Tubes!

All the terrorists and would-be terrorists are clogging up the tubes!

And no one has really defined what net-neutrality is.

Someone should get right on that.

“…�increasingly sophisticated use of the Internet and media� by terrorists and would-be terrorists…�

There it is: a couple of bad apples just had to go and ruin all the fun for everybody. Now bring the internet up here. That’s right. none of you gets to play with it now. You’ll get it back at the end of the school year.

This is why we can’t have nice things!

“…Bush has said on many occasions that the country must be prepared for a drawn-out battle against a new kind of enemy, and the new counterterrorism strategy released today says flatly that “the war on terror will be a long war.â€?”

ain’t that the damnedest thing? I coulda sworn I heard him say “Mission Accomplished!”

It says that among the strategies the United States must emphasize are making all sovereign nations accountable for what happens on their soil…

Soooooo…… if terra-ists blow something up on our soil, the US gov’t is accountable?

KnaveRupe confused! No unnerstand crazy wingnuttery! Make brain hurt!!!

You heard us. We’re making all sovereign nations accountable. Are you listening, Pakistan? Because now we really mean it. And stop sniggering, Saudi Arabia–we’ve got our eye on you, too.

All right, that’s it. Everybody out. Both you governments–out.

While the President may be correct in his analysis that the war on terrorism is expanding to other regions, he fails to see that his approach to the issue…particularly his decision to invade Iraq and the fact that progress in the troubled country seems elusive…may well be creating the new threats. Further, as he heightens his rhetoric in order to win votes by inferring that the origin of these extremists is Islam, he foments more animosity in more countries and the terrorism equation keeps growing.

If we concede that the President is sincerely motivated…and I might be inclined to concede as much…it nonetheless doesn’t make him right. Additionally, if his approach is wrong and it is actually inciting more terrorists, then his convictions simply amplify the problem and diminish the potential for him to chart a new course. In the end, his rhetoric may well be more dangerous if it is sincere…but one cannot argue that his recent remarks aren’t political. The fact that his politics stem from his ideology is no comfort to the many Americans that simply reject his conclusions. In fact, that merely makes it all the more important to counter his politics.

Read more here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com

“Daniel DiRito said,
September 5, 2006 at 23:00
…”

wow, that is so delicately nuanced. and reflective. and (dare I say it) thoughtful.

and dead fucking wrong.

it’s a deliberate policy to do all the things you claim Wuss Bush is doing inadvertantly. It’s by design, chum. all your apologetics, and qualifications, are “sincerely” pathetic.

they see war as being good for business; and yellin “Injuns!” makes all the good settlers circle the wagon and start shootin, on the wagon train master’s command, at anything out there that moves.

If you’re someone who’s been baptized in the holy water of 1800s capitalism, and your entire social class lives by using national military might to plunder foreign resources, then you’re not “sincerely motivated.” You’re simply malignant, a neanderthal, an anachronism, a blood-drenched bandit.

his approach and rhetoric may be creating more problems?! gee, d’ya think? and d’ya think maybe it isn’t accident (or “misguided”) that his comments are so designed that they inflame the inhabitants of most of the world’s oil bearing lands and create the very violence he both decries, and then profits by?! wow. now THERE’S a “thought.”

some “theater.” think I’ll go watch TV.

CNN’s story on Bush’s speech today made me want to scream. He pumps up Al Quaeda as being like Hilter and Lenin, and then he says they’re “weakened”.

His logic is like a Chris Muir strip. They’re not “the same” as they were in 2001 because they’ve “evolved.” But no wait, they’re still dangerous an’ EEvil. But because they’ve “evolved” and adapted that means they’re on the run. Uh huh. He says that like it’s a sign they’ve weakened – presumably, had they “stayed the course” it would have meant they were stronger? Or if they’d “stayed the course” which is the GOOD strategy we’re doing, we could’ve beaten them, or maybe not.

But they’re still EEvil.

Although they were really EEvil back in 2000 when they had a nasty training manual – but of course that was back when Bush himself ignored advice from Richard Clarke.

And then during the campaign Bush wasn’t all that concerned about Osama. But he was still EEvil! But adpative. And on the run. And in his last throes. But like Hitler! But not crazy, just an ideology. Yes, one of hate!!

And then the extremist Shias are learning tactics from the Sunni extremist Shias who are killling them, when they’re not being killed by the others. And then our friendly Shia Iraqis are being threatened by the extremist Sunnis except the EEvil Iranian Shias are learning terrorist tactics from the Sunnis, except for the Sunnis whose hearts and minds we’re trying to win over.

And Iraq is the central front on the war on Terra, except for Bali and Beslan and Lond.

OMG! The English had longbows, the Fascists (classical) had panzers, the Commies had nukes, now the IslamoFascists have the InterNET! How will we SurVIVE?! Is it time to convert?

One particular problem, it noted, is an “increasingly sophisticated use of the Internet and media� by terrorists and would-be terrorists, saying these tactics have allowed enemies of the United States to “rally support, proselytize and spread their propaganda without risking personal contact.

I think there’s a few typos in there. It should read: “One particular problem, it noted, is an “increasingly sophisticated use of the Internet and mediaâ€? by Jonah Goldberg and would-be Jonah Goldbergs, saying these tactics have allowed wingnuts to “rally support, proselytize and spread their propaganda without risking personal contact.”

Meanwhile, our “good friend” Pakistan sez to Osama, “We’re not even gonna try to catch you… as long as you ‘live in peace’ [wink].” Huh. As the old saying goes, “With friends like these….“

I’m home sick today, and I blame the Bush speech. I ate in Corporate Cafeteria II yesterday, and all the TVs there are tuned to all CNN, all the time! I got a truly excellent bowl of garden vegetable soup and a nice wheat roll, sat down with my friend to enjoy it, and then….

oh, the horror. I’ve been nauseated ever since.

If they’ve discovered the internets, there’s no telling how far they’ve come. They might be tuning in to CNN right now, listening to our appeasers and becoming suiciders. They might be reading the likes of the doughy pantload and realizing we’re…ok, bad example, even I don’t know what the f he’s talking about.
We’re doomed.

ABC’s ‘Path to 9/11’: Bill Clinton’s Inconvenient Truth
James Hirsen, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2006
“The Path to 9/11,” a six-hour miniseries scheduled to air September 10 and 11 on ABC, has certain former members of the Clinton administration in a panic.

The docudrama is thoroughly sourced and exposes information that former members of the Clinton administration had previously tried to suppress: that there was a failure on the part of the administration to respond to terrorism, inaction that ended up being partly to blame for the tragic events that took place on 9/11.

“Path” is based on the 9/11 Commission Final Report and the 2003 book “The Cell: Inside the 9/11 Plot, and Why the FBI and CIA Failed to Stop It.” New Jersey Governor and Commission Co-chairman Thomas H. Kean served as a consultant for the miniseries.

Cyrus Nowrasteh, the writer and producer of the project, told Jamie Glazov of FrontPageMag.com that he was given “an incredible amount of research materials and [access to] high-level advisors from the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Diplomatic Security, etc.”

The miniseries stars Oscar nominee Harvey Keitel (“Pulp Fiction,” “The Piano”), who plays the role of FBI agent John O’Neill. O’Neill is the FBI terrorism chief who attempted to convince the Clinton administration that it needed to deal with the danger that Osama bin Laden posed.

Ironically, after leaving the FBI, O’Neill took the job of security director for the World Trade Center. Along with thousands of others he died on that fateful September day.

The ABC Web site refers to the production as “an epic miniseries event,” and the plan is to air the program with limited commercial interruptions.

Because the program specifically deals with the Clinton administration’s failure to act when bin Laden was offered, a left-wing outcry has erupted on the Internet along with attempts to vilify the miniseries before it is even shown.

David Brock’s Web site carries an article with a headline that reads “Right wing uses ABC docudrama to push debunked claim blaming Clinton administration for 9-11.”

Pressure from the Left and from Clinton allies may account for an unusual posting by director David L. Cunningham titled “Clarification,” which was placed on the “Path” Web site.

It stated that the series “is not a documentary,” nor is it “a right wing agenda movie.”

“The team of filmmakers, actors and executives that are responsible for this movie have very different political views. There was no emphasis given to one party over another. By the way, we are also being accused of being a left wing movie that bashes Bush,” it also read.

The posting has since been removed from the ABC Web site.

Clinton colleagues Richard Ben-Veniste and John Podesta reportedly expressed their extreme displeasure about the way the docudrama portrays the Clinton administration. Their frustration likely stems from the extensive efforts that were taken to keep the information from being made public.

Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration and creator of the notorious wall that was erected between the FBI and CIA, served as a 9/11 Commission panel member. Because of potential conflicts of interest, the propriety of Gorelick’s membership on the panel was questionable.

Ben-Veniste’s role as a longtime partisan Democrat attorney made him another highly questionable commission member.

Sandy Berger’s bizarre and illegal behavior (the actions in which the former national security adviser from the Clinton administration stuffed classified documents into his pants and socks) actually occurred while the commission was in the midst of conducting its investigation.

In a 2002 speech to a Long Island business group, Bill Clinton detailed a 1996 offer from Sudan for bin Laden’s extradition. The speech was recorded by NewsMax.com as well as by the Long Island association that hosted the event.

In 2004 the former president admitted on CNN that he once publicly confessed to turning down an offer to have bin Laden arrested prior to the 9/11 attacks. But in true Clintonesque fashion, he unabashedly asserted that his admission was “not accurate.”

“What I said there was wrong, what I said was in error,” Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.

“Path” highlights the pivotal moment when the CIA and Northern Alliance had bin Laden surrounded and sought the necessary approval from the Clinton administration to go in and arrest the al-Qaida leader. The administration’s refusal to authorize bin Laden’s capture was apparently for political reasons.

Ostensibly, the 9/11 Commission was formed to determine how such an attack could have happened to our nation.

A combination of obfuscation by some committee members and a mainstream media bent on blaming Bush has prevented the real trail, which leads from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the 9/11 tragedy, from seeing the light of day.

“Path” may provide some long-awaited illumination to an event that has been partially shrouded in mystery — until now.

: CLICK HERE to hear Bill Clinton admit that he turned down Sudan’s offer to extradite Osama bin Laden. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/17/105341.shtml

“Path to 9/11” is partisan hackery based on lies, and it’s not even subtle. Which will not bother you a bit, you eat lies with gusto, as a true daughter of the Father of Lies might.

[…] Sadly, No! has more. […]