Why Bush Won And Gore Lost In 2000

[kathaksung]

Psychological Operation

When Bush needed war in Mid-east, he activated 911 attack, in the name of Al Qaida. We saw the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

When Bush needs more troops for war on Iran, he did it by surge, in the name to fight Al Qaida in Iraq. This is why Al Qaida bombed Shiite shrine in Sammara and bombing Iraqi civilians in the market: to provoke a civil war in Iraq so Bush can have an excuse to surge.

The troop is ready, but he still needs an excuse to start the war. Beware of another super 911. This time it is likely a nuclear bombing, he'll take the advantage of "shock and awe" to start another war.

That's why you have Chertoff's gut feeling, double reward of Bin Laden's head, new Bin Laden's tape, London's bomb case, all are psychological operation for the coming false flag terror attack. It's that simple.

[kathaksung]

Who support insurgence?

In message "458. The execution of Saddam (12/30/06)", I wrote:

"You can view Saddam as a shrine of Sunni Muslim. Kill Saddam is to pour oil on a fire. It will flame a civil war.

What excuse the Neocon uses to have US troops staying in Iraq? Insurgence and riot. Although some people said Iraq war is like Vietnam war, it is not.

There were two big countries: Soviet Union and China behind the Vietnam. It was their support of weapons and economic aids which helped North Vietnam to win the war. There was none such support for Iraq. Iran and Syria, are much weaker and smaller than Soviet Union and China then. They themselves know they are the next target of the Neocon. They dare not to offend US by supporting the Iraq insurgence. To stay in Iraq, Neocon try to make a mess in Iraq - they need a civil war of Iraq. "

Then who support the insurgence and militias the weapon they need? To my analysis, there is only one suspect: US. which has motives and ability.

The following news proved it's no others than US supplied weapon to the Iraqi insurgence and militias, though media use the word of "missing".

Quote, "ABC News: 190,000 AK-47s Sent to Iraq Are Missing

A young boy aims an AK-47 assault rifle during clashes between ... The Pentagon cannot account for 190,000 AK-47 rifles and pistols given to Iraqi ...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3450946

[ANITH]

And here are some of the companies he paid-off being revealed.
WASHINGTON — National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell pulled the curtain back on previously classified details of government surveillance and of a secretive court whose recent rulings created new hurdles for the Bush administration as it tries to prevent terrorism.

McConnell's comments _ made in an interview with the El Paso (Texas) Times last week and posted as a transcript on the newspaper's Web site Wednesday _ raised eyebrows for their frank discussion of previously classified eavesdropping work conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. Among the disclosures:

_ McConnell confirmed for the first time that the private sector assisted with President Bush's warrantless surveillance program. AT&T, Verizon and other telecommunications companies are being sued for their cooperation. "Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies," McConnell said, arguing that they deserve immunity for their help.

_ He provided new details on court rulings handed down by the 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approves classified eavesdropping operations and whose proceedings are almost always entirely secret. McConnell said a ruling that went into effect May 31 required the government to get court warrants to monitor communications between two foreigners if the conversation travels on a wire in the U.S. network. Millions of calls each day do, because of the robust nature of the U.S. systems.
_ McConnell said it takes 200 hours to assemble a FISA warrant on a single telephone number. "We're going backwards," he said. "We couldn't keep up."

_ Offering never-disclosed figures, McConnell also revealed that fewer than 100 people inside the United States are monitored under FISA warrants. However, he said, thousands of people overseas are monitored.

McConnell's comments were a dramatic departure from the government's normally tight-lipped approach to disclosing any information about how it spies on electronic communications _ some of its most sensitive and costly work. The FISA court's activities are particularly protected.

Even as he shed new light on the classified operations, McConnell asserted that the current debate in Congress about whether to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will cost American lives because of all the information it revealed to terrorists.

"Part of this is a classified world. The fact that we're doing it this way means that some Americans are going to die," he said.

McConnell was in El Paso last week for a conference on border security hosted by House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas. The spy chief joined Reyes for an interview with his local paper.

At the end of the interview, McConnell cautioned reporter Chris Roberts that he should consider whether enemies of the U.S. could gain from the information he just shared in the interview, Roberts said. McConnell left it to the paper to decide what to publish.

"I don't believe it damaged national security or endangered any of our people," said El Paso Times Executive Editor Dionicio Flores.

McConnell appeared days after Congress passed a temporary law to expand the government's ability to monitor suspects in national security investigations _ terrorists, spies and others _ without first seeking court approval in certain cases. The highly contentious measure expires in six months.

After Sept. 11, Bush authorized the terrorist surveillance program to monitor conversations between people in the United States and others overseas when terrorism is suspected. Until January, no warrants were required. But as the Democratic Congress took over, the Bush administration decided to bring the program under the oversight of the FISA court.

McConnell said the court initially ruled that the program was appropriate and legitimate. But when the ruling had to be renewed in the spring, another judge saw the operations differently. This judge, who McConnell did not identify, decided that the government needed a warrant to monitor a conversation between foreigners when the signal traveled on a wire in the U.S. communications network.

McConnell said the government got a temporary stay on the ruling, but it expired at the end of May. "After the 31st of May, we were in extremis because now we have significantly less capability," he said.

At the same time, the intelligence community was wrapping up years of work on a National Intelligence Estimate on threats to the homeland _ an analysis that is considered its most comprehensive judgment. It found the threat was increasing, McConnell noted.

Because he sees FISA as a major tool to keep terrorists out of the country, McConnell said he pressed Congress to change the law.

McConnell's interview raised concerns at the Justice Department, where senior officials questioned whether the intelligence chief had overstepped in discussing the secret FISA court.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse referred questions to McConnell's office, where his spokesman Ross Feinstein declined to comment.

In a phone interview, Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra said he never felt at liberty to discuss some of the information that McConnell did, including the FISA court rulings, but the executive branch gets to decide what is classified. "What I think it tells you is how important they believe it is to get this FISA thing done right," said Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

He said McConnell is hurt by the personal attacks on him during the FISA recent debate. Among them, Democrats have alleged that he negotiated in bad faith and was too beholden to the White House.

In addition, Hoekstra said he thinks McConnell wanted to push back on accusations that the legislation gave the attorney general unprecedented new powers. "I think they felt they had to become more public," he said.

[kathaksung]

About McConnell's fallacy:

504. Fence (8/23/07)

Last night my wife came back from her Peru trip. It means the first phase of August plot was over. In that phase, my relatives and I were the murder targets. The ending signal is the noise from back yard this morning. A fence has been installed hours ago. The synchronization of the events is amazing. It starts from my petition to Senators on 8/8. I think the new passed law is a violence to the Constitution. The response from Feds was swift. Next day -

8/9. ** Yard work team appeared in next house. Landlord informed me he would remodel the yard and would change the fence which separated our yards. I agreed.
** At night my wife came home said she would have a tour to Peru. (the first phase of plan starts)

8/11. Both yard workers and neighborhoods disappeared. Leave it an empty house. I then realized the seriousness of that fence affair. Feds determined to carry out the plot. They didn't leave any chance for me to recall the agreement for dismantling the fence.

8/15. ** Yard work team appeared in neighbor's yard. The fence was dismantled.
** An 8 magnitude earthquake took place in Peru. (The action of first phase starts)

8/16. ** My wife and my relatives left for Peru.
** Yard workers used my yard as their access path. I rebuked them.

8/13 and 8/18. I wrote messages #502 and 503, alleged the August plot.

8/22 ** At night my wife came back from Peru.
8/23 ** In the morning, yard worker appeared and the new fence is installed. (The first phase ended)

During the period of my wife's trip, my backyard was left open. Feds created an excuse to access my backyard. I had to write #503 to announce I didn't allow those workers access my backyard.

The fence actually can't stop a burglar. The fence is only a legal symptom to protect your privacy. Anyone surpasses it without permission is illegal. The Fourth Amendment is same thing. It's a fence of law to protect us from unreasonable search and arrest.

I thought that first phase action was a swift response from Feds to my petition on surveillance without warranty. The coincidence is when that first phase ended on 8/22, next day (this morning) Mercury News has an article about that case. "Intelligence director reveals surveillance facts, figures" (S.J.M.N. 8/23/07)

The fallacy are:
1. Quote, "McConnell confirmed for the first time that the private sector assisted with President Bush's warrantless surveillance program. AT&T, Verizon and other telecommunications companies are being sued in federal court in San Francisco for their cooperation. "Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies," McConnell said, arguing that they deserve immunity for their help."

The point is these companies don't work with the permission of the Court. Should they practice to the law or they are outlaw?
The point is can the firm be immune from the crime they committed because it is big and famous and facing a bankruptcy? Will thus encourage more violence?
The point is the Feds has an unrestricted power now. They behaved like an outlaw. It makes firms, individuals, organizations all obeyed to it not to the law. That is dangerous to society.

2. Quote, " McConnell said it takes 200 hours to assemble a FISA warrant on a single telephone number. "We're going backwards," he said. "We couldn't keep up.""

All court cases (civil or criminal) take a long time to file. Even to buy a house, there is a long time to fulfill the procedure. It must be dealt with great care. It also takes a long procedure to recruit an agent for FBI. Have you ever heard they complain "We couldn't keep up."?

Nothing hinders Feds to do the eavesdropping. There is a three days grace period for them to re-submit the application. So they can do it any time when they think it's urgent.
What Feds want now is to be an outlaw. Do whatever they want.

Warrantless surveillance means you lost the protect of the Fourth Amendment. Without the protection of that fence, you may face unreasonable search and arrest. The 4th Amendment is set up against the corruptive law enforcement agent. Now the corrupt agent disable the law, they can intrude your house to plant and frame the case. If you still want your civil right, stand up to protect that fence.

http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html