Steven Gaal Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) START COLBY QUOTE In my experience obese people tend to be malodorous, is this another example of projection? END COLBY QUOTE GOLLY... Colby is a fountain of knowledge. LOL you label me a sociopath with “fetid lips” but object when I reply. "PNAC It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to 100 billion dollars," Yes they called for the US to “INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.” Since defense spending at the time was 3.1% of GDP that works out to a 13 – 23% increase not very radical especially since it would simply be a return to 1996 levels and not beyond what we would expect with Republicans controlling the White House and the House and at times the Senate. This is something they would have gotten with or without 9/11 http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=ms_mil_xpnd_gd_zs&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+military+spending "to deny other nations the use of outer space," Where exactly did they do that? What steps towards this supposed objective were taken after 9/11? Even if true what would it have to do with invading countries in central Asia? and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and preemptively in the world. The elimination of states like Iraq figured prominently in this grand vision. +++++ GOLLY offensively and preemptively sounds like invasion to me.....++++++++++++++++++++ Show where they called for any of these things in the “new Pearl Harbor” paper (link above) http://www.newsofinterest.tv/video_pages_flash/politics/misc_neocon_globalist/wolfowitz_pnac_nph.phpUTUBE VIDEO This video clip describes Paul Wolfowitz's involvement in shaping the U.S. Neoconservative foreign policy Based on the transcript the only evidence cited is a single out of context quote from the PNAC report. Greg Burnham on possible 911 foreknowledge Not Another Blue Ribbon Fiasco, Please By Greg Burnham 9-9-2 Two of the September 11th hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, were known to the intelligence community. The FBI was most certainly aware of them as a Bureau informant was one of their room mates. Unfortunately Mr. Burnham has proven himself not to be a reliable source and failed to provide any citations for his claims. Though he was indeed an FBI informant there is no evidence Almihdhar and Alhazmi roommate knew they were terrorists or informed the FBI they were in town. This is most important 911 link to show inside job. NSA doesnt help CIA on Al-Qaeda terrorism. WHY ? http://www.historyco...ch=on&search=Go You think that “is most important 911 link to show inside job”? LOL that was “February 1996-May 1998” 3 – 5 years before the attacks. Show us evidence the failure to provide the transcripts allowed 9/11 to happen, and show us where the sources for this story (Bamford, Scheuer, and Rossini) indicate 9/11 was an “inside job”. The answer to your question can be found in one of the 3 sources from your linked page, “[the NSA’s] policy since its founding has been to never share raw data, even with other intelligence agencies.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/spy-factory.html XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX= ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= )))))))))))))))))oooooooooooo))))))))))))ooooooooooo))))))))))))))= ++ ## PART ONE ## +++ NY Times ADMITS Scrubbing 9-09 Warning Bob Fertik Updated 2-21-02 On Feb 14, Democrats.com revealed that the NY Times "scrubbed" from its Web site a crucial warning about Osama Bin Laden that it published on 9-9-01 - just 2 days before Bin Laden's attack on the U.S. In response to our expose, the NY Times has admitted that it scrubbed the article (which was actually posted on 9-8-01) because the article was never published in the PRINT newspaper. This led us to ask: why was John Burns' prescient warning deemed NOT "fit to print"? Read our exchange and draw your own conclusion. We stick to ours: We believe it demonstrates the gross negligence of the CIA, NSA, Justice Department, and the White House in the events leading to 9-11. These agencies had MANY warnings, but the people at the top IGNORED them, at a cost of over 3,000 lives and billions of dollars. All of these screwups remain in their jobs! We demand a Blue Ribbon Commission on 9-11 and a thorough housecleaning - not a Congressional Coverup! From: Christine Mohan Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 Bob, here are the details about that article -- your publish dates are a bit off. The John Burns article was posted on the Web site on Saturday, Sept. 8 inadvertently, before it was approved for publishing in the newspaper. It was removed from the site a few hours later when its run in the paper was cancelled, in keeping with our policy that NYTimes.com runs only those news articles that have also run in print. John Burns updated the article to incorporate the events of September 11, and this article was published on the Web site and in print on September 12. Any other questions, please let me know. Regards, Christine Mohan spokesperson, New York Times Digital From: Bob Fertik Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 Hi Christine, Thanks for the clarification If this article did not appear in print on 9/8 or 9/9, would the Times care to comment on why it was not published then? Was an editorial judgment made? The information in it was so prescient, it seems hard to understand why it was not printed. Regards, Bob Fertik Democrats.com From: Christine Mohan Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 Articles for The New York Times are held every day for a number of reasons, including space constraints, breaking news, etc. Regards, Christine From: Bob Fertik Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 Hi Christine, Thanks again for your prompt reply. Unfortunately, I'm afraid the substance of your reply is quite insufficient. The article in question could have been published on 9-9, 9-10, or 9-11 (which was printed long before the actual attack), so space limitations surely cannot explain the failure to print this important article. As for "breaking news," I cannot recall any major stories those 3 days. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out how to retrieve archives of front page images - perhaps you could add that feature to your site. Surely there must be an editor who is willing to provide a more specific and responsive explanation as to why John Burns' article was not published before (or on) 9-11? Regards, Bob [no reply has been received] ###################### ++ PART TWO ++################################### FROM SPY FACTORY ...... TRADITION NOT LAW !! TRADITION NOT LAW !! TRADITION NOT LAW !! TRADITION NOT LAW !! ********** Golly some of these info requests after USS COLE ---Attack--- a act of WAR Traditionally, the NSA didn't share its raw data with those other agencies, an institutionalized reluctance that played a critical role in the failure to stop the 9/11 plotters. (Hear from Eleanor Hill, a former Staff Director of the House Intelligence Committee, on the myriad dangers inherent in such a tradition.)(PBS SPY FACTORY video) Fiddler on Roof (cast lyrics) = TRADITION ++ [TEVYE] Tradition, tradition! Tradition! Tradition, tradition! Tradition! [TEVYE & PAPAS] Who, day and night, must scramble for a living, Feed a wife and children, say his daily prayers? And who has the right, as master of the house, To have the final word at home? The Papa, the Papa! Tradition. The Papa, the Papa! Tradition. [GOLDE & MAMAS] Who must know the way to make a proper home, A quiet home, a kosher home? Who must raise the family and run the home, So Papa's free to read the holy books? The Mama, the Mama! Tradition! The Mama, the Mama! Tradition! [sONS] At three, I started Hebrew school. At ten, I learned a trade. I hear they've picked a bride for me. I hope she's pretty. The son, the son! Tradition! The son, the son! Tradition! [DAUGHTERS] And who does Mama teach to mend and tend and fix, Preparing me to marry whoever Papa picks? The daughter, the daughter! Tradition! The daughter, the daughter! Tradition! Edited May 25, 2011 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 Nice pigeon posting and pretty lame at that. Just what was damning about the article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now