20051129
Heather Wilson can burn in hell
New Mexico Rep. Heather Wilson says that A House investigation into intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq would be a distraction? How much money has Heather Wilson recieved from Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, and AIPAC (The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee)? Why were AIPAC Israeli Spies who are currently on trial, working in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans fixing intelligence about Iraq's WMD and ties to the September 11, 2001 attacks? Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, George Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks.But, in the 2003 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html...it states, "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."Then George Bush flip flopped again in 2004 saying, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 attacks!" Our leaders took and oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. They didn't take an oath to protect and defend George Bush or Israeli spies. The dishonorable Heather Wilson should step down and resign. ¶ 29.11.05
New Mexico Rep. Heather Wilson says that A House investigation into intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq would be a distraction? How much money has Heather Wilson recieved from Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, and AIPAC (The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee)? Why were AIPAC Israeli Spies who are currently on trial, working in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans fixing intelligence about Iraq's WMD and ties to the September 11, 2001 attacks? Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, George Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks.But, in the 2003 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html...it states, "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."Then George Bush flip flopped again in 2004 saying, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 attacks!" Our leaders took and oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. They didn't take an oath to protect and defend George Bush or Israeli spies. The dishonorable Heather Wilson should step down and resign. ¶ 29.11.05
Comments:
<< Home
Good questions! Where's the answers? Hmmmmmmmmm?
I'm running Technorati searches on anyone who is blogging about the cabal. I want to find out if anyone has any plausible theories about the motivations of Bush and Cheney in pushing for the war. Feith, Wolf-wit could have inherited had their own pro-Israel hegemony doctrines from Richard Pearle et al, but even if the cabal were very successful in promoting their ideas, it doesn't explain either Bush or Cheney's motivation for invading Iraq.
Are they unwilling dupes of the AIPAC agenda? Is the tail wagging the dog?
Or, if the dog is indeed in charge of the tail, then what's in it for the Rumsfeld-Cheney cabal?
Theories:
Cheney has always wanted to outsource the entire federal government to Haliburton, but he had to settle for just the Department of Defense. Rumsfeld on the other hand has always wanted to completely re-align the armed forces into theater-sized chunks able to sustain operations in at least 5 theaters. Rumsfeld's vision entails outsourcing to civilians anything that doesn't involve supervising a weapon. Cheney and Haliburton just happened to be there with the contract vehicles when Rummy got his chance.
How's that for a theory? No I can't prove it! Would I be writing in your comments if I could prove it? :wink:
I'll be checking back. Have your report on my desk by COB Friday.
:D
The views are complimentary.
Post a Comment
I'm running Technorati searches on anyone who is blogging about the cabal. I want to find out if anyone has any plausible theories about the motivations of Bush and Cheney in pushing for the war. Feith, Wolf-wit could have inherited had their own pro-Israel hegemony doctrines from Richard Pearle et al, but even if the cabal were very successful in promoting their ideas, it doesn't explain either Bush or Cheney's motivation for invading Iraq.
Are they unwilling dupes of the AIPAC agenda? Is the tail wagging the dog?
Or, if the dog is indeed in charge of the tail, then what's in it for the Rumsfeld-Cheney cabal?
Theories:
Cheney has always wanted to outsource the entire federal government to Haliburton, but he had to settle for just the Department of Defense. Rumsfeld on the other hand has always wanted to completely re-align the armed forces into theater-sized chunks able to sustain operations in at least 5 theaters. Rumsfeld's vision entails outsourcing to civilians anything that doesn't involve supervising a weapon. Cheney and Haliburton just happened to be there with the contract vehicles when Rummy got his chance.
How's that for a theory? No I can't prove it! Would I be writing in your comments if I could prove it? :wink:
I'll be checking back. Have your report on my desk by COB Friday.
:D
The views are complimentary.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
