Sunday, May 16, 2004

The Nick Berg video: what is wrong with these pictures? 

Are the corporate media newsfakers who saw this snuff video so stupid that they didn't notice that the duplicating equipment kept being turned on and off, and that the audio and time track were added afterwards? Also, the wall color in the video seems to be the same as the walls in Abu Ghraib prison. And, if they closely watched the person standing on the left, that several frames were duplicated?

Aside from questions about the orange jumpsuit Nick Berg was wearing and the plastic chair he was sitting in that suspiciously looks similar to a chair Pfc. Lynndie England was photographed in at Abu Ghraib prison, the most telling thing about the video is what is absent when Berg's head is severed: blood. Slicing through the carotid arteries of a live person would have produced a geyser of blood spraying the executioner, the person holding down Berg and those gathered in closely. But there is no blood. There is not even a pool of blood on the floor where Berg's body lies. That can lead to only one conclusion: Berg was already dead before the grisly decapitation.

And how from that video could anyone tell that the person clad in black was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a high level al Qaida operative, whom the US military reported was killed April 3 in the bombing of Falluja? Did the Bushies lie about that, too, or has al-Zargawi also been resurrected like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was reported killed in a Sept. 11, 2002 shootout with Pakistani police in Karachi only to be arrested on March 1, 2003, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, as the new alleged mastermind of 9/11 and the executioner of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl?

Is the Berg murder another sloppy black op ordered by the Bushies to divert attention from the torture of Iraqi prisoners or was the military behind it in an attempt to destroy the crazed Bush administration?

Sunday, May 02, 2004

A nasty hoax or the reason Bush's handlers keep him on a short leash? 

According to TBR News (The Madness of King George), several unnamed sources claim that George W. suffered “what one of his aides called ‘a very minor seizure' and as a result of this, the President [sic] has a very difficult time following any unscripted conversations.”

"The President [sic] takes oral medication at least twice a day according to [redacted] because of an unspecified "indisposition' and this subject is strictly off limits for any casual staff conversation," according to the TBR report.

"At one point during a staff conference, the President [sic] stood up and began to speak in an unknown language. Mr. Rove was able to stop the President [sic] and get him to resume his seat. It was reported by [redacted] that for a period of time (about fifteen minutes) after this incident, the President [sic] appeared to be 'somewhat confused and very inarticulate.'"

Have the years or drinking and possible drug use caught up with Bush? Might this explain his inability to think on his feet; his inability to express himself other than in a kindergartner's terms, when he isn't mispronouncing or misusing words or issuing ungrammatical sentences, such as “Is your children learning?” More importantly, is this the reason his handlers could not trust him to face the 9/11 commission alone, much less testify under oath?

Was the pretzel incident due to a seizure? Might George W. have already been suffering seizures while in the Texas Air National Guard, which would explain why he was grounded, never took a required physical exam and skipped out on fulfilling his Guard service? Could this also explain why to this date Bush refuses to release his medical records?

If this isn't a hoax, we are in serious trouble and the American people have a right to know, and must demand full and unequivocal disclosure.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?