host

They will stop......as long as they are not experiencing poor polling results, during a campaign season that will culminate in an election that will determine whether they retain the advantage that comes from holding "one party rule", in the era of a long, long, war, against enemies who are identified, labeled, "rendered", interrogated, disappeared, pursued/not pursued <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=whitehouse.gov+spend+much+time+thinking+about+bin+Laden&btnG=Search">(bin Laden)</a>, or allowed to escape, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=omar+al-faruq&btnG=Google+Search">(Omar Al-Faruq)</a> exclusively according to the political agenda of the leadership of the ruling party. Here is the definition:
If you perceived the intent to be an official effort to communicate an exaggerated threat and then touting/taking credit for.....making "progress" in "combating" it, while in actuality, the threat was much less signifigant, and the "progress" was minor or irrelevant, or determination was clouded because the "progress" (capture) was revealed prematurely for political gain, I think that it is appropriate to examine the incident here......

<b>This is as much about an examination of the contradictions in what the Bush administration and congressional leaders say, compared to what it is, that they do....as it is a discussion of whether what they do is a campaign of "terror". If we as a nation are "supposed to be" responding to the "Pearl Harbor attack" of "our time", and engaged in a "war on terror", as "they" remind us, over and over....what is "with" all their fucking vacations?</b>

All recent protests aside, to the following premise; it is incomprehensible to me, and I'm sure....to many others, that president Bush, after experiencing the criticism that was meted out in the wake of the 9/11 attacks....criticism that he took a month off and went to his ranch, after just 6-1/2 months on the job, in 2001.....that he received and then later tried to block disclosure of the non-classified portions of the contents of that Aug. 6, 2001 terror attack intelligence PDB, while he was on that vacation, and then did nothing in response to that PDB, including not interrupting that vacation.
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A2676-2004Apr10&notFound=true">(Bush Gave No Sign of Worry In August 2001 By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, April 11, 2004)</a>

Just as he was "working from Wyoming, last year, when Bush was playing guitar and delivering a birthday cake to John McCain, while Katrina was destroying New Orleans, Mr. Cheney was again on vacation, at the same time that Mr. Bush was....this year, when the first "red alert" terror warning in post 9/11, US history was issued:
So....at 10:30 am., EDT, Tony Snow tells the press that Bush made the decision to issue the "red alert", "yesterday"....that would be on Aug. 9th, the day that Cheney was making a rare teleconference from his vacation location in Jackson, Wyoming, sending the message of fear against more voting, that is anything similar to the Connecticut "anti-war" vote agains Joe Lieberman.
<b>When I was writing my new TFP thread, titled, "Huh?", Cheney already knew about the red "terror" alert, but I didn't !</b>

You can read on the "Huh?" thread, the comments that republicans were making....after Bush has already authorized a "red alert", but before the world was told.....

Now, there is this:
We have a phony, domestic terror campaign, IMO, telegraphed by "terrorist",
US leaders, too lazy and disrespectful of the rest of us, to even give up enough of their own vacation time to make the "terror" seem convincing....