and vests for suicide bombings, a former security official said.
But it is Mr. Mehsud who has emerged this year as the most visible proponent of Al Qaeda’s ambitions in Pakistan, security officials said. He has claimed to have hundreds of suicide bombers ready to attack government and military targets.
Barely two years ago Mr. Mehsud, 32, was just a Pashtun tribesman who did not register on the radar screen of the intelligence services or government officials. He is a veteran of the war in Afghanistan in the 1990s, when he trained and fought with the Taliban, according to one Pakistani intelligence official.
He became a follower of Abdullah Mehsud, the one-legged commander who was captured when fighting with the Taliban in 2001 in Afghanistan and detained by the United States at its military base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Abdullah Mehsud was later released and took up the fight against American forces in Afghanistan from his home base in South Waziristan.
Both Abdullah and Baitullah share the name of the Mehsud of South Waziristan, a large warrior Pashtun tribe that is renowned for never being pacified by the British forces.
Abdullah Mehsud was killed in July by Pakistani forces in Zhob, a district south of the tribal areas in the province of Baluchistan. But even before then, Baitullah Mehsud had been promoted over him by the Taliban leadership.
Baitullah Mehsud is now believed to be responsible for some of the most spectacular and damaging attacks inside Pakistan in recent months, including suicide bombings against army and intelligence targets as well as prominent politicians like Ms. Bhutto.
He has also been identified by officials in Afghanistan as one of the main sources of the suicide bombers who carry out attacks there.
But Mr. Mehsud’s master strike came at the end of July when he captured nearly 300 soldiers who were escorting a supply convoy through the Mehsud lands in Waziristan. He beheaded three soldiers and demanded that the government withdraw from his area and cease operations against militants.
It took the government two months of negotiations to win the release of the soldiers. Only on Nov. 3 did it do so. As part of the deal the government handed over 25 of Mr. Mehsud’s men on the same day that President Musharraf imposed emergency rule, saying he needed the extra powers to combat terrorists.
Since then, however, the government, wary of the retaliatory attacks Mr. Mehsud can employ, appears to have done little to rein him in. He now leads Tehrik-i-Taliban, a newly formed coalition of Islamic militants committed to waging holy war against the Pakistani government.
The government has outlawed the group but not moved against it. The army has instead concentrated its efforts in recent weeks on clearing militants from the Swat Valley. That region is some distance from the tribal areas on the border, and the fight there an indication of just how far the militant influence has spread.
Pakistani officials who have worked in the tribal areas say that it is still possible to contain the threat of someone like Mr. Mehsud through tribal pressure, if he can be separated from the foreign elements.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity:
“The only problem is these foreigners. You remove these foreigners and the rest is no problem.”
Yeah, foreigners like the CIA AGENTS that are DIRECTING "Al-CIA-Duh!"
Yet to remove the foreigners, namely a small number of Arab leaders, who are well protected and well hidden, from among the tribesmen is a task that Pakistan so far has failed to do and according to some may not be capable of.
The official: “That can only be done with an operation.”
Which is strange, because the U.S. was already planning to send troops to Pakistan BEFORE Bhutto was killed!
Should be a lot easier now, and CUI BONO, readers?
Review my Pakistan labels for the last week and LEARN SOMETHING!
Here is the CIA's view (from their favorite newspaper):
"Rioting rocks Pakistan as officials weigh election delay; Toll following assassination rises above 40" by Griff Witte, Washington Post | December 30, 2007
KARACHI - Nationwide rioting brought life in Pakistan to a standstill yesterday and prompted government officials to consider delaying next month's election, as the country continued to be torn by conflict over Thursday's killing of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.
The death toll from the violence climbed above 40, with many residents staying indoors out of fear and others venturing out to torch government buildings or to do battle with police firing tear gas.
The unrest turned streets in this normally frenetic city, Pakistan's largest, into empty expanses of asphalt. Dozens of burned-out cars and buses sat on the sides of the roads, evidence of nighttime mobs that roamed the city in defiance of a heavy security presence that now includes patrols of army soldiers in addition to police.
Food shortages were reported in some areas, and a nearly complete shutdown of gasoline stations and other shops brought business to a virtual halt. With a large percentage of the population idle and angry, there was anxiety yesterday that the violence could worsen.
Zahid Hussain, 30, a truck driver who pulled over by the side of the road Thursday night in rural Sindh Province and has not moved out of fear of being attacked:
"These are the sentiments of the people. This is their natural reaction."
Pakistanis were scheduled to go to the polls Jan. 8, but with the nation on edge, the election commission is expected to convene an emergency meeting tomorrow to make a decision on whether to postpone the long-awaited vote.
And CUI BONO, (as this author turns and sees a picture of Musharaff)!!!!!
In addition to the concerns about violence marring the vote, opposition groups have long said they believe that Musharraf and his allies plan to rig the polls. The exact circumstances of Bhutto's death remained a source of major controversy yesterday.
Yesterday, Bhutto spokeswoman Sherry Rehman, who was in the vehicle that rushed the slain leader to the hospital, hotly disputed the government's account, saying it was an attempt to excuse inadequate security:
"She was bleeding profusely, as she had received a bullet wound in her neck. My car was full of blood. Three doctors at the hospital told us that she had received bullet wounds. I was among the people who gave her a final bath. We saw a bullet wound in the back of her neck. What the government is saying is actually dangerous and nonsensical. They are pouring salt on our wounds. There are no findings. They are just lying."
The government stood firmly by its account yesterday. US intelligence officials yesterday expressed increasing confidence that the attack had been carried out by insurgents with ties to Al Qaeda, but they cautioned that there was no definitive proof."
Yeah.
You know, when the Zionist War Dailies lionize Bhutto, you know something is fucked up, readers!
"How a ‘Wisp of a Girl’ Conquered Pakistan"
"Connections: How Bhutto Won Washington"
"Although Ms. Bhutto was twice expelled from office on charges of corruption, she kept up her visits to Washington, usually several a year. She would call on administration officials and members of Congress willing to see her as well as reporters and editors at The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Soon her American Christmas card list, excluding people in government and Congress, was up to 375 names.
Like other foreign leaders, Ms. Bhutto engaged a public relations firm to arrange meetings for her with administration officials, members of Congress and journalists. For the first six months of 2007, the firm Burson-Marsteller took in fees of close to $250,000 for work on behalf of Ms. Bhutto."
Well, that explains the AmeriKan MSM and its "news" coverage, readers!
How can we ever believe in them again?
Turning to IMPEACHABLE CRIMES of TORTURE and DESTRUCTION of EVIDENCE, put your sniffer into this Times' piece of symmetrically-wound, steaming soft-serve pile of shit:
"Tapes by C.I.A. Lived and Died to Save Image" by SCOTT SHANE and MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON — If Abu Zubaydah, a senior operative of Al Qaeda, died in American hands, Central Intelligence Agency officers pursuing the terrorist group knew that much of the world would believe they had killed him.
So they set up video cameras to record his every moment: asleep in his cell, having his bandages changed, being interrogated. In fact, current and former intelligence officials say, the agency’s every action in the prolonged drama of the interrogation videotapes was prompted in part by worry about how its conduct might be perceived — by Congress, by prosecutors, by the American public and by Muslims worldwide.
Pfffffffffffttt!!!!!!
Do you really buy this bullshit, readers?
That the C.I.A. was worried about an IMAGE problem?
The bigger the lies....
That worry drove the decision to begin taping interrogations — and to stop taping just months later, after the treatment of prisoners began to include waterboarding. Now, the disclosure of the tapes and their destruction in 2005 have become just the public spectacle the agency had sought to avoid. To the already fierce controversy over whether the Bush administration authorized torture has been added the specter of a cover-up.
So WHERE ARE YOU, New York Times?
With your HEAD UP BUSH'S ASS, as usual, you crop of agenda-pushing bullshit-chuckers?
Interviews with two dozen current and former officials, most of whom would speak about the classified program only on the condition of anonymity, revealed new details about why the tapes were made and then eliminated. Their accounts show how political and legal considerations competed with intelligence concerns in the handling of the tapes.
Pfffffffftttt!
The discussion about the tapes took place in Congressional briefings and secret deliberations among top White House lawyers, including a meeting in May 2004 just days after photographs of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq had reminded the administration of the power of such images.
Oooooooh, so after Abu Ghraib, they said "Better get rid of those torture tapes."
Un-fucking-believable!
The tapes documented a program so closely guarded that President Bush himself had agreed with the advice of intelligence officials that he not be told the locations of the secret C.I.A. prisons. Had there been no political or security considerations, videotaping every interrogation and preserving the tapes would make sense, according to several intelligence officials.
Either the Times is COVERING BUSH'S ASS by LYING, or BUSH is IGNORANT and INCOMPETENT and SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE!
A. B. Krongard, the C.I.A.’s No. 3 official at the time the interrogations were taped:
“You couldn’t have more than one or two analysts in the room. You want people with spectacular language skills to watch the tapes. You want your top Al Qaeda experts to watch the tapes. You want psychologists to watch the tapes. You want interrogators in training to watch the tapes.”
Good Lord, they talked to BUZZY KRONGARD, the CIA officer who placed the PUT OPTIONS on the airliners used in the 9/11 attacks!
Need any more proof that the New York Times is NOTHING but STATE PROPAGANDA, readers?
Given such advantages, why was the taping stopped by the end of 2002, less than a year after it started?
Mr. Krongard: “By that time, paranoia was setting in.”
Yeah, guys started to worry about WAR CRIMES CHARGES!!!
So they DESTROYED the EVIDENCE -- ANOTHER CRIME!!!!!!!!!!
IMPEACHABLE CRIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
American officials have said that Abu Zubaydah was the first Qaeda prisoner to be waterboarded.
All over BULLSHIT, since 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB!
Tortured this guy for NO REASON, readers!
Officials said they felt they could not risk a public leak of a videotape showing Americans giving such harsh treatment to bound prisoners.
Heightening the worries about the tapes was word of the first deaths of prisoners in American custody. In November 2002, an Afghan man froze to death overnight while chained in a cell at a C.I.A. site in Afghanistan, north of Kabul, the capital. Two more prisoners died in December 2002 in American military custody at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.
See:
Hell-oween: Afghanistan Torture File/The First Abu Ghraib
Hell-oween: Afghanistan Torture File/Perversion
Hell-oween: Afghanistan Torture File/Dilawar and Habibullah
Hell-oween: Afghanistan Torture File/Chamber of Horrors
Hell-oween: Afghanistan Torture File/American Amnesty
Hell-oween: Afghanistan Torture File/Bagram
Notice how those atrocities just go away in the Zionist-controlled War Dailies pages, while we must read about "crazy Muslim terrorists" day after lying, stinking day, readers?
Case closed on the Jew shit AmeriKan MSM, folks.
Sorry!
By late 2002, interrogators were recycling videotapes, preserving only two days of tapes before recording over them, one C.I.A. officer said. Finally, senior agency officials decided that written summaries of prisoners’ answers would suffice.
And yet they had HUNDREDS of HOURS that they destroyed.
Yeah, we will PHONY UP the "transcripts," too!!!!
I am sick of limited hang-out, cover-up lies being reported as 'news" in my shit War Dailies, readers!
Still, that decision left hundreds of hours of videotape of the two Qaeda figures locked in an overseas safe. Clandestine service officers who had overseen the interrogations began pushing hard to destroy the tapes. But George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, was wary, in part because the agency’s top lawyer, Scott W. Muller, advised against it, current and former officials said.
Yet agency officials decided to float the idea of eliminating the tapes on Capitol Hill, hoping for political cover.
A still-secret report concludes that some of the C.I.A.’s techniques appeared to constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under the international Convention Against Torture.
Yes, 'Murkns, AMERIKA TORTURES PEOPLE!!!!
You PROUD now, shit-eaters?
And WHY is the REPORT STILL SECRET, Times?
A month later, as the administration reeled from the Abu Ghraib disclosures, Mr. Muller, the agency general counsel, met to discuss the report with three senior lawyers at the White House: Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel; David S. Addington, legal adviser for Vice President Dick Cheney; and John B. Bellinger III, the top lawyer at the National Security Council.
The interrogation tapes were discussed at the meeting, and one Bush administration official said that, according to notes of the discussion, Mr. Bellinger advised the C.I.A. against destroying the tapes. The positions Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Addington took are unknown.
Unknown or UNTOLD, Times?
The White House deny you permission on that one?
After Mr. Tenet and Mr. Muller left the C.I.A. in mid-2004, Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., the clandestine service’s director, and other officials from the clandestine branch decided again to take up the tapes with the new chief at Langley, Porter J. Goss, the former Republican congressman from Florida and the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
In November 2005, Congress already was moving to outlaw “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment of prisoners, and The Washington Post reported that some C.I.A. prisoners were being held in Eastern Europe. As the agency scrambled to move the prisoners to new locations, Mr. Rodriguez and his aides decided to use their own authority to destroy the tapes, officials said.
And yet Rodriguez he has been claiming he was authorized to do such a thing!
See what I mean by a limited hang-out and cover-up, readers?
One official who has spoken with Mr. Rodriguez said Mr. Rodriguez and his aides were concerned about protection of the C.I.A. officers on the tapes, from Al Qaeda, as the C.I.A. has stated, and from political pressure.
The tapes might visually identify as many as five or six people present for each interrogation — interrogators themselves, whom the agency now prefers to call “debriefers”; doctors or doctor’s assistants who monitored the prisoner’s medical state; and security officers, the official said. Some traveled regularly in and out of areas where Al Qaeda and other Islamist extremists are active, he said.
Apart from concerns about physical safety in the event of a leak, the official said, there was concern for the careers of officers shown on the tapes:
“We didn’t want them to become political scapegoats.”
This is ALL BULLSHIT!!!!! One CIA case officer already has come forward.
This is just REPETITION of GOVERNMENT LIES, readers!!!!!
Proving ONCE an FOR ALL that the New York Times is NOTHING but a STATE PROPAGANDA SHIT SHEET!
And doesn't it bother anyone that we are TALKING about TORTURE as if it were a stroll in the park?
According to several current and former officials, lawyers in the agency’s clandestine branch gave Mr. Rodriguez written guidance that he had the authority to destroy the tapes and that such a move would not be illegal.
One day in November 2005, Mr. Rodriguez sent a cable ordering the destruction of the recordings. Soon afterward, he notified both Mr. Goss and Mr. Rizzo, taking full responsibility for the decision. Yet it appears that Mr. Rodriguez was never reprimanded. Nor is there evidence that Mr. Goss promptly notified Congress that the tapes were gone.
The investigations over the tapes frustrate some C.I.A. veterans, who say they believe that the agency is being unfairly blamed for policies of coercive interrogation approved at the top of the Bush administration and by some Congressional leaders.
Yeah, WE KNOW!!!!!!!!
"Nancy Pelosi Approved Torture"
Intelligence officers are divided over the use of such methods as waterboarding. Some say the methods helped get information that prevented terrorist attacks. Others, like John C. Gannon, a former C.I.A. deputy director, say it was a tragic mistake for the administration to approve such methods.
Mr. Gannon said he thought the tapes became such an issue because they would have settled the legal debate over the harsh methods.
“To a spectator it would look like torture. And torture is wrong.”
Well, if it LOOKS LIKE IT, SMELLS LIKE IT, and TASTES LIKE IT, it PROBABLY IS!!!!!!!!!!
Of course, we must not forget the ZIONIST PROPAGANDA that needs to be shoveled at 'Murkn shit-eating Week-Enders!
"Bin Laden vows to extend terror network's war into Israel; On tape, warns Iraq's Sunni Arabs not to fight Qaeda" by Salah Nasrawi, Associated Press | December 30, 2007
CAIRO - Osama bin Laden warned Iraq's Sunni Arabs against fighting Al Qaeda and promised to expand the terror group's holy war to Israel in a new audiotape released yesterday, threatening "blood for blood, destruction for destruction."
Ummm, "Al-CIA-Duh" is already in Palestine!!!!!
It's a MOSSAD CELL!
And CUI BONO, readers, now that Iran has receded as a "threat" to Is-ray-Hell?
Whadda a NaZionist stink!
Most of the 56-minute tape dealt with Iraq, apparently Al Qaeda's latest attempt to keep supporters in Iraq unified at a time when the US military contends to have Al Qaeda's Iraq branch on the run. The tape did not mention Pakistan or the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
But bin Laden's comments offered an unusually direct attack on Israel, which has warned of growing Al Qaeda activity in Palestinian territory. The terror network is not believed to have taken a strong role there so far.
Ummm, readers, Osama bin Laden is Dead!!!
Also see: Osama bin Bush
Can you smell the shitstink of NaZionist propaganda, readers?
How can you miss it?
The authenticity of the tape could not be independently confirmed. But the voice resembled that of bin Laden.
Ha-ha-ha!
I'll bet it resembled bin Laden's voice, all right!
The tape was posted on an Islamic militant website where Al Qaeda's media arm, Al-Sahab, issues the group's messages."
Ummmmmm, about Al-Sahab:
"Prop 101: Al-CIA-Duh's Greatest Hits"
Ummmm, S.I.T.E. didn't release it, did they?
Did I mention the DOD's MSM press offices in Lincoln, the Pentagon and Langley?
And why do the "Al-CIA-Duh" sites track back to Texas or Maryland?
Pffffffffftttt!!!
Haw-haw-haw-haw!!!!!!
This stuff is LAUGHABLE!!!!!!!!!!!
Haw-haw-haw!!!
I've needed a GOOD LAUGH lately!!!!
Thanks, Zionist-controlled MSM!!!!!
Thanks a lot, haw-haw-haw-haw-haw!!!!!!!!!
As for the politics, the New York Times includes Ron Paul in its paper graphic of where the candidates stand a week before the primaries; however, they DISTORT
Take a look at who the voters want for the Republican nomination, readers.
Here are the issues the New York Times decided will be of utmost importance to the next president.
See if you can spot the OUTRAGEOUS and DAMNABLE LIES contained in the "analysis," readers!
"More Power for Executive: Will It Last?" by ADAM LIPTAK
In a television interview a few months after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney described a sense of obligation he shared with President Bush. The two men wanted, Mr. Cheney said, “to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors.”
Mr. Cheney wasn’t talking about the furniture. He was talking about power.
Critics and supporters of the Bush administration can debate whether particular aspects of its efforts to combat terrorism have altered the balance between national security and civil liberties too far in one direction or the other. What almost no one disputes is that a central legacy of the Bush presidency will be its distinctively muscular vision of executive power.
A year from now, Mr. Bush’s successor will have to decide whether to accept and perhaps build on that vision or — and this is never an easy matter where power is involved — to relinquish parts of it.
The next president will most likely have to decide what to do with the hundreds of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, some of whom have spent six years there and none of whom have been tried for a crime.
Other defining questions for the next president: How far may military and intelligence interrogators go to extract information? When is it acceptable to send people suspected of terrorism to countries that are known to use torture?
What amounts to “material support” of terrorism? May American citizens be held by the military indefinitely and without charge based only on an executive branch determination that they are “enemy combatants?”
And when may the government intercept the communications of people in the United States without a court warrant?
Important as the Bush administration’s answers to these questions have been, the larger issue left behind is one of constitutional theory. May the president go it alone in deciding what is necessary to protect the safety of the nation?
By the historical standards of wartime presidencies, the Bush administration has not taken especially radical steps in curbing the civil liberties of citizens. But Mr. Bush has proceeded alone even when Congressional authorization was almost certainly available, and he has insisted that the need for secrecy makes judicial oversight and public debate impossible.
Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush have surely succeeded in strengthening the power of their offices. But it is not certain that their successors will embrace every part of the legacy that awaits them."
When the New York Times -- Bush's "nemesis" -- soft-sells dictatorship, what are you to think, readers?
I personally don't think Bush is leaving, and this article is just PURE PROPAGANDA from the New York Times!
"How to Divine Foreign Policy of Candidates" by DAVID E. SANGER
If there is one thing to listen for in judging how the presidential candidates would engage with the rest of the world, it may be how they talk about embracing, changing or abandoning the Bush doctrine.
That doctrine has been interpreted to mean different things at different times by different people, including President Bush and his aides, who made it up on the fly in the days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Is that just a BALD-FACED FUCKING LIE or what, readers?
Obviously, Sanger or his bosses have NEVER HEARD OFF the Project for the New American Centrury, or they are ONCE AGAIN LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a ZIONIST SHIT RAG the New York Times is.
A LYING, AGENDA-PUSHING , ZIONIST SHIT RAG!
But it has evolved from Mr. Bush’s black-and-white declaration in 2001 that countries are “with us or against us” in battling terrorism, to his decision a year later to elevate military pre-emption — and by extension, regime change — to a defense strategy, right up there with containment and deterrence.
Along with it came dismissive comments about weak-kneed allies and the importance of never relying on the United Nations for a “permission slip” to act.
Mr. Bush, of course, has strayed far from the doctrine. He is talking, or offering to talk, to the surviving dictators of what he once labeled an “axis of evil,” and he has learned that some allies (read: Pakistan) are with the United States on Mondays and Wednesdays and absent on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
But the Republican candidates, by and large, have tried to sound more hawkish than the man for whom the doctrine is named. Senator John McCain has staked his campaign on the premise that Mr. Bush’s main mistake was failing to use overwhelming force in Iraq, and he has asked whether it might be less risky to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities than to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Rudolph W. Giuliani has cast himself as the man who will keep America safe, acknowledging that diplomacy is nice, but effective only if you flash the big club of counterterrorism on regular occasion. Both Mr. Giuliani and Mitt Romney are in a contest to sound more confrontational with the Iranians.
But for all the candidates, the strident declarations carry some risks, as they discovered early this month when the American intelligence community concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, an assessment that suddenly deadened all the talk of military action against Tehran.
For the Democrats, oddly enough, attacking the Bush doctrine is proving somewhat treacherous territory. It is easy for each of them to declare that they would be the anti-Bush. But that is different from abandoning all of the substance — and risking sounding, or being, too soft."
Pffffffftttt!!!! Ron Paul is the ONLY ANTI-BUSH candidate!!!!!
And since Bush is the Anti-Christ, could Ron Paul be the manifestation of Jesus?
Could your SAVIOR actually be a loving, peaceful man who will defeat the Anti-Christ NOT through MILITARY battle, but through POLITICAL COMBAT, evangelicals??
Could Ron Paul be the Messiah?
Just a thought, readers.
"Immigration Is Defying Easy Answers" by JULIA PRESTON
New immigration and the political reaction against it are nearly as old as the United States itself. Yet the immigration surge of the last decade has awakened tensions of unexpected intensity that have pervaded the presidential campaigns of both parties and stirred voter anger across the country.
In 1960, census figures show, the largest national group of immigrants was the Italians, accounting for 13 percent of the foreign-born. Today, Mexicans account for one-third of all immigrants. Spanish-speakers make up nearly half of the 37.5 million foreign-born people in the country. Young Latino immigrants have brought Spanish to states that had had little exposure to it, like Iowa and North Carolina.
In addition, never before have illegal immigrants settled here in such numbers — an estimated 12 million. Almost 70 percent of those immigrants are Spanish-speaking, coming from Mexico and Central America, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group.
Coinciding with the mood of apprehension following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the new immigration has provoked more than the traditional suspicion that foreigners are taking jobs from American workers. For many voters in the primary races, immigration has become an urgent national security concern and a challenge to the American identity.
The new immigration also sharpened the rift between the federal government and the states. Across party lines, frustrated voters accuse the Bush administration of failing to secure the southern border against intruders, of being lax on employers hiring illegal immigrants and of preaching assimilation without providing resources for local schools where Spanish-speaking students are enrolled.
President Bush’s failed effort to push an immigration package through Congress foreshadowed the divisions on the campaign trail. Republicans are split about how to proceed, and Democrats are treading carefully, fearful on the one hand of alienating voters in places like Iowa who are fed up with illegal immigration but concerned on the other about missing what they see as an opportunity to win the allegiance of the fast-growing Hispanic population.
The next president will still face the tricky task of negotiating not just the politics of the issue, but also some concrete realities. While border fences and immigration raids have discouraged some illegal immigrants from coming and encouraged some who are here to go home, millions of illegal workers have had families here and put down roots, and are not going to disappear."
That article is certainly no surprise from the divisive, agenda-pushing New York Times.
"Polls Indicate Voter Anxiety on Economy" by DAVID LEONHARDT
In a Gallup Poll this month, only 28 percent of respondents said the economy was in excellent or good condition.
It was a remarkable number in several ways. During the most recent recession, in 2001, that same measure never fell so low. It did not drop below 30 percent until 2002 and 2003 (when it also briefly dipped below 20 percent), at which point the economy was mired in a jobless recovery and the stock market was about 40 percent below its high.
As 2007 comes to an end, the economy is in much better shape by almost any standard, but as the poll numbers suggest, economic anxiety could still have a major impact on the presidential campaign.
“The economic mood is grimmer than it has been since 1992,” said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center.
In 1992, Bill Clinton won the White House with a message directed at the nation’s economic unhappiness. At the time, the economy was struggling to shake off the effects of the 1990-1 recession.
Current concerns have been aggravated by recent events in the housing and financial markets and by the slowing of job growth.
But a more likely cause of the anxiety among those polled appears to be related to globalization and technology, and the failure of public policy to keep up with those changes.
Most workers have received meager pay increases in the current decade. The median full-time worker earns 1 percent less than he or she did in 2001, after inflation is taken into account. Since 2001, the percentage of people who receive health insurance from their employers has also dropped, to 59.7 percent from 63.2 percent.
Aaaaaah, the BUSH ECONOMY!
Steal from everyone to give to rich friends and War Profiteers!
Candidates in the 2008 presidential race have reacted with proposals like expanded health insurance and tax cuts directed at the middle class. There is still a long way to go before the election, but economic issues could end up being more important than in any race since 1992."
Yeah, ANYTHING to turn attention away from AMERICAN EMPIRE, its LOOMING BANKRUPTCY and the WARS based upon UNHOLY LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's it from the stink Amurkn MSM for Sunday, readers, as a day I used to love and look forward to -- Sunday morning with the papers -- has been turned into a hellaciously hurtful experience, readers!
The MSM LIES are HURTFUL, readers, and they make me curse and swear in exasperating frustration at the UNENDING LYING by the Zionist-controlled SHIT WAR DAILIES!!!!!!!!
Thank God there are BLOGS!!!!!!!!!