| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michelle Malkin" |
| Date: |
16 Nov 2005 12:00:26 AM |
| Object: |
What Are They Cooking Up In The White House? |
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=36399
Tomgram: Klare, What Are They Cooking Up in the White House?
We know one thing about the Bush administration, despite the
President's Veterans Day speech on the "irresponsibility" of "rewriting
history," he and his top officials -- possibly the greatest gamblers in our
history -- had no hesitation about writing their own ticket to history and
rejiggering the facts wherever necessary in the run-up to war. History like
intelligence was seen a malleable thing, something that would, in the end,
go to the victor anyway. It could be whatever they desired it to be,
whatever they thought would best help them panic the American people and
Congress into backing an invasion of their country of choice. And it could
be brought to bear whenever they thought it most useful -- or, in White
House Chief of Staff Andrew Card's now infamous September 2002 formulation
(speaking of the timing of promoting an invasion of Iraq), ``From a
marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.''
They had no qualms about elbowing the CIA aside, or using forged,
unreliable, or clearly inaccurate intelligence, or simple disinformation, or
just repeating endlessly things they certainly knew to be fictions in order
to make Democrats (who knew better) run for their lives and put a full-court
press on the media. They were happy to raise rhetorical mushroom clouds over
all-too-real American cities to panic Americans into their war of choice.
They had no hesitation (as far as we know) -- to cite a conveniently
forgotten absurdity of that prewar moment -- about sending the President out
in front of television cameras to announce the ridiculous in all fearful
solemnity: That, for instance, there was a danger Iraqi unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) armed with chemical or biological weapons might be sent to
spray their deadly mists over East coast cities or even hundreds of miles
inland. (Forget that the planes didn't exist and that, if they had, and if
the CBW weaponry had been available, the Iraqis had no way to get them to
the coast, or anything to launch them from.) When people want to talk about
what we may or may not have known about subjects like Iraqi WMDs, they
forget the baldfaced absurdity of some of the administration's claims -- or
exactly how unchallenged they went in the mainstream media. (I saw the
President make the UAV claim on television with my own eyes, by the way.)
And that was when they were riding high. Imagine what they might do in
desperation. In fact, Michael Klare, author of the indispensable Blood and
Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on
Imported Petroleum, does just that below, evaluating the various wag-the-dog
scenarios this administration might seriously consider using if its
situation grows too desperate and elections too near.
After considering these possibilities yourself, think about the
context. The signal from the recent hotel bombings in Jordan seems clear
enough in its own horrific way. Through its invasion and uniquely inept
occupation, the Bush administration has already created a "failed state" not
on the failed continent of Africa or in an economically or politically
peripheral land like Afghanistan, but exactly in the heart of the richest
oil lands of the planet. Iraq is now largely an anarchic world with a
central government hardly capable of commanding its own fortified heart --
the Green Zone of Baghdad -- no less much of the rest of the country; where
religious militias, terrorist organizations, and fractured insurgent groups
have the run of the land; where internecine killing is on the rise; and the
delivery of such basics of modern life as electricity and potable water (or
water of any kind) are no longer givens.
Whether some in the Bush administration meant to turn Iraq into a land
of "chaos" or not, they have certainly succeeded in doing so. Now, the chaos
is spreading across borders. The Jordanian bombers, after all, were Iraqis.
The targets, American hotels, were both soft and symbolic. But in the
future, they may be harder and even more vital -- oil pipelines or other
facilities outside Iraq, for instance.
Add into this formula for disaster, an "administration" in Washington
that is "uninterested in governing," as Jonathan Schell wrote recently in
the Nation magazine (focusing on what the post-Katrina world has revealed to
us, but Iraqis already knew all too well). "We all keep referring to the
'Bush administration,'" he added, "yet administering seems to be the last
thing on its mind... If the Bush outfit is not governing, what is it doing?
The answer comes readily: It wishes to acquire, increase and consolidate the
power of the Republican Party."
If administration is nothing to Bush's people and power is all, the
Klare scenarios that follow only seem that much more likely to be used, and
what the implementation of any one of them will certainly do is add yet
another chaotic pressure to the crumbling structure of our ever less safe
and secure world and way of life. Tom
Wag the Dog
Crisis Scenarios for Deflecting Attention from the President's Woes
By Michael T. Klare
In the 1998 movie Wag the Dog, White House spinmeister Conrad Brean
seeks to deflect public attention from a brewing scandal over an alleged
sexual encounter in the White House between the president and an
all-too-young Girl Scout-type by concocting an international crisis. Advised
by a Hollywood producer (played with delicious perversity by Dustin
Hoffman), Brean "leaks" a fraudulent report that Albania has acquired a
suitcase-sized nuclear device and is seeking to smuggle it into the United
States. This obviously justifies an attention-diverting military reprisal.
The press falls for the false report (sound familiar?) and all discussion of
the president's sex scandal disappears from view -- or, as Brean would have
it, the "tail" of manufactured crisis wags the "dog" of national politics.
As Brean explains all this to the White House staff in the film,
American presidents have often sought to distract attention from their
political woes at home by heating up a war or crisis somewhere else. Now
that the current occupant of the White House is facing roiling political
scandals of his own, it stands to reason that he, too, or his embattled
adviser Karl Rove (not to speak of his besieged Vice President, ***** Cheney)
may be thinking along such lines. Could Rove -- today's real-life version of
Conrad Brean -- already be cooking up a "wag the dog" scenario? Only those
with access to the innermost sanctum of George Bush's White House can know
for sure, but it is hardly an improbable thought, given that they have done
so in the past.
It bears repeating that this administration -- more than any other
in recent times -- has employed deception and innuendo to mold public
opinion and advance its political agenda. Indeed, the very scandal now
enveloping the White House -- the apparent conspiracy to punish
whistle-blower Joseph Wilson by revealing the covert CIA identity of his
wife, Valerie Plame -- is rooted in the President's drive to mobilize
support for the invasion of Iraq by willfully distorting Iraqi weapons
capabilities. Why then would he and his handlers shrink from exaggerating or
distorting new intelligence about other hostile powers, and then using such
distortions to ignite an international crisis?
Add to this the fact that a rising level of belligerence is already
detectable in the statements of top administration officials regarding
potential adversaries in the Middle East and Asia. Most striking perhaps was
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's truculent appearance before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee on October 19. Under questioning from both
Democratic and Republican Senators, she refused to rule out the use of
military force against Syria or Iraq, nor would she acknowledge any
presidential obligation to consult Congress before engaging in such an
action. Asked by Senator Paul Sarbanes (Dem.-Md.) whether the administration
actually "entertains the possibility of using military action against Syria
or against Iran" and "could undertake to do that without obtaining from
Congress an authorization for such action," she replied: "What I said is
that the President doesn't take any of his options off the table and that I
will not say anything that constrains his authority as Commander in Chief."
While insisting that the administration was still relying on diplomacy to
resolve its differences with Syria and Iran, she left no doubt as to Bush's
preparedness (and right) to employ force at any time or place of his
choosing.
There are many who claim that Bush could not possibly contemplate
military action against Iran, Syria, or any other hostile power at present.
American forces, they argue, are stretched to the limit in Iraq and so lack
the capacity to undertake a significant campaign in another country. At the
very least, these analysts overlook the massive American air and naval
capabilities hardly engaged in Iraq, and certainly available for use
elsewhere. But this is not the point. As Wag the Dog suggested, war itself
is not the only way to distract public attention from the President's
domestic woes. An atmosphere of crisis in which rumors of war or
preparations for war come to overshadow all else might well do the trick --
and administration officials don't need fresh armies to accomplish this,
only plausible scenarios for the escalation of existing foreign troubles.
These, unfortunately, are all too easy to find.
What then are the most promising scenarios at hand for such a
purpose? Many such scenarios might be envisioned, but the most credible
ones -- barring a major new terrorist attack on the United States -- would
entail a military showdown with Syria, Iran, or North Korea.
The Syria Option
Syria appears the most likely candidate for an instant stir-and-mix
foreign-policy crisis. To start with, it has already been branded a pariah
state -- both because of its suspected involvement in the assassination of
former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and because the Bush
administration regularly charges it with facilitating the entry of foreign
jihadists into Iraq.
The issue of Syrian involvement in Hariri's assassination arose
immediately following the February 14, 2005 bomb explosion that killed him
(and 22 others) in downtown Beirut. Because Hariri had long campaigned for
the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon, his supporters insisted that
Damascus must have played a role in the explosion. The United States and
Great Britain persuaded the U.N. Security Council to initiate an
investigation of the explosion. A preliminary report by the international
team formed to investigate, released on October 24, strongly suggested that
Syrian officials had played a key role in organizing the attack. Washington
and London then returned to the Security Council on October 31and pushed
through a resolution that calls on the Syrian government to cooperate fully
with the continuing investigation and make available for questioning any of
its top officials suspected of involvement. This resolution also warns of
unspecified "further action" -- an obvious threat of economic sanctions --
if Syria fails to comply. The ante was raised further on November 7, when UN
investigators requested interviews with six top Syrian officials, including
General Assef Shawkat, the powerful brother-in-law of President Bashar
al-Assad.
From the very beginning, the White House has seized on these
developments to portray Syria as an outlaw state and set the stage for a
diplomatic assault on the Assad regime. Condoleezza Rice has been
particularly harsh. After the October 31 resolution was adopted, for
instance, she declared, "With our decision today, we show that Syria has
isolated itself from the international community -- through its false
statements, its support for terrorism, its interference in the affairs of
its neighbors, and its destabilizing behavior in the Middle East." Then came
the clincher: "Now the Syrian government must make a strategic decision to
fundamentally change its behavior."
What changes must the Syrian government make? What are the
consequences if it fails to comply? There are no clear answers to these
questions, nor are there likely to be any. The intent, so far as can be
determined, is not to reach some sort of peaceful resolution of this issue
but rather to keep Damascus, and the rest of the world, on edge, expecting
some new crisis at any moment. This strategy -- "rattling the cage," as it's
known in Washington -- was reportedly adopted by senior aides to President
Bush at an October 1st meeting at the White House. According to the New York
Times, this strategy entails putting relentless pressure on the Assad
regime, forcing it to make humiliating concessions to Washington (thus
weakening it domestically) or face increasingly severe reprisals from
Washington and its allies
The public face of this assault is the diplomatic campaign being
waged by Condoleezza Rice and her associates at the Department of State. The
Department of Defense, meanwhile, is conducting the dark side of this
campaign, involving nothing short of a covert, low-level military campaign
against Syria, including commando raids by Iraqi-based U.S. forces into
Syrian territory. These raids -- first reported by the New York Times in
October -- are supposedly intended to impede efforts by Iraqi insurgent
forces or foreign jihadists to use Syria as a staging point for forays into
Iraq. Undoubtedly, however, they constitute but another component of the
"rattling the cage" strategy, designed to keep the Assad regime off balance,
tempting or provoking it into clashes with American forces that would only
provide a justification for further escalations of the attacks.
It is easy to see how this could lead to something closer to the
outbreak of full-scale military hostilities with Syria or, more likely,
escalating air and missile attacks. Indeed, military analyst William Arkin
of the Washington Post reports that the Pentagon has already commenced
full-scale planning for such contingencies. "U.S. intelligence agencies and
military planners [have] received instructions to prepare up-to-date target
lists for Syria and to increase their preparations for potential military
operations against Damascus," he observed recently. Such operations could
include "cross-border operations to...destroy safe havens supporting the
Iraqi insurgency" as well as "attacks on the regime of Syria's President
Bashar al-Assad." Attacks of this type could be mounted at any time, and
should be considered highly likely if Damascus rebuffs U.N. efforts to
compel testimony by its senior officials or if conditions worsen in Iraq (as
is likely).
The standoff between the United States and Syria has already been
ratcheted up to dangerous levels and could be intensified even further in
the weeks ahead if Assad refuses to turn over his brother-in-law and other
top officials for questioning (and possible arrest) by the U.N.
investigating team. Under these circumstances, it would be all too easy for
the White House to create a brink-of-war environment in Washington, possibly
by stepping up commando raids on the Iraq-Syrian border or by threatening to
bomb terrorist "sanctuaries" inside Syria. Even if such strikes were merely
hinted at, discussion of a possible war with Syria would monopolize media
coverage of the White House and so deflect attention from the President's
political woes.
The Iran Option
After Syria, the ongoing imbroglio over Iran's nuclear activities
represents the most promising option for a "wag the dog" scenario. This
dispute has approached moments of acute crisis before, only to subside
following a concession by one side or another -- and this could certainly
happen again. At present, however, a very serious confrontation appears to
be in the offing. While long in the making, the current standoff with Iran
hasn't been eased any by that country's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
who seems to be prone to making inflammatory statements. (Israel, he said
recently, "must be wiped off the map.") Nonetheless, the primary issue is
Iran's apparent determination to engage in nuclear activities viewed in
Washington as indicative of a covert Iranian drive to manufacture nuclear
weapons. Here, a bit of background is useful.
Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
and, in accordance with the treaty, has asserted its right to build nuclear
power plants and to construct the infrastructure needed to "enrich" natural
uranium -- that is, increase the proportion of the fissionable isotope
U-235 -- for use in its reactors. Over the years, however, Iran has violated
its NPT obligations by building uranium enrichment facilities out of sight
of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These
facilities include a plant to convert uranium ore into a gas, uranium
hexaflouride (UF6), that can be introduced into high-speed centrifuges which
separate U-238 from the lighter U-235, allowing for the gradual accumulation
of "enriched" uranium -- the raw material for both power reactors and, in
highly enriched form, nuclear weapons. The Iranians insist that they want
the enriched material for peaceful purposes only; but their concealment of
these efforts in the past leads easily to speculation that they ultimately
seek to accumulate highly-enriched uranium for a future Iranian bomb.
The Bush administration has already made up its mind on this
subject: "Iran [has] concealed a large-scale, covert nuclear weapons program
for over eighteen years," then Undersecretary of State (and now U.N.
Ambassador) John R. Bolton asserted on August 17, 2004. "The costly
infrastructure to perform all of these [enrichment] activities goes well
beyond any conceivable peaceful nuclear program," he added. "No comparable
oil-rich nation has ever engaged, or would be engaged, in this set of
activities -- or would pursue them for nearly two decades behind a
continuing cloud of secrecy and lies to IAEA inspectors and the
international community -- unless it was dead set on building nuclear
weapons."
Despite such American assertions, the IAEA and the international
community have not reached a consensus on Iran's ultimate intentions. The
IAEA has, however, repeatedly stated that Iran is in violation of its
obligations to fully disclose all nuclear-related activities and to abstain
from actions that could lead to the manufacture of nuclear weapons. In 2003,
a "trio" of European Union nations -- Britain, France, and Germany --
secured an agreement from Teheran to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment
activities while negotiations were under way for a permanent suspension in
exchange for a package of EU economic benefits. But neither these
negotiations, nor repeated IAEA warnings, have fully halted Iranian
enrichment programs. Now, the Bush administration is calling for an IAEA
resolution that would find Iran in full breach of its NPT obligations and
refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council for possible actions which
could include the imposition of economic and other sanctions.
At a meeting on Sept 24, the IAEA Board of Governors formally held
Iran in breach of its NPT obligations, but did not immediately refer the
matter to the Security Council, presumably to leave more room for
negotiations. President Ahmadinejad, however, has since rejected the IAEA
resolution, and Iran subsequently announced the resumption of UF6 production
in a strong rebuke to the EU trio. Meanwhile, Washington has stepped up its
efforts to persuade other states that Iran is determined to acquire nuclear
weapons. A showdown is likely in late November or early December, when the
IAEA Board next convenes.
Were this matter to be sent to the United Nations, it is unlikely
that harsh sanctions would be imposed as Russia and China, both allied to
Iran, sit on the Security Council and possess veto power over any vote. What
then might the White House do if Iran announces the full-scale resumption of
nuclear enrichment activities? Under such circumstances, a military strike
against nuclear facilities in Iran has to be considered a genuine
possibility. After all, President Bush has already declared that the United
States will not "tolerate" the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran, a
clear expression of his willingness to employ military force. In addition,
as early as last January, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker magazine
that U.S. Special Operations Forces units were already conducting secret
forays into Iranian territory to pinpoint the location of hidden nuclear
installations in preparation for any future decision to launch an attack.
Here again, the kindling exists for a full-blown international
crisis. Although the European trio along with Russia and China are
determined to avoid a military confrontation with Iran, the Bush
administration clearly feels no such inhibitions. It has already laid the
groundwork for air and missile strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and has
refused -- in Condoleezza Rice's phrase -- to take any "options off the
table." Even the strong hint of an impending assault on Iran would probably
push crude oil prices to stratospheric levels and invite anger and concern
around the world, but this may not be enough to deter Bush and his advisers
from initiating such a crisis if they saw no other way to boost the
President's approval ratings.
The North Korean Option
Although less appealing than the Syrian or Iranian options, a
scenario entailing possible conflict with North Korea is also likely to be
on any White House list of future provocations. This scenario is less
appealing than the others because everyone knows that an all-out conflict
with North Korea would probably produce a horrendous bloodbath and might
even trigger first an Asian economic, and then a global, economic meltdown.
Any move to crank up such a crisis to dangerous levels would also meet with
fierce resistance from China, Russia, South Korea, and the rest of the
international community. At the same time, however, North Korea has long
been branded an outlaw state and its nuclear-weapons activities are far more
advanced than anything conceivably under way in Iran. The Defense Department
also possesses a very robust air, ground, and naval presence in the region,
so a confrontation on the Korean Peninsula need not even require the
redeployment of American forces from Iraq -- as would presumably be the case
in a war scenario involving Syria or Iran.
North Korea is believed to have begun a secret nuclear weapons
program after the end of the Korean War. However, under the so-called Agreed
Framework of 1994, it pledged to cease all such activities in return for a
basket of economic and political incentives from the United States and its
allies. Both sides complied with some aspects of the agreement but balked at
others. The Clinton administration was well on its way toward resolving
these inconsistencies when George W. Bush assumed the presidency in early
2001.
Soon after taking office, Bush foreclosed any serious diplomatic
contact with the North Koreans and froze many of America's obligations under
the Agreed Framework. In his 2002 State of the Union address, he included
North Korea in his famed "axis of evil." In response, the North Koreans
announced that they were no longer bound by the Agreed Framework and had
resumed their work on the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Rather than deal
with Pyongyang directly on such critical nuclear-proliferation matters, the
White House insisted than any future negotiations had to be conducted on a
multilateral basis. China subsequently agreed to convene "six-party"
talks -- involving the United States, Japan, Russia, the two Koreas, and
itself -- for this purpose.
At a September meeting of the six-party group, the North Koreans
finally agreed to abandon their nuclear-weapons activities but only in
return for significant economic benefits from the other parties and
non-aggression assurances about an American attack. In subsequent
statements, Pyongyang indicated that any such step would be predicated as
well on a promise by the other participants to supply them with a
light-water nuclear reactor (that could only be used for generating
electricity). The United States has since ruled out any commitment of this
sort, but has suggested that various incentives might be provided once North
Korea commenced the irreversible dismantlement of its nuclear-weapons
program.
At this point, there is reason to believe that a peaceful resolution
of the dispute is within reach. China and South Korea have worked hard to
promote a constructive stance on Pyongyang's part, but it is a situation
that could turn sour again in a diplomatic instant. As if to highlight that
possibility, the United States has recently bolstered its military
capabilities in the area -- sending fifteen F-117 "stealth" bombers and
other advanced weapons to South Korea and announcing other efforts aimed at
isolating North Korea.
The Bush administration has many levers it could pull should a
decision be made to provoke a fresh confrontation with North Korea. No doubt
this would prove unpopular with China and South Korea, along with most of
the rest of the world, but it would be guaranteed to produce a crisis
atmosphere in Washington and so distract attention from escalating
Presidential problems at home. As a result, it cannot be excluded as a
potential wag-the-dog scenario.
Minus a microphone (or a leaker) in the Oval Office, it is
impossible for outsiders to determine what attention-grabbing scenarios
President Bush, his Vice President, and his closest advisers might be
discussing at the moment. To some extent, the state of play will be shaped
as well by the unpredictable actions of foreign leaders, especially the
leaders and chief aides of Syria, Iran, and North Korea. But if past White
House behavior is any indication, we can safely assume that the President's
men are considering every option for turning these foreign crises into a
compelling distraction from the administration's current political malaise.
They have already shown by their decisions in Iraq that they are prepared to
spill a lot of blood in pursuit of political advantage, and so the
possibility that a contrived crisis with Syria, Iran, or North Korea might
erupt into something much greater -- even a full-scale war or economic
meltdown -- may be unlikely to deter them from a wag-the-dog maneuver.
Michael T. Klare is the Professor of Peace and World Security
Studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of Blood and
Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on
Imported Petroleum (Owl Books) as well as Resource Wars, The New Landscape
of Global Conflict.
--
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: What Are They Cooking Up In The White House? |
17 Nov 2005 07:20:47 AM |
|
|
In article <UIGdnUUHkKUk6-fenZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=36399
Tomgram: Klare, What Are They Cooking Up in the White House?
I don't know, but it sure smells bad.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "marika" |
|
| Title: Re: What Are They Cooking Up In The White House? |
17 Nov 2005 12:10:25 AM |
|
|
Michelle Malkin wrote:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=36399
They had no qualms about elbowing the CIA aside, or using forged,
unreliable, or clearly inaccurate intelligence, or simple disinformation, or
just repeating endlessly things they certainly knew to be fictions in order
to make Democrats (who knew better) run for their lives and put a full-court
press on the media.
everyone has friends in the CIA
They were happy to raise rhetorical mushroom clouds over
all-too-real American cities to panic Americans into their war of choice.
it's just that they brag about it too much
They had no hesitation (as far as we know) -- to cite a conveniently
forgotten absurdity of that prewar moment -- about sending the President out
in front of television cameras to announce the ridiculous in all fearful
solemnity: That, for instance, there was a danger Iraqi unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) armed with chemical or biological weapons might be sent to
spray their deadly mists over East coast cities or even hundreds of miles
inland.
it;s more like bush you "works" for them, but doesn't do anything for
them
mk5000
"unlike scuplture or painting, technology art is vanishing. I f I had
made Electroplankton for the museum, there's be no way to leave it for
the next generation. For the first time, my work might last"--toshio
iwai
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Mosley" |
|
| Title: Re: What Are They Cooking Up In The White House? |
17 Nov 2005 09:14:07 AM |
|
|
marika wrote:
Michelle Malkin wrote:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=36399
They had no qualms about elbowing the CIA aside, or using forged,
unreliable, or clearly inaccurate intelligence, or simple disinformation, or
just repeating endlessly things they certainly knew to be fictions in order
to make Democrats (who knew better) run for their lives and put a full-court
press on the media.
everyone has friends in the CIA
They were happy to raise rhetorical mushroom clouds over
all-too-real American cities to panic Americans into their war of choice.
it's just that they brag about it too much
They had no hesitation (as far as we know) -- to cite a conveniently
forgotten absurdity of that prewar moment -- about sending the President out
in front of television cameras to announce the ridiculous in all fearful
solemnity: That, for instance, there was a danger Iraqi unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) armed with chemical or biological weapons might be sent to
spray their deadly mists over East coast cities or even hundreds of miles
inland.
it;s more like bush you "works" for them, but doesn't do anything for
them
Pardon me, Do you have an Balsamic Vinaigrette I can borrow?
.
|
|
|
| User: "marika" |
|
| Title: Re: What Are They Cooking Up In The White House? |
17 Nov 2005 11:19:11 PM |
|
|
Lester Mosley wrote:> >
Pardon me, Do you have an Balsamic Vinaigrette I can borrow?
I do, but its upstairs.
I used to have this client who came to court, with a paper in her hand
she kept calling -- including right to the judge - a subpenis.
I think they will be issuing a few subpenii very very soon to White
House employees
scooter started it
mk5000
"You know I never meant to see you again
And I only passed by as a friend
All this time I stayed out of sight
I started wondering why"--i wish it would rain down, phil collins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Mosley" |
|
| Title: Re: What Are They Cooking Up In The White House? |
18 Nov 2005 09:06:08 AM |
|
|
marika wrote:
Lester Mosley wrote:> >
Pardon me, Do you have an Balsamic Vinaigrette I can borrow?
I do, but its upstairs.
I used to have this client who came to court, with a paper in her hand
she kept calling -- including right to the judge - a subpenis.
I think they will be issuing a few subpenii very very soon to White
House employees
scooter started it
Well didn't Mama Bush tell them not to ride scooters in the house?
.
|
|
|
| User: "marika" |
|
| Title: Re: What Are They Cooking Up In The White House? |
19 Nov 2005 04:13:49 AM |
|
|
Lester Mosley wrote:>
Well didn't Mama Bush tell them not to ride scooters in the house?
she told them not to PAY for scooters in the white house
PAY, SHMAY, See, I know that's the one problem when I tell people
stories
about certain facts, but oh well, I'm not exactly complaining. I know
you
don't say that because you feel like you have to but want to, but
there's
always that part of me that thinks they'd be less likely to, if they
didn't
know my true finances!
oh well!
mk5000
"all that junk inside that trunk..
I'ma get get get get you drunk
get you love drunk off my hump
Whatcha gonna do with all that ***** "--my humps, black eyed peas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lester Mosley" |
|
| Title: Re: What Are They Cooking Up In The White House? |
20 Nov 2005 10:44:16 AM |
|
|
marika wrote:
Lester Mosley wrote:>
Well didn't Mama Bush tell them not to ride scooters in the house?
she told them not to PAY for scooters in the white house
PAY, SHMAY, See, I know that's the one problem when I tell people
stories
about certain facts, but oh well, I'm not exactly complaining. I know
you
don't say that because you feel like you have to but want to, but
there's
always that part of me that thinks they'd be less likely to, if they
didn't
know my true finances!
Ah but there are strange cases of inlfation that may cause a spike in
the retail sales of Aquamarines. This in turn would cause prices to
skyrocket on the various shopping channels. SNiff Sniff
.
|
|
|
| User: "marika" |
|
| Title: Re: What Are They Cooking Up In The White House? |
21 Nov 2005 12:56:24 AM |
|
|
Lester Mosley wrote:
Ah but there are strange cases of inlfation that may cause a spike in
the retail sales of Aquamarines.
it keeps the threead from tangling
This in turn would cause prices to
skyrocket on the various shopping channels. SNiff Sniff
Except for ShopNBC and ACn, I haven't seen aquas on HSN or QVC for a
really long time.
You watching 50 Minutes report on OnLine Gambling
mk5000
"NO NOT THEM.. DID I SAY THEM OR NOT?
THEM LIKE TO MOVE IT MOV... I'M GONNA SAY THEM
THEM LIKE TO MOVE IT MOVE IT
WE LIKE TO MOVE IT MOVE IT"--sacha baron cohen, I like to move it
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: What Are They Cooking Up In The White House? |
16 Nov 2005 03:56:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:00:26 -0500, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=36399
Tomgram: Klare, What Are They Cooking Up in the White House?
Illegalities and amoralities.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: What Are They Cooking Up In The White House? |
16 Nov 2005 04:01:57 PM |
|
|
TV's stoney wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:00:26 -0500, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=36399
Tomgram: Klare, What Are They Cooking Up in the White House?
Illegalities and amoralities.
The way Dumbs has been acting as of late, I was thinking a big batch of
bathtub crank.
--
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: What Are They Cooking Up In The White House? |
17 Nov 2005 10:26:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:01:57 -0600, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
TV's stoney wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:00:26 -0500, "Michelle Malkin"
<hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=36399
Tomgram: Klare, What Are They Cooking Up in the White House?
Illegalities and amoralities.
The way Dumbs has been acting as of late, I was thinking a big batch of
bathtub crank.
And delivering it via Air farce 1.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
