Thursday, July 14, 2005
Fuck all of this shit
Read here to learn all about how Bush et al. may have prevented the Brits from stopping the London bombings.
Remember that guy Khan who was captured last year? It was in late July when we went on high alert because of evidence that NY buildings were being scoped out by terrorists. The evidence was that they had been scoped out years before 9/11. The evidence came from the computer of Mr. Khan. Bush announced the evidence and made a big deal about capturing Khan. But then there was a big to-do about how Khan had been "flipped" and was now helping Pakistani and British intelligence secretly. Naming him blew his cover and ruined anti-terror operations. (I remember all this, but did it really happen? Are we at war? Has there been a bombing?)
Now it turns out that the guys that attacked London were tied to Khan. So if the piece-of-shit USA hadn't blown Khan's cover, the British may well have been able to round up his associates and stop their murderous plans. Instead, they killed dozens of people.
Awesome.
What is the point of writing about this? Who the fuck cares? Will there be a post on AmCop when I'M blown up? When terrorists burst into my room and hold a gun to my head, will it help me to announce on AmCop that it is happening?
posted by speakingcorpse : 7/14/2005 11:31:00 PM
Remember that guy Khan who was captured last year? It was in late July when we went on high alert because of evidence that NY buildings were being scoped out by terrorists. The evidence was that they had been scoped out years before 9/11. The evidence came from the computer of Mr. Khan. Bush announced the evidence and made a big deal about capturing Khan. But then there was a big to-do about how Khan had been "flipped" and was now helping Pakistani and British intelligence secretly. Naming him blew his cover and ruined anti-terror operations. (I remember all this, but did it really happen? Are we at war? Has there been a bombing?)
Now it turns out that the guys that attacked London were tied to Khan. So if the piece-of-shit USA hadn't blown Khan's cover, the British may well have been able to round up his associates and stop their murderous plans. Instead, they killed dozens of people.
Awesome.
What is the point of writing about this? Who the fuck cares? Will there be a post on AmCop when I'M blown up? When terrorists burst into my room and hold a gun to my head, will it help me to announce on AmCop that it is happening?
posted by speakingcorpse : 7/14/2005 11:31:00 PMRove
I've been on the road for most of the last three weeks and have read some of the Rovegate coverage and seen almost none of the TV coverage. If business as usual is any indicator, I assume by now the Whores are out in full force parroting the RNC blastfaxes about a Democrat-and-Terrorist-led political witchhunt against Rove.
One question: does the present media battle really matter at all? Of course, media battles and breadth of coverage are extremely important in attempting to compel the government to start investigations. But isn't the federal investigation still ongoing? If Fitz ends up indicting Rove and/or others, then it doesn't really matter what Ken Mehlman or Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sean Hannity have to say about it, does it?
Likewise, if there are no actual criminal indictments, nothing in the world could force the Bush administration to hold any of its members to account, much less Rove, no matter what the wrongdoing, no matter how loud the outcry. We've seen this again and again and again, right? In the absence of a formal indictment, we could expect nothing less than a promotion for Rove. Right?
posted by Blicero : 7/14/2005 07:38:00 PM
One question: does the present media battle really matter at all? Of course, media battles and breadth of coverage are extremely important in attempting to compel the government to start investigations. But isn't the federal investigation still ongoing? If Fitz ends up indicting Rove and/or others, then it doesn't really matter what Ken Mehlman or Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sean Hannity have to say about it, does it?
Likewise, if there are no actual criminal indictments, nothing in the world could force the Bush administration to hold any of its members to account, much less Rove, no matter what the wrongdoing, no matter how loud the outcry. We've seen this again and again and again, right? In the absence of a formal indictment, we could expect nothing less than a promotion for Rove. Right?
posted by Blicero : 7/14/2005 07:38:00 PM7/7
A friend of mine currently on a business trip in London recounts overhearing the following conversation between his boss and a British employee:
Feel free to use this thread to discuss any of the unabashed celebration of the London terror bombings we've seen over the past week.
posted by Blicero : 7/14/2005 07:18:00 PM
My boss: "I'm sure it's been crazy for you since 7/7."
British employee: "Whot?"
Boss: "7/7. July 7th."
British employee: (confused look)
Boss: "The bombings."
British employee: "Oh, god, I didn't know what the date was."
Boss: "It was 7/7, like 9/11 for us."
British employee: "Are people saying it like that? 7/7?"
Boss: "They should."
Feel free to use this thread to discuss any of the unabashed celebration of the London terror bombings we've seen over the past week.
posted by Blicero : 7/14/2005 07:18:00 PM
