I can't help but believe the drivers of austerity would welcome civil unrest. It would give them a chance to institute the fascist state they long for, controlled by the wealthy and the military.
Their hysteria over Benghazi is a diversionary tactic by Republicans to deflect any investigation into who actually translated the offensive video into Arabic and uploaded it during a U.S. presidential election, I believe with the express intention of sparking riots in the Middle East. The posters were right-wing Coptic Christians with deep ties to the Republican party. And in the 47% tape, made four months before Benghazi, Mitt Romney says a curious thing -- that he's prepared to "take advantage of any mistakes" Obama makes in the Middle East -- pretty prescient, unless you already know something is coming.
I think Republicans wanted stir up trouble to give Romney a foreign policy advantage (remember, he held a press conference before the embassy attack was even over to condemn Obama) and it blew up in their faces when Americans were actually killed. By flogging baseless accusations (about a non-existent cover-up by Susan Rice) they cloud the issue and make any scrutiny of their involvement in the video appear to be political payback.
Something huge took place in Saudi Arabia two months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- but nobody in the U.S. media noticed. All our troops were completely withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, where, because they were a rallying point for those who opposed the monarchy, they were a threat to the royal family. I often wonder if Prince Bandar "Bush"wasn't financing bin Laden, hoping a terrorist attack would precipitate another U.S. war in the Middle East, under cover of which U.S. troops could be removed from his country with no risk of conservative criticism of his buddies in the Bush administration. And that's exactly what happened. Maybe Bandar was doing more than hoping and the Bushies were, too.
In the 47% video, recorded in May, Romney makes a very curious statement: that he'll be quick to "take advantage of" any missteps by the Obama administration in the Middle East. And then, conveniently, there's a terrorist attack in Benghazi and what Republicans are striving mightily to portray as a misstep. And it seems to be exceedingly difficult to pin down exactly who launched the attack. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Republican friends in the region, whether Israeli or Saudi, facilitated the so-called terrorist attack to help get Romney elected. Otherwise, we have the first presidential candidate on record with amazing ESP.
I wonder what else was done with information obtained by Murdoch's private investigators and phone hacking. Isn't it conceivable that politicians (like, oh, say, Tony Blair) were blackmailed into doing things their countries opposed (like, oh, say, sending British troops into Iraq to back Bush's insane war)? Hacking the phones of murder and 9/11 victims is despicable, to be sure, but I think King Rupert's crimes went far, far beyond that.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
I can't help but believe the drivers of austerity would welcome civil unrest. It would give them a chance to institute the fascist state they long for, controlled by the wealthy and the military.
Their hysteria over Benghazi is a diversionary tactic by Republicans to deflect any investigation into who actually translated the offensive video into Arabic and uploaded it during a U.S. presidential election, I believe with the express intention of sparking riots in the Middle East. The posters were right-wing Coptic Christians with deep ties to the Republican party. And in the 47% tape, made four months before Benghazi, Mitt Romney says a curious thing -- that he's prepared to "take advantage of any mistakes" Obama makes in the Middle East -- pretty prescient, unless you already know something is coming.
I think Republicans wanted stir up trouble to give Romney a foreign policy advantage (remember, he held a press conference before the embassy attack was even over to condemn Obama) and it blew up in their faces when Americans were actually killed. By flogging baseless accusations (about a non-existent cover-up by Susan Rice) they cloud the issue and make any scrutiny of their involvement in the video appear to be political payback.
Something huge took place in Saudi Arabia two months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- but nobody in the U.S. media noticed. All our troops were completely withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, where, because they were a rallying point for those who opposed the monarchy, they were a threat to the royal family. I often wonder if Prince Bandar "Bush"wasn't financing bin Laden, hoping a terrorist attack would precipitate another U.S. war in the Middle East, under cover of which U.S. troops could be removed from his country with no risk of conservative criticism of his buddies in the Bush administration. And that's exactly what happened. Maybe Bandar was doing more than hoping and the Bushies were, too.
In the 47% video, recorded in May, Romney makes a very curious statement: that he'll be quick to "take advantage of" any missteps by the Obama administration in the Middle East. And then, conveniently, there's a terrorist attack in Benghazi and what Republicans are striving mightily to portray as a misstep. And it seems to be exceedingly difficult to pin down exactly who launched the attack. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Republican friends in the region, whether Israeli or Saudi, facilitated the so-called terrorist attack to help get Romney elected. Otherwise, we have the first presidential candidate on record with amazing ESP.
Why did Blair support the invasion of Iraq in 2003?
Because Rupert Murdoch told him to.
Well, it's the Nazi party, of course. But I'd bet my house that Rick Perry wouldn't know that or what the Weimar Republic was.
I wonder what else was done with information obtained by Murdoch's private investigators and phone hacking. Isn't it conceivable that politicians (like, oh, say, Tony Blair) were blackmailed into doing things their countries opposed (like, oh, say, sending British troops into Iraq to back Bush's insane war)? Hacking the phones of murder and 9/11 victims is despicable, to be sure, but I think King Rupert's crimes went far, far beyond that.