OpEd News story by Ed Martin
Reprehensor Fri, 11/16/2007 - 9:50pm
Re: the Ed Martin OpEd News piece: Barbara Peterson's story which he builds his case on has been revised substantially, particularly the section that he quotes.
Martin's piece should be considered in light of this corrected article;
Homeland Security Links 9/11 Truthers to Taliban by Barbara Peterson
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_barbara__071114_homeland_security_li.htm
- Login to post comments
Sick argument
1. Terrorists. Use whatever sources they can in order to increase recruiting.
2. Critic of US foreign policy. Wants US foreign policy changed. Seeking to reduce some (it's complex so it wouldn't be accurate to suggest that US foreign policy is the sole cause of radical Islamic terrorism) of the factors that contribute to terrorism. This in turn should reduce recruitment.
3. 9/11 skeptic. Wants the truth. Accountability. Shares the goals of the critic of US foreign policy.
Are #2 and #3 helping the recruiting pitch for would be terrorists?
1. Bank robber.
2. Critic of US economic system. Wants to reform the system to reduce the factors that contribute to crime.
3. Skeptic. Doesn't think the bank robber could have pulled off the robbery without inside help.
Are #2 and #3 helping the recruiting pitch for would be bank robbers?
The argument being presented is bizarre. Furthermore, if the argument comes to down to who is doing the most to help terrorist recruiting then we would have to put government officials at the top of the list:
1) Foreign policy pisses off the Middle East.
2) They have funded and trained radical Islamic terrorists. Also supported regimes that promote radical Islamic terrorism.
3) Failure to be honest about foreign policy and 9/11 justifies the radical Islamic cause and causes citizens to question the government's credibility.
Let us remember Harmon was
Let us remember Harmon was part of the Joint Inquiry. She helped coverup the truth.
Why is the patriotism of our so called leaders never up for review? We hear this with the Iraq policy...ie...support for Bush=support for soldiers. The media never asks the key question...IS IT TRUE? Hell no it isn't true!
Congressional oath of office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
Not a word in the oath about cheerleading for corrupt, war profiteering, unitary executive fascists.
Off Topic
I post this video from Jan. 2007 I just found because it provides some background into Reprehensors blog concerning the Simon Weisenthal Center treatment of 9/11 sites.
http://911blogger.com/node/12505
Paula Zahn and company do a massive hit piece on 9/11 truth movement. Some people may have seen this last January but I wasnt aware of it.
One great example
of media constructed bias.
Remember
Remember this?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1549069,00.html
"The sources say the probe also involves whether, in exchange for the help from AIPAC, Harman agreed to help try to persuade the Administration to go lighter on the AIPAC officials caught up in the ongoing investigation. If that happened, it might be construed as an illegal quid pro quo, depending on the context of the situation."
Notice which lawyer leapt to Harmon's defense? Ted Olson.
The good news? Somewhere in the FBI are some angry patriots.
Exhibit B:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/why-jane-harman-should-be_b_213...
"Like Joseph Lieberman in the Senate, Harman was a forceful hawk on Iraq when Democrats were trying find a way out."
Rep. Harman's collusion with her "panelists" could not be more obvious. Her house is 100% glass.
“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson