Tuesday, September 26, 2006

The next battle

Maybe you noticed how Iran President Mahmoud “Mojo” Ahmadinejad concluded his remarks at the United Nations last week—a prayer for the coming of the Islamic messiah, the Mahdi, a.ka. the 12th Imam. Anyone starting to get the idea he’s serious about this?

Well, if he really wants to bring forth the Mahdi, Mojo’s got to keep stirring the pot. The 12th Imam, they say, will only come when the forces of Islam are in all-out conflict with the infidel. So far, Iran nuclear brinkmanship hasn't quite done it. And now Israel and Hezbollah are in a cease-fire. So, what’s next?

Look for an attack upon Kurdistan in northern Iraq by the Turks and Iranians. The Turks have coveted this region for ages, and Mojo no doubt would love to help them. See reports of a suspicious military build-up that could presage just such an attack.

The danger for us is that Mojo knows that the United States cannot stand idly by and allow its client, Iraq, to be blatantly attacked. This could well do what his other schemes so far have failed to accomplish—i.e., draw us into direct conflict with Iran. Keep watching for this; it could blow real soon.

Home of the whopper

Boy, does this ever show up the difference between the distributed intelligence network of the blogosphere and the lazy, partisan dishonesty of the old elite mainstream mediocracy. Bill Clinton has the unmitigated chutzpah to tell whopper after whopper after whopper to Fox News. Why? Because he knows his buds in the old mainstream mediocracy won’t call him on it.

But we will. The folks at GOP.comhave done the hard work that ordinarily you’d expect professional journalists to do—i.e., check the actual facts. But Willie—on the principle of telling lies so outrageous that it won’t occur to most people to question—can dare the media to read Richard Clarke’s book or the report of the 9/11 Commission with impunity because he’s calculated, correctly, that the mainstream mediocracy ciphers won’t do it. They’re too busy with deadline pressures—and too lazy, partisan and dishonest.

One example:

MYTH: President Clinton Said Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda Had Nothing "To Do With Black Hawk Down":

Former President Bill Clinton: "There is not a living soul in the world who thought Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down ..." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)

FACT: Experts Agree, Black Hawk Down Was Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda's "First Victory" Against The U.S.:

Osama Bin Laden Considered Black Hawk Down His First Victory Against The U.S. "The international community turned away from the country after a 1993 battle that killed 18 U.S. troops the basis for the 'Black Hawk Down' book and movie and a U.N. peacekeeping mission ended in failure in 1995. Osama bin Laden considered the subsequent withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia his first victory against America." (Nick Wadhams, "New U.S.-Organized Group Lends Support To Somalia's Weak Interim Government," The Associated Press, 6/15/06)

· Mark Bowden, Author Of Black Hawk Down: "The lesson our retreat taught the world's terrorists and despots is that killing a few American soldiers, even at a cost of more than 500 of your own fighters, is enough to spook Uncle Sam." (Mark Bowden, Black Hawk Down, 1999, p. 355)

OK. One more, even more abbreviated:

MYTH: President Clinton Said Richard Clarke Was Nonpartisan And "Loyal" To All Presidents He Worked For:

FACT: Richard Clarke Had Close Ties to Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) 2004 Campaign And Was Used By Liberal Groups Trying To Defeat President George W. Bush.

This fact checker is a must read. See also political strategist Dick Morris, who knows the Clintons all too well, and his take on all this. In Willie’s rush to protect his “legacy,” he has only indelibly cemented his other legacy as a world-class pathological liar--as well as the mainstream's mediocracy's legacy as a bunch of shameless whores.


Blogger Calvin Howard said...

you're ignorant. Bill clinton did not say that bin laden was not responsible for black hawk down. HE said that at the tiem no one even suspected a promenent wealthy oil king of saudi arabia to organize such an act against the united states. He was putting you in the time. No one knew THEN it was Osama if you could even say we know today. YOu say it is fact that experts agree it was Bin Laden, and reference Bin Laden taking responsibility. pay attention and tell me how many unverified, and disproven claims to terrist attacks are there? Weather he did it or not bin laden would want to be known for it.

In your second crtitic of Clinton you say that he lied when he said Richard Clarke was a non-partisan individual, and loyal to all presidents he served....

If someone participates in our democratic system and votes, and supports the individual he thinks is the most qualified. not according to party alignment. he is non-partisan, and I think it would be a stretch to bring forth any evidence of him defiing an in office president, and expressing dis-loyalty

5:00 AM  
Blogger Roscoe Daley said...

OK, then. Let's hear you explain away the other 99 lies.

9:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home