Are More Terrorists Being Created Than Destroyed?

I am sitting on saturday night reading and open this story. I laughed till I cryed! This is kind of like the study to see if the bear shits in the woods. As I read through it though my reaction was more of; finally they are going to do something. My next thought was this is their plan to allow them to pull out on the "facts". Of course the people that knew this stuff all along...they are just agitators and idiots and those that hate America...or leaders.


A new counterterrorism strategy devised by the Pentagon will measure and review military operations to determine whether or not more terrorists are being stopped or "created," according to a New York Times article slated for Sunday's edition, RAW STORY has learned.

The Times obtained an unclassified version of the plan that "for the first time orders the military to focus on nine areas identified as necessary for any terrorist network to operate."
According to an unnamed Pentagon official quoted in the article, since September 11, 2001 more than thirty new Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organizations have emerged.

Welcome To Government Intimidation

This Tom Toles cartoon has the govmint reeely mad.

The letter to The Post, signed by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the vice chairman and the service chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force, said: "We believe you and Mr. Toles have done a disservice to your readers and your paper's reputation by using such a callous depiction of those who have volunteered to defend this nation, and as a result, have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds.

Fear Fear Fear, Guilt, Guilt, Guilt

Me the bonehead public would like to challenge you that you don't even understand the cartoon. When I look at this I see it as a strike on Donald Rumsfield. That Donald Rumsfield is uncaring and and an apologist. If you want to debate that fine, but it is a salute to our veterans. How many freakin times do they have to win this war!? How now can they make a positive contribution? When does that contribution become less than the cost? That's what I see when I look at it but I'm just another apelike liberal agitator citizen. Thank you liberal media.

Sunday Editorial

Disaster

I wanted to post this up the page again with some addendum at the end.

I Feel Sooooo Protected!

One of the favorite memes of wingnuttery is that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 and that shows how well the pResident is protecting us.
Well gee, many other countries have been attacked, arguably because of our escalation of hostilities. It's not like kill'em all has been a great success.
Frankly the reason we have not been attacked since 9/11 is that our leaders are doing a good job of destroying everything themselves.
Who needs another attack when we are spending ourselves into bankruptcy to fight what amounts to a small fraction of the human population. Who are, buy the way, spending comparatively miniscule amounts in this fight.
Who needs another attack when our own government fills us with terror and fear of a juggernaut of an enemy who will destroy us all if we don't bend to our dear leaders will.
Who needs another attack when large swaths of world population is turned against us...by our own actions.
Who needs another attack when our own dear leaders are willing to shred our constitutional balance of powers and defeat the will of the people. The true strength of our country.
Who needs another attack when the issue it's self can cause our country to divide to the point of a perception of Americans and Non-Americans.

Seems to me that the terrorists got the ball rolling and lateraled to King Georges realm. They've picked it up and run with it quite well. Touchdown George!

From Donkeys' comments:
Bush declared he will not be bound by international treaties and conventions.This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. Bush said that when it comes to countering terrorism, “Anything we do to that effort, to that end, in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law.” Will,we the people, allow Bush to emerge as an absolute ruler who can do whatever he wants , with no checks, balances or oversight from any other branch or agency of government? Is this how the Republic will die? With people to stupid to care?

Now we also have "signing statements". Translation? Permission to lie.

Lessons On The Liberal Media

Part 1

Liberal war opponents were clearly correct about the self-defeating stupidity of Bush's Iraq misadventure, but pundits treat their foresight as a kind of disqualifying handicap. Mallaby's colleague Richard Cohen lauded Joe Biden because he "voted to authorize the president to go to war but has since characterized that vote as 'a mistake,'" which, Cohen notes, "approximately reflects my own position." Woe unto those who were right in the first place. Among media war boosters, George Packer cannot find room in the 467 pages of his celebrated war history, The Assassins' Gate, for the words "I was wrong." Those who recognized the Bush Administration's lethal combination of dishonesty, ideology and incompetence--in plain view at the time--are dismissed by Packer as possessing "second-rate minds."

More importantly....Part 2

When Bill Clinton lied about a few blowjobs, the Washington press corps treated his actions as a threat to the Republic. As John Harris observes in his history of the period, The Survivor, on the night Clinton offered his prime-time, post-testimony national apology, network commentary was overwhelmingly negative. Calls for Clinton to resign reigned on pundit television and on the op-ed pages throughout the ordeal--often couched in terms of doing so "for the children." But Clinton pollster Mark Penn would soon find, Harris explains, that "a clear majority of viewers thought Clinton's remarks were fine.... It was only hard-core Republicans and political 'elites'--the kind of people quoted by the networks--who were dissatisfied with the speech." This would prove, Harris observes, "a vivid example of the dichotomy in public opinion that had existed all year." Indeed, Clinton's approval rating hovered between the mid-sixties and the low seventies through the entire ordeal.
Oddly, given the many obvious and quite consequential differences between a blowjob and a botched war effort, the Washington press corps appears to have reached a consensus that the former is a far more serious matter...........

While the punditocracy, much like a scorned lover, resented Clinton, it cannot shake its affection for Bush, no matter how much contempt he showers on their collective heads. As Chris Matthews proclaimed, "Everybody sort of likes the President, except for the real whack-jobs." Today the percentage of Americans who say they actually "like" Bush, according to a New York Times/CBS Poll, is 37 percent. That figure is consistent with Harris Interactive polls reported around Thanksgiving, just before the above statements were made, showing that about 64 percent of Americans believe the Bush Administration "generally misleads the American public on current issues to achieve its own ends...while fewer than a third of Americans believe the information provided by the Administration is generally accurate."
But the insider press corps cannot connect Bush's war lies to his unpopularity, because it has so much difficulty acknowledging either one. Nor have its members--so many of whom, not just Judy Miller, helped lay the groundwork for this Administration's criminal deception by parroting its lies and propaganda--seen fit to take responsibility for their role.

I understand that tv in general is a relative evaluation. If you think every show should be like a church service then certainly the media, in general, is quite liberal. Frankly because most people in the real world don't think every show should be like a church service. When it comes to news and politics thinking we have a "liberal media" is a thought for the truly brainwashed or those with a very low ability to make a cognitive thought. A few "facts" here and there is not proof. The overall storyline is.(read above again if you don't get this, and click on the links). Thank you for learning. Believe me, many of us (would) appreciate it greatly.

Bravo!

This comes from the comments in the Coffee Table. Everyone needs to read this. Anon, my finest applause.

the paper had a hit piece by corporate whore Roger Hernandez attacking Evo Morales of Bolivia as against free choice,multiple party politics and ending elections. You want to go ahead and make that a reality just keep supporting the administration and others who try to hammer down Any attempt to stand up against global corporatism. Morales already said he wants to work with the U.S. but not be dominated by them. Of course, Hernandez said that all the right thinking people in the world realize we need a "global system run by the United States". Such hypocrits and whores don't care about what is true or right just who is doing it and to whom. The only thing I would disagree with Morales on so far is that he said if the U.S. does not cooperate then he may seek help from China. That is worrisome on several points. The Daily Record of course pitched in its part on the propaganda with the headline they used for the hit piece. Hernandez also lauded how wonderful the supposedly left of center Bachelet who was recently elected in Chile was. Well, she certainly won on a left of center platform with a left of center party, but so far she has voiced nothing about correcting the "free market" corporate running of the country that has led to the widest discrepancy of income of any South American country, a regressive tax system and a failed privitized social security system. And she was even abused during the Pinochet regime. Remember Pinochet? When Chile's experiment with democracy back in the 70s elected Allende, the U.S. government/corporate system complex had him not so covertly overthrown. Pinochet then came to power with his reign of terror and even after he left the nation has continued as a neoliberal/neocon economics lab, not to the benefit of the average working Chilean of course. But the American public largely has remained uneducated and miseducated about the reality of the situations in Chile and Bolivia among other places thanks in large part to our sensationalist and mind dulling "liberal" media. Of course some people don't really care. As long as the people of the world allow themselves to be led by assorted criminals and con artists there won't even be a chance for peace or justice. Some true progress could be made in Bolivia and Morales could be held accountable but only if the dealings with them are respectful and intelligent and not subservant to the whores of greed and war or by people blindly waving flags and reciting nationalist propaganda and corporate adthink. Remember, the people of Bolivia can turn to and be controled by the same mindset when pushed enough. Think Hamas and Al Queda.

Coffee Table

Sorry folks. Computer was down..up and running good now. More on the way. In the meantime tell me what it is.