The jewmedia lies to fulfill an agenda.

So what else is new?

Government deception (5/13)

When Bush said what happened in Abu Ghuraib prison was done only by a few people and high ranking military officials denied they knew anything about it. It was a lie. They knew it clearly.

Quote, "Red Cross report details abuse, mistaken detentions in Iraq.
By Bob Drogin
Los Angeles Times.

Washington - Coalition military intelligence officials estimated that 70 to 90 percent of prisoners detained in Iraq since the war began last year "had been arrested by mistake," according to a confidential Red Cross report given to the Bush administration earlier this year.

The report described a wide range of prisoner mistreatment - including many new details of abusive techniques - that it said US officials had failed to halt, despite repeated complaints from the International Committee of the Red Cross. "(S.J.M.N. 5/11/04)

As a matter of fact, torture is a method intelligence used to squeeze information from detaineers. US government cover it up with fake news, disinformation and lies. The death of Saddam Hussain's sons was a typical example.

News reported Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay, along with other two people, were all died in a six hours' long battle against 200 US soldiers. But forensic analysis revealed that Uday and Qusay were tortured before their death. There is an article with pictures and details on it.

Quote, "America's Uday and Qusay Conjuring Trick
Latest White House lies reveal larger hidden untruths

Unfortunately the forgery team completely forgot to use any putty around the ankles..... If you look at the color picture of the two cadavers lying side by side, the one on the right has unique brown marks on both ankles. These marks have been identified by experts as pressure sores, caused by iron clamps used to hold the ankles while this poor man was suspended upside down for torture in the "Adnan Chalabi Hilton". As I wrote earlier, death must have finally come as merciful relief for these two......."

http://www.joevialls.co.uk/transpositions/hussein.html

As I told before, media is controlled by inside group. It serves for the war policy of this group. Why this time it suddenly threw out a scandal which hurt the fame of Bush's administration? None of such kind of event happens by coincidence. They always have a purpose. (to be continued)

Distraction (5/23)

The abusing of prisoners is systematic which can be tarced to the end of 2001 when Guantanamo concentration camp was set up. News reported that there were 18 prisoners' death in Afhgan and Iraq, eight are investigated as "homicide" case. Compare to these, the abuse in Abu Ghurayb was mild. Government only show people a little bit of it but cover up the most.

1. US soldiers who was accused in abuse case, confessed at first they were assigned to do so for interrogation. Now media said it was for amusement.

2. Many people request the resignation of Rumsfeld. Then there was an immediate poll throwing out said " Most in US back Rumsfeld. 69% think he should keep job. 20% he should resign" (Washington Post-ABC news poll) Rumsfeld is the main pusher of Iraq war. He should be responsible for the embrassing situation of US in Iraq now despite abusing scandal. When so said poll said nearly half US public don't support Iraq war and Bush's rate is in a record low, how can the war eagle get such a high support rate ? Once again, in emergency, inside group used ther magic weapon - poll, to save their puppet. And how easy was it to lie on a number to wipe out the opposite voice.

3. A "beheading" case was thrown out to justify the abusing case. The case was done in hastily so there was a lot of flaw. Which I think was used to vilify muslim. Play the same role as "Madrid bombing".

4.Low ranking soldiers become scapegoat.

This is what Feds wanted. They need a case big enough to catch up public's attention but hurt least the interest of inside group. That's the tactic of distraction. Create a big event to cover up another which they don't want you to know. One sample was to charge Michale Jackson in a molesting case. Which happened on date Bush met a big protest in his London visit. D.O.J. used Michale Jackson's case to divert the attention on Bush's inglorious visit.

Then what case this time they want to cover up by prisoners' abusing case? That is a frame case applied on me. Which lasted for more then ten years. The case had led to the resignation of both directors of FBI and DEA in June, 2001, and again the resignation of director of DEA in Aug. 2003, I think.

In a similar situation in 2001, Feds had used same tactic to distract. In April that year, Ashcroft announced FBI had found 3000 pages of unreported document in McVeigh's case. So D.O.J. delayed the excution date of McVeigh a month later to June 11. As a matter of fact, the document was only an excuse used to delay the excution date. To let it to match the date they planed in a framed drug case in which many people would be slaughtered. They need a big event such like McVeigh's death to divert public's attention on thier murder case. The frame case was soured for some reason. In same attempt in Dec. 2003 and Apr. 2004, they tried to use terrorist attack by same tactic, I allege. As for why I think the abusing case is a distraction on mine, I've talked about it in latest messages on my home page. It's these experience enabled me to write the articles about US politics in a perspective angle.

See whole story at:

http://hometown.aol.com/kathaksung/myhomepage/profile.html
http://hometown.aol.com/sunkat563/myhomepage/profile.html
http://hometown.aol.com/katsung563/myhomepage/profile.html

If there is harassment (blank page, slow entering, server busy....) try

http://forums.delphiforums.com/police915/messages/?msg=25.1

Censorship and Liberal media (6/3)

A news in internet in August 2002:

"The crowd was standing at the barricades and the police had called a state of
emergency. Pepper spray was used on group early on. Batons were used on some
people. Group included babies in strollers and older people, also people in
wheelchairs. Those that could get out of the way were cut off surrounded by police.
There are snipers on the roofs. Police have opened fire on protesters with rubberbullets, pepper spray and gas. The crowds of people are moving around and regrouping. "
http://portland.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=17241&group=webcast

It seemed a scene taking place in totalitarian country. But it was in Portland, citizens protested Bush's war policy and were surpressed. If it happened in Moscow, Beijing, you could see big title and pictures as first hand news in media. But this time, there was no report from media. I learned it from internet. There is a strong censorship on anti-war news. Inside group needed war. Media coordinated.

If Michael Moore is not a famous film director, his "Fahrenheit 9/11" wouldn't be known by public. If his film haven't been awarded the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, it may still have been blocked from distributing. So far American people still have no chance to watch it. Is Disney a media, or rather a tool of inside group? All this happened in US, famous for its "Bill of Right". The free speech has to struggle for its existence against invisible censorship. What kind of "freedom" Bush can bring for Iraqis? You immagine.

"Patriot Act" seriously erodes civil liberty. More than hundred towns, cities, even states passed resolution condemning it. As "liberal" media, it should be a big issue to be discussed, criticized. Have you often heard of it? Rarely. Abandon the title of "liberal", even if media dare not to comment at this topic, as "media", should they do some very basic thing to report it? Yet, they failed in their professional duty. New York joined the long list of cities to condemn Patriot Act recently. A sponsor said, "The Patriot Act is really unpatriotic, it undermines our civil rights and civil liberties," Because New York was the victim of 9/11 attack, and Patriot Act was a result of that attack, the resolution of New York is significant. Yet, the news is censored by most media. I learned it only from a message from internet.

Quote, "UnderReported.com

.....Queries on news.google.com yield no results for CNN. Two queries for the New York Times yield no relevant results, and I was unable to find an article by searching on the nytimes.com website itself. Did this amazing story really go unreported in the city's own New York Times

Pete_undercover

[Post# 463683 </cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=national&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&vc=1&Number=463683>]

Though there are "Demo" paty and "Rep" party, "liberal" media and "conservative" media, It's only a cover up. Once it touches the interest of inside group, there is no Democracy and liberal. All principle and opinion are given up. Media and politicians, are only tools of inside group.

See US politics From another angle .

It looks like a democratic system. It's not. The two parties are all under control of inside group. Politicians are puppets. The campaign is actually like a horse racing. And the candidates are like domesticated horses.

This time the inside group want Bush to stay in 2nd term of president because he is obedient. He followed the order to start an unjust war. So they keep him there because they want more war. The other candidate who may be a possible threat to Bush were advised to leave.

What is the target of politicians? President. Can you immagine a department manager give up the chance to be raised to the position of executive president? But Tom Daschle and Al Gore were advised to abandon to election 2004. Because they may defeat Bush. And they obeyed. That's why I say it's a domestic horse racing. Everything depends on Master's will.

They leave some incompetant horses for Demo and make it a chaotic circus. Through media propaganda, fake poll, rigged election, they got a weak candidate for Demo. All to make sure Bush can continue to be a "war president".

And of course, you always see those government accessaries, discredit this and support that. At the purpose to weak Demo and strenthen Bush.

See US politics From another angle .

It looks like a democratic system. It's not. The two parties are all under control of inside group. Politicians are puppets. The campaign is actually like a horse racing. And the candidates are like domesticated horses.

This time the inside group want Bush to stay in 2nd term of president because he is obedient. He followed the order to start an unjust war. So they keep him there because they want more war. The other candidate who may be a possible threat to Bush were advised to leave.

What is the target of politicians? President. Can you immagine a department manager give up the chance to be raised to the position of executive president? But Tom Daschle and Al Gore were advised to abandon to election 2004. Because they may defeat Bush. And they obeyed. That's why I say it's a domestic horse racing. Everything depends on Master's will.

They leave some incompetant horses for Demo and make it a chaotic circus. Through media propaganda, fake poll, rigged election, they got a weak candidate for Demo. All to make sure Bush can continue to be a "war president".

And of course, you always see those government accessaries, discredit this and support that. At the purpose to weak Demo and strenthen Bush.

Yeah, exactly a true democratic country wouldn't be so stuck in such false manichean dualism. The two party system is kind of like a proverbial Moebius strip -- two sides of the same coin intimately connected to the point of being little difference.

A system where say a George Bush, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, Patrick Buchanan and John Kerry all had equal say and platform -- under four to five different parties might be a big step towards REAL democracy. Rather than faux fake system it is now.

Don't even get me started on women's suffrage either.

++

++

There are many petitions suggest to impeach Bush. It won't succeed. On the contrary, he will be awarded for a second term.

Why the media beat the drum on a personal affair and almost impeached President Clinton from his post. While awarded President Bush with a high approve rate when he misled American people to an unnecessary war?

If you can view the whole thing from another angle. That terrorist group is manipulated by CIA and Mosad. And what Bush did was following a "road map" a powerful group designed earlier. You may know it better.

The bombing of US Cole and embassy in Africa were provokation for a Mid-east war. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had lobbied Clinton for the war in Jan. 1998 but failed. Clinton ordered missil bombing in Sudan and Afghanistan but didn't start a war. He was punished by Lewinsky scandal and was almost impeached from his post.

Since bombing of Cole and US embassador in Afirica were not big enough to touch off a war, they had a big attack in US. Many information revealed that 911 was allowed to happen. With which Bush started war with Afghan. But that was not the main target of "road map". Bush then started war with Iraq even though there was no sufficient justification. He did a good job for that power group. How could him be impeached?

Bin Laden was not found because he is too important for intelligence. His existence gives an excuse to make "war on terrorism" an endless one. He won't be arrested or killed until they found another terror leader to substitute him.

Another possibility is that Bin Laden had already died. US intelligence keeps him alive so from time to time they can issue a tape of "Bin Laden's" to flame a public's sentiment about terrorism to the need of inside group.

The "Road map" is not finished. There are more "evil countries" in the list. The "war on terror" is used by US inside group to squeeze more power and money from American people. So Bush will stay in his post, as well as Bin Laden.

How Bush Sr. lost presidency/

There were two war on Iraq. One started by GW. Bush. The other one was started by his father Bush Sr.

Bush Sr. won the Persian Gulf war beautifully. Compare with his son, Bush Sr. got the support from most countries of the world. US soldiers suffered much less casulties compare with GWB's. And US paid a little amount of war fee. Most spending were shared by other countries.

GW. Bush misled US into an unjust war. He lost the support from UN. He lost traditional allies. He made US paid an huge war fee, and let US army dropped in an Vietnam like war of daily casulty. We don't know when can we leave that quagmire.

One thing strange happened. Bush Sr., though had a glorious victory, and got an approvement rate of 90% then, lost the President campaign to Clinton. While GW. Bush had so bad a war, he is still awarded a rate of nearly 50% and is predicted to win the president campaign in a landslide victory in election 2004.

Why? The answer is pretty simple. America is controlled by inside group. Their interest is for the security of Israel. Their target is occupying Iraq to oppress the hostility of Islamic countries against Israel. So when Bush Sr. stopped to invade Iraq to save US soldiers' lives, it was against the inside group's will. He was punished for failure in president election.

GW Bush is much obedient. Despite it was hurting the interest of US, he started a war to the favour the inside group. He will be awarded 2nd term of president. The inside group creates a situation for his succeeding. Maintain his approve rate by rigged poll around 50%. Incapacitate his rival Demo Party. And try to boost the economy in 2004.

Inside group now is smiling. They got all cadidates, both in Rep. and Demo camp, all their puppets. Go play the election, you people, enjoy "democracy". The end is already in the hand of inside group. The following is a message I posted about 5months ago, it still works.

"Three musketeers (originally posted in February this year)

There were two big events in House in Bush presidency. One was passing through of the Bill of Patriot Act and other one is the Bill of Authorizing the use of armed force against Iraq. These two bills seriously eroding the civil rights of US citizens and their interest but largely benefit the inside group. They even activated anthrax attack(for Patriot Act) and DC sniper shooting (for the bill to authorize Iraq war power) to push through the two bills. After the bills passed successfully, the media published pictures to show that it was supported by two parties. The picture showed Bush was in the center, with Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt came beside him. Like three musketeers stood with the king. Kerry, though being gang of four, even not qualified to be in the picture. They are the hard core of inside group followers.

Edwards has another character. He works covertly like Wesley Clark and Arnold Schwarzinneger. When Clark suddenly joined campaign, he has a clean vote history because he has never been a politician. Arnold at first denied he would be candidate in California recall, only at last minute announced involvement. Same tactic like Clark. Arnold also ducked all candidates debate. Edwards worked in same way. Try not to be in focus, avoid conflict. At this point, he and Clark and Arnold could be viewed as three musketeers from Feds.

Howard Dean was the target of insider group because his anti-war stand. They manipulated election, media and poll to pull Dean down. The resiganation of Dean's campaign manager gave him a last hit. When they created a situation that Dean was hopeless, why they are so eager want Dean announceing his out? It might be paving way for Edwards.

When they forced Dean to pull out, Kerry and Edwards became major competetors. They could make another surprise in Super Tuesday's primary. (Though this time they didn't. Otherwise it would be too evident the election was manipulated.) "

Edwards is a favour of inside group. They almost made him the president candidate. It's no surprise they made him now a vice candidate.

Manipulate media and election

Poll is a tool used to control American's mind. Intelligence(Feds) play the figure as they pleased because media is in their stronghold.

What good has Bush done? He started an injustice war in Iraq. He created a lot of enemies for US. He has a historical dificit in economy. He eroded civil liberty by "Patriot Act". Yet they still award him an approvement about 50% while actually should be below 30%. Because insider group need more war in Mid-east, and Bush follow their policy.

When American people realized war is not for the interest of US and choose Howard Dean as their candidate. The insider group throw out W. Clark to weaken Dean. As many people still don't know who Clark is, CNN has a poll said Clark could beat Bush and that his support leaded over other Demo candidates, just 2 days after Clark announced to join the campaign.

California recall started only 3 months after formal election while Governor G. Davis made no serious offense. When they want to steal the post of Governor to prepare for election 2004, they have Arnold to be their patsy. (There is one common character of Arnold and Clark: no politic experience, so they become perfect puppet) And this time CNN throw out a poll that Arnold has an approvement of 40% leading over Bustamante's 28%. (A sudden change from previous: Arnold 26%, Bustamante 28%) It's because McClintock will not pull out the campaign, to make the recall result reasonable, they gave a sudden boost poll result to justify Arnold's winning. (It is a fixed one)

American people are naive. When poll said so, they believe it. And seldom people tracking if there were cheating in election.(which is popular, people only noticed it when the result is too close such like what happened in florida.) That's why insider group could pick up Bush in 2000, and win mid-election in Minnisota. They will steal the post of California Governor this year and the election of 2004 as well.

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

The two parties campaign are only a hoax drama. In the name of "democracy" it attracts people to watch and join the competition. But the candidate and result are all designated in advance. Innocent people are busy to campaign, to debate, to vote. They don't know they work in vain.

The interest of inside group is for more war in Mid-east. Bush is an obedient horse to his master. That's why he was selected to be president in 2000. That's why O'nelle observed Bush determined to start Iraq war in early 2001. To ensure Bush having a second term, in 2002, they forced Gore to abandon the 2004 election. When there is a black horse cropped up,(Howard Dean rose with anti-war idea) who drew support from public, inside group push out Wesley Clark to block him. When Clark failed in competition, with no convincible reason they pull down Dean by Kerry. So Bush does not have to worry about his rivalry. What Demo has is an incompetant candidate. They also bought an insurance by embedding a hard core follower to be vice president candidate(Edwards). In case unpopular Bush is too weak to win the campaign.

The media blow the trumpet on former president Clinton. Because he openly supported Bush's war policy. He was bribed 10 millions by his new published book.
The high ranking Democratics tone down critics on Bush. They are following the instruction of their master. Bush did nothing good but started an unjust war. Bashing him is no difference to bash the war. That's against the will of inside group. So you see a humble Demo, dare not to touch their rival even in their biggest mass pledge.

DNC: Don’t bash Bush: Kerry wants Dems to tone down criticism
By David R. Guarino and Andrew Miga
Monday, July 26, 2004

Democrats are scrambling to tamp down former Vice President Al Gore and firebrand Howard Dean before they step to the convention podium, worried they may embarrass John Kerry with red-meat anger and excessive Bush bashing.

The Democratic National Convention and Kerry campaign staffs are working feverishly to rewrite, polish and tone down speeches submitted in advance of today's convention opening bell.

http://news.bostonherald.com/beta/cookiePop.bg

Who control election?

13 US Congressmen have asked help from UN to monitor US election. How can so said "democrtic" US get into such a plight? Rigging in election now is so obvious even high ranking politicians realize the gravity of the question.

People who vote don't decide whom be elected.
People who count the vote do.

The people who control the intelligence in US decide whom been elected. That's what happened in Florida 2000 election in which Inside group selected Bush. And in Demo's Primary in 2004 in which they dropped Howard Dean.

In a rigged election, they could move votes by thousands.

Quote, ""DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."

- Washington Post Sunday , November 12, 2000 ; Page A22

Re: "Yes. Something very strange happened in Volusia County on election night November 2000, the night that first Gore won Florida, then Bush, and then as everybody can so well remember there was a tie.
Something strange indeed. But what exactly? In the above report ( click for full version), written days after the election, hotshot Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank goes on to attribute the strange 16,022 negative vote tally from Volusia's precinct 216 to an apparently innocent cause.
"…. faulty 'memory cards' in the machines caused the 16,000-vote disappearance on election night. The glitch was soon fixed," he wrote.

But thanks to recent investigations into Black Box Voting by Washington State writer Bev Harris we now know this explanation is not correct. In fact it is not even in the ballpark.
Entire article

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

From McGreevy gay affair to Lewinsky scandal

N.J. Governor McGreevey resigned to his gay aid scandal. His aid Golan Cipel came from Israel. According to McGreevey, that he was blackmailed 5 million dollars by Cipel for the gay affair scandal. The whole thing is resembled to other two events. Lewinsky scandal and Chandra Levy's death event.

There are some common points in these three cases.

1. All three men involved were important Democratic politicians. Clinton was US president; McGreevey is N.J. Governor; Gary Condit was Congressman, a member of intelligence committe.

2. All politicians were drawn into sex scandal. They were humiliated, lost or almost lost their posts.

3. Their sex partners were either aid or interns. A job close to politicians and influence them a lot.

4. Their sex partners are all jewish ethnic. Either from Israel or from a jewish family. (correct me if I am wrong. )

Are these three the only cases there in US politics circle? I don't think so. It's only the iceberg we can see above the sea. In underneath there are much more.

It seemed Israel try to recruit those aids and interns to influence US politics by control US politicians. The phenomenon is evident. Iraq war is for the interest of Israel. US soldiers fight and die for the security of Israel. All these pro-Israel policy were probably created under influence of these aids and interns, and pro-Israel politicians as well.

What good is Bush?

1. He cannot even express correctly what he thinks.

e.g. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

2, He has no common knowledge. He doesn't know the money of Russia and Iraq.

Bush speaks of 'Soviet dinar' in speech about Iraq

Wed Aug 18, 8:28 PM ET HUDSON, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush spoke of "the Soviet dinar," even though dinars are the Iraqi currency.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040819/pl_afp/us_vote_bush_dinar&cid=1521&ncid=1963&sid=96378801

3. He had no ability to handle and foresee the development of a big event. He said "(Iraq war) Mission is accomplished". We know it is not.

4. He is dumb to react an emergence. He had no reaction to a big attack(When WTC was bombed) for 7 minutes.

To react properly in above events is not difficult for most people. How can be in such a great country like US, we have no better selection but an incompetent Bush?

Bush, with his low IQ, even not dare to face kerry's challenge to debate each week. Yet, media from time to time said Bush is leading over Kerry. Do you believe it?
--------------

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.