WHAT THE DEMOCRATS' BIG LIE IS HIDING - THAT "IT'S THE DEMOCRATS' WAR NOW AND THEY WANT IT"
Posted by Stuart Shaw at 10/9/2007 6:48 PM and is filed under uncategorized 
The Democrats now have complete responsibility for continuing the Iraq War. In
May 2007, the Iraq War had to be refunded by Congress or the war had to stop.
The place where the funding bill starts out in the House of Representatives is
the House Appropriations Committee. As the Republicans proved repeatedly for
seven years, if the Chairman of the House Appropiations Committee doesn't want
a bill to pass, he simply doesn't let the bill out of his committee. Then the bill can
not be voted on by the House. Thus, if there is a Iraq War funding bill and the Chairman
keeps the funding bill in committee, then there is no Iraq War funding.
Mr. Dave Obey was and is the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Dave Obey was and is a Democrat. According to Wikipedia, Mr. Obey is a very
"liberal" democrat. Mr. Obey would not make the decision to release or not release
the funding bill on his own. He would consult with the Democratic Party leadership.
In both May and October of 2007, the Democratic leadership had Mr. Obey release
that funding bill.
But because American voters felt that they had elected the Democrats into power
to STOP the war; because the polls show that the American people are very much against
the Iraq War; and because demonstrators were in the streets and even in Congress's
offices against the war, the Democrats did not want to take responsibility for continuing
the Iraq war SO IN MAY AND OCTOBER 2007, THE DEMOCRATS
TOLD A BIG LIE.
The Democrats said they couldn't stop the Iraq War without the votes of Republicans in order
to overcome a veto or survive fillibustering.
The Democrat leadership leaked this lie to the media and several
prominent democrats such as Senators Schumer, Reid and Leiberman among
others made statements (New YorkTimes 9-20-07) about the helplessness of
the Democrats without enough Republicans. They even had a pitiful one night
fillibuster in the Senate before giving up. And they had some full House and Senate
votes to show how helpless they were.
How could the Democratic leadership expect to get away with such an
obvious lie? Wouldn't the media be all over them? The media according to Global
Justice 8 Plus is the United States's number one problem. The Russian citizens during
the cold war, knew that their media was lying to them about most of the key things and
blacking out the rest. But the Russian citizens had a big advantage over the USA citizens.
The Russians knew their media was lying to them. The average USA citizen believes in his
May 2007, the Iraq War had to be refunded by Congress or the war had to stop.
The place where the funding bill starts out in the House of Representatives is
the House Appropriations Committee. As the Republicans proved repeatedly for
seven years, if the Chairman of the House Appropiations Committee doesn't want
a bill to pass, he simply doesn't let the bill out of his committee. Then the bill can
not be voted on by the House. Thus, if there is a Iraq War funding bill and the Chairman
keeps the funding bill in committee, then there is no Iraq War funding.
Mr. Dave Obey was and is the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Dave Obey was and is a Democrat. According to Wikipedia, Mr. Obey is a very
"liberal" democrat. Mr. Obey would not make the decision to release or not release
the funding bill on his own. He would consult with the Democratic Party leadership.
In both May and October of 2007, the Democratic leadership had Mr. Obey release
that funding bill.
But because American voters felt that they had elected the Democrats into power
to STOP the war; because the polls show that the American people are very much against
the Iraq War; and because demonstrators were in the streets and even in Congress's
offices against the war, the Democrats did not want to take responsibility for continuing
the Iraq war SO IN MAY AND OCTOBER 2007, THE DEMOCRATS
TOLD A BIG LIE.
The Democrats said they couldn't stop the Iraq War without the votes of Republicans in order
to overcome a veto or survive fillibustering.
The Democrat leadership leaked this lie to the media and several
prominent democrats such as Senators Schumer, Reid and Leiberman among
others made statements (New YorkTimes 9-20-07) about the helplessness of
the Democrats without enough Republicans. They even had a pitiful one night
fillibuster in the Senate before giving up. And they had some full House and Senate
votes to show how helpless they were.
How could the Democratic leadership expect to get away with such an
obvious lie? Wouldn't the media be all over them? The media according to Global
Justice 8 Plus is the United States's number one problem. The Russian citizens during
the cold war, knew that their media was lying to them about most of the key things and
blacking out the rest. But the Russian citizens had a big advantage over the USA citizens.
The Russians knew their media was lying to them. The average USA citizen believes in his
daily newspaper and his choice of TV talking heads or generals. If he does find a lie, he
attributes it to misunderstanding, shading, or poor staff work by the reporters. The USA
citizen does not know that he is one of the most ignorant citizens in the world. The world
award winning journalists John Pilger and Robert Fiske are not even published here. Media
expert Robert W. McChesney, "The Problem of the Media." explains why in his book.
So the USA media instead of revealing the lie, spread it everywhere. The New York
Times repeated it. (9-18,20-07). It was in AP releases. It was on CNN (5-25-07),
ABC NEWSONLINE (9-18-07),and The PBS News Hour on (5-25-07).
Thus, the Democrats escaped responsiblity for continuing funding the Iraq War
BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY COULDN'T GET ENOUGH REPUBLICANS
TO JOIN THEM IN THE VOTING. BUT THAT WAS A LIE AND THE TRUTH
IS THAT THE DEMOCRATS OWN THIS WAR SINCE MAY OF 2007.
In case the Democrats' result might be considered incompetence or a mix-up
instead of the result they schemed for, consider the handling of the hearings by
Democratic Chairman Ike Skelton. With all the witnesses that could have been
called about the progress of the war, the Democrats decided to call two spokesmen
for the Bush administration, unsworn, and and to call no other witnesses. A member
of the audience was promptly arrested for suggesting General Patraeus be sworn.
It was commonly known in Washington during the summer that Bush's PR people were
working on the Patraeus' speech. The star witness of the Democrats was General Patraeus.
Medals such as he was wearing haven't been seen since Goring or such lies heard since
Goebbels. First, the Democrats defended the General. The two houses of Congress took
the time to pass a resolution condeming the web organization "Move On" for advertising the slogan
"Patraeus Betray Us?" Senator Kerry was one of the first to disassociate himself from
Move On's slogan.Then the Congress glorified the General.
citizen does not know that he is one of the most ignorant citizens in the world. The world
award winning journalists John Pilger and Robert Fiske are not even published here. Media
expert Robert W. McChesney, "The Problem of the Media." explains why in his book.
So the USA media instead of revealing the lie, spread it everywhere. The New York
Times repeated it. (9-18,20-07). It was in AP releases. It was on CNN (5-25-07),
ABC NEWSONLINE (9-18-07),and The PBS News Hour on (5-25-07).
Thus, the Democrats escaped responsiblity for continuing funding the Iraq War
BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY COULDN'T GET ENOUGH REPUBLICANS
TO JOIN THEM IN THE VOTING. BUT THAT WAS A LIE AND THE TRUTH
IS THAT THE DEMOCRATS OWN THIS WAR SINCE MAY OF 2007.
In case the Democrats' result might be considered incompetence or a mix-up
instead of the result they schemed for, consider the handling of the hearings by
Democratic Chairman Ike Skelton. With all the witnesses that could have been
called about the progress of the war, the Democrats decided to call two spokesmen
for the Bush administration, unsworn, and and to call no other witnesses. A member
of the audience was promptly arrested for suggesting General Patraeus be sworn.
It was commonly known in Washington during the summer that Bush's PR people were
working on the Patraeus' speech. The star witness of the Democrats was General Patraeus.
Medals such as he was wearing haven't been seen since Goring or such lies heard since
Goebbels. First, the Democrats defended the General. The two houses of Congress took
the time to pass a resolution condeming the web organization "Move On" for advertising the slogan
"Patraeus Betray Us?" Senator Kerry was one of the first to disassociate himself from
Move On's slogan.Then the Congress glorified the General.
In a court of law, the witness's reputation is not usually attacked unless it is put forward
as evidence of his assertions. Since Petraeus was glorified by the Democrats, what do we
know of him? But first what do we know about Generals. If they have medals, intelligence and
education, could they be other than honorable? Could they betray their citizens?
Move On was correct. Ike Skelton's remarks were as fatuous as they were incorrect.
Generals have been betraying their citizens since before Julius Caesar. Look at General
Lemnitzer and the unanimous general staff that recommended to President Kennedy
that he murder large groups of US citizens, large groups of servicemen and the astronaut John
Glenn and blame it on the Cubans. Plenty of medals, intelligence and education in that
group of generals.(See The Northwoods Operation).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_northwoods
Look at General Westmorland testifying to the wonderful results in Viet Nam. (Same kind of
charts that Patraeus used) Look at Colin Powell lying to the US and the UN with his charts.
Look at Patraeus reading the words written by the Bush PR people in Washington as if the
words were his own.
And what is Patraeus's performance record? He married the boss's daughter (the father of
the bride was the Superintendent of West Point). Patraeus had a career that included a number
of positions of aide to generals. When he was teaching US recruits, one of the trainees had a
loaded rifle in such a position that he tripped on it and shot the general in the chest. When the
general was in training he broke his pelvis in parachute training. Because of the general's good
record in training, he was picked for the key job of training the Iraqi army. This was the
outstanding failure of our Iraq occupation. But in true Bush fashiion, Patraeus was promoted.
Patracus has been described by Wikipedia as "ambition on legs." What would an ambitious
general do if he reported to a boss that would only allow "toadies" around him? You guessed
it - be a toady. People are dying because of this toady's ambition. (889 SERVICE
PERSONNEL HAVE DIED AND 2400 maimed since May) Is he betraying us? You bet.
Why are the Democrats so sensitive when their cover story general
is accused of betraying the citizens? BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES ARE ENGAGED
IN BETRAYING THE US CITIZENS. AND LYING
TO HIDE IT
education, could they be other than honorable? Could they betray their citizens?
Move On was correct. Ike Skelton's remarks were as fatuous as they were incorrect.
Generals have been betraying their citizens since before Julius Caesar. Look at General
Lemnitzer and the unanimous general staff that recommended to President Kennedy
that he murder large groups of US citizens, large groups of servicemen and the astronaut John
Glenn and blame it on the Cubans. Plenty of medals, intelligence and education in that
group of generals.(See The Northwoods Operation).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_northwoods
Look at General Westmorland testifying to the wonderful results in Viet Nam. (Same kind of
charts that Patraeus used) Look at Colin Powell lying to the US and the UN with his charts.
Look at Patraeus reading the words written by the Bush PR people in Washington as if the
words were his own.
And what is Patraeus's performance record? He married the boss's daughter (the father of
the bride was the Superintendent of West Point). Patraeus had a career that included a number
of positions of aide to generals. When he was teaching US recruits, one of the trainees had a
loaded rifle in such a position that he tripped on it and shot the general in the chest. When the
general was in training he broke his pelvis in parachute training. Because of the general's good
record in training, he was picked for the key job of training the Iraqi army. This was the
outstanding failure of our Iraq occupation. But in true Bush fashiion, Patraeus was promoted.
Patracus has been described by Wikipedia as "ambition on legs." What would an ambitious
general do if he reported to a boss that would only allow "toadies" around him? You guessed
it - be a toady. People are dying because of this toady's ambition. (889 SERVICE
PERSONNEL HAVE DIED AND 2400 maimed since May) Is he betraying us? You bet.
Why are the Democrats so sensitive when their cover story general
is accused of betraying the citizens? BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES ARE ENGAGED
IN BETRAYING THE US CITIZENS. AND LYING
TO HIDE IT
Congratulations on the launch! XXX
Reply to this
Operation Northwood Link
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=92662&page=1
old story? Reading between the lines, the message here is that the government did some crazy things back in the 60’s but all is well now. Anyway, if you truly want to understand how American foreign policy works you need to read the following document written by American policy writer George Kennan back in 1948: PPS/23 (policy planning study): Review of Current Trends in U.S. Foreign Policyhttp://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2496/future/kennan/pps23.htmlThe excerpt below will give you a clear idea of what the document suggests should be America’s approach and stand towards the world. ‘We should dispense with the aspiration to “be liked” or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers' keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.’
So question is if you "perceive" a threat how far will you go to neutralize it? After WWII the leaders of "yourfreeland" thought they were in a life or death stuggle with a "NOTafreeland" empire.Which empire would win and how to win was the forse that gripped the planet. All empires fall and the reasons are varied.Yourfreeland will not be so free when our empire is threatened so good luck with your web site. I am sure it will be viewed by the powers that be and noted.
Reply to this