there are republicans here saying these things too.

Cypress said:
Cawacko, you said this:




The "high level officials" are named in the article, and linked to original sources.

Wipe that egg off your face man. :)
Click to expand...
Again, none of them are named.

Those were the people he was asking about.

All of them are "former <insert title here>". Which makes it impossible to question, as you don't know which "former <insert title here>" it was.
 
Damocles said:
Again, none of them are named.

Those were the people he was asking about.

All of them are "former <insert title here>". Which makes it impossible to question, as you don't know which "former <insert title here>" it was.
Click to expand...

If you'd bother to click on the link, instead of drive by post, you'd see the hyperlinks to the original sources. "High officials" like Tommy Franks, Bob Barr, a Reagan Treasury Secretary, etc.
 
Those were named, with quotes, but were not part of the article, they were before it.

The ones we are speaking of is the "former Indonesian <insert title here>" that was not named. And the others, the ones in the actual article, none of which were named.

You are being disingenuous and are not reading the article. You are pretending again.

I know it is your regular practice to pretend, but here we can actually read the link and easily notice the pretense.
 
I'll highlight those salient portions again for you...

But would the government actually kills its own people to instill sufficient fear so that it can get what it wants? Read what the following very smart people are saying, and then judge for yourself:

A retired 27-year CIA analyst <-this is not a name and is not on the previous list...

who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:

"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."

The former CIA analyst <-here this person is again not named and therefore is not verifiable...

would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag

The former assistant secretary of treasury in the Reagan administration, called the "Father of Reaganomics", who is a former editor and columnist for the Wall< this one has a linke to PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS... definitely named...

Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service, and, said:

"Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?" He goes on to say:
Click to expand...

Anyway, there are several times in the article where it mentions things like "A former Republican Congressman" but never gives the name.
 
Damocles said:
Again, none of them are named.

Those were the people he was asking about.

All of them are "former <insert title here>". Which makes it impossible to question, as you don't know which "former <insert title here>" it was.
Click to expand...

"The former assistant secretary of treasury in the Reagan administration, "

Was Roberts comments from early 2007

The former National Security Advisor comments were from Brzezinski (under Carter.... go figure).... also from early 2007.
 
Also it should be noted that the blue words are links to the stories where the guy gets the quotes. It isn't all that hard to find out the names.
 
 
Damo, in this wonderful invention called the world wide web, if you go to the actual article desh posted, there are these magical things called hyperlinks that take you to the source, to the PERSON, who is being quoted:

Damocles said:
I'll highlight those salient portions again for you...

I'll highlight those salient portions again for you...


The former CIA analyst <-here this person is again not named and therefore is not verifiable...His name is Ray McGovern...click the link

would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag

The former assistant secretary of treasury in the Reagan administration, called the "Father of Reaganomics", who is a former editor and columnist for the Wall< this one has a linke to PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS... definitely named...

Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service, and, said:

"Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?" He goes on to say:

Anyway, there are several times in the article where it mentions things like "A former Republican Congressman" but never gives the name.His name is Bob Barr, which you would know if you looked at desh's article and clicked the link
Click to expand...
 
Damocles said:
Also it should be noted that the blue words are links to the stories where the guy gets the quotes. It isn't all that hard to find out the names.
Click to expand...

It should also be noted that "George" apparently likes to change the meanings of some of the statements made by paraphrasing with spin.

George states in the article....

"General Tommy Franks stated that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government"."

Tommy Franks actual comment....

"Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government. "

In addition he goes on to say....

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”

Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

Hmmm... wonder why george tried to paraphrase instead of using the ACTUAL quotes....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top