"MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:jiM1i.6193$H_.971@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...

"Ben Turner" <BenTurner@notvalid.address> wrote in message
news:SxJ1i.10539$j63.1364@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

MioMyo wrote:

Since when is lying the truth, lib?

Who's a lib?

Other than "killing" which is not the same as "murder" in time of war,
Roger's theme is a big lie. The US has not stolen oil or anything, nor
has
it tortured, but that doesn't stop the constant drum-beat lying from
leftist propaganda claiming otherwise.

It's very rare to find an individual with your level of ignorance. I
don't
even know where to begin. Have you watched *any* media reports from
*any*
news organization over the last 6 years?

The greater more important question is, why do leftist practice Fascist
ideology by repeating a big lie hoping it will magically become truth?

I couldn't answer, I'm not a leftist.

I'm not a mass-murdering fascist supporter either.

Let's see it that's true. What do you think of Osama Bin Laden and the
other head chopping Islamo-Fascists??

Who the heck are the "Islamo-Fascists"? Is it the Sunnis or the Kurds or
the Shia or the criminal gangs or the pay and we'll play mercenaries? Who
are you talking about.

You on the right wing made up this name "Islamo-Fascist" and now your
being called on it. Who are you talking about?

MioMyo wrote:

I couldn't answer, I'm not a leftist.

I'm not a mass-murdering fascist supporter either.

Let's see it that's true. What do you think of Osama Bin Laden and the
other head chopping Islamo-Fascists??

Bin Laden. You mean the disgruntled, ex-CIA employee? I'm not sure what
to
make of him. Especially since he checked into an American hospital in
Dubai for 10 days of treatment July 2001. Seems that while he was there,
he was visited by the CIA station chief.(1) Keep in mind, Bin Laden was
supposed to be wanted for the U.S. Embassy bombings in 1998. (2) What
makes the situation stick even worse, several governments have offered to
take Bin Laden into custody for delivery to the US. Funny thing, those
offers were refused.(3)




1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings
3) http://tinyurl.com/ihu9
3) http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

I think an international body needs to investigate this
administration --
both the executive and the legislative bodies -- for crimes and
warcrimes. I believe those found guilty need to meet a Nuremberg-type
solution. Sooner rather than later.

The Truth and Facts don't equate to your beliefs, period!

Specifically what are you talking about?

My time is short and my patience also, but I have all the resources I need
in the stacks.

So....feel free to babble on. When I can get back to
you.... I'll be happy to hand you your head in a basket?

MioMyo wrote:

"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179070344.781199.9740@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On 13 Mai, 15:56, "MioMyo" <USA_Patr...@Somewhere.com> wrote:

"Ben Turner" <BenTur...@notvalid.address> wrote in message

news:y1E1i.9405$Ut6.7126@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Christian Williamson wrote:

Roger wrote:

If it was an individual who had done that to a family, would he
be allowed to stay at their house?

Wrong characterization. But what's new from the Left?

Since when does truth earn a label as left-wing or right-wing?
Truth stands
on it's own two feet.

Since when is lying the truth, lib?

Other than "killing" which is not the same as "murder" in time of
war, Roger's theme is a big lie. The US has not stolen oil or
anything, nor has
it tortured, but that doesn't stop the constant drum-beat lying from
leftist
propaganda claiming otherwise.

The USA hasn't tortured?

Correct and your below UK links prove me right. I don't believe water
boarding is torture. Now you're entitled to disagree, but I've seen
this lame liberal argument extend to the point that even "offending
ones sensibilities" or "denying ones enemies praying rugs", employing
"sleep deprevation" or "loud music (not to the point of damaging ear
functions though)" etc. to be considered torture. I disagree with
such liberals' revisionist definitions.

Lying again, Meow-Meow?

Again, I disagree with your definition of lying which amounts to
because you disagree with my political ideology, you equate anything
I say to be a lie.

Your vice-president thinks otherwise...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1933317,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6093298.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/09/wchen09.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/09/ixworld.html

Don't you have any pride?

Absolutely, I'm proud of America & to be an American; I'm proud of
President Bush & Vice-President Cheney; I'm proud to have served my
country honorably during the Viet Nam war and more.

You aren't proud of anything real.
You are just an *****.

OTOH, I'm ashamed of the democrat party and the demagogues in it such
as Pelosi & Reid. I myself used to be democrat until it turned into
the radical socialist party.

Shamed? This is what you ought to be ashamed of hypocryte.



EARLY 2001 - WHITE HOUSE DEPARTS FROM EFFORTS TO TRACK TERRORIST
MONEY: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton
Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an
important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden."
Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton
Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with
"loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new
National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: The Age of Sacred
Terror, 2003]

APRIL 30, 2001 - BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAYS BIN LADEN FOCUS WAS
"MISTAKE": The Bush Administration released the government's annual
report on terrorism, but unlike previous Administrations, it decided to
specifically omit an "extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind
Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official told CNN the U.S.
government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden."
Similarly, AP reported in 2002 that the Bush Administration's "national
security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior
to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of
those sessions." [Source: CNN, 4/30/01; AP, 6/29/01]


The federal government was rapidly increasing its counter-terrorism
efforts at the time President Bush took office. As the New York Times
reported, Attorney General Janet Reno ended her tenure as "perhaps the
strongest advocate" of counterterrorism spending. Similarly, Newsweek
and the Washington Post reported National Security Adviser Sandy Berger
was "totally preoccupied" with the prospect of a domestic terror
attack, telling his replacement that they need to be "spending more
time on this issue" than on any other. The focus changed dramatically
when the Bush Administration took office.


ADMINISTRATION SHIFTED LAW ENFORCEMENT'S FOCUS OFF OF
COUNTER-TERRORISM: The New York Times reported that in the lead-up to
9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft "said fighting terrorism was a top
priority of his agency," yet upon entering office, "he identified more
than a dozen other objectives for greater emphasis within the Justice
Department before the attacks." On Aug. 9, the Administration
distributed a strategic plan to the Justice Department highlighting its
new goals from a list of Clinton Administration goals. The item that
referred to intelligence and investigation of terrorists was left
un-highlighted. [Source: NY Times, 2/28/02]


ASHCROFT OVERRULED EFFORTS FOCUSED ON COUNTER-TERROR: Newsweek reported
that "in the spring of 2001, the attorney general had an extraordinary
confrontation with the then FBI Director Louis Freeh at an annual
meeting of special agents." The two talked before appearing, and
Ashcroft laid out his priorities for Freeh: "basically violent crime
and drugs," recalls one participant. Freeh replied bluntly that those
were not his priorities, and began to talk about terror and
counterterrorism. "Ashcroft didn't want to hear about it," says a
former senior law-enforcement official." [Source: Newsweek, 5/27/02]


BUSH ADMINISTRATION TERMINATED PROGRAM THAT TRACKED AL QAEDA: "In the
months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly
classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor Al Qaeda suspects
in the United States." [Source: Newsweek, 3/21/04]


SO LITTLE CONCERN FOR COUNTER-TERROR THAT A WHITE HOUSE TASK FORCE
NEVER MET: In January of 2001, the U.S. Government's bipartisan
Commission on National Security gave the White House a report that
warned of an attack on the homeland and urged the new Administration to
implement its specific "recommendations to prevent acts of domestic
terrorism. The Administration rejected the Commission's report,
"preferring to put aside the recommendations." Instead, the
Administration waited until May of 2001 to appoint Vice President
Cheney to head a task force "to combat terrorist attacks on the United
States." But according to the Washington Post, neither "Cheney's review
nor Bush's took place." Meanwhile, Newsweek reported that when senators
"sent a copy of draft legislation on counterterrorism and homeland
defense to Cheney's office on July 20," they were told by Cheney's top
aide "that it might be another six months before he would be able to
review the material." [Source: Salon, 9/12/04; White House release,
5/8/01; Washington Post, 1/20/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]


WHITE HOUSE BEGAN EFFORT TO CUT COUNTER-TERRORISM PROGRAMS: The New
York Times reported that in its final 2003 budget request, the
Administration "called for spending increases in 68 programs, none of
which directly involved counterterrorism...In his Sept. 10 submission
to the budget office, Ashcroft did not endorse FBI requests for $58
million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence
analysts and 54 additional translators. Ashcroft proposed a $65 million
cut for a program that gives states and localities counterterrorism
grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and
training." By comparison, "Under Janet Reno, the department's
counterterrorism budget increased 13.6% in the fiscal year 1999, 7.1%
in 2000 and 22.7% in 2001." [Source: NY Times, 2/28/02]


ADMINISTRATION LEFT "GAPS" IN MILITARY'S REQUEST FOR COUNTER-TERROR
FUNDS: The Washington Post reported that in its first budget, the White
House left "gaps" between "what military commanders said they needed to
combat terrorists and what they got." Newsweek noted that, among other
things, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld elected not to re-launch a
Predator drone that had been tracking bin Laden. When the Senate Armed
Services Committee tried to fill those gaps, "Rumsfeld said he would
recommend a veto" on September 9. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02;
Newsweek, 5/27/02; NY Times, 2/28/02]


ADMINISTRATION STOPPED PREDATOR FLIGHTS TRACKING AL QAEDA IN
AFGHANISTAN: AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin
Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did
not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight
months." Additionally, "the military successfully tested an armed
Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed
to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the
armed Predators" and the armed Predator never got off the ground before
9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]


WHILE CUTTING COUNTER-TERROR, THE WHITE HOUSE SENT FUNDING TO THE
TALIBAN: At the same time the White House was trying to cut
counter-terrorism funding, it gave "$43 million in drought aid to
Afghanistan after the Taliban began a campaign against poppy growers."
As the 5/29/01 edition of Newsday noted, the Taliban rulers of
Afghanistan "are a decidedly odd choice for an outright gift of $43
million from the Bush Administration. This is the same government
against which the United Nation imposes sanctions, at the behest of the
United States, for refusing to turn over the terrorist mastermind Osama
bin Laden." [Washington Post, 9/23/01; Newsday, 5/29/01]


MAY 2002 - BUSH ADMINISTRATION MOVES TO PREVENT INDEPENDENT INQUIRY
OF 9/11: Months after 9/11, Vice President Cheney went on Fox News to
announce the Administration's full opposition to an independent 9/11
commission. As CBS News noted, the White House "opposed a commission"
from the start, claiming "it would tie up officials waging the war on
terror - and endanger U.S. secrets." [Source: Fox News, 5/19/02; CBS,
9/20/02]


"The new administration seems to be paying no
attention to the problem of terrorism. What
they will do is stagger along until there's a
major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my
God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with
this?" - Paul Bremer, George W. Bush's future administrator in Iraq, Feb.
26, 2001.


Trent Lott Questioned by the Observer, London England, January 2001


Do you think it is fair that President Clinton is being accused of not
preventing the attack on the USS Cole?


LOTT: Well, in reality that is the way it is in America
and it is what makes us a great nation. True leaders must
handle difficult situations or have competent people
who handle those situations.
Sources did give information of a general nature to the
Administration and it is obvious that an attack still occured.
This is a more 'impeachable' offense than what was brought
before the Congress.
Fortunately, George Bush will in just a few days become
our President.
I can assure you that such situations will not be
mishandled by his Administration.
However general the information might be, the President-elect
will act with authority to prevent such tragedies.


--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com