Is there a definition of al Queda that any DUer could accept?

Are they 'theys'?
Or are they 'ussens'?
What would a serious Democratic historian say?
Exactly who is it that says 'we did it' when there are calamity deaths?

who are loosely affiliated with each other, though they rarely communicate nor do they work together. These groups may also use different names for different situations, as needed, but Al Queda itself is completely decentralized, to increase effectiveness and to decrease risk of exposure.

You think they have no interaction with our country's intelligence?

I don't believe they are still working with our government.

And then let's take it from there, OK?

ourselves and what is going on WITHIN our country.

There are two major umbrella 'wars' going on that don't even have names let alone definitions. One is the one going on within the U.S. - the other outside. War is the name given to the activities of the first seven years of this century following years of planning and preparation. The key word here is 'activities'. The war or wars are phantom.

A segment of the population within the U.S. declared war on the rest of the world. But is it a war? I call it something else.

For the time being, I can only call the former, the Cheney segment. (I usually say pnacers and the barons they work for.) Pnacers is only a shortcut to describe and include politicians, lobbyists, corporations, foundations, think tanks, independents - everyone in on the decades old plan to control and own, plus all those who were brought into it and became operatives allowing them to make a living from it and for some, fortunes.

The enemies of the Cheney segment are we citizens and a wide variety of people outside the U.S.

The Cheney segment goes after resources - earth and sky resources, plus people resources.

Our U.S. people resource to them is believing what they want us to believe and paying for their schemes to gain worldwide control and ownership. They want us to believe we are at war - that is the key to their takeover.

From outside the U.S., the citizens and the Cheney segment are one - to some.

It is impossible to define al Queda without deciding whether there is a war.

I believe there is no war. The Cheney segment is conducting a 'takeover'.

We citizens and the world are in a takeover and the Cheney segment created a phantom war context.

The phantom war context falls short on terminology for we citizens and the rest of the world.

The agenda to control and own is a cleverly designed magic trick that masks death, destruction, theft, lies. The theft is the most serious kind within the U.S. the theft of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, balance of power, media, vote, use of taxes - and the incredible work involved in creating an enemy.

I believe al Queda is anyone who attempts to prevent the takeover and attempts to protect their people and resources. From major 'fightback' - training to fight and for minor 'fightback' - clinging to the arm of an able bodied man who will be imprisoned for fishing torture to find out who is training and acting.

I believe the Cheney segment is capable of selling the arms to those who fight us.

We are being deceived. Big time. The citizens of this country are in the same boat with those in other countries, except, for the time being, those outside the U.S. must suffer more blood and horror and loss of basic living rights while we must suffer the moral, spiritual, and economic horrors.

It is all for the Cheney segment of the population of this earth. The Cheney segment includes many leaders and their operatives in many countries - including Europe, Australia, Canada, Israel and who knows whom in Russia or China.

Leaders - means those of the same purpose (controlling and owning the rest of us) - whether they are presently in power withing their countries, or were, or are up and coming.

Cheney departing does not mean the end of the Cheney segment - the plan to control and own us does not die without Cheney.

in Afghanistan and the series of tunnels constructed there and operations. This was set up to drive out the USSR. It was funded largely by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Britian and the US. Al Queda meant, "the base".

we are in a rerun and will a Clinton let them off the hook again?

COVER-UP: Behind the Iran-Contra Affair:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4755829652615170641&q=iran+contra+cover+up&total=60&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6363522851504883872&q=COVER-UP%3A+Behind+the+Iran-Contra+Affair%3A+Part+2&total=5&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8622796487067551025&q=COVER-UP%3A+Behind+the+Iran-Contra+Affair%3A+Part+3&total=8&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2550812





What happens when unresolved scandals take a back seat to a domestic agenda?


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”




http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/hamiltoniran-contra.htm

"......former Congressman Lee Hamilton, chairman of the House select committee investigating the Iran-contra affair, was shown ample evidence against Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, but he did not probe their wrongdoing. Why did Hamilton choose not to investigate? In a late 1980s interview aired on PBS 'Frontline,' Hamilton said that he did not think it would have been 'good for the country' to put the public through another impeachment trial. In Lee Hamilton's view, it was better to keep the public in the dark than to bring to light another Watergate, with all the implied ramifications. When Hamilton was chairman of the House committee investigating Iran-contra, he took the word of senior Reagan administration officials when they claimed Bush and Reagan were 'out of the loop.' Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh and White House records later proved that Reagan and Bush had been very much in the loop. If Hamilton had looked into the matter instead of accepting the Reagan administration's word, the congressional investigation would have shown the public the truth. Hamilton later said he should not have believed the Reagan officials. However, today, George W. Bush is considering appointing Hamilton UN ambassador."


For example, when it was revealed in 2005 that the Bush administration had been illegally spying on Americans, Cheney responded: “If you want to understand why this program is legal…go back and read my Iran-Contra report.” In that report — authored in 1987 — Cheney and aide David Addington defended President Reagan by claiming it was “unconstitutional for Congress to pass laws intruding” on the “commander in chief.”


THAT'S MR. 9/11 COMMISSION HAMILTON


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/09/savage-cheney

Charlie Savage: Cheney Plotted Bush’s Imperial Presidency ‘Thirty Years Ago’

The Bush administration has long held that President Bush’s expanded executive power is justified due to 9/11. “I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it,” claimed Vice President Cheney in 2005.

But in his new book, Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage reveals that Cheney has been on a thirty-year quest to implement his views of unfettered executive power.

For example, when it was revealed in 2005 that the Bush administration had been illegally spying on Americans, Cheney responded: “If you want to understand why this program is legal…go back and read my Iran-Contra report.” In that report — authored in 1987 — Cheney and aide David Addington defended President Reagan by claiming it was “unconstitutional for Congress to pass laws intruding” on the “commander in chief.”

Decades later, Bush’s legal team used their first meeting in January 2001 — nine months before 9/11 — to map out a plan to expand presidential authority. According to Savage, who appeared on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this morning, Cheney was looking for a moment to “seize” power in the weeks before 9/11:

We are going to expand presidential power in any way we can. This was discussed in January 2001 at the first meeting of the White House legal team after the inauguration, long before 9/11. If an opportunity arises to expand presidential prerogatives, you will seize it.

chocolate.



al Qaeda means "the base"