-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ictBest on Another big aviation win for Wichita, state
- CF2K on Democratic convention thread 8/28
- Regular on Democratic convention thread 8/28
- lindainks55 on Democratic convention thread 8/28
- CF2K on Democratic convention thread 8/28
- JMWalker on Democratic convention thread 8/28
- Regular on Democratic convention thread 8/28
- Barnie on Democratic convention thread 8/28
- Regular on Democratic convention thread 8/28
- Predestined on Democratic convention thread 8/28
Open thread 6/30
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted June 30, 2007 at 1:03 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
76 Comments
Wouldn’t be great to be among this list:
Eco-Friendly College TownsfromCountry Home magazinehttp://collegetownlife.com/college/best_green_places.htm
Magazine: Burlington, Vt., Ithaca rank as nation’s top two eco-friendly citiesBinghamton makes top 10Star-Gazette - 8 Mar 2007BURLINGTON, Vt. — The city of Ben & Jerry’s founding, Phish and the University of Vermont now has a new claim to fame — America’s most eco-friendly place.
Country Home magazine, ranked 379 metropolitan areas in a “Best Green Places” survey that rated cities based on air and watershed quality, mass transit use, power use and number of organic producers and farmers’ markets.
The study was done using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Green Building Council.
The survey may be found in Country Home, April, 2007.
The top 10 best are college towns
1. Burlington, VT
2. Ithaca, NY
3. Corvallis, OR
4. Springfield, MA
5. Wenatchee, WA
6. Charlottesville, VA
7. Boulder, CO
8. Madison, WI
9. Binghamton, NY
10. Champaign-Urbana, IL
June 29, 2007
Bill Moyers on Rupert Murdoch.
BILL MOYERS: If Rupert Murdoch were the Angel Gabriel, you still wouldn’t want him owning the sun, the moon, and the stars. That’s too much prime real estate for even the pure in heart.
But Rupert Murdoch is no saint; he is to propriety what the Marquis de Sade was to chastity. When it comes to money and power he’s carnivorous: all appetite and no taste. He’ll eat anything in his path. Politicians become little clay pigeons to be picked off with flattering headlines, generous air time, a book contract or the old-fashioned black jack that never misses: campaign cash. He hires lobbyists the way Imelda Marcos bought shoes, and stacks them in his cavernous closet, along with his conscience; this is the man, remember, who famously kowtowed to the Communist overlords of China, oppressors of their own people, to protect his investments there.
The ambitious can’t resist his blandishments, Nor his power to get or keep them in office where they can return his favors. Mae West would be green with envy at his little black book of conquests. Tory Margaret Thatcher. Labor’s Tony Blair. George Bush. Even Jimmy Carter couldn’t say no.. now Bill and Hillary Clinton, who know which side of their bread is buttered, like having it slathered by their new buddy Rupert. Our media and political system has turned into a mutual protection racket.
You will not be surprised to learn that Murdoch’s company paid little or no federal income tax over the past four years. His powerful portfolio positions him to claim a big stake in Yahoo and his takeover of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, now owned by the Bancroft family, which, like Adam and Eve, the parents of us all, are tempted to sell their birthright for a wormy apple.
Murdoch and THE JOURNAL’s editorial page are made for each other. They’ve both pursued the right’s corporate and political agenda of the past quarter century. Both venerate what THE JOURNAL editorials call the “animal spirits” of business. But THE JOURNAL’s newsroom is another matter - there facts are sacred and independence revered. Rupert Murdoch has told the Bancrofts he’ll not meddle with the reporting. But he’s accustomed to using journalism as a personal spittoon. In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, he turned the dogs of war loose in the newsrooms of his empire and they howled for blood. Murdoch himself said the greatest thing to come out of the war would be “$20 a barrel for oil.”
Of course he wasn’t the only media mogul to clamor for war. And he’s not the first to use journalism to promote his own interests. His worst offense with Fox news is not even its baldly partisan agenda. Far worse is the travesty he’s made of its journalism. Fox news huffs and puffs, pontificates and proclaims, but does little serious original reporting. His tabloids sell babes and breasts, gossip and celebrities. Now he’s about to bring under the same thumb one of the few national newsrooms remaining in the country.
But the problem isn’t just Rupert Murdoch. His pursuit of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL is the latest in a cascading series of mergers, buy-outs, and other financial legerdemain that are making a shipwreck of journalism. Public minded newspapers are being dumped by their owners for wads of cash or crippled by cost cutting while their broadcasting cousins race to the bottom. Murdoch is just the predator of the hour. The modern maestro of a financial marketplace ruled by money and moguls. Instead of checking the excesses of private and public power, these 21st century barons of the first amendment revel in them; the public be damned.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/watch4.html?playertype=windowsmedia;speed=480;mediatype=video;media=%2Fwnet%2Fmoyers%2Fjournal%2F1112%2FBMJ112_murdoch_320.mov%2C%2Fwnet%2Fmoyers%2Fjournal%2F1112%2FBMJ112_murdoch_480.mov%2C%2Fwnet%2Fmoyers%2Fjournal%2F1112%2FBMJ112_murdoch_320.wmv%2C%2Fwnet%2Fmoyers%2Fjournal%2F1112%2FBMJ112_murdoch_480.wmv;helptemplate=%2Fmoyers%2Fjournal%2Fwatch%2Fhelp_template.html;playertemplate=%2Fmoyers%2Fjournal%2Fwatch%2Fvideo_template.html;basepath=%2Fmoyers%2Fjournal%2F06292007%2Fwatch4.html;prefchange=1
Richard Heckler in first blog comment above: Isn’t it interesting the places listed as environmentally friendly are mostly, if not all, college and university towns?
As to Murdock, you might guess whom through out history is one that he most admires.Joseph Goebbels, both feel he who controls the information controls the world. The it is not riches but information that is the real power. And the most effective way of controlling the unwashed masses, guess in what class Murdock considers YOU!
“The Globe’s disclosure this week that Mitt Romney put his Irish setter into a dog carrier on the roof of his station wagon for a 12-hour trip to Ontario in 1983 has become a surprising flashpoint in the presidential campaign.”http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/06/romneys_treatme.html
OH-MY-GOD!!!!
I’m no fan of Mitt Romney, but this goes beyond ridiculous.
I dont think it is “surprising” at all! He’s obviously a bot, with no emotion or compassion. He just “flips” to whatever position he thinks the wingnuts want him to take.
If this is the way he cares about his dog, no WONDER he wants to double the size of Gitmo.
BIG eye roll here.
And what an example to his children concerning his “compassionate conservative” side….
Chertoff wants to send people over to Britian to see how they successfully thwarted the attack. The burning questions seems to be Was it Luck, or Dumb Luck!
Mitt showed his colors when he stated in the debate that the war was caused because the inspectors weren’t allowed to do their jobs. The guy is clueless.
“Romney: Dog ‘enjoyed’ riding on car roof
(CNN) — Under fire from a leading animal rights group, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney defended the family dog’s mode of transportation to a 1983 summer vacation.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) criticized the Republican presidential hopeful after The Boston Globe reported that Romney transported his dog in a rooftop carrier when the family drove from Boston to Ontario.
“If you wouldn’t strap your child to the roof of your car, you have no business doing that to the family dog,” Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA said in a statement. “I don’t know who would find that acceptable.”
==
“He scrambled up there every time we went on trips, got in all by himself and enjoyed it,” Romney said of the Irish Setter.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/29/romney-... /
Yeah, right. I’m sure that is why the dog pooped all over the car roof, the carrier and himself. To the point ol’ mitt had to stop the car and hose everything off.
Yep. That’s what MY dog does whenever she’s happy…
If this illustrates Romney’s “problem solving abilities” I think our soldiers are in for a “bumpy ride” with ol’ mitt.
“ABC News: Did Romney’s dog suffer on the car roof?http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Politics/Story?id=3329...
Dr. Russell Cumming, a professor of aerospace engineering at California Polytechnic State University:
“At that speed, assuming sea level conditions, the poor little dog would have about 10 pounds per square foot pressing against his head,” said Cumming.
And in layman’s terms?
“He would constantly feel a little less than 3 pounds pressing on his head for the entire trip,” he added. “The windshield would help, but boy that would get tired.”
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Douglas Osheroff of physics at Stanford University said the dog crate on top of the car would change the air flow around the vehicle.
“Beyond a certain velocity, the air flow becomes turbulent,” said Osheroff. “The airflow isn’t going to be laminar,” which means it won’t have a uniform distribution.
Cumming said that’s bad news for Seamus.
“Chances are the windshield would only protect the front of the dog, but the air flowing around the windshield would buffet the side of the dog — that would be tiring,” said Cummings. “My wife’s a vet, and she would be more worried by the dehydration of the dog’s eyes under those conditions.”
But hey, problem solved, right? Who cares what it did to the dog. I think mitt must call that collateral damage…
Good God. Does anyone have to wonder why real democratic voters are fed up with this “new” congressional leadership? Tell me again how this is smart on pelosi’s part? Jesus WEPT!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×1213004
“Yeah, right. I’m sure that is why the dog pooped all over the car roof, the carrier and himself.”
Or maybe he just got sick.
Still, putting a dog in a pet carrier on top of a car almost 25 years ago just doesn’t impress me as a subject that affects the 2008 campaign. It’s not a thing I’d do and it seems a little weird, but so what?
I’m sure I can find better reasons not to vote for Mitt than this.
Guess I’ll never be able to run for public office. Back in 1958, I killed a sparrow with my sling-shot.
Lack of empathy is a key symptom in someone who has Narcissistic Personality Disorder…having such a disorder is helpful in stomping over others in order to get to the top, but unfortunately this trait also has a lot to do with why our country is in the sorry shape it’s in right now. Too many pathologically self centered leaders with their own agendas, filling their pockets, and running the show for the rest of us.Mitt Romney is just letting his true self shine through.
Bong Hits for Democrats!
I’m not sure how to think today. I will go to democrat underground to find out.
Just came in and saw the dog on the roof 25 years ago comments. Hilarious!
I agree with XXX, people, you seriously need to find some sense of perspective.
Romney, Clinton, Bush, Obama are all the same professional politician. They have marketing skills that get them elected. They do not have a talent for governing.
Outlander,perspective? in this day and age?
You gotta be kidding!
Correction, Proudman, Obama is known for crossing the aisle and compromising to get legislation passed. Is that why the Repbublicans are so afraid of Obama? After, compromise is a dirty and forbidden word in the Republicans’ vocabulary.
Governing is about compromise and it is about listening to all views. That is something that the Republicans lost sight of in the last 6 years of total control. perhaps that is why in 2006, the Republicans lost that total control. Ever think about why the Republicans lost both the House and Senate? I would be willing to bet that even the White House would have flipped to Democrat in 2006 if the choice would have been there.
A dog in a carrier on top of a car is no different than a dog in a carrier in a trailer behind a car, or for that matter, a dog riding in the back of the pickup. A good airflow and protection from the sun are all a dog needs on a hot day.
As for going twelve hours, that’s nothing for a dog. Mine are let out twice a day for a mile run, and do all of their business then, with no problem. When there’s an emergency, they ask.
Another one bites the dust, that makes 7 resignations since the investigation began. Soon they’ll be more Justice Dept. officials to lose their jobs than they fired in AG’s. Ha ha haSeventh official quits Justice Department Fri Jun 29, 7:29 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An assistant attorney general at the Justice Department announced her resignation on Friday, becoming the seventh official to quit the department since the Democratic-led Congress launched an investigation in March into the firing of nine federal prosecutors.
ADVERTISEMENTRachel Brand, assistant attorney general for legal policy, said she would step down on July 9. No reason was given.
Brand was nominated to her position on March 29, 2005, and confirmed by the Senate four months later.
She was responsible for preparing Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito for their confirmation hearings and helped in the reauthorization in 2006 of the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law that Congress approved after the September 11 attacks.
Last week, President George W. Bush’s nominee for the third-ranking Justice Department post withdrew his name just days before a Senate committee was to hold a hearing on his nomination.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who heads the Justice Department, has been under pressure for months to step down over the firing of the U.S. attorneys, which was part of a plan that originated at the White House.
Critics have questioned whether politics played an improper role in the dismissals. Bush and Gonzales say the firing of nine of the 93 U.S. attorneys, all Bush appointees, was justified, although mishandled.
Attorney General Gonzales should take some lessons on how to be Attorney General from Paul Morrison.
It’s all over the news; someone drove a car bomb into the airport at Glasgow.
I’ll bet the Brits are sure glad we’re fighting the terrorists in Iraq so they don’t have to fight them at home.
(Sarcasm off)
Seriously, we have to be right 100%. the bad guys only have to get it right once.
I will bet money this is all over the Knighting of that Rushdie guy.
The whole dog on the roof thing- that’s silly. During hunting season, I see them strapped in their carriers to the back of trucks, to the back of bumpers…
I’m not even a republican and I’ll defend that.
Hmmm, England has had three car bomb attacks (all three failed). This is impossible according to the pro-slaughter neo-con nuts who said we are fighting in Iraq so they can’t attack anywhere else. All the terrorists were supposed to be confined to Iraq, yet there are some in England.
Once again, Bush’s fictional “war on terror” has been proven to be a failure.
Why Doug, what a dumb assertion.
I will defer to Hank for an opinion of the dog in the carrier. I do know that dogs riding in a car seem to like to stick their heads out the window; that would seem similar.
Hank?
My Vet friends tell me that we are doing our dogs a dis-sevice by allowing them to ride in the backs of pick-ups… He says the wind can break their ear drumbs, and leave them deaf; dirt and dust in the air, can leave them blind, or with eye damage…
Arab Newspaper are blasting Tony Blair as being appointed Envoy to the Middle East by the so-called “Quartet” because, in their world he [ Blair ] has “blood on his hands.”
British soldiers had helped kill Iraqi soldiers and have done their fair-share of killing Iraqi civilians.
The labeling of Iraqi civilians as “terrorists” does help the Iraqis swallow that lie any more than all the other lies used to kill their men, women and children.
The Israelis taught Bush that saying something automatically made it true, but the Iraqis didn’t buy that lie any more than they have bought any of the rest.
Thanks to Bush and Blair, America and Britain and Israel have no credibility, although Israel has never had any credibility to lose.
The world is also taking note of this latest farce.
Maybe it would help if we started saying that “America has “Links” to the truth.”
Ed… You might be interested in a radio show airing tonite, 8 - 12 p.m. Coast to Coast Live… KFH… It will be about Cults and Cabals… Thought you might want to give it a listen… you might find it interesting…
Thanks Chas, I’ll check it out. Best, Ed
Once again, Bush’s fictional “war on terror” has been proven to be a failure.
The UK has had 3 terrorist attacks and doug sez the war on terror is fictional. doug is a fine rep of the Libs.
Reason #541 that you people will not make it into the White House anytime soon. The Ghost of McGovern is alive.
But Fleetwood, Bush said that we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here. So why are they in England?
Wouldn’t it have been a better use of resources to protect ourselves at home?
“Wouldn’t it have been a better use of resources to protect ourselves at home?”
We can do both. The right thinking Americans believe that we will fight them until Hell freezes over, then we will fight them on the ice.The Libs believe that when the going gets tough, it’s time to get going.By George McGovern
Better: Stop paying Israel to make trouble.
“Better: Stop paying Israel to make trouble.”
I had a nightmare I was stuck in an elevator with ed and cosmo.I said, “Hi, ed, how are you?”, he said “Israel sucks.” I said, “Hi, cosmo, how are you?” He said, “Global Warming is killing us all.”It was awful.
Since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Fleet, why are we at war with a country that was a clear enemy of fundamentalist Muslims?
The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda’s Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has “irrefutable evidence” that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda. “It’s a lock,” says this source.
Is this the same CIA that said that Saddam having WMD was a “slam dunk?”
Even George WMD Bush has had to admit that Iraq did not have a connection to al Qaeda, as did the Pentagon in a recent report.
Your Republican dominated government says that there was no connection, so why are you trying to pass off this bullshit, Fleet?
March 24, 2006CAIRO, Egypt - A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a “significant set of facts,” and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
The Pentagon and George W Bush have already stated without equivocation that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
Why are you sticking to a story that is known to be bullshit, Fleet?
And the Sept. 11 Commission has shown a tracery of contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda (search) that continued after billions of Oil-for-Food dollars began pouring into Saddam’s coffers and Usama bin Laden (search) declared his infamous war on the U.S.
Reposted…………..
The Pentagon and George W Bush have already stated without equivocation that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
Why are you sticking to a story that is known to be bullshit, Fleet?
Why repeat a known lie, Fleetwood?
because its all fleets enema has.
lies and spin. That is what he does.
In fact. Bin Laden hated Sadaam and US becasue we armed Sadaam to fight him
I don’t think that the president has admitted that there was no connection between Iraq and al qaeda, WS. I think that everyone agrees with the 911 commission that there is no evidence that they were collaberating. But the extent of the actual relationship is unknown and will remain that way.
“I don’t think that the president has admitted that there was no connection between Iraq and al qaeda, WS”
Yes he has, and he has also admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
There is no reason to believe that there was a connection. They were mortal enemies. Saddam was a secular Muslim - Muslim in name only - and al Qaeda is a fundamentalist Islamic group.
Osama bin Laden hated Hussein more than he hated the United States.
There was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda - the PENTAGON has stated such in a recent report.
Next question.
I’m not sure if the Libs are Ostriches or Turtles. I do know they can not be relied on to protect this country. I know they work hard to make sure we have good radios for when we get hit, though.
An al Qaeda document newly released by the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) of the United States Military Academy provides an extraordinary new connection to a previously reported order by Saddam Hussein to support al Qaeda attacks upon US forces in Somalia. It corresponds with other documents that show Saddam Hussein was using Islamic terrorists as proxies to attack US interests.
hey fleeting
I just googled that, nothing…
care to source yourself?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/more_evidence_of_saddamal_qaed.html
Saddam Hussein’s government was aware not just of the presence of Al Qaeda terrorist Abu Mus’ab Al Zarqawi, but also was aware that the Anbar province in Iraq was being used as a launch point for organized groups of jihadis headed to fight the United States in Afghanistan.
Well it appears the “car bombs” the media was reporting in England aren’t really car bombs. Rather they are tanks of gasoline. A car with 50 gallons of gasoline is called a Cadillac Escalade but in reality it makes a lousy bomb.
Apparently these terrorists have watched too many episodes of the A-team. A container full of gasoline will not explode, especially not in a car. The fumes need to be lit and there needs to be plenty of oxygen to propel the explosion. When a container is full of liquid there isn’t much gas. At best the explosion would be contained within the car.
So once again the media is aiding the neo-cons in their spreading of fear. The car bombs that weren’t but all stories are alluding to terrorists and Bin Laden. If we have a fictional war on terror it is fitting that we have fictional car bombs.
a note about fleeties post… follow the link and google the document that is cited…
NOT A SINGLE real news source or government agency listed. all right wing sponsored web sites and blogs…
Do you mean that Fleetwood was BULLSHITTING us?
Oh, say it isn’t true!
Not Fleetwood!
WSC,
ill leave that to the readers to decide…
oh wait… yea, he’s full of it!
Funny how the document linked to in Fleety’s post doesn’t even mention Saddam Hussein. Sounds like Fleety is lying to us again.
“So once again the media is aiding the neo-cons in their spreading of fear.”
I’m thinking ostriches.
fleets enema just give up
you got nothing
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/iraq/main584234.shtml
Distancing himself from remarks by Vice President Cheney, President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 —
“Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 —”
But he was involved with al qaeda
Saddam Hussein’s government was aware not just of the presence of Al Qaeda terrorist Abu Mus’ab Al Zarqawi, but also was aware that the Anbar province in Iraq was being used as a launch point for organized groups of jihadis headed to fight the United States in Afghanistan.
“But he was involved with al qaeda”
The Pentagon say no, Fleet. What makes you think you know better?
fleets enema can not distinguish between knows and involved with
The two hated each other and they hated the US maybe that is how they were involved…
I didn’t write it, I just posted it. It makes sense to me. I know you people think Saddam was God’s gift to mankind, and cried when he was hung, but bad actors run with bad actors.
sadaam was horrible, but who did he get his power from???
ahhhhhhh thats right Bush 41
hummmmmmmmmm
should have said under Reagan
Al qaeda was in Iraq only in the Kurdish region of the country and that region was under our de facto control and within the “no-fly” zone.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=32d_1182427382
just sick
Saddam Hussein’s government was aware not just of the presence of Al Qaeda terrorist Abu Mus’ab Al Zarqawi, but also was aware that the Anbar province in Iraq was being used as a launch point for organized groups of jihadis headed to fight the United States in Afghanistan.
Yes, and Bush was aware that Zaqarwi was there, and wouldn’t approve a strike on the camp because he knew it would lesson his b.s. reasons for attacking.
When Clinton was asked to have “IS” defined, the answer should have been: IS = Israel Sucks.
{ good job fleettword }
“Saddam Hussein’s government was aware not just of the presence of Al Qaeda terrorist Abu Mus’ab Al Zarqawi, but also was aware that the Anbar province in Iraq was being used as a launch point for organized groups of jihadis headed to fight the United States in Afghanistan” Posted by Fleettwood
“Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”-Senate Intelligence Committee Report on postwar findings about Iraq’s links to terrorism, 9/8/06, p. 109
ABCNewsonlineLast Update: Monday, May 1, 2006. 7:55am (AEST)
Abu Musab al Zarqawi … Former spy says the US had the terrorism figure in its sights.
“Bush turned down chances to kill Zarqawi”: ex-CIA spy
A former top CIA spy says the United States deliberately turned down several opportunities to kill terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the lead-up to the Iraq war.
Mike Scheuer headed the CIA’s bin Laden unit for six years before resigning in 2004.
He has told the ABC’s Four Corners program the Bush administration had Zarqawi in its sights almost every day for a year.
He says a plan to destroy Zarqawi’s training camp in Kurdistan was abandoned for diplomatic reasons.
“The reasons the intelligence service got for not shooting Zarqawi was simply that the President and the National Security Council decided it was more important not to give the Europeans the impression we were gunslingers,” he said.
“Mr Bush had Zarqawi in his sights almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn’t shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq,” he told Four Corners.
“Almost every day we sent a package to the White House that had overhead imagery of the house he was staying in. It was a terrorist training camp . . . experimenting with ricin and anthrax . . . any collateral damage there would have been terrorists.”
During the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi’s presence in the north of the country was used by US officials to link Saddam Hussein to terrorism.
The full story will air on Four Corners tonight on ABC television.
——————————–
Bush didn’t want him until he had established himself as numero uno in Iraq.
al-Qaida has always had a defensive posture, whereas the neocons/Zionists are truly offensive terrorist organisations { if there really is such a thing as terrorism }.
World conquest is their goal, as outlined by PNAC. It’s all there starting with Iraq.
Google PNAC and read all about the plan. That’s Cheney’s Bible, which is the carrot on the stick, which Cheney dangles in front of Bush.
Doesn’t take the Brits long to arrest and or find out who did it.USA couldn’t find its azz with both hands and a flashlight when it comes to illegals and terrorist