Frankly, I've had it up to here with Dave's constant and incessant paranoia over the "liberal" menace. I mean DAMN! When you take Hal Lindsey's word for news and events over Time, Newsweek, the Washington Post, CNN, Etc. Etc. Why fucking bother trying to talk reason? The irony is that when the AP runs a story that supports his mindset, suddenly THAT is worth posting. Most of the time though i'm sure they are the dreaded mouthpeice of the "liberals". Some people are just dug in holy warriors whether they choose to acknowledge their own bias or not. Hell, why bother even having an election next year? I'm sure that falls under treasonous activity as well in his mind.

I found some more treasonous articles on the push to include the Niger uranium claim in the SOTU speech. I found it fascinating. Of course though this is the slippery slope to towelheads ruling us as opposed to American domination that will surely follow if we abdicate all inquiry and simply sit back and trust what we've been told.

Why the White House can’t drive a stake through the story of Niger, uranium and the CIA agent

quote:
Originally published by Gen. Wesley K. Clark

In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, many in the Bush administration seemed most focused on a prospective move against Iraq. This was the old idea of “state sponsorship”—even though there was no evidence of Iraqi sponsorship of 9/11 whatsoever—and the opportunity to “roll it all up.” I could imagine the arguments. War to unseat Saddam Hussein promised concrete, visible action.

I WENT BACK through the Pentagon in November 2001, and one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about “draining the swamp.” It was evidence of the Cold War approach: Terrorism must have a “state sponsor,” and it would be much more effective to attack a state than to chase after individuals, nebulous organizations, and shadowy associations.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969671.asp?0dm=s236k

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969047.asp?0dm=s216k