Gang of four

[kathaksung]

Whatever they talked about economy, immigrant, medicine..... The main point of choosing candidates is. Pro or anti war.

Because inside group needs more war in Mid-east, they make the candidates mostly pro-war one.

Bush is a war president. There is no doubt. He is designated for a second term.

The leading four candidates of Democratic are all pro-war (or at least, obedient to the will of inside group). Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt. They all voted for authorizing Iraq war power to President Bush. Gephardt is the one who introduced the War Authorization Bill. Lieberman, Edwards were the hardest supporters of that bill. The three were hard supporters of Iraq war and honest followers of inside group. Even though they knew most of their constituents are against Iraq war. Now to try to win the chair of Demo President candidate, they changed their face that they are against Bush's Iraq war policy. That's very hypocrite and is almost an open lie.

Most people realize this and go for Howard Dean. To block Dean, inside group threw out Wesley Clark because he has no vote record. You can see the gang of four gathered up fire on Dean but avoid to touch Clark. This is the tactic how inside group to choose their favorite candidate. Follow this line, you can see the reality through the cover up smoke. Whatever they show you of scandal, poll rate..... And surely there will be more to come.

As for Clark who tries to defeat Dean by stealing his anti-war idea, I think he is an insider working for intelligence for a long time. Under his commander he had helped FBI fulfilled two big events. In Waco slaughter and bombing Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia.

See story in: "193. Bombing Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia" and "194. D.o.D. worked for D.o.J. (1/6)" at:

http://hometown.aol.com/katsung563/myhomepage/profile.html

If there is harassment (blank page, slow entering, server busy....) try

http://forums.delphiforums.com/police915/messages/?msg=25.1

[DesertFox]

Kat, you might wanna lay off the leaded gasoline.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

I think he took a little of whatever Dean had the other night.

[kathaksung]

There are many petitions suggest to impeach Bush. It won't succeed. On the contrary, he will be awarded for a second term.

Why the media beat the drum on a personal affair and almost impeached President Clinton from his post. While awarded President Bush with a high approve rate when he misled American people to an unnecessary war?

If you can view the whole thing from another angle. That terrorist group is manipulated by CIA and Mosad. And what Bush did was following a "road map" a powerful group designed earlier. You may know it better.

The bombing of US Cole and embassy in Africa were provokation for a Mid-east war. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had lobbied Clinton for the war in Jan. 1998 but failed. Clinton ordered missil bombing in Sudan and Afghanistan but didn't start a war. He was punished by Lewinsky scandal and was almost impeached from his post.

Since bombing of Cole and US embassador in Afirica were not big enough to touch off a war, they had a big attack in US. Many information revealed that 911 was allowed to happen. With which Bush started war with Afghan. But that was not the main target of "road map". Bush then started war with Iraq even though there was no sufficient justification. He did a good job for that power group. How could him be impeached?

Bin Laden was not found because he is too important for intelligence. His existence gives an excuse to make "war on terrorism" an endless one. He won't be arrested or killed until they found another terror leader to substitute him.

The "Road map" is not finished. There are more "evil countries" in the list. The war on terror is a long one. So Bush will stay in his post, as well as Bin Laden.

[HarvickFan29]

Anybody got a lighter?

[Westbrook]

<font size=+3 color="red">FOOM!</font>

Suicide poster ...

[Estragon]

See what I mean when I say I'm sorry Dean's candidacy sunk and dissolved like an Alka-Seltzer?

We are going to miss this sort of entertainment, mark my words.

Thanks for the memories, kat. We hardly knew ye.

[Warlady]

Kat I have news for you. Rumsfeld wasn't at the Pentagon in 1998. Sober up will ya?

[Venus]

Kat is correct about Rum and Wolf. Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz wrote to Bubba in 1998 urging him to initiate regime change in Iraq. Clinton blew them off, saying he was busy cleaning up Al-Queda cells. Bubba then bombed Sudan.

[The_Elucidator]

[ QUOTE ]
kathaksung said:
The leading four candidates of Democratic are all pro-war (or at least, obedient to the will of inside group). Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt. They all voted for authorizing Iraq war power to President Bush. Gephardt is the one who introduced the War Authorization Bill. Lieberman, Edwards were the hardest supporters of that bill. The three were hard supporters of Iraq war and honest followers of inside group. Even though they knew most of their constituents are against Iraq war. Now to try to win the chair of Demo President candidate, they changed their face that they are against Bush's Iraq war policy. That's very hypocrite and is almost an open lie.

Most people realize this and go for Howard Dean. To block Dean, inside group threw out Wesley Clark because he has no vote record. You can see the gang of four gathered up fire on Dean but avoid to touch Clark. This is the tactic how inside group to choose their favorite candidate. Follow this line, you can see the reality through the cover up smoke. Whatever they show you of scandal, poll rate..... And surely there will be more to come.

As for Clark who tries to defeat Dean by stealing his anti-war idea, I think he is an insider working for intelligence for a long time. Under his commander he had helped FBI fulfilled two big events. In Waco slaughter and bombing Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia.

[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinhat.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinhat.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinhat.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinhat.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinhat.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinhat.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinhat.gif

Youhooooooooo... is anybody in there? Your insider group is the Clintons clearing a path for 2008.

Holy shit, are they still indoctrinating you kids with this crap in Global Multi-Diversity Culturalism or whatever the hell they call US History now...? Have you ever heard of George Washington? He was our first President... How many original colonies were there? 13...

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dimbulb.gif

[Warlady]

That seems odd to me Venus.

[HarvickFan29]

I agree, Warlady. Why would they?

[Estragon]

They did. And with Clinton's support, Congress passed a law that year that basically stated that regime change in Iraq was our policy.

Clinton realized the threat, and was all for the policy. He was just too wimpy to implement it.

[kathaksung]

[ QUOTE ]
Warlady said:
Kat I have news for you. Rumsfeld wasn't at the Pentagon in 1998. Sober up will ya?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't harass by your "news". Get to the point. I've never said Rumsfeld was at the Pentagon in 1998. I said "Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had lobbied Clinton for the war in Jan. 1998 but failed".

Quote, "Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz lobbied Clinton in '98 to start Iraq war and topple Saddam
By Jason Leopold
Online Journal Contributing Writer

February 20, 2003-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz undertook a full-fledged lobbying campaign in 1998 to get former President Bill Clinton to start a war with Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's regime, claiming that the country posed a threat to the United States, according to documents obtained from a former Clinton aide.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/022003Leopold/022003leopold.html

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

ahh . . what? awarded?

I can't even follow the thought flow because it reads like it was written two months before it was posted here.

kat is there a thesis here? Tell me, who will be "awarding" the war President, Bush, a second term?

[Warlady]

This belongs in the Conspiracy Corridor.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

LOL, if you think this does, check out his post in WL's forum.

[kathaksung]

There were two war on Iraq. One started by GW. Bush. The other one was started by his father Bush Sr.

Bush Sr. won the Persian Gulf war beautifully. Compare with his son, Bush Sr. got the support from most countries of the world. US soldiers suffered much less casulties compare with GWB's. And US paid a little amount of war fee. Most spending were shared by other countries.

GW. Bush misled US into an unjust war. He lost the support from UN. He lost traditional allies. He made US paid an huge war fee, and let US army dropped in an Vietnam like war of daily casulty. We don't know when can we leave that quagmire.

One thing strange happened. Bush Sr., though had a glorious victory, and got an approvement rate of 90% then, lost the President campaign to Clinton. While GW. Bush had so bad a war, he is still awarded a rate of nearly 60% and is predicted to win the president campaign in a landslide victory in election 2004.

Why? The answer is pretty simple. America is controlled by inside group. Their interest is for the security of Israel. Their target is occupying Iraq to oppress the hostility of Islamic hostility against Israel. So when Bush Sr. stopped to invade Iraq to save US soldiers' lives, it was against the inside group's will. He was punished for failure in president election.

GW Bush is much obedient. Despite it was hurting the interest of US, he started a war to favour the inside group. He will be awarded 2nd term of president. The inside group creates a situation for his succeeding. Maintain his approve rate by rigged poll around 50 to 60%. Incapacitate his rival Demo Party. And try to boost the economy in 2004.

[DesertFox]

What was unjust about W's war, Kat?

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
There were two war on Iraq. One started by GW. Bush. The other one was started by his father Bush Sr

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if you saw your neighbor's house being robbed at gunpoint, and you went over to try to stop it, you then "started" a conflict? By your very own words, you would be an instigator.

Read your statement above carefully.

[DesertFox]

That's asking a lot of Hak, Wyatt.

[tacitus]

wyatt do you actually read the stuff kat posts? I'm waiting for the movie. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon2.gif

[kathaksung]

Manipulate media and poll

Howard Dean is a vivid sample of how insider group to use media and intelligence to manipulate an election.

1. In last October, when Dean became a threat to Bush, they at first threw out Wesley Clark to block him. Media said that Clark was the only one in Democratic Party which could beat Bush. ( try to divert the support of Dean to Clark) CNN-USA Today Gallop poll said Clark lead over Bush at the rate of 49% to 46%. How could they get such a result when not much people knew who Clark was?

Even media beat the drum to blow up Clark, the general has never led in any of Demo's primary. Where is the base of that 49% vs Bush's 46%?

2. When they failed to block Dean by Clark, inside group threw out Kerry. Kerry won the first Demo Primary in January. The tactic was the same. Now they said Kerry is the one who can beat Bush. The problem is how could Dean, as a leading candidate in Iowa, suddenly dropped into a result of 18% vs Kerry's 38%? Media use a word "Iowa surprise" to explain this drama. It's not convincible. Consider Demo candidates have similar stands on important issues, that 75% Iowa voters are anti-war, that Kerry has voted for Iraq war authorization Bill.

3. Same show had acted in recall of California. Before the recall, poll said Arnold had 26% vs Bustmonte's(Demo)28%. Another Rep's candidate, Mclintok, had a steady 14%. Mclintok wouldn't pull out the campaign after persuation. Then CNN poll suddenly boosted Arnold a 40% vs Bustmonte's 28%. (with Mclintok's 14% unchanged)
Obviosly, inside group once thought Mclintok would pull out, but he didn't. Of course that wouldn't trouble them, because they control election office thus they control the result. (just like in Florida election) All they had to do was immediately threw out a poll to justify Arnold's victory.

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

[kathaksung]

Media censorship

The tactic inside group used to pull down Howard Dean.

1. A negative propaganda against Dean before Primary. Dean got more criticism than any other Democratical candidates did.

2. Control Primary election. Justify the result by fake poll. (see message "Manipulate poll")

3. Media censorship. They decided to terminate Dean's campaign right from the begining of Primary by created an "Iowa surprise". After a short period of "hopeless" comment about Dean, Media censored the news of Dean and put the focus on Kerry. There is no reason for Kerry's sudden leap up. It's only the result of manipulation of media - the decision of inside group. When Dean announced his pull out, he was still the second leading candidate of Demo.

Quote, "Study: Network news criticizes Dean most
- - - - - - - - - - - -
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Jan. 16, 2004 | LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Howard Dean received significantly more criticism on network newscasts than the other Democratical contenders, who were the subjects of more favorable coverage, according to a study released Thursday.

More than three-quarters of the coverage of Dean's foes by the nightly news programs was favorable, while a majority of attention to Dean was negative, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found.

The study found that 49 percent of the coverage of former Vermont Gov. Dean was positive, compared to 78 percent of the rest of the Democratic field, collectively.

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/01/16/dean_media/

Why the Corporate Media Wiped Out Howard Dean
News/Comment; Posted on: 2004-02-17 13:22:42 [ Printer friendly ]

On December 1, 2003, Howard Dean was ahead by twenty points in the polls when he appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews and said, "We're going to break up the giant media enterprises." This pronouncement went far beyond the governor's previous public musings about possibly re-regulating the communications industry, and amounted to a declaration of war on the corporations that administer the flow of information in the United States.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2096

[DesertFox]

Kat, who is this "inside group" you keep referring to?

[kathaksung]

Watch what biologist Babara Rusenberg said about insider in following message.

46. My view of anthrax attack

On Sept. 18, taking advantage of 911 WTC bombing, perpetrator mailed letters to NBC news. The anthrax inside was brown granular which might mean perpetrator intending at first not to kill but to intimidate.
Perhaps disappointed by little reaction, they did it again(on Oct. 8), this time with a military grade anthrax. The letters to Senator Daschle and Leahy contained fine, white powder which mixed with a material designed to kill. And a man, Bob Stevens, died of anthrax on Oct. 5. His death caused fear of bio-chem attack nation wide. Anthrax crisis reached its peak on about Oct. 20, then faded away. During the period, it created a situation of bio-attack horror, put a pressure on legislation to pass through "patriot Act" to let Justice Department having more police power, push media and public to support government's war policy and also gave an excuse for government to extend war to Iraq. (The "Patriot Act" was proposed on Sept. 24 and passed in legislature on Oct.24. US started war in Afghan on Oct. 7)

Rosenberg, a biologist, has testified on biological weapons before Congress, has recently published a paper contending that a government insider; or someone in contact with an insider, is behind the lethal attacks." (Excerpt from: San Jose Mercury News, page 9A,Dec. 2,2001. Topic:'Inside job probed in anthrax attack') One official (law enforcement agency) called Rosenberg theory " the most likely hypothesis".

I believe the anthrax attack was done by government insiders. They have motives and resources. (They control intelligence)
They are the one to be benefitted by the attack. They expanded their power by creating public's fear. They intimidated the media and legislation which are the check and balance to their power. They have the authority to access the secret lab under the name of 'security'. (like the case of Wen Ho Lee.)

And
1. The first victim was an editor of tabloid, a dislike of powerful US celebrities. His wife was the manager of apartments which had been rented to some 911 terrorists. He was possibly under FBI's surveillance. (consider thousand of aliens who even had no relationship to terrorist were detained by FBI)

2. Government released information that Atta visited crop duster aircraft. Hinted Al-quada relating to bio warfare. Matching perpetrators' intention to attribute it to 911 terrorists.

3. Government released conflict information. Such like at first they said the material mixed in anthrax was bentonite, purposely to target at Iraq. Then admitted the material was silica, not used by Iraq, but US. It may proved that the perpetrators are not expert, only know little about the anthrax they were using and gave a wrong information when they making use of it.

4. At the same time, government released information that Atta made contact to Iraq diplomat. It matched the theory of bentonite, made Iraq a big suspect.

Most of these information can be only released by intelligence.

5. . Though government said first that there were 30 to 40 places had access to the anthrax and much more people could produce it by cheap equipment, it's only an excuse that they are unwill to find real criminal. The anthrax in Senator's letter is military grade. A fruit of years' research and experiment. And even in US there maybe only one secret lab carrying it. And access to it must be very strict.

6. US rejected a UN resolution condemning the anthrax attack. For what reason they did so if it's done by OBL, Al-quada, or domestic pertetrators? Unless it's done by they themselves.

7. My personal experience told it was a practice of Federal law enforcement agency. From their swift response to my comments. And I think they originally only planned one death(Bob Stevens) to raise the public attention and fear. The later four deaths were cover up to the comment " Least casualties to raise public's scare".

This elected government administration tries to hide something from people. They started a war but failed to give evidence, said that was for safety of informant. Then they want a military tribunal, what secret do they want to keep even they win a war? On Dec. 10, newspaper reported that Russian scientists had helped OBL to produce anthrax. Workshop was bombed away in war, but unknown quantity of anthrax might have been in abroad already. There was no detail, obviously let out by military or intelligence. An attemption to attribute anthrax attack to terrorist when they failed to find a scapegoat of lone wolf? Perhaps that's why they limited media's report in Afghan war, and want a secret court. When US is the strongest power in the world, why there are so many things to be hided? If we have reason believe those who being sent to court are guilty, a military court only covers up corrupt government and criminal activities of it's official.

[kathaksung]

Media deception (5/3)

How media issued polls to manipulate the sentiment of American people?

To block Howard Dean to become a real rival to Bush, inside group has thrown out Wesley Clark and John Kerry one after another. To help these puppets to win over Dean in Democrate's primary, CNN-USA Today Gallop in early October, 2003, had a poll (49% vs 46%) said Clark was the only one who could beat Bush. Then in January, it gave a similar poll said Kerry was the only one who could beat Bush.

And it's interesting to reveiew other media's poll at that time when they tried to justify Kerry's victory over Dean.

Re: "Kerry's standing has strengthened not only against his Democratic rivals but also against Bush. For the first time, he clearly defeats the president in a head-to-head matchup, 53% to 46%. By 63% to 24%, those surveyed say Kerry would be a good president.(USA TODAY, 2/2/2004)

Re: 52 Percent of Voters Don't Want to See Bush Re-Elected (44% Do), 37 Percent Strongly Want to See Him Re-Elected, 47 Percent Strongly Do Not. (Newsweek Poll , Saturday January 24,)

Now watch the dramatic change of the poll. They were done after Howard Dean was pulled down from Demo's primary.

Fox&amp;#8217;s Last-night poll says: "45% Bush to 45% Kerry" (2/21)

Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows George W. Bush attracting 47% of the nation's likely voters while John F. Kerry is the choice for 45%. (2/21)

Same USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll said in April that "The survey, taken Friday through Sunday, shows Bush ahead 50% to 44% among likely voters......The president's job-approval rating was steady at 52%."

What happened from February to April which boost Bush's approve rate?

Paul O'Neill, Richard A. Clarke, WOODWARD revealed Bush from the beginning decided to invade Iraq. WMD, "democracy" is only an excuse.

The insurgence of Fallujah, and insurgence of Shiite revealed Bush's "war on Iraq" is becoming a quagmire for US.

All these proved Bush is a dishonest man, an incompetent president. Yet all these nagative things boost his rate. Please tell me I may missed something Bush did good in this period. Otherwise review what media said and polled and to see how inside group control the mind of American people.

They control US by media and intelligence. They justify rigged election (through intelligence) by fake poll (media). They even turn negative things into positive. To maintain the approve rate of a patsy president always around 50%. Despite how notorious he is. All to make sure they will have him a second term.

[DesertFox]

Damn. We're glad you're tipping us off, Kat. We'd have fallen for these shenanigans if you hadn't.

[kathaksung]

Government deception (5/13)

Bush said what happened in Abu Ghuraib prison was done only by a few people and high ranking military officials denied they knew anything about it. It was a lie. They knew it clearly there were vast abuse in the jail.

Quote, "Red Cross report details abuse, mistaken detentions in Iraq.
By Bob Drogin
Los Angeles Times.

Washington - Coalition military intelligence officials estimated that 70 to 90 percent of prisoners detained in Iraq since the war began last year "had been arrested by mistake," according to a confidential Red Cross report given to the Bush administration earlier this year.

The report described a wide range of prisoner mistreatment - including many new details of abusive techniques - that it said US officials had failed to halt, despite repeated complaints from the International Committee of the Red Cross. "(S.J.M.N. 5/11/04)

As a matter of fact, torture is a method intelligence used to squeeze information from detainees. US government cover it up with fake news, disinformation and lies. The death of Saddam Hussain's sons was a typical example.

News reported Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay, along with other two people, were all died in a six hours' long battle against 200 US soldiers. But forensic analysis revealed that Uday and Qusay were tortured before their death. There is an article with pictures and details on it.

Quote, "America's Uday and Qusay Conjuring Trick
Latest White House lies reveal larger hidden untruths

Unfortunately the forgery team completely forgot to use any putty around the ankles..... If you look at the color picture of the two cadavers lying side by side, the one on the right has unique brown marks on both ankles. These marks have been identified by experts as pressure sores, caused by iron clamps used to hold the ankles while this poor man was suspended upside down for torture in the "Adnan Chalabi Hilton". As I wrote earlier, death must have finally come as merciful relief for these two......."

http://www.joevialls.co.uk/transpositions/hussein.html

As I told before, media is controlled by inside group. It serves for the war policy of this group. Why this time it suddenly threw out a scandal which hurt the fame of Bush's administration? None of such kind of event happens by coincidence. They always have a purpose. (to be continued)

[DesertFox]

* Y a w n *

Hak, come back when you got a conspiracy on the Mars shot. That one's been brewing for several years and I'm surprised you're not onto it yet. My uncle in the insider group has been giving me tips but he's low on totem pole and gets most of his juicy stuff by reading carbons out of trash cans after hours. By then the stuff's already known by half the world, anyway.

[kathaksung]

Distraction (5/23)

The abusing of prisoners is systematic which can be traced to the end of 2001 when Guantanamo concentration camp was set up. News reported that there were 18 prisoners' death in Afhgan and Iraq, eight are investigated as "homicide" case. Compare to these, the abuse in Abu Ghurayb was mild. Government only show people a little bit of it but cover up the most.

1. US soldiers who was accused in abuse case, confessed at first they were assigned to do so for interrogation. Now media said it was for amusement.

2. Many people request the resignation of Rumsfeld. Then there was an immediate poll throwing out said " Most in US back Rumsfeld. 69% think he should keep job. 20% he should resign" (Washington Post-ABC news poll) Rumsfeld is the main pusher of Iraq war. He should be responsible for the embrassing situation of US in Iraq now despite abusing scandal. When so said poll said nearly half US public don't support Iraq war and Bush's rate is in a record low, how can the war eagle get such a high support rate ? Once again, in emergency, inside group used ther magic weapon - poll, to save their puppet. And how easy was it to lie on a number to wipe out the opposite voice. There was a random poll done by AOL about that time. I took part in and got such a result: Do you believe Rumsfeld approved the use of abuse on prisoners in Iraq?
Yes 57%; No 32%; Not sure 10%; Total Votes: 137,535
I believe this more truely reflects the attitude of American people. The users of AOL should be average.

3. A "beheading" case was thrown out to justify the abusing case. The beheading case was done in hastily so there was a lot of flaw. Which was used to vilify muslim. Play the same role as "Madrid bombing".

4.Nobody took the ball. It ends in the hand of weak people. Low ranking soldiers become scapegoat.

This is what Feds wanted. They need a case big enough to catch up public's attention but hurt least the interest of inside group. That's the tactic of distraction. Create a big event to cover up another which they don't want you to know. One sample was to charge Michale Jackson in a molesting case. Which happened on date Bush met a big protest in his London visit. D.O.J. used Michale Jackson's case to divert the attention on Bush's inglorious visit.

Then what case this time they want to cover up by prisoners' abusing case? That is a frame case applied on me. Which lasted for more then ten years. The case had led to the resignation of both directors of FBI and DEA in June, 2001, and again the resignation of director of DEA in Aug. 2003, I think.

In a similar situation in 2001, Feds had used same tactic to distract. In April that year, Ashcroft announced FBI had found 3000 pages of unreported document in McVeigh's case. So D.O.J. delayed the excution date of McVeigh a month later to June 11. As a matter of fact, the document was only an excuse used to delay the excution date. To let it to match the date they planed in a framed drug case in which many people would be slaughtered. They need a big event such like McVeigh's death to divert public's attention on thier murder case. The frame case was soured for some reason. In same attempt in Dec. 2003 and Apr. 2004, they tried to use terrorist attack by same tactic, I allege. As for why I think the abusing case is a distraction on mine, I've talked about it in latest messages on my home page. It's these experience enabled me to write the articles about US politics in a perspective angle.

See whole story at:

http://hometown.aol.com/kathaksung/myhomepage/profile.html
http://hometown.aol.com/sunkat563/myhomepage/profile.html
http://hometown.aol.com/katsung563/myhomepage/profile.html

If there is harassment (blank page, slow entering, server busy....) try

http://forums.delphiforums.com/police915/messages/?msg=25.1

[kathaksung]

Censorship and Liberal media (6/3)

A news in internet in August 2002:

"The crowd was standing at the barricades and the police had called a state of
emergency. Pepper spray was used on group early on. Batons were used on some
people. Group included babies in strollers and older people, also people in
wheelchairs. Those that could get out of the way were cut off surrounded by police.
There are snipers on the roofs. Police have opened fire on protesters with rubberbullets, pepper spray and gas. The crowds of people are moving around and regrouping. "
http://portland.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=17241&amp;group=webcast

It seemed a scene taking place in totalitarian country. But it was in Portland, citizens protested Bush's war policy and were surpressed. If it happened in Moscow, Beijing, you could see big title and pictures as first hand news in media. But this time, there was no report from media. I learned it from internet. There is a strong censorship on anti-war news. Inside group needed war. Media coordinated. They created a feeling that most of people were pro-war.


If Michael Moore is not a famous film director, his "Fahrenheit 9/11" wouldn't be known by public. If his film haven't been awarded the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, it may still have been blocked from distributing. So far American people still have no chance to watch it. Is Disney a media, or rather a tool of inside group? All this happened in US, famous for its "Bill of Right". The free speech has to struggle for its existence against invisible censorship. What kind of "freedom" Bush can bring to Iraqis? You imagine.

"Patriot Act" seriously erodes civil liberty. More than hundred towns, cities, even states passed resolution condemning it. As "liberal" media, it should be a big issue to be discussed, criticized. Have you often heard of it? Rarely. Abandon the title of "liberal", even if media dare not to comment at this topic, as "media", should they do some very basic thing to report it? Yet, they failed in their professional duty. New York joined the long list of cities to condemn Patriot Act recently. A sponsor said, "The Patriot Act is really unpatriotic, it undermines our civil rights and civil liberties," Because New York was the victim of 9/11 attack, and Patriot Act was a result of that attack, the resolution of New York is significant. Yet, the news is censored by most media. I learned it only from a message from internet.

Quote, "UnderReported.com

.....Queries on news.google.com yield no results for CNN. Two queries for the New York Times yield no relevant results, and I was unable to find an article by searching on the nytimes.com website itself. Did this amazing story really go unreported in the city's own New York Times

Pete_undercover

[Post# 463683 </cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&amp;Board=national&amp;page=0&amp;view=co llapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;vc=1&amp;Number=463683>]

Though there are "Demo" paty and "Rep" party, "liberal" media and "conservative" media, It's only a cover up. Once it touches the interest of inside group, there is no Democracy and liberal. All principle and opinion are given up. Media and politicians, are only tools of inside group.

[kathaksung]

233. CIA chief resigns (6/9)

CIA chief Tenet resigned abruptly on 6/3. He cited personnal reasons for resignation. That's an excuse.

Media said he resigns because of failure in intelligence assessment on 9/11 attack and WMD of Iraq. That he may have been hastened by a critical report from Senate intelligence committee which will single out the errors of the agency. That is not a true reason either, I think.

Failure to warn 911 attack was a very serious fault. As director of CIA, he should have resigned right away after the WTC collapsed. He hadn't. Because 911 attack was allowed to happen. Inside group needed it to activate war in Mid-East. So nobody took the responsibility. Now it's almost three years passed. Is it a late wake up?

Paul O'neill, Richard A. Clarke, all revealed Bush determined to go to war in Iraq even before 9/11. WMD was only an excuse Bush used to start the war. CIA, was forced to squeeze the information to favour the demand of Bush cabinet. CIA, had sent Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate if Saddam intended to buy nuclear material there. He found no evidence could prove this allegation. Government knew this. But Bush still used it as evidence in his State of Union. When Wilson revealed that Bush lied, he was punished. His wife's ID as being a CIA covert agent was leaked by White House.
In whole event, Bush is the main suspect and offender. How could Tenet take over the responsibility?

Then why Tenet resigned? View from this angle. On 5/26, Ashcroft and Meuller announced Al Qaida would attack in this summer. Tom Ridge of DHS didn't know this in advance. Tenet of CIA hasn't mention it too. The information was unique from D.O.J.. But is it the main responsibility for CIA to deal with Al Qaida abroad? How could they let something like 911 take place again in US? That's the real reason of Tenet's resignation. He knew there will be a big attack in coming months. He is not able to stop it. Because again it is from "friendly fire". To avoid to take the responsibility of a big failure, or in another word, to avoid a duty. He resigned in advance to avoid humiliation. (Or another possibility is he was saved from humiliation by inside group, they arranged his resignation to protect him?) The seat of CIA director will leave vacant until November election. Because the attack(s) will take place during that period. So nobody will take the blame of failure again in terrorist attack intelligence.

On the other hand, is it absurd to leave such an important position remained in vacancy when the country is in terror emergency?(as D.O.J. says) Can you immagine a captain of a battleship permitted the leave of the sonar operater while there is an alert of submarine attack? It only proves a designated attack will happen. Samething like "Operation Northwoods".

The terror attack is designed to benefit the interest of inside group. Such like Bali bombing to arouse indignation of the people against Islamic extremist to support Iraq war. Or Madrid bombing to help Aznar's election in Spain. Is it a little bit early to carry out the plan at this time for Bush's re-election?

I've said the attack will take place around 6/19. Feds arranged my wife's trip and a party at that time to fix a frame case. Because they are in a hurry. If you have noticed that most financial experts pridicted that on 6/30, Federal reserve will boost the interest rates. A step they should have done earlier but had postponed by Feds (D.O.J.) for nearly a year. Because they hold a large amount of real estates invested in my case. Feds is in a hurry to finish my case to release their estates. From this event, we can see the interest of D.O.J. is more important than Bush's interest. Other department, DHS and CIA, must give way to it.

[Timberwolf]

Kat, have you been checked for mental illness? I'm serious...you've got more than one screw loose. There are happy, happy, joy, joy drugs on the market that would do wonders for you.

[kathaksung]

Timberwolf, how much you got paid for your harassing work? Are you an imformant for tips, or just an undercover to monitor dissentors?
--------------------

This message should be read with the previous one "CIA chief resigns"
232. Terror attack and distraction (6/4)

On May 26, A.G. Ashcroft and FBI director Mueller warned public that based on credible source Al Qaida would attack US this summer. FBI also issued 7 pictures of most wanted terrorist suspects.

But in next few days the "credible source" was revealed as high suspect. Some of the "most wanted" were said arrested already.
Re: "Terrorists on Ashcroft's 'Wanted List' Already in Jail
May 27 2004
At least two of the terrorists identified by John Ashcroft as part of an 'Al-Qaeda cell' that is waiting to attack America this summer are already in jail.

http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/may2004/052704wantedlist.htm

Re: "Terror threat source called into question Ashcroft cites al-Qaida plan, but how credible
is the information?

By Lisa Myers
Senior investigative correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 6:57 p.m. ET May 28, 2004

WASHINGTON - Earlier this week Attorney General John Ashcroft warned of an attack planned on America for sometime in the coming months. That may happen, but NBC News has learned one of Ashcroft’s sources is highly suspect.

A senior U.S. intelligence official previously told NBC News that this group has no known operational capability and may be no more than one man with a fax machine.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5087301/

Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, only the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can publicly issue such threat warnings. What made D.O.J. neglect DHS? Is FBI really so incompetent to reward suspects whom are in jail already?

The fact that D.O.J. didn't inform Homeland Security Dept. proved that there is no threat from Al Qaida. Feds didn't have any material evidence to send to DHS. They just picked up randomly some information from their old data file to create an "Al Qaida attack".

Then why Ashcroft and Mueller gave such a warning? It's a psychological pre-propaganda for a possible real attack - an attack done by Feds in the name of terrorist in order to distract. Such like McVeigh's excution to divert attention on a framed drug case (soured) in 2001; Michael Jackson's case to divert public's attention on Bush's inglorious London visit; Nick Berg's beheading to divert criticism on abusing prisoners' case.

See framed case D.O.J. tries to cover up at:

http://hometown.aol.com/kathaksung/myhomepage/profile.html
http://hometown.aol.com/sunkat563/myhomepage/profile.html
http://hometown.aol.com/katsung563/myhomepage/profile.html

If there is harassment (blank page, slow entering, server busy....) try

http://forums.delphiforums.com/police915/messages/?msg=25.1

[Timberwolf]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rotflmbo.gif

Ah geez, kat!! You certainly are amusing!! *choke* *guffaw*

You must either:<ul type="square">A) Do a lot of drugs, or
ii) need your prescription refilled!![/list]ROTFLMAO!!!

[kathaksung]

236. Help puppet Bush (6/24)

There are two events in June which I think were arranged deliberately at this time.
One is the Michael Moore's "9/11 Fahrenheit" will open to public on 6/25. Which will give a negative image for Bush. If there is a big bombing taking place on 6/19 or a little later, then the film will be neglected by public.

Another event was the report issued by 911 investigation commision which said there is no credible evidence that Saddam and Al-Qaida had cooperated to attack US. The panel disputes Bush's reasons to invade Iraq. It was reported by media on 6/17. This, too, could be neglected if there was a big attack taking place on 6/19.

If there was really an attack happened, Inside Group needed not to worry about these negative event. Bush would once again become a "hero in terror war". And other information 911 panel released would help to inflame panic and indignation against Islamic people. When media repeatedly to broadcast the picture of the collapse of WTC and the voice of pilots of hijacked plane. The effect is same like they broadcast the film of beheading case. US government is very active to start a psychological war to its citizens. To prepare for more war in Mid-East.

But the planned attack didn't take place. I think it's because my analysis in message 232, 233 revealed their plot.

When the planned bombing didn't come to offset the negative influence of 911 panel's finding and Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11", inside group came to help Bush.

1. Give out a poll to boost Bush. It's the old tactic. Poll is a tool Inside Group used to manipulte the mind of people.

Re: "Outlook on Iraq aiding Bush, Kerry loses lead from last poll
By Ron Hutcheson, Knight Ridder,
6/18/04, S.J.M.N.

Bush went from trailing Democratic Sen. John Kerry to leading slightly, 48 % to 46%.
The results of the latest Pew Research poll of 1,806 adults taken June 3-13. "

2. unusual support from rival on war with Iraq.
"McCain unites with Bush, shows support for Iraq war
By Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times
6/19/04, S.J.M.N.

President Bush and his old political rival Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, shared a military stage Friday to present an unusual joint defense of the war in Iraq."

3. Support from Democratic leader

Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq .....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html

4. Justify Bush's Iraq war by Russia leader

Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 19, 2004; Page A11

Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53096-2004Jun18.html

The surface of Clinton proves when it touches the interest of inside group, there is no partism. All politicians serve for their master: inside group. What surprised me is they even push out Putin to protect Bush. How eager they tried to save their puppet when their designated plan failed to carry out.

One thing interesting if you have noticed the date that media reported the defense from these big shots. Which may prove my prediction of 6/19 is correct. When I read these news, I knew the "terror attack on 6/19" was cancelled or postponed or delayed. Otherwise inside group didn't need these defense. In their plan, an "terror attack" would boost Bush's fame, and of course, distract the attention to a framed case.

[UnkHiram]

The sad thing is that their really are people out there like Cat who actually believe this nonsense. Rational arguments dont affect their beliefs, facts dont affect their beliefs. This is the main reason I cant stand Bunker Buddies.

[tacitus]

Kat you are a lunatic. I sure wish you'd go elsewhere and post your rantings.