COMMENTS: 236
It's Wasn't Only Cheney Who Had Assassination Programs: Clinton Did It, and Obama Does It, Too
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.
Members of Congress have expressed outrage over the "secret" CIA assassination program that former Vice President Dick Cheney allegedly ordered concealed from Congress.
But this program -- and the media descriptions of it -- sounds a lot like the assassination policy implemented by President Bill Clinton, particularly during his second term in office.
Partisan politics often require selective amnesia. Over the past decade, we have seen this amnesia take hold when it comes to many of President George W. Bush's most vile policies. And we are now seeing a pretty severe case overtake several leading Democrats.
It makes for good speechifying to act as though all criminality began with Bush and -- particularly these days -- Cheney, but that is extreme intellectual dishonesty. The fact is that many of Bush's worst policies (now being highlighted by leading Democrats) were based in some form or another in a Clinton-initiated policy, or were supported by the Democrats in Congress with their votes.
To name a few: the USA PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Iraq, the attack against Afghanistan, the CIA's extraordinary-rendition program, the widespread use of mercenaries and other private contractors in U.S. war zones and warrantless wiretapping.
Regarding the Bush-era assassination program, there is great reason to be skeptical the program that CIA Director Leon Panetta alleges was concealed from Congress is actually the program the public is being led to believe it is.
Why would the CIA need to conceal a program that never was implemented and, if it never was implemented, why did Panetta need to shut it down? Moreover, who was running this inactive program from the minute Barack Obama was sworn in until June 24, when Panetta supposedly announced its cancellation?
This program -- as it is currently being described -- should hardly be a major scandal to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, as some are now treating it. As they well know, Obama has continued the Bush targeted-assassination program, using armed drones and Special Forces teams to hunt "high-value targets."
Former CIA counterterrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro and others have pointed out, "The CIA runs drones and targets al-Qaida safe houses all the time." Cannistraro told Talking Points Memo that there is no important difference between those kinds of attacks and "assassinations" with a gun or a knife.
Now, if it turns out that the actual plan Cheney allegedly concealed is something other than what has been publicly described, that will be a different matter. For instance, if the CIA had a secret post-9/11 program planning assassinations on U.S. soil or of U.S. citizens, and it was ordered concealed by Cheney. Or, if it was a plan to target in other ways "enemies of the state" within the U.S., as Seymour Hersh has suggested.
"The Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state," Hersh said in March. "Without any legal authority for it. They haven't been called on it yet. That does happen."
Let's look at the program the Democrats claim was kept secret. The Bush administration reportedly authorized the CIA to use small paramilitary teams to hunt down and assassinate "al-Qaida" leaders around the world. It is currently being reported that this plan was never implemented and was born after 9/11. Both of these assertions are very, very doubtful.
The plan, as currently described in the media and by Democrats, is one that continues to exist under the Obama administration. In fact, this program has been part of official U.S. policy -- under Democratic and Republican administrations -- for decades.
By way of background, technically, there is a U.S. ban on assassination that dates to President Gerald Ford in 1976. "No employee of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination," states Executive Order 11905. That was updated by President Jimmy Carter, who dropped the term "political," simply prohibiting "assassination." The current Executive Order, 12333, was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and has remained on the books through every administration since.
What is brutally ironic about Reagan signing this ban was that he authorized repeated assassinations, notably the 1986 attempt on Libya's Col. Moammar Gadhafi, which failed to kill Gadhafi, but killed his infant daughter.
But in that brutal apparent contradiction is the truth: The U.S. does not have a ban on assassinations as long as government lawyers can figure out some legal acrobatics for the president to use in sidelining the ban. Every president from Reagan to Obama has reserved the right to assassinate "terrorists" by claiming it as a military operation or a pre-emptive strike.
It is pretty clear that when the Bush administration took over, it picked up the Clinton administration's assassination policy and ran with it -- albeit with more of a missionary zeal for killing, and a removal of some of the layers of lawyering. In short, the Bush team expanded and streamlined the longstanding U.S. government assassination program.
Throughout the 1990s, the question of covert assassinations was a source of major discussion within the Clinton White House, and it is clear assassinations were attempted with presidential approval.
Newsweek magazine reported on how, in 1995, U.S. Special Forces facilitated the assassination of a Libyan "terrorist" in Bosnia, saying, "American authorities justified the assassination under a little-known 1993 'lethal finding' signed by President Bill Clinton that gave permission to target terrorists."
A former senior Clinton official, speaking shortly after the 9/11 attacks, called on the Bush administration not to escalate the U.S. assassination program, saying, "We have a war on drugs, too, but we don't kill drug lords." But then, with no apparent sense of contradiction, the official added, "we have proxies who do."
Clinton-era officials' attempt to hide behind "proxies" is a stunning trampling of the assassination ban as it exists. Not only does it ban U.S. government personnel from engaging in, or conspiring to engage in, "assassination," it also bans "indirect participation": "No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order."
The truth is, under Clinton, it wasn't just proxies authorized to do the assassinations.
The Clinton White House worked for years with the CIA to craft an assassination policy -- specifically relating to al-Qaida in general, and Osama bin Laden and his top deputies specifically.
CIA operatives such as Billy Waugh complained in the early and middle years of the Clinton presidencies that they were lawyered to death by Clinton's attorneys in their attempts to get the green light to kill bin Laden in Sudan.
"[I]n the early 1990s, we were forced to adhere to the sanctimonious legal counsel and the do-gooders," recalled Waugh. Among Waugh's rejected ideas was an alleged plot to kill bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, and dump his body at the Iranian Embassy in an effort to pin the blame on Tehran. Eventually, however, Clinton did authorize what amounted to assassination squads to hunt down and kill bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders. That happened officially in 1998 with Clinton's signing of a Memorandum of Notification authorizing the CIA to carry out covert assassinations.
George W. Bush was not the president and Dick Cheney was not the vice president. Panetta was then Clinton's chief of staff, from 1994 to 1997, and would have been party to years worth of discussion on this issue.
Under Clinton, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued secret rulings that the Ford/Reagan ban on assassinations did not apply to "military targets or "to attacks carried out in pre-emptive self-defense," according to Steve Coll, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Ghost Wars.
Shortly after 9/11, Clinton stated this position publicly, supporting the Bush administration's "war on terror" targeted-assassination policy, saying on NBC News, "The ban that was put in effect under President Ford only applies to heads of state. It doesn't apply to terrorists." That is a stunning statement that is a true legal stretch given the explicit language of the ban.
Moreover, Clinton did, in fact, try to kill a head of state, on April 22, 1999, when he ordered a NATO air strike on the home of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Clinton and Gen. Wesley Clark also authorized an assassination attempt on Serbian Information Minister Aleksander Vucic, bombing Radio Television Serbia when Vucic was scheduled to appear via satellite on CNN's Larry King Live. Vucic was not killed, but 16 media workers were.
Clinton also publicly acknowledged his administration's attempt to assassinate bin Laden. "I worked hard to try to kill him," Clinton said. "I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."
Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said after Clinton issued his 1998 "lethal finding," U.S. operatives worked with Afghan rebels for two years in an attempt to kill bin Laden. "There were a few points when the pulse quickened, when we thought we were close," Berger later recalled. Among the alleged attempts on bin Laden's life by Clinton was the 1998 bombing of Afghanistan (which was coupled with a massive strike on the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan).
Coll observed of the Clinton policy: "Clinton had demonstrated his willingness to kill bin Laden, without any pretense of seeking his arrest."
After 9/11, the CIA, which had been frustrated by some of the hurdles to assassination posed by the Clinton administration's legal team, now had the conditions and the commander in chief it needed to take its assassination program to the next level.
The main operations were run out of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center (CTC) headed by J. Cofer Black, who had served as Clinton's CIA station chief in Sudan when bin Laden was there in the 1990s. After 9/11, Black's division at the CIA was authorized by Bush -- with the consent of Congress -- to hunt down bin Laden and others alleged to be responsible for 9/11. As I describe in my book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army:
Before the core CIA team, Jawbreaker, deployed [to Afghanistan] on Sept. 27, 2001, Black gave his men direct and macabre directions. "Gentlemen, I want to give you your marching orders, and I want to make them very clear. I have discussed this with the president, and he is in full agreement," Black told covert CIA operative Gary Schroen. "I don't want bin Laden and his thugs captured, I want them dead … They must be killed. I want to see photos of their heads on pikes. I want bin Laden's head shipped back in a box filled with dry ice. I want to be able to show bin Laden's head to the president. I promised him I would do that."
Schroen said it was the first time in his 30-year career he had been ordered to assassinate an adversary rather than attempting a capture. Black asked if he had made himself clear. "Perfectly clear, Cofer," Schroen told him. "I don't know where we'll find dry ice out there in Afghanistan, but I think we can certainly manufacture pikes in the field." Black later explained why this would be necessary. "You'd need some DNA," Black said. "There's a good way to do it. Take a machete, and whack off his head, and you'll get a bucketful of DNA, so you can see it and test it. It beats lugging the whole body back!"
The actions of the teams run by Black were certainly known to Congress. In fact, Black testified in front of Congress in 2002 about what he called the new "operational flexibility" being employed in the "war on terror."
"This is a very highly classified area, but I have to say that all you need to know: There was a before 9/11, and there was an after 9/11," Black said. "After 9/11, the gloves come off." By 2004, Black claimed that "over 70 percent" of al-Qaida's leadership had been arrested, detained, or killed, and "more than 3,400 of their operatives and supporters have also been detained and put out of an action."
The existence of this program is not secret. It has been documented in books by former CIA operatives, is discussed in public speeches by former officials and is reflected extensively in the congressional record.
Obviously, the House and Senate intelligence committees should investigate the assassination policy under the Bush administration. Cheney's role is central to that. Prosecutors should also be authorized to do the same. If there is a nefarious program the public is unaware of and it was unlawfully concealed, it should be brought out into the light.
But, the truth is that a real investigation -- one that actually seeks to get to the broader truths of these matters -- would require investigating the current assassination program under Obama and the roots of the program that preceded the day when George W. Bush took power. That means looking at the Clinton White House and further back. It means looking at both Democratic and Republican assassination teams.
The sad fact is that nobody on Capitol Hill has demonstrated in any way that he or she has the political courage to do that.
Stay up to date with the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jay Randal on Jul 16, 2009 1:10 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Not much courage among progressives... PERIOD.
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RevolutionNet on Jul 16, 2009 2:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't it?
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JimmyChang on Jul 16, 2009 2:17 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it's OK for FDR to burn the cities of Tokyo and Dresden (and Lincoln can burn the city of Atlanta), why is it so bad to put a bullet through a terrorist's skull?
Alternuts refuse to believe that the last seven years and ten months of terrorism-free America has anything to do with the PATRIOT act or the war in Iraq (both of which I am opposed to). But maybe it's because our boys in uniform are blowing away bad guys before they can blow away NYC.
Can someone please give me a reasonable explanation for the fact that there hasn't been an attack since September 11?
Only an anti-American Alternut could have a problem with killing Osama bin Laden. I'm talking to you, Jeremy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» If you want to get rid of terrorists, cut that war spending and get a life sir !
Posted by: maxpayne
» You just want your fascist utopia; we know
Posted by: cplot
» RE: You just want your fascist utopia; we know
Posted by: aonghus36
» Because they aren't in a place where...
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: So f***ing what?
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: So f***ing what?
Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: So f***ing what?
Posted by: Ric Tailcap
» Terrytom Here is your explanation:RE: So f***ing what?
Posted by: Terrytom
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Perry Logan on Jul 16, 2009 2:48 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Jeremy's article is somewhat of a straw man.
Nevertheless, it's good to know Jeremy agrees with the Republicans on this issue.
Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh's Kidneys Are on Fire
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Same page
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Same page
Posted by: Quannah
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pfgetty on Jul 16, 2009 2:55 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are wasting our time.
Stop hassling the man needlessly.
Now if you want to get him on something, get him on what may be the most despiccable action ever undertaken by an American leader: the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, and the coverup afterwards.
We have no problem with getting enough evidence to prove he was part of 9/11. The work has already been done by people like David Ray Griffin and Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage and Steven Jones and others. All we need is for the media to bring the FACTS, and proven links to the government of complicity in 9/11. And that, of course, would be just the beginning. We would obviously want to investigate far more. And eventually the guilt would lie with our highest leaders, probably those in both parties.
And this is why you won't see the FACTS of that day EVER presented in the media, including Alternet. Bringing truth to the 9/11 story would bring down so many important people, and these important people and their allies have total control over the press. They pressure, they threaten, and they bribe the press. And the press, apparently, is devoid of people with a backbone or any ethics at all. The only innocent journalists are the journalists who are very good; they aren't good enough to have figured out that the 9/11 story is a fraud. And so they are not guilty of keeping the truth from the American people.
But journalists like you, Jeremy, ARE guilty. You purposely keep the FACTS of 9/11 from us all. You know the reality of 9/11, but ignore it. You know that an American population awakened to the truth would stop the torture programs, the wars and occupations based on 9/11 and the phoney threats of terror. But you won't do your job and bring us the truth.
We need a whole new media system. Ours, from the alternative media right to the top with the NYTimes and the broadcasting companies, are merely pawns of the big boys.
We are in a fix.
Each American should go and learn as much as they can about 9/11 truth, and we will finally realize how badly we've been treated by our media, Jeremy Scahill included.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» This guy works for Dick Cheney.
Posted by: JimmyChang
» You are out of your mind, and not very good at piecing together facts.
Posted by: pfgetty
» RE: You are out of your mind, and not very good at piecing together facts.
Posted by: EncinoM
» PFConspiranoid--propagandist, mind molester and anti-Semite.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» And who do you carry water for?
Posted by: Centavo
» 911 deniers won't talk to REAL structural engineers. Why?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: 911 deniers won't talk to REAL structural engineers. Why?
Posted by: aonghus36
» 29 "structural engineers"? But there are thousands of SE's who disagree with Jones, et al.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: 29 "structural engineers"? But there are thousands of SE's who disagree with Jones, et al.
Posted by: aonghus36
» I don't see any PhD's and only a few SE's and PE's
Posted by: GuitarBill
» If there are "thousands of SE's who disagree with Jones, et al" then why do you cite only ONE?
Posted by: LeftWright
» And who are these SEs? Chopped liver? How about Dr. Keith A. Seffen?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: This guy works for Dick Cheney.
Posted by: cplot
» And 911 deniers also "muddy the water" with disinformation designed to
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Let's Take a Closer Look at NIST
Posted by: D. Shenary
» More conspiracy theories for us? Are the SE's part of the "conspiracy", too?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: GuitarBill - Do you actually research your sources?
Posted by: D. Shenary
» Zdenek P. Bazant is one of the best SEs in the World--bar none.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Zdenek Bazant Would Be Very Surprized to Discover He Works For MIT
Posted by: D. Shenary
» My Mistake. I was thinking of Martin Z. Bazant
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Your Mistake # 2 & What has God Got to do with This?
Posted by: D. Shenary
» "coincidences"? But you're a conspiranoid, so there are NO coincidences. Right?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Here, while you're busy pickin' gnat sh** out of pepper, why don't you "debunk" Dr. Seffin?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: GuitarBill - Stop the Crude Symbolism and Start Thinking
Posted by: D. Shenary
» I read that crap months ago, and it's pseudo-science.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» The 911 deniers have not produced ONE peer reviewed paper.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Guess Again GB
Posted by: D. Shenary
» Those are open peer reviewed papers, and they're not worth the ink they're printed with.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: This guy works for Dick Cheney.
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: This guy works for Dick Cheney.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: This guy works for Dick Cheney.
Posted by: pelican beak
» The articles title says "Cheney"; thus, I can hijack the thread with my off-topic 911 denier SPAM.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» PFConspiranoid admits that he's a thread hijacker and 911 denier propagandist.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Now, let's expose PFConspiranoid's stealth anti-Semitism.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Yo PF! Is that all you can do, give me a '1' and run and hide?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Who is Kevin Ryan, and why was he fired by Underwriters Laboratory.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Who is Kevin Ryan, and why was he fired by Underwriters Laboratory.
Posted by: aonghus36
» No, he was fired for LYING.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Who is Kevin Ryan, and why was he fired by Underwriters Laboratory.
Posted by: kogwonton
» Lying agin, conspiranoid.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Lying agin, conspiranoid.
Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: Lying again, conspiranoid.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Lying again, conspiranoid.
Posted by: kogwonton
» I tell lies? Really? Would you care to list them and provide evidence to the contrary?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: I tell lies? Really? Would you care to list them and provide evidence to the contrary?
Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: I tell lies? Really? Would you care to list them and provide evidence to the contrary?
Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: I tell lies? Really? Would you care to list them and provide evidence to the contrary?
Posted by: kogwonton
» I want a link to your source, so I can check the contents for quote mining.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Find the link yourself. Argue the points made, not the source...
Posted by: kogwonton
» Oh, I'll find it. And I'll tear him apart.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Git - Take it up with Kevin Ryan who authored the last three posts
Posted by: kogwonton
» So where's the hyperlink to the source.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Git
Posted by: kogwonton
» Twit.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Git
Posted by: kogwonton
» I've forgotten more about Google than you'll ever know.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: I've forgotten more about Google than you'll ever know.
Posted by: kogwonton
» 15 seconds to find your lies.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: 15 seconds to find your lies.
Posted by: kogwonton
» So, you present a paper written by a liar to "prove" that I'm a liar? LOL!
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Who is Steven E. Jones, and why was he fired by BYU?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Who is Steven E. Jones, and why was he fired by BYU?
Posted by: kogwonton
» Yo 911 denier! You're so dumb, you have to be watered twice a week.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Yo 911 denier! You're so dumb, you have to be watered twice a week.
Posted by: kogwonton
» Yeah, you can give me a '1', but you can't debate the information I've presented. Right conspiranoid
Posted by: GuitarBill
» PF, you're in violation of AlterNet's "Post A Comment" policy.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Hey Bill, I found something that I don't think you can compute.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Go grind your...
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Bill, if you do not find something unusual about the photograph...
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Dr. Judy Wood. Now I know your a couple cookies short of a full jar.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» How about it Pfgetty want a new angle on 9-11. Guitarbill fears the truth.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» The "truth"? What a crock.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Taping your windows won't help.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» And holding up that nutter, Dr. Judy Wood, as a credible source is pathetic.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Not asking about the doctor or discussing my despartation:
Posted by: grindermonkey
» According to Dr. Wood, it was star Wars weaponry that brought down the WTC towers.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» The Dr looks at photogaphic evidence and THEORIZES
Posted by: grindermonkey
» "photogaphic evidence" provided by a 911 denier? You're kidding, right?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» The 9-11 discussion is based upon video evidence; these are real photographs that
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Video does not teach, it sells; the still image engages the mind and sets it on it's own course.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Revolution begins at the end of belief.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Still in the cave with Osama Bin Ladin?
Posted by: grindermonkey
» No, I'm in my office working on a database server over VPN.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» I don't beleive this: you have a JOB? Where is your self respect?
Posted by: grindermonkey
» So how does righteous indignation taste? Can you nap it in Bearnaise sauce?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» I do not taste it, I see it in your orange jumpsuit that the coroporation requires you to wear.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Delusional aren't you? The sun is getting to you. And I'd give up the Mogan David.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Here is GuitarBill's job:
Posted by: pfgetty
» Dr. Judy Wood DEBUNKED.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Bill, you are letting other people do your thinking for you; explain the holes.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» I don't need to explain anything. Dr. Wood is a nutter.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Well then sign off. You are obviously invested in Fox News.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» I can explain the holes.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» If so, why did they make no effort to hide the glaring diffences in height of the debris fields?
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Yo PF! Your attempts to "bury" me are backfiring.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Oh WOW! I'm proud. Your "Q" organization sure thinks I'm important.
Posted by: pfgetty
» Spoken like the narcissist you've always been.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» I'm blushing..................
Posted by: pfgetty
» You're "blushing"? No, you're bat-shit crazy.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» GuitarBill is part of a group called "Q". new info!
Posted by: pfgetty
» Are you still promoting Madsen's opinion as fact?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Here's a website: video exposing GuitarBill's employer
Posted by: pfgetty
» RE: Here's a website: video exposing GuitarBill's employer
Posted by: GuitarBill
» I feel so important! I've got a covert operative working hard as hell!
Posted by: pfgetty
» I'm not a "covert operative". I work in IT.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Yeah, like covert operatives say, "Yes, I'm a covert operative".
Posted by: pfgetty
» No, me thinks you lie too much.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» You ain't no ordinary people!
Posted by: pfgetty
» I'm afraid of you at all.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» "My backyard".......now we are getting somewhere!
Posted by: pfgetty
» Joshua Holland is sane. You, on the other hand...
Posted by: GuitarBill
» More on GuitarBill's parent organization
Posted by: pfgetty
» Kevin Ryan: who could have placed the explosives at the WTC?
Posted by: pfgetty
» "Explosives"? If there were explosives, why do the demolition experts disagree with you?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» There's no need to "refute" Jones' paper because it has never been properly peer reviewed.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» If Q is listening let's make it unpleasant for them and agree on something.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Good idea.
Posted by: pfgetty
» And don't forget your tin-foil hat.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» "Terrified"? Moi?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Well, yes, if the truth movement grows............
Posted by: pfgetty
» 4% of the population is nothing. Grow your movement all you want, but don't do it here.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Alternet LOVES conspiracy theories.
Posted by: pfgetty
» Now investigative journalism is "conspiracy theory"?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Then let's see a peer review that suits you.
Posted by: pfgetty
» Jones' rubbish was refuted by Dr. Greening.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» That's the beauty of the SE community--they largely ignore you lunatics.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Real scientists love refuting a paper when they know they will succeed.
Posted by: pfgetty
» Wrong again, PF. Engineers and scientists are busy people.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Yes, they stay busy, but they LOVE and yearn for papers to refute!
Posted by: pfgetty
» "...But we don't have ANY coming to the plate. Very odd, isn't it."
Posted by: GuitarBill
» I think with that (calling me "full-of-sh*t) I've done my job for the day. Going to bed now.
Posted by: pfgetty
» That's right, PF. Just make sh*t up, and hope it sticks.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» A father of a 9/11 victim wants a new investigation in NYC. Have any reason it shouldn't happen?
Posted by: pfgetty
» Cindy Sheehan? Is she a structural engineer?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» You don't sound like a progressive, GB. Progressives like Cindy.
Posted by: pfgetty
» I'm not a "progressive". I'm a liberal.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: I'm not a "progressive". I'm a liberal.
Posted by: maxpayne
» He's quite clearly neither. (n/t)
Posted by: LeftWright
» Really? And the debate over your humanity continues, doesn't it, conspiranoid?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» The families of many of those victims want a new investigation. Do you support them?
Posted by: pfgetty
» These are the kinds of people Alternet has always cared about. Now they have this censored!
Posted by: pfgetty
» To anyone truly interested in learning about the events of 9/11/01, here are some places to start:
Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: Jeremy, Cheney has done so much worse than extend torture programs. He planned the 9/11 attacks.
Posted by: illit
» Because it just wastes time, effort, and ends up being one more victory for them.
Posted by: pfgetty
Comments are closed-
Posted by: greenferret on Jul 16, 2009 4:03 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell President Obama: close the School of the Americas now!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jul 16, 2009 6:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Since 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency has developed plans to dispatch small teams overseas to kill senior Quaeda terrorists, according to current and former government officials. The plans remained vague and were never carried out, the officials said, and Leon E. Panetta, the CIA director, canceled the program last month."
On the face of it, most people won't find anything inherently wrong with wanting to go out and waste a bunch of lunatics who are hell-bent on killing as many Americans as possible. After all, we are at war - I guess. Personally, I am a pacifist and a Christian; I am against all killing. "Blessed are the peace makers....", you know what I'm saying? That being said, when Dick and Liz Cheney try to sell you on the idea that the Bush Mob were only trying to protect the American people from another terrorist attack, that argument ignores a crucial point. According to sources, Cheney - the man who put the vice in the vice-presidency - ordered the CIA to keep the existence of this program hidden from the Congress. That, as I don't need to remind you, is a crime.
Another problem I have with the Times report is this: Why, pray tell, would anyone feel the need to go through all the trouble of putting a stop to a "vague plan"? If you think about it, that makes no sense whatsoever.
I once concocted a vague plan to fire bomb the home of my Sophomore science teacher. There were drawbacks to my little scheme to be sure. At the time, my father was president of the local School Board. Had I been caught, the resulting scandal would not have done him a damned bit of good - politically speaking, that is. It's a fairly safe bet that something as weird as that would have put a bit of a kink in his reelection strategy.
But it must be emphasized that this was just a passing daydream on my part. It came. It went. And while I left high school over three decades ago, my plan to become a teenage terrorist was so incredibly vague, I never really felt the need to go to the trouble of "canceling the program", so to speak. Although this particular teacher moved out of the area back in the seventies (He may even be dead for all I know), that plan is technically still on the table. It goes without saying that I never made an effort to carry it out. But just to be on the safe side, if you're still out there, you might want to keep your night light on, Mr. Roukov. Just a suggestion.
Fun with Dick and Liz
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jul 16, 2009 6:20 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More evidence that "Mars rules" when a president believes he owns the right to order the assassination of other(s). A nation of laws? Bah, humbug! The Yoo/Gonzales legal Vauderville Act should put an end to the romantic notion that laws currently mean anything other than what "the leader" says they do.
Now as to Coffer Black, or Black Coffin, much like Blackwater, in their quest to put "heads on pikes," does this not smack of the same mentality of the actual Crusades? So those of you who do not believe in reincarnation, it would seem these people remain (frozen in consciousness) in something like 1320 A.D.
Gandhi's words echo: "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it WOULD be a good idea." As in, when does the civilization part actually get started?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: When Mars rules, two parties use only 1 oar instead of two to keep the boat circling !
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: When Mars rules, two parties use only 1 oar instead of two to keep the boat circling !
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: When Mars rules, two parties use only 1 oar instead of two to keep the boat circling !
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» What happens when Bozo rules?
Posted by: pelican beak
» You mean Obama the Bozo? We're already seeing the consequences, bird brain.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: You mean Obama the Bozo? We're already seeing the consequences, bird brain.
Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: You mean Obama the Bozo? We're already seeing the consequences, bird brain.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» Obama is desperately working hard on making himself a failed one-termer.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Obama is desperately working hard on making himself a failed one-termer.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: Obama is desperately working hard on making himself a failed one-termer.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: Obama is desperately working hard on making himself a failed one-termer.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» STILL no answer...
Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: What happens when Bozo rules?
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: What happens when Bozo rules?
Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: What happens when Bozo rules?
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: What happens when Bozo rules?
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: What happens when Bozo rules?
Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: When the boat goes in circles....
Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: When the boat goes in circles....
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: When the boat goes in circles....
Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: When the boat goes in circles....
Posted by: Benn_Miller
Comments are closed-
Posted by: biff777 on Jul 16, 2009 8:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 16, 2009 8:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zipper696 on Jul 16, 2009 9:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
------------------
and your point is?
This is not some super secret mission, the strikes have been reported many times, especially when they actually get the intended victim.
My feeling is that whatever "it" was it is not simply an "Assasination Squad" since apart from the drone shots we have always been able to call upon Mossad agents to handle the up close and personal stuff around the world. We supply the intelligence, the materiel and often the transport, they provide the manpower.
As to why Panetta "only just shut it down", let's state the obvious, he only just found out about it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Move to Israel and fix it
Posted by: weathered
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cplot on Jul 16, 2009 10:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Former CIA counterterrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro and others have pointed out, "The CIA runs drones and targets al-Qaida safe houses all the time." Cannistraro told Talking Points Memo that there is no important difference between those kinds of attacks and "assassinations" with a gun or a knife.”
There is an enormous difference between drone attacks and personal or hand-to-hand attacks (or better yet capture). The drone attacks indiscriminately kill many civilians and cause tremendous amounts of other collateral damage whereas conventional assassinations usually achieve a much better target-to-collateral-damage ratio. However, if we can get close enough to assassinate, then we can also get close enough to apprehend the suspects and put them on trial as the US Constitution requires.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: kogwonton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CaliJim on Jul 16, 2009 11:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aside from the stupendous hypocrisy, the spinning of the secret program into a "vague", incomplete and ineffective program that wasn't important enough to worry about is an insult to our intelligence.
A) If it was that vague and ineffective, then why did Cheney not want Congress to know about it?
B) If it's no different than what Clinton did and Obama is doing, then why did the CIA hide it from CIA director Panetta for almost 5 months? Once told about it, why did Panetta order it stopped the same day he heard about it and then practically sprint over to Congress to inform them of it the very next day? Obviously, there was SOMETHING in the program that Cheney wanted kept secret and Panetta, at least, felt was important enough to immediately inform Congress of. Maybe it went way beyond just assassinating Al Qaeda? Seems logical to me.
C) Since the program is still classified and we don't have ANY concrete details, how do we know the official cover story is accurate? Most of the "details" we have been told are speculation and often come from sources associated with the Bush administration...who we KNOW lied and lied and lied and lied to us.
D) NOBODY SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW. Breaking the law needs to have consequences, even if the program was as ineffective and benign as it is claimed (which anybody with an ounce of sense will have serious questions about)- especially when the actions of the program may, themselves, be illegal. Without effective followup and consequences, we simply set the stage for more and more serious abuses in the future.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Jul 16, 2009 11:33 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every ruling class rich guy in this nation has a major malfunction when it comes to integrity... because behind every rich guy is a crime.
Get rid of the rich guyz, clear the air, start over.
1789.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CaliJim on Jul 16, 2009 1:55 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml
Note these two sections, particularly:
SEC. 501. [50 U.S.C. 413] (a)(1) The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this title.
(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authority to withhold information from the congressional intelligence committees on the grounds that providing the information to the congressional intelligence committees would constitute the unauthorized disclosure of classified information or information relating to intelligence sources and methods.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ellie1 on Jul 16, 2009 2:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: If Obama or Clinton had a hit squad - UNACCEPTABLE
Posted by: CaliJim
» RE: If Obama or Clinton had a hit squad - UNACCEPTABLE
Posted by: cplot
» RE: If Obama or Clinton had a hit squad - UNACCEPTABLE
Posted by: osd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: doctim11 on Jul 16, 2009 7:14 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sbassocs on Jul 17, 2009 2:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: spy69 on Jul 17, 2009 10:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: spy69 on Jul 17, 2009 10:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: spy69 on Jul 17, 2009 11:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: spy69 on Jul 17, 2009 11:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/noticia.php?t=27323
CHECK THIS LINKS
http://hablahonduras.com/
http://www.guaymuras.net/
http://www.contraelgolpedeestadohn.blogspot.com/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: spy69 on Jul 17, 2009 11:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/noticia.php
?t=27323
http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/noticia.php?t=27323
http://hablahonduras.com/
http://www.guaymuras.net/
http://www.contraelgolpedeestadohn.blogspot.com/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dickinseattl on Jul 18, 2009 4:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps had the Democratic majority been more successful then, despite the media (Wash. Post, N.Y. Times, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc.), such criminal activity we have seen ongoing in the last 20 years, most notable in the last 7 since the 9/11 PNAC false flag event, we would not now be so far behind the "curve" in trying to provide for some elementary justice.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "He who controls the present controls the past..."
Posted by: Dickinseattl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: anneofnj on Jul 18, 2009 7:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As far as I am concerned, terrorists should be tortured, and I don't need to know it. Anything to protect us in the future. Why is anyone arguing this? I question the logic in PROTECTING TERROISTS? And by TELL ALL, do any of you actually think the terrorists wont pay attention and learn or seek further vengeance?
Ask yourself, do you want these secrets released to protect our country or bring down the Bush era, because if it's the 2nd choice, you are so selfish! No matter the political arena, I believe what was done was to protect us.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: itouch backup on Jul 21, 2009 8:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hahaho on Jul 30, 2009 7:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jay Randal on Jul 16, 2009 1:10 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Not much courage among progressives... PERIOD.
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RevolutionNet on Jul 16, 2009 2:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't it?
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JimmyChang on Jul 16, 2009 2:17 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it's OK for FDR to burn the cities of Tokyo and Dresden (and Lincoln can burn the city of Atlanta), why is it so bad to put a bullet through a terrorist's skull?
Alternuts refuse to believe that the last seven years and ten months of terrorism-free America has anything to do with the PATRIOT act or the war in Iraq (both of which I am opposed to). But maybe it's because our boys in uniform are blowing away bad guys before they can blow away NYC.
Can someone please give me a reasonable explanation for the fact that there hasn't been an attack since September 11?
Only an anti-American Alternut could have a problem with killing Osama bin Laden. I'm talking to you, Jeremy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» If you want to get rid of terrorists, cut that war spending and get a life sir !
Posted by: maxpayne
» You just want your fascist utopia; we know
Posted by: cplot
» RE: You just want your fascist utopia; we know
Posted by: aonghus36
» Because they aren't in a place where...
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: So f***ing what?
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: So f***ing what?
Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: So f***ing what?
Posted by: Ric Tailcap
» Terrytom Here is your explanation:RE: So f***ing what?
Posted by: Terrytom
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Perry Logan on Jul 16, 2009 2:48 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Jeremy's article is somewhat of a straw man.
Nevertheless, it's good to know Jeremy agrees with the Republicans on this issue.
Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh's Kidneys Are on Fire
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Same page
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Same page
Posted by: Quannah
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pfgetty on Jul 16, 2009 2:55 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are wasting our time.
Stop hassling the man needlessly.
Now if you want to get him on something, get him on what may be the most despiccable action ever undertaken by an American leader: the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, and the coverup afterwards.
We have no problem with getting enough evidence to prove he was part of 9/11. The work has already been done by people like David Ray Griffin and Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage and Steven Jones and others. All we need is for the media to bring the FACTS, and proven links to the government of complicity in 9/11. And that, of course, would be just the beginning. We would obviously want to investigate far more. And eventually the guilt would lie with our highest leaders, probably those in both parties.
And this is why you won't see the FACTS of that day EVER presented in the media, including Alternet. Bringing truth to the 9/11 story would bring down so many important people, and these important people and their allies have total control over the press. They pressure, they threaten, and they bribe the press. And the press, apparently, is devoid of people with a backbone or any ethics at all. The only innocent journalists are the journalists who are very good; they aren't good enough to have figured out that the 9/11 story is a fraud. And so they are not guilty of keeping the truth from the American people.
But journalists like you, Jeremy, ARE guilty. You purposely keep the FACTS of 9/11 from us all. You know the reality of 9/11, but ignore it. You know that an American population awakened to the truth would stop the torture programs, the wars and occupations based on 9/11 and the phoney threats of terror. But you won't do your job and bring us the truth.
We need a whole new media system. Ours, from the alternative media right to the top with the NYTimes and the broadcasting companies, are merely pawns of the big boys.
We are in a fix.
Each American should go and learn as much as they can about 9/11 truth, and we will finally realize how badly we've been treated by our media, Jeremy Scahill included.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» This guy works for Dick Cheney.
Posted by: JimmyChang
» You are out of your mind, and not very good at piecing together facts.
Posted by: pfgetty
» RE: You are out of your mind, and not very good at piecing together facts.
Posted by: EncinoM
» PFConspiranoid--propagandist, mind molester and anti-Semite.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» And who do you carry water for?
Posted by: Centavo
» 911 deniers won't talk to REAL structural engineers. Why?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: 911 deniers won't talk to REAL structural engineers. Why?
Posted by: aonghus36
» 29 "structural engineers"? But there are thousands of SE's who disagree with Jones, et al.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: 29 "structural engineers"? But there are thousands of SE's who disagree with Jones, et al.
Posted by: aonghus36
» I don't see any PhD's and only a few SE's and PE's
Posted by: GuitarBill
» If there are "thousands of SE's who disagree with Jones, et al" then why do you cite only ONE?
Posted by: LeftWright
» And who are these SEs? Chopped liver? How about Dr. Keith A. Seffen?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: This guy works for Dick Cheney.
Posted by: cplot
» And 911 deniers also "muddy the water" with disinformation designed to
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Let's Take a Closer Look at NIST
Posted by: D. Shenary
» More conspiracy theories for us? Are the SE's part of the "conspiracy", too?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: GuitarBill - Do you actually research your sources?
Posted by: D. Shenary
» Zdenek P. Bazant is one of the best SEs in the World--bar none.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Zdenek Bazant Would Be Very Surprized to Discover He Works For MIT
Posted by: D. Shenary
» My Mistake. I was thinking of Martin Z. Bazant
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Your Mistake # 2 & What has God Got to do with This?
Posted by: D. Shenary
» "coincidences"? But you're a conspiranoid, so there are NO coincidences. Right?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Here, while you're busy pickin' gnat sh** out of pepper, why don't you "debunk" Dr. Seffin?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: GuitarBill - Stop the Crude Symbolism and Start Thinking
Posted by: D. Shenary
» I read that crap months ago, and it's pseudo-science.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» The 911 deniers have not produced ONE peer reviewed paper.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Guess Again GB
Posted by: D. Shenary
» Those are open peer reviewed papers, and they're not worth the ink they're printed with.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: This guy works for Dick Cheney.
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: This guy works for Dick Cheney.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: This guy works for Dick Cheney.
Posted by: pelican beak
» The articles title says "Cheney"; thus, I can hijack the thread with my off-topic 911 denier SPAM.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» PFConspiranoid admits that he's a thread hijacker and 911 denier propagandist.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Now, let's expose PFConspiranoid's stealth anti-Semitism.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Yo PF! Is that all you can do, give me a '1' and run and hide?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Who is Kevin Ryan, and why was he fired by Underwriters Laboratory.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Who is Kevin Ryan, and why was he fired by Underwriters Laboratory.
Posted by: aonghus36
» No, he was fired for LYING.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Who is Kevin Ryan, and why was he fired by Underwriters Laboratory.
Posted by: kogwonton
» Lying agin, conspiranoid.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Lying agin, conspiranoid.
Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: Lying again, conspiranoid.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Lying again, conspiranoid.
Posted by: kogwonton
» I tell lies? Really? Would you care to list them and provide evidence to the contrary?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: I tell lies? Really? Would you care to list them and provide evidence to the contrary?
Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: I tell lies? Really? Would you care to list them and provide evidence to the contrary?
Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: I tell lies? Really? Would you care to list them and provide evidence to the contrary?
Posted by: kogwonton
» I want a link to your source, so I can check the contents for quote mining.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Find the link yourself. Argue the points made, not the source...
Posted by: kogwonton
» Oh, I'll find it. And I'll tear him apart.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Git - Take it up with Kevin Ryan who authored the last three posts
Posted by: kogwonton
» So where's the hyperlink to the source.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Git
Posted by: kogwonton
» Twit.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Git
Posted by: kogwonton
» I've forgotten more about Google than you'll ever know.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: I've forgotten more about Google than you'll ever know.
Posted by: kogwonton
» 15 seconds to find your lies.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: 15 seconds to find your lies.
Posted by: kogwonton
» So, you present a paper written by a liar to "prove" that I'm a liar? LOL!
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Who is Steven E. Jones, and why was he fired by BYU?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Who is Steven E. Jones, and why was he fired by BYU?
Posted by: kogwonton
» Yo 911 denier! You're so dumb, you have to be watered twice a week.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Yo 911 denier! You're so dumb, you have to be watered twice a week.
Posted by: kogwonton
» Yeah, you can give me a '1', but you can't debate the information I've presented. Right conspiranoid
Posted by: GuitarBill
» PF, you're in violation of AlterNet's "Post A Comment" policy.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Hey Bill, I found something that I don't think you can compute.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Go grind your...
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Bill, if you do not find something unusual about the photograph...
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Dr. Judy Wood. Now I know your a couple cookies short of a full jar.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» How about it Pfgetty want a new angle on 9-11. Guitarbill fears the truth.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» The "truth"? What a crock.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Taping your windows won't help.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» And holding up that nutter, Dr. Judy Wood, as a credible source is pathetic.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Not asking about the doctor or discussing my despartation:
Posted by: grindermonkey
» According to Dr. Wood, it was star Wars weaponry that brought down the WTC towers.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» The Dr looks at photogaphic evidence and THEORIZES
Posted by: grindermonkey
» "photogaphic evidence" provided by a 911 denier? You're kidding, right?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» The 9-11 discussion is based upon video evidence; these are real photographs that
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Video does not teach, it sells; the still image engages the mind and sets it on it's own course.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Revolution begins at the end of belief.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Still in the cave with Osama Bin Ladin?
Posted by: grindermonkey
» No, I'm in my office working on a database server over VPN.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» I don't beleive this: you have a JOB? Where is your self respect?
Posted by: grindermonkey
» So how does righteous indignation taste? Can you nap it in Bearnaise sauce?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» I do not taste it, I see it in your orange jumpsuit that the coroporation requires you to wear.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Delusional aren't you? The sun is getting to you. And I'd give up the Mogan David.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Here is GuitarBill's job:
Posted by: pfgetty
» Dr. Judy Wood DEBUNKED.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Bill, you are letting other people do your thinking for you; explain the holes.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» I don't need to explain anything. Dr. Wood is a nutter.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Well then sign off. You are obviously invested in Fox News.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» I can explain the holes.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» If so, why did they make no effort to hide the glaring diffences in height of the debris fields?
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Yo PF! Your attempts to "bury" me are backfiring.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Oh WOW! I'm proud. Your "Q" organization sure thinks I'm important.
Posted by: pfgetty
» Spoken like the narcissist you've always been.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» I'm blushing..................
Posted by: pfgetty
» You're "blushing"? No, you're bat-shit crazy.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» GuitarBill is part of a group called "Q". new info!
Posted by: pfgetty
» Are you still promoting Madsen's opinion as fact?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Here's a website: video exposing GuitarBill's employer
Posted by: pfgetty
» RE: Here's a website: video exposing GuitarBill's employer
Posted by: GuitarBill
» I feel so important! I've got a covert operative working hard as hell!
Posted by: pfgetty
» I'm not a "covert operative". I work in IT.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Yeah, like covert operatives say, "Yes, I'm a covert operative".
Posted by: pfgetty
» No, me thinks you lie too much.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» You ain't no ordinary people!
Posted by: pfgetty
» I'm afraid of you at all.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» "My backyard".......now we are getting somewhere!
Posted by: pfgetty
» Joshua Holland is sane. You, on the other hand...
Posted by: GuitarBill
» More on GuitarBill's parent organization
Posted by: pfgetty
» Kevin Ryan: who could have placed the explosives at the WTC?
Posted by: pfgetty
» "Explosives"? If there were explosives, why do the demolition experts disagree with you?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» There's no need to "refute" Jones' paper because it has never been properly peer reviewed.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» If Q is listening let's make it unpleasant for them and agree on something.
Posted by: grindermonkey
» Good idea.
Posted by: pfgetty
» And don't forget your tin-foil hat.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» "Terrified"? Moi?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Well, yes, if the truth movement grows............
Posted by: pfgetty
» 4% of the population is nothing. Grow your movement all you want, but don't do it here.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Alternet LOVES conspiracy theories.
Posted by: pfgetty
» Now investigative journalism is "conspiracy theory"?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Then let's see a peer review that suits you.
Posted by: pfgetty
» Jones' rubbish was refuted by Dr. Greening.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» That's the beauty of the SE community--they largely ignore you lunatics.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Real scientists love refuting a paper when they know they will succeed.
Posted by: pfgetty
» Wrong again, PF. Engineers and scientists are busy people.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Yes, they stay busy, but they LOVE and yearn for papers to refute!
Posted by: pfgetty
» "...But we don't have ANY coming to the plate. Very odd, isn't it."
Posted by: GuitarBill
» I think with that (calling me "full-of-sh*t) I've done my job for the day. Going to bed now.
Posted by: pfgetty
» That's right, PF. Just make sh*t up, and hope it sticks.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» A father of a 9/11 victim wants a new investigation in NYC. Have any reason it shouldn't happen?
Posted by: pfgetty
» Cindy Sheehan? Is she a structural engineer?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» You don't sound like a progressive, GB. Progressives like Cindy.
Posted by: pfgetty
» I'm not a "progressive". I'm a liberal.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: I'm not a "progressive". I'm a liberal.
Posted by: maxpayne
» He's quite clearly neither. (n/t)
Posted by: LeftWright
» Really? And the debate over your humanity continues, doesn't it, conspiranoid?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» The families of many of those victims want a new investigation. Do you support them?
Posted by: pfgetty
» These are the kinds of people Alternet has always cared about. Now they have this censored!
Posted by: pfgetty
» To anyone truly interested in learning about the events of 9/11/01, here are some places to start:
Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: Jeremy, Cheney has done so much worse than extend torture programs. He planned the 9/11 attacks.
Posted by: illit
» Because it just wastes time, effort, and ends up being one more victory for them.
Posted by: pfgetty
Comments are closed-
Posted by: greenferret on Jul 16, 2009 4:03 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell President Obama: close the School of the Americas now!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jul 16, 2009 6:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Since 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency has developed plans to dispatch small teams overseas to kill senior Quaeda terrorists, according to current and former government officials. The plans remained vague and were never carried out, the officials said, and Leon E. Panetta, the CIA director, canceled the program last month."
On the face of it, most people won't find anything inherently wrong with wanting to go out and waste a bunch of lunatics who are hell-bent on killing as many Americans as possible. After all, we are at war - I guess. Personally, I am a pacifist and a Christian; I am against all killing. "Blessed are the peace makers....", you know what I'm saying? That being said, when Dick and Liz Cheney try to sell you on the idea that the Bush Mob were only trying to protect the American people from another terrorist attack, that argument ignores a crucial point. According to sources, Cheney - the man who put the vice in the vice-presidency - ordered the CIA to keep the existence of this program hidden from the Congress. That, as I don't need to remind you, is a crime.
Another problem I have with the Times report is this: Why, pray tell, would anyone feel the need to go through all the trouble of putting a stop to a "vague plan"? If you think about it, that makes no sense whatsoever.
I once concocted a vague plan to fire bomb the home of my Sophomore science teacher. There were drawbacks to my little scheme to be sure. At the time, my father was president of the local School Board. Had I been caught, the resulting scandal would not have done him a damned bit of good - politically speaking, that is. It's a fairly safe bet that something as weird as that would have put a bit of a kink in his reelection strategy.
But it must be emphasized that this was just a passing daydream on my part. It came. It went. And while I left high school over three decades ago, my plan to become a teenage terrorist was so incredibly vague, I never really felt the need to go to the trouble of "canceling the program", so to speak. Although this particular teacher moved out of the area back in the seventies (He may even be dead for all I know), that plan is technically still on the table. It goes without saying that I never made an effort to carry it out. But just to be on the safe side, if you're still out there, you might want to keep your night light on, Mr. Roukov. Just a suggestion.
Fun with Dick and Liz
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jul 16, 2009 6:20 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More evidence that "Mars rules" when a president believes he owns the right to order the assassination of other(s). A nation of laws? Bah, humbug! The Yoo/Gonzales legal Vauderville Act should put an end to the romantic notion that laws currently mean anything other than what "the leader" says they do.
Now as to Coffer Black, or Black Coffin, much like Blackwater, in their quest to put "heads on pikes," does this not smack of the same mentality of the actual Crusades? So those of you who do not believe in reincarnation, it would seem these people remain (frozen in consciousness) in something like 1320 A.D.
Gandhi's words echo: "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it WOULD be a good idea." As in, when does the civilization part actually get started?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: When Mars rules, two parties use only 1 oar instead of two to keep the boat circling !
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: When Mars rules, two parties use only 1 oar instead of two to keep the boat circling !
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: When Mars rules, two parties use only 1 oar instead of two to keep the boat circling !
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» What happens when Bozo rules?
Posted by: pelican beak
» You mean Obama the Bozo? We're already seeing the consequences, bird brain.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: You mean Obama the Bozo? We're already seeing the consequences, bird brain.
Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: You mean Obama the Bozo? We're already seeing the consequences, bird brain.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» Obama is desperately working hard on making himself a failed one-termer.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Obama is desperately working hard on making himself a failed one-termer.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: Obama is desperately working hard on making himself a failed one-termer.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: Obama is desperately working hard on making himself a failed one-termer.
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» STILL no answer...
Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: What happens when Bozo rules?
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: What happens when Bozo rules?
Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: What happens when Bozo rules?
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: What happens when Bozo rules?
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: What happens when Bozo rules?
Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: When the boat goes in circles....
Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: When the boat goes in circles....
Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: When the boat goes in circles....
Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: When the boat goes in circles....
Posted by: Benn_Miller
Comments are closed-
Posted by: biff777 on Jul 16, 2009 8:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 16, 2009 8:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zipper696 on Jul 16, 2009 9:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
------------------
and your point is?
This is not some super secret mission, the strikes have been reported many times, especially when they actually get the intended victim.
My feeling is that whatever "it" was it is not simply an "Assasination Squad" since apart from the drone shots we have always been able to call upon Mossad agents to handle the up close and personal stuff around the world. We supply the intelligence, the materiel and often the transport, they provide the manpower.
As to why Panetta "only just shut it down", let's state the obvious, he only just found out about it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Move to Israel and fix it
Posted by: weathered
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cplot on Jul 16, 2009 10:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Former CIA counterterrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro and others have pointed out, "The CIA runs drones and targets al-Qaida safe houses all the time." Cannistraro told Talking Points Memo that there is no important difference between those kinds of attacks and "assassinations" with a gun or a knife.”
There is an enormous difference between drone attacks and personal or hand-to-hand attacks (or better yet capture). The drone attacks indiscriminately kill many civilians and cause tremendous amounts of other collateral damage whereas conventional assassinations usually achieve a much better target-to-collateral-damage ratio. However, if we can get close enough to assassinate, then we can also get close enough to apprehend the suspects and put them on trial as the US Constitution requires.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: cplot
» RE: Drone attacks are for our cowardly leaders who want US policy to reflect their own cowardice
Posted by: kogwonton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CaliJim on Jul 16, 2009 11:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aside from the stupendous hypocrisy, the spinning of the secret program into a "vague", incomplete and ineffective program that wasn't important enough to worry about is an insult to our intelligence.
A) If it was that vague and ineffective, then why did Cheney not want Congress to know about it?
B) If it's no different than what Clinton did and Obama is doing, then why did the CIA hide it from CIA director Panetta for almost 5 months? Once told about it, why did Panetta order it stopped the same day he heard about it and then practically sprint over to Congress to inform them of it the very next day? Obviously, there was SOMETHING in the program that Cheney wanted kept secret and Panetta, at least, felt was important enough to immediately inform Congress of. Maybe it went way beyond just assassinating Al Qaeda? Seems logical to me.
C) Since the program is still classified and we don't have ANY concrete details, how do we know the official cover story is accurate? Most of the "details" we have been told are speculation and often come from sources associated with the Bush administration...who we KNOW lied and lied and lied and lied to us.
D) NOBODY SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW. Breaking the law needs to have consequences, even if the program was as ineffective and benign as it is claimed (which anybody with an ounce of sense will have serious questions about)- especially when the actions of the program may, themselves, be illegal. Without effective followup and consequences, we simply set the stage for more and more serious abuses in the future.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Jul 16, 2009 11:33 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every ruling class rich guy in this nation has a major malfunction when it comes to integrity... because behind every rich guy is a crime.
Get rid of the rich guyz, clear the air, start over.
1789.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CaliJim on Jul 16, 2009 1:55 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml
Note these two sections, particularly:
SEC. 501. [50 U.S.C. 413] (a)(1) The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this title.
(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authority to withhold information from the congressional intelligence committees on the grounds that providing the information to the congressional intelligence committees would constitute the unauthorized disclosure of classified information or information relating to intelligence sources and methods.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ellie1 on Jul 16, 2009 2:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: If Obama or Clinton had a hit squad - UNACCEPTABLE
Posted by: CaliJim
» RE: If Obama or Clinton had a hit squad - UNACCEPTABLE
Posted by: cplot
» RE: If Obama or Clinton had a hit squad - UNACCEPTABLE
Posted by: osd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: doctim11 on Jul 16, 2009 7:14 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sbassocs on Jul 17, 2009 2:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: spy69 on Jul 17, 2009 10:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: spy69 on Jul 17, 2009 10:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: spy69 on Jul 17, 2009 11:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: spy69 on Jul 17, 2009 11:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/noticia.php?t=27323
CHECK THIS LINKS
http://hablahonduras.com/
http://www.guaymuras.net/
http://www.contraelgolpedeestadohn.blogspot.com/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: spy69 on Jul 17, 2009 11:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/noticia.php
?t=27323
http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/noticia.php?t=27323
http://hablahonduras.com/
http://www.guaymuras.net/
http://www.contraelgolpedeestadohn.blogspot.com/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dickinseattl on Jul 18, 2009 4:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps had the Democratic majority been more successful then, despite the media (Wash. Post, N.Y. Times, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc.), such criminal activity we have seen ongoing in the last 20 years, most notable in the last 7 since the 9/11 PNAC false flag event, we would not now be so far behind the "curve" in trying to provide for some elementary justice.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "He who controls the present controls the past..."
Posted by: Dickinseattl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: anneofnj on Jul 18, 2009 7:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As far as I am concerned, terrorists should be tortured, and I don't need to know it. Anything to protect us in the future. Why is anyone arguing this? I question the logic in PROTECTING TERROISTS? And by TELL ALL, do any of you actually think the terrorists wont pay attention and learn or seek further vengeance?
Ask yourself, do you want these secrets released to protect our country or bring down the Bush era, because if it's the 2nd choice, you are so selfish! No matter the political arena, I believe what was done was to protect us.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: itouch backup on Jul 21, 2009 8:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hahaho on Jul 30, 2009 7:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped
ACORN Smear Collaborator Claims Persecution to Raise Money for Her Legal Troubles
Bad Policies Are Really What's Driving California's Huge Prison Costs




