4 October, 2006

Lines

Posted by alex in Alex Linder, lines at 8:16 pm | Permanent Link


Jews are famous for their imaginary head ailments, imaginary stomach diseases, imaginary bowel disruptions. They’d be the last people on earth to invent imaginary atrocities.


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 08/01/06 Lines 64% similar
  3. 07/17/06 Lines 60% similar
  4. 07/31/06 Lines 60% similar
  5. 07/31/06 Lines 60% similar
  6. 08/01/06 Lines 60% similar
  7. 10 Responses to “Lines”

    1. jackumup Says:

      DON’T FORGET THIE IMAGINARY GREATNESS

    2. planter Says:

      Jew = smart nigger

    3. Zoroastro Says:

      Imaginary great artists, film makers and writers (ok, maybe I’ll give them one: Franz Kafka). Well, time to flush the toilet!

    4. BassistVoiceAuthority Says:

      So BIG BOSS JEW back at his ole shit. Ever wonder why BIG KIKE and all the other jews who deem themselves as VIP talk with that authoritative godlike low deep deep bass voice boom? Ever stranger for Big K since he has been living in the USA for 80 years or more and oddly never lost his foreign accent.
      Then again he was Nixons foreign policy SOS who ran the Nam War but you must ask yourself why he loved to see so many American boys come home in body bags and didnt want to end it knowing there was no fucking way without nukes it could have ben won especially fighting in jungles where the commie red Cong all fucked up on pure THC home grown pot could hide in trees or set boobie traps all over or in gook villages or infest their commie Cong whores with VD or Gonnereah for the unsuspecting GIs and even worse put razor blades up their pussy that cut the soldiers dick in half that was more painful than than any bomb.
      Bush and his desert bullshit is a piece of cake since where the hell can you hide in fucking sand?
      We know now that this jew mother fucker Kissinger was hell bent on killing up to a million GIs and like Bush advocated an endless war of death and destruction that he still gives the monkeyheaded piece of shit the same advice on in 2006.
      Jew was obviously involved in Nam because he ran the USSR with 10,000 nukes and Big Kike was no doubt playing both sides of the fence.
      How funny that jews are laying low like snakes after they started all this WMD bullshit with their puppet idiot and now we learn that Big Kike has been in the WH on a regular basis which explains a lot of shit.
      The only thing BOSS JEW wants to see is dead Americans and red ink and working both sides of the fence.
      Many ask how jew is working both sides of the fence today but that is simple since Wall St actually sets the fucking stock prices for the big oil stocks making trillions in skims and kickbacks so war of any kind is good as currently Wall St jew is cutting oil to keep their faggot loving Grande Ole Perverts in power here at election time plus Wall St jew has convenietly bumped the DOW to alltime highs conveniently before Nov elections too.
      Jew knows nobody will question lower oil prices or higher stock prices even if its obvious its all fucking rigged as jews always do.

      Kissinger’s “Salted Peanuts”
      and the Iraq War

      The National Security Archive Posts Original
      Document Cited in Bob Woodward’s State of Denial

      For more information contact:
      John Prados – 301/565-0564
      Thomas Blanton – 202/994-7000

      In the news

      “Kissinger’s Advice to Bush”
      By Timothy Noah
      Slate.com

      Washington D.C., October 2, 2006 – For understandable reasons, the George W. Bush administration has shunned comparisons between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam War. But in his latest book, State of Denial, Bob Woodward writes that Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state–and a secret (and frequent) consultant to the current president–has made the parallel explicit to the White House.

      According to Woodward, Kissinger recently gave a Bush aide a copy of a memo he wrote in 1969 arguing against troop withdrawals from Southeast Asia, an issue as salient four decades ago as it is now.

      Kissinger’s September 10, 1969, advice to President Nixon famously characterized withdrawals from Vietnam as “salted peanuts” to which the American people would become addicted.

      (Incidentally, Nixon underscored several passages in the document, according to State Department historians, and it is interesting to see what he regarded as noteworthy. They include references to: domestic anti-war sentiments; the unlikelihood of a speedy victory with current plans; the “disturbing” failure of the South Vietnamese leader to broaden his government, or to connect to “neutralist figures;” and the enemy’s apparent strategy to “wait us out” and produce “a psychological, rather than a military, defeat for the U.S.” Each of these concerns would surely resonate with American political and military leaders with regard to Iraq today.)

      The National Security Archive has obtained an original copy of the memo and today is posting it on its Web site along with commentary by Archive Senior Fellow and noted Vietnam expert John Prados, who recently edited a major collection of declassified documents on the Vietnam War. The commentary provides some historical context for the document and draws parallels and distinctions between the situations then and now.

      ——————————————————————————–
      Kissinger’s “Salted Peanuts” and the Iraq War
      By John Prados

      It is important to view Kissinger’s advice in his September 10, 1969 memo to Nixon in its appropriate context. The specific circumstances of this advice are these: a first cosmetic withdrawal of 25,000 American troops from South Vietnam had already begun. The Nixon administration faced a decision about further withdrawals, while the president struggled to craft a strategy under which he could coerce North Vietnam into ending the war on Nixon’s terms. Nixon and Kissinger had already begun to make threats to Hanoi, through third parties, that the United States would undertake a destructive bombing campaign against the North absent new concessions from Hanoi. The antiwar movement in the United States had declared a national mobilization and planned a campaign of massive Marches on Washington, to begin on October 15, 1969, and continue monthly thereafter. Nixon’s immediate problem was to defuse political opposition sufficiently to provide him freedom of action in Vietnam. The problem was clear to the White House: as Kissinger notes in his memoir for this period, “The turbulent national mood touched Nixon on his rawest nerve.” (Note 1)

      There is a broader context that sets the stage for this. By 1969 the Tet Offensive had taken place, the American public had turned irrevocably against the Vietnam war, the Johnson administration had changed course on the war, halting further troop reinforcements, stopping the bombing of North Vietnam, and moving to begin a process that it called “Vietnamization,” which entailed handing prosecution of the war over to South Vietnamese forces while bringing American troops home. As Secretary of Defense, Clark M. Clifford presided over the spring 1968 policy review that led President Lyndon B. Johnson to this transformation. (Note 2) Clifford (whose views on withdrawal are in a way parallel to the November 2005 call by Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha for a pullout from Iraq) also laid the groundwork for Vietnamization-and the initiation of American withdrawals-during a visit to Saigon that July. As he puts it, “I told the Vietnamese leaders that in the absence of visible progress the American public would simply not support the war effort much longer.” (Note 3)Clifford and the South Vietnamese leaders then went to Honolulu where, at a summit meeting with President Johnson, the basic agreement on Vietnamization was made. (Note 4)

      Richard Nixon had actually won the 1968 presidential election on a promise of ending the Vietnam war. In office, Vietnam strategy, like Iraq strategy for President Bush, became one of the most delicate issues with which he had to deal. The incoming president used an interagency national security study in the spring of 1969, culminating in discussions at the National Security Council (NSC), to set his new course. The discussion at the NSC on March 28, 1969, clarifies the real content of Nixon’s policy. In considering “de-escalation,” Kissinger explicitly portrayed it as a device to reduce American casualties which, in his view, “strengthens our staying power.” When the president asked whether de-escalation meant unilateral U.S. withdrawal from South Vietnam, Kissinger answered “no.” Nixon then turned to the withdrawal issue and pictured it as tying American pull-outs to North Vietnamese ones, a subject for negotiations with Hanoi. “We should agree to total withdrawal of U.S. forces,” Nixon said, “but include very strong conditions which we know may not be met.” He went on, “There is no doubt U.S. forces will be in Vietnam for some time . . . but our public posture must be another thing.” (Note 5)

      In view of American politics and U.S. military programs that strategy was not sustainable. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, most importantly, insisted on a continuation of the troop withdrawals. (Note 6) The U.S. military accepted the goal of withdrawals from Vietnam as a measure of merit in much the same fashion as it had previously worked to enhance deployments. For example, on July 24, 1969, at a meeting with South Vietnam’s defense minister, U.S. military commander for Vietnam Creighton V. Abrams frankly reported that his plan for the next phase of withdrawal had to be completed by early August and would be in Washington by the middle of that month. Abrams frankly told the Vietnamese, “I have discussed this with [Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman] General Wheeler, and he knows what this contains. And he agrees with the number. He agrees with the rationale.” (Note 7)

      This was the specific proposal on which Henry Kissinger commented in his September 10, 1969 memorandum. Kissinger’s purpose here was to give the president a rationale for minimizing U.S. troop withdrawals under the latest redeployment plan, thus preserving the Nixon policy adopted that March. While acknowledging the antiwar opposition and upcoming demonstrations, Kissinger supplies Nixon with a number of arguments: that Vietnamization cannot “significantly reduce the pressures for an end to the war,” that “withdrawals of U.S. troops will become like salted peanuts to the American public,” that the withdrawals would encourage Hanoi,” and more (see the document). Kissinger was so confident in his analysis that he reprinted the entire “salted peanuts” memorandum-at a time when it remained a classified document-in his 1979 memoir. (Note 8)

      Handing this same document to a president befuddled by the dilemmas of the Iraq war, Kissinger himself made the parallel to Vietnam but he retailed advice created for a situation that had significantly different structural elements. Nixon and Kissinger in 1969 were attempting to use negotiations with Hanoi to regulate pressures for American withdrawal from Vietnam. President Bush has no equivalent device available to him. When “salted peanuts” was concocted, Nixon and Kissinger faced a relatively stable military situation in Vietnam in which the adversary had been badly damaged in previous fighting. President Bush faces a deteriorating military situation in which not only have U.S. forces not been able to destroy the enemy, but new religious forces have taken the field against their own countrymen. Most important, where the Saigon government may have been restive under American tutelage, it still shared a basic interest with Washington in fighting Hanoi, whereas there is no significant identity of interest between the Bush administration and the government in Baghdad, which is actually dominated by religious forces inimical to U.S. goals. Kissinger’s advice to Bush amounts to an appeal to do nothing differently in a situation where clear-eyed reassessments appear to be increasingly essential by the day.

      ——————————————————————————–

    5. Zoroastro Says:

      How old is kissinger anyways? He really seems to have been around for centuries? One of the most evil, scariest crooks ever. This is one case when one can even hark back to David Icke’s off-the-wall “lizard-shape-shifter” nonsense…If there ever existed a shape-shifting human-lizard, kissinger fits the bill to a T!

    6. Shabbos Shabazz Says:

      “How old is kissinger anyways?”

      A really interesting question. It would be nice if we had an easy way of finding out. . .

    7. jackumup Says:

      Why Are so many jews in acting?
      Because acting is lying and they do that natually

    8. Celtic Warrior Says:

      What really annoys me are the so-called “great jewish scientists”. Can anyone think of a bigger bunch of phonies and plagiarists? Since jews got control of high-energy physics their pet theories have become replete with Talmudic mumbo jumbo.

    9. van helsing Says:

      ADD… ADHD… restless leg syndrome… there is a list of these on the web somewhere…

    10. bryan o'driscoll Says:

      This senior vampire is 89 now, and still causing harm to our race. These awful scum seem to live very long lives. Teller, who enriched the world with the hydrogen bomb, was 95 before he went to hell. Kaganovich, who precided over the murder of twenty million gentiles, was 98 when he died in his apartment in Moscow still receiving his state pension. Ex kapo Wiesenthal, holohoaxer supremo, was 97 before he went to hell. They seem to thrive on their evil activities.