Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (12204)	12/24/2005 4:07:24 PM
From: paret	Respond to of 20039

Did the American Press Side with the Nazis? Written by John Armor Saturday, December 24, 2005 chronwatch.com The American press did not side with the Nazis in World War II and afterwards. But parts of them are siding now with the Ba’athists in the Iraqi War. Witness this lead from the Lexington Herald-Leader, online version, today (Friday): An Iraqi court has ruled that some of the most prominent Sunni Muslims who were elected to parliament last week won't be allowed to serve because officials suspect that they were high-ranking members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. Knight Ridder has obtained a copy of the court ruling, which has yet to be circulated to the public. The ruling is likely to dampen Bush administration hopes that the election would bring more of the disaffected Sunni minority into Iraq's political process and undermine Sunni support for the insurgency. Instead, the decision is likely to stoke fears of widening sectarian divisions in a nation already in danger of descending into civil war. Source: kentucky.com Substitute "Nazi" for "Ba'athist" and 1945 for 2005 and "Germany" for "Iraq." The rest of this article would stand as written. After all, preventing Nazis from participating in German elections between 1945 and 1949 (when the first national German elections were held) certainly contributed to "disaffection" and "sectarian divisions." The difference is that no American newspaper after World War II would have considered for a minute attacking anyone for excluding Nazis from the election lists in Germany at that time. So what are the differences, then to now? Did the Ba'athists not murder men, women, and children? Did the Ba’athists not conduct wars against their neighbors? Did the Ba'athists not lie, cheat, and steal? Were the Ba'athists not blood-thirsty dictators? No, the difference then to now is that some elements of the American press are looking for any opportunities to embarrass and hobble the Bush administration in the aftermath of this war. Very few of the American media were wont to do that against the Truman administration in the aftermath of World War II. There was, of course, the legendary feature article in Life Magazine by John Dos Passos, saying that America was “losing the peace” in Germany, published about a year before the democratic government in Germany was elected under Konrad Adenaur, during the Allies’ occupation of West Germany. For those who do not know about him, Adenaur was one of the few elected officials in Germany at the time who was not a former Nazi and who had not been assassinated by the werewolves who were active in Germany for two years after the German surrender. Adenaur had previously been a mayor. To those unfamiliar with it, the “deNazification” effort post World War II was very similar to the “deBa’athification” program in Iraq today. There is one glaring exception. No major American media (or politicians) were rooting for the Nazis, then. Once again, failure of the American press to crack a history book infects its reporting, and reveals its anti-American bias in derogation of that history. This article originally appeared on Newsbusters.com

To: steve harris who wrote (12204)	12/24/2005 4:19:26 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report: NYT NYT ^ \| By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials. The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said. (Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ... These programs have kept terrorism away from our shores since 9/11 and the damn New York Times wants to tell Al Quida everything it possibly can about how to kill more Americans!!!! Our enemy's could not have made a better mouthpiece if they tried.