The US, UN & Iraq III

a
1. What's the Cuban national anthem?
Row, Row, Row Your Boat"

2. Where does an Irish family go on vacation?
A different bar.

3. Did you hear about the Chinese couple that had a retarded baby?
They named him "Sum Ting Wong."

4. What would you call it when an Italian has one arm shorter than the other?
A speech impediment.

5. What does it mean when the flag at the Post Office is flying at half-staff?
They're hiring.

6. Why aren't there any Puerto Ricans on Star Trek?
Because they're not going to work in the future either.

7. What do you call an Arkansas farmer with a sheep under each arm?
A pimp.

8. Why do drivers' education classes in Redneck schools use the car only on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays?
Because on Tuesday and Thursday, the Sex Ed class uses it.

9. What's the difference between a southern zoo and a northern zoo?
A southern zoo has a description of the animal on the front of the cage, along with a recipe.

10. How do you get a sweet little 80-year-old lady to say the F word?
Get another sweet little 80-year-old lady to yell *BINGO*!

11. What's the difference between a northern fairy tale and a southern fairy tale?
A northern fairy tale begins "Once upon a time..." A southern fairy tale begins "Y'all ain't gonna believe this ****..."

12. My, my, how times have changed. Years ago... When 100 white men chased 1 black man, we called it the Ku Klux Klan; today they call it the PGA TOUR.

13. Why is there no Disneyland in China?
No one's tall enough to go on the good rides

An Irishman walks into a bar with his cat and orders a large whisky for himself and a small one for the cat. He repeats this 3 times in 10 minutes. Then he orders another round and the bar man says no you've had enough. "Look" he says "if you don't give me a large whisky I'll knock your lights out". And the cat says "The same goes for your mouse".

FOR THE TRUTH:

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/onearmy.html

OK, so you've no doubt heard about the warnings from the intelligence community about Al-Qaeda maybe attempting another 9/11-style hijacked-airliner terror attack by the end of the summer.

So why then is our government pulling air marshals?



And why is Prezdint Smokemout leaving town for the month of August?



Is this starting to sound frighteningly familiar yet?

Adding this quote from today's papers to the above:

I heard (but cannot substantiate -- it came from rebel radio) that there has been an admission from ?Homeland Security? that alerts have been regularly used for political purposes? Anyone else come across that?

"Gee, I don't know how these rumors get started..."

Worldnetdaily.com 1/02

..."Unfortunately, we haven't made a lot of progress against al-Qaida or the war on terrorism," one FBI agent familiar with terrorism operations told CHB. "We've been spinning our wheels for several weeks now."

Other sources within the bureau and the Central Intelligence Agency said the administration is pressuring intelligence agencies to develop "something, anything" to support an array of non-specific terrorism alerts issued by the White House and the Department of Homeland Security.

"Most of the time, we have little to go on, only unconfirmed snippets of information," a second FBI agent, who also was not named in the report, said. "Most alerts are issued without any concrete data to back up the assumptions." ...

I wouldn't be surprised; that this administration wants to keep reminding us that they are doing everything for the American People. When we are constantly reminded that there is some threat out there of possible terrorist attacks on our land, it reduces other issues to the bottom of the barrel. c.i.

Mr. Rove won't like hearing that truth spoken...

I just don't see how it is to the administration's advantage to fabricate terrorism alerts. What does that gain them? I certainly suspect the government--regardless of the current administration--to mislead people when the government sees a benefit to doing so, but what do they gain by creating false alerts and then having nothing happen?

I'm not arguing that it couldn't be true, I'm stating that I don't understand the motivation behind doing it.

I love the way you always know which things are the truth. However do you do that?

Many years ago while living in the West I had the pleasure of watching a local weatherman make his prognostications. Now this weatherman had moved out West from back East, where it snowed a lot in the wintertime, but in the West it hardly snowed at all, but this guy could not get used to that so he predicted a little snow almost every single day. That's right. Every other day or so he would stick in a "we might see a few flakes" or
" there might be a dusting of snow in the higher regions." or "it will be mostly rain, but we might have a flurry." even when the chance of snow was about as good as for the return of Jesus, he sent out the word.
I used to bet the guys in my car pool a dollar he would do it, but they stopped betting after a particularly fertile period when he flurried, or flaked or dusted for eighteen days straight.
Now why would he do that? Pretty simple. On the three occasions when it did snow, he got to say "Well, we called it." And his ass was well covered by the flaky dusting of white.
==
It's mostly about looking good while you do what you want. That's the driving notion behind this administration's actions and words. Say the right words, create the image of that you are working hard when you haven't got a clue, say the right words about being compassionate, then cut the taxes of the rich and the benefits of the needy including the military men you so highly praise, say the right words about terror and create the image of watchfulness so that if the worst happens you can say "we told you so" and continue your policies of repression of rights in the land of the free, the home of the brave.
And your ass will be covered in red, white and blue.

Joe Nation

a
EDIT (Moderator) : Large image removed:

Link to image

scrat

Projecting a climate of danger and thus instilling fear in the population is a very old trick. If, for example, polls show that many think dems are weak on security and Bush strong, then Rove will (that's WILL) do pretty much anything he can up to the election to enhance the fear the population feel.

a
Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

- Hermann Goering

Gel

A timely Goeringism if ever I saw one.

we stand ever ready to blah blah blah ............ for truth justice ........ hi ho silver away

God really should have made an appearance there. Otherwise, a Picasso-like brush stroke.

Scrat -- Renana Brooks' article in The Nation in late June has been going the rounds and has formed basis for an interesting discussion started by BumbleBeeBoogie. Here's an excerpt which should explain the psychology of perpetual crisis:


To create a dependency dynamic between him and the electorate, Bush describes the nation as being in a perpetual state of crisis and then attempts to convince the electorate that it is powerless and that he is the only one with the strength to deal with it. He attempts to persuade people they must transfer power to him, thus crushing the power of the citizen, the Congress, the Democratic Party, even constitutional liberties, to concentrate all power in the imperial presidency and the Republican Party. Bush's political opponents are caught in a fantasy that they can win against him simply by proving the superiority of their ideas. However,
people do not support Bush for the power of his ideas, but out of the despair and desperation in their hearts. Whenever people are in the grip of a desperate dependency, they won't respond to rational criticisms of the people they are dependent on. They will respond to plausible and forceful statements and alternatives that put the American electorate back in touch with their core optimism. Bush's opponents must combat his dark imagery with hope and restore American vigor and optimism in the coming years. They should heed the example of Reagan, who used optimism against Carter and the "national malaise"; Franklin Roosevelt, who used it against Hoover and the pessimism induced by the Depression ("the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"); and Clinton (the "Man from Hope"), who used positive language against the senior Bush's lack of vision. This is the linguistic prescription for those who wish to retire Bush in 2004.

Renana Brooks, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist in Washington, D.C. She heads the Sommet Institute for the Study of Power and Persuasion (www.sommetinstitute.org) and is completing a book on the virtue myth and the conservative culture of domination.

Reprinted with permission from the June 30 issue of The Nation.


I think we'd be justifed in starting a movement called "Weenies for Bush." ("Hey, you skeered of them Bin Ladens? Vote fer Bush! You think we can take care of ourselves? Vote Democratic!")