Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Mark Shields on the Neocons and Iraq


Someone pointed out that Mark Sheilds also made statements on Capital Gang last weekend that are of interest to this group. These statements are related to Douglas Feith and the neocons.

I think this the relevent quote:

No. I think -- the question -- I don't have the answer to it, but why did AIPAC have the need to classified information on proposed U.S. -- attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, let alone why did they have any right to it? But I mean, that just -- that confuses me and confounds me.

This thing takes on a subtext in the war in Iraq. Let's be very frank about it. Franklin worked for Doug Feith. Doug Feith was a neocon. He worked for Paul Wolfowitz. The speculation has been that the -- one of the reasons the neocons wanted to go to war against Saddam was to -- Iraq -- was to remove Saddam Hussein, to make Iraq into a democracy, then Israel would be safer.

Yes, Mark, there is speculation that we went to war to "secure the realm."

Keep trying to get the message out. Every little bit helps.


10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brian-
You need to distinguish your posts from the original "gorilla" posts you're recovering from cache. Maybe by dating them?

5/11/2005 12:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brian,

The following URL includes a transcript of what Mark Shields courageously mentioned on CNN's 'Capitol Gang' program last weekend (scroll down to it there):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=34280

'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda (from James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769

5/11/2005 12:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Treason at a high level: Pentagon Zionists, AIPAC and Israel:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=20366

5/11/2005 12:54:00 PM  
Blogger Brian said...

Yes, I would like to distinguish between old and new, but I am a technology simpleton (and probably a simpleton in other areas as well.)

I am trying very hard to keep the name of the old posts the same so that old links will still work.Right now that is the best I can do.

I will look into changing the date and/or order of the posts, but if you already know how let me know.

Also, I encourage people to provide some sort of name in there comments - even fake name.

Thanks.

5/11/2005 12:55:00 PM  
Blogger Brian said...

ok, i figured out how to change the date/time of the post. So I guess I will go back and redate the old posts?

Does anyone thing that is the wrong way to go?

Either way, the comments are lost, but I don't that is a big problem, no?

5/11/2005 01:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Will said...

I don't think that the new comments on the old articles are a big deal. I still want to know though - what exactly happened to the original poster of this blog?

5/11/2005 09:39:00 PM  
Blogger truthseeker said...

Brian,

You are doing an excellent job... Seriously...

5/11/2005 10:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Horace Silver said...

I agree that the Bolton nomination is a litmus test of whether the complicit Congress is willing to do anything about this clique of rat bastards in power, much more than the Wolfie nomination to the World Bank was a gauge of international tolerance for this regime.

I really like the Xymphora blog, but I don't understand his reading of the comment here the other day on the disappearance of this blog, implying that posters were proffering conspiracy theories about a "conspiracy-theory site." Nor do I agree this site is about conspiracy theories.

5/11/2005 11:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Horace, I had the same feeling, but...

Conspiracy: "An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act."

Conspiracy Theory: "A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act."

That's precisely what this blog is about: a clique of zionists in control of the foreign policy of the USA. Nothing wrong with that. I mean, with the conspiracy theory thing.

That said, I also thought Xymphora's phrase perplexing at first. But Xymphora is a long-standing voice on our side and there's no reason to think his statement meant to denigrate this blog or it's readers. It was just a call to reason.

5/12/2005 08:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Joe said...

It doesn't hurt to double-check on those "on our side." Often in recent times, they "come out" and you can plainly see that they are actually on the other side.

Xymphora or others, I would keep checking. Some things on Xymphora make we wonder, too.

5/14/2005 06:38:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home