Our new esteemed Head of Homeland Security


Thread starter #1

sosuemetoo

Active Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
714
Likes
1
Our new esteemed Head of Homeland Security

Instead of adding to another thread, I decided to start a new one. President Bush has nominated a former NYPD Bernard Kerik.

Link:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/12070...7041kerik1.html

Homeland Security nominee was once bankrupt NYPD cop

DECEMBER 7--While a recent stock windfall has left Bernard Kerik sitting on $6 million, President Bush's nominee to head the Homeland Security department hasn't always been so flush. In fact, Kerik was once a deadbeat who declared bankruptcy when he couldn't handle his credit card bills, loan repayments, or Sears and J.C. Penney tabs. Kerik filed for Chapter 7 protection in October 1987, when he was a 32-year-old New York Police Department officer living in Greenwich Village, according to federal court records. As detailed in Kerik's bankruptcy petition, a copy of which you'll find below, he listed debts totaling about $12,000, the largest of which was a $2089.52 Visa bill. He also claimed an inability to pay a $174 Sunoco tab. According to Kerik's filing, his expenses exceeded his income by about $200 per month. Along with costs like rent ($700), food $200), and \"alimony, maintenance, or support payments\" ($280), Kerik typed in \"Barber\" on the line calling for other expenses to be listed. Those tonsorial treatments set him back $20 a month. Kerik, who reported having $15 on hand and $50 in a checking account, valued his personal property at $2365 (he appraised two .38 caliber firearms at $300). In March 1988, after court-appointed trustee Albert Togut filed a report stating that Kerik was an asset-free zone, Judge Conelius Blackshear signed an order formally releasing him \"from all dischargeable debts.\" (12 pages)
This guy may be very upstanding. However, this is a man who will have his hand in BUDGETING the 2nd most important part IMO (the military being the first) of our government's finances.

Another question I have is how a low wage, bankrupt cop can be a multimillionaire in the whitehouse in 16 years? I believe in the American Dream, but this man's finances seemed to have soared at the speed of light.

Surely Bush could have found someone better to head Homeland Security ... at least someone with a better credit report.

Is this the right guy in the right place at the right time, or does something smell rotten?
 

CaryP

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
1,438
Likes
0
Our new esteemed Head of Homeland Security

Another question I have is how a low wage, bankrupt cop can be a multimillionaire in the whitehouse in 16 years? I believe in the American Dream, but this man's finances seemed to have soared at the speed of light.

Surely Bush could have found someone better to head Homeland Security ... at least someone with a better credit report.

Is this the right guy in the right place at the right time, or does something smell rotten?
He got a pass into the club Sosue. You got to be rich to be in the club, so they made sure he had the "right qualifications". You still loving the W as much? His credit report ain't what concerns me. The $6 million portfolio in a very short period of time does. I don't know if this boy is trained to swim in the waters of Washington. Might not last that long being a "newbie" to that crowd. Too many ways to get blindsided in that environment. Better learn the neocon rules of behavior if he expects to make it through the next four years.

Cary
 

ZeoEmeraude

Active Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
963
Likes
249
Our new esteemed Head of Homeland Security

As usual folks, <span style='color:blue'>"The Man" has his hands dipped into the very facet of our lives once more. I think this whole thing stinks (IMO).....And of course "W" may have had his small part in this but I gotta wonder who decided this guy was gonna get to play in the production. This dude was broke, bottom line. He get's an apparant "windfall" and is now running HLS for this country? I would watch this one myself....he has a lot of power and no spending limit. Kinda reminds me of those ppl who will steal your credit card and play with your life. (IMO) This guy is a plant or a puppet for "The Man" and I wouldn't be surprised if we see this same trend lasting for a bit longer. </span>
 

PyRo99

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
566
Likes
1
Our new esteemed Head of Homeland Security

It was probably Rove's idea. They're setting up the game. And they want us to fall into their pitfall. No-Limit, and they've put just the man in to do their dirty work, the scapegoat.

Ridge was upset that he couldn't be the man, thats why he quit.
 

dancho

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
84
Likes
0
Our new esteemed Head of Homeland Security

What's that you say? He suddenly made a bunch of money? :church lady voice: Gosh--- could it be----SAUDIS?!?!?

Really. This guy IS a nobody. That's why I posted that his appointment was due to his Saudi connections. Don't just brush this off-- think about it. The Saudis want to make sure that all the "major players" are on the same page, hence the many defections from the Bush cabinet.

What part of this is so hard to believe? That Bush would cave to the Saudis? Come on. We can't just invade Saudi Arabia. It's the HOLY OF HOLIES to a few hundred million moslems and they will DEFINITELY nuke us if we invaded the holy of holies. That's what was so BEAUTY about the original Bush (senior) plan to hold the Saudis hostage using Saddam's army as our (very covert) ally.

Anyway, the Saudis and very shrewd. They tell Bush "Get rid of your attack dog (Saddam) and settle our score with the Taliban and you can have the Iraqi oil and whatever you can get out of Afghanistan too." Hey-- it's a "win win" situation for everybody but the Taliban and Iraq.

THINK. It all makes sense. I'm sorry if this messes with your head, but I am convinced that a weird sort of "war by proxy" has been going on in the Gulf Region since the first Gulf War and it's still going on.

How DOES any of this make sense? We have a terror attack, then we invade Afghanistan, then we turn around and attack Saddam despite his lack of weapons of mass destruction and his lack of ties to Al Queda. So what is going on?

Well, I'm telling you. The government of Saudi Arabia is blackmailing Bush in order to "undo" the mischief done by his father's administration. If he doesn't do as he is told, the Saudis will 1) launch more terror attacks 2) start another oil embargo 3) call for a Jihad against the U.S.A., and

4) Squeal on Bush The Elder's scheme with Saddam to swindle the world. That's the clincher. Bush Jr. will not leave his dad twisting in the wind.

Hey, it's a theory, but it's a damn good one. Please don't tell me that "the Saudi's are our friends." THEY ARE THE ENEMY. That's my point. THEM. THE SAUDIS.

THESE GUYS

I'll bet you that the average Arab would see this as a VERY likely explanation. It's just that Americans are no where near as devious as the Arabs and we don't imagine that such a Byzantine scheme could actually be real.
 
Thread starter #6

sosuemetoo

Active Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
714
Likes
1
Our new esteemed Head of Homeland Security

Originally posted by dancho@Dec 8 2004, 11:50 PM
What's that you say? He suddenly made a bunch of money? :church lady voice: Gosh--- could it be----SAUDIS?!?!?

Really. This guy IS a nobody. That's why I posted that his appointment was due to his Saudi connections. Don't just brush this off-- think about it. The Saudis want to make sure that all the \"major players\" are on the same page, hence the many defections from the Bush cabinet.
I'm sorry, I did not see that you had talked about this appointment in your thread, before I started this one. I believe what you've stated above has a lot of merit. I'm going to look into this further.

Thanks Dancho!

Mom
 

CaryP

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
1,438
Likes
0
Our new esteemed Head of Homeland Security

dancho,

While you have some interesting points, I offer a different perspective. I appreciate your posts and your thoughts. You've made some great contributions to the board in your short tenure here. Let me get on with my post.

Why would the Saudis want the U.S. attacked, only to have our military in the Arab world? Yes, taking out Saddam would be to their liking, but evidence has surfaced that Saddam wasn't much of a threat as a military force. We had troops in Saudi Arabia, but they were pulled out during the Iraqi invasion and occupation. Do/did the Saudis want our troops presence in their country to protect the royal family from Islamic fundamentalists? No idea, if the rhetoric is to be believed, the jihadists want to take down the House of Saud, and Arabia into an Islamic fundamentalist state. I'm not saying the Saudi's are our friends. Yes, it's documented that they "don't like" us, but they sure like our money for their oil. To destroy America means a big customer goes away, along with most of the world economy. If the Saudis were behind the attack wouldn't that be to their detriment? Would they risk pissing off the most powerful military force in the world? IMO, this was a classic case of a "false flag" operation. Just like Oswald was the lone gunman, and the "super bullet" theory in the Kennedy assasination.

So a bigger question is who would benefit by the 9/11 attacks drawing the U.S. in attacking Arab/Islamic countries. Obvious answer, the Israeli govt. Who is at odds with all of its neighbors in the Mid East? Israel. I'm not saying that Jewish people in general, or the average Israeli citizen would back the 9/11 attack. I'm not anti-semitic. I am anti-Israeli govt. policies, just as I'm anti-American govt. policies (no, of course not all of them). Doesn't make me anti-American, or anti-Israeli, or anti-Semitic. I just don't like the foreign, and some of the domestic policies of the govt. administrations that are currently in the seat of power in both countries.

Let me give you some points on why IMO it makes more sense that the Sharon admin. (not everyone in the Israeli govt.) was behind the 9/11 attack in conjunction with the neocon Bush admin. (not everyone in the U.S. govt.). I'm not saying this is the gospel truth, but the evidence is pretty strong that the 9/11 attack was an inside job.

Israeli Mossad agents were seen filming and celebrating the attacks on the WTC from the N.J. shore across the Hudson River. These agents were picked up and later released back to Israel.

The Israeli govt. has stepped up its spying on the U.S. govt. as has been revealed in the rash of caught Israeli spies over the last couple of years, most recently in the Pentagon.

Bush Sr.'s former NSA, Scowcroft, has been quoted that Sharon has Bush wrapped around his little finger. Scowcroft also said that Sharon was "the problem." After every suicide bomber in Israel, Sharon allegedly phones Bush, to tell him that he is fighting terrorism on the front line, as a reminder that Isreal's interests are America's interests.

American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the biggest political contributiors to U.S. politicians. AIPAC is also the top Israel lobby in the U.S. Both Bush and Kerry came out strongly in their pledge for Israel in the recent elections. AIPAC is currently under investigation for a host of illegal activity in the U.S.

The Israeli govt. has seen Saddam has its number one threat for a long time. The elimination of Iraq with Saddam at the head benefits Israel much more than Saudi Arabia. Iran and Syria are next up for a story to be built to "justify" an attack/invasion/occupation over the next year or two. The only thing that stopped the Israeli govt. from strategic strikes against Iran before the U.S. elections was a message through back channels from Russia that Israel could be turned into a big glass parking lot if Iran were attacked. The Russians just signed several deals with Iran, supplying them with nuclear technology and trade.

Saddam hated Israel more than Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is an enemy of Israel. Isreal does not have the military or resources to make a major offensive against its Arab neighbors, especially without support from the U.S. The U.S. invasion would not/did not draw the entire region into a war. Well, yet, anyway. An Israeli attack on one of its Arab neighbors would have a much higher degree of having all Arab/Islamic countires attack Israel.

The neocon agenda according to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is for ongoing global war for eventual global domination in what they term "Pax Americana." Part of the PNAC agenda was the need for a "Pearl Harbor type event" to get the American people behind a war. 9/11 served that purpose.

Bush had been talking about finding an excuse to attack Iraq and take out Saddam from before he was president. Paul O'Neil, for Treasury Secretary, said in his book, that Bush was discussing an invasion of Iraq from his second day as president in his first cabinet meeting.

Despite claims of WMD's in Iraq, a connection to al Qaeda, and a hand in the 9/11 attack by Iraq, Bush's handpicked 9/11 commission discredited all of these lies that were told to the American people to get the populace hyped up for an Iraq invasion and occupation. Is it just about oil? Hardly. Another lie told to the American people was about the low cost of the war, and that Iraqi oil could be sold to pay for it. Iraqi oil supplies are below pre-invasion levels, and supply lines are consistently disrupted by "insurgents" there. The cost of the Iraq invasion/occupation is now pushing several hundred billion dollars. Another interesting tidbit is that about $20 billion of money raised from oil sales since the invasion has gone missing. Wonder if our new DHS Sec. appointee got some of that?

There's lots more. If you'd like to do more research, I'd recommend that you check out http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ There's a lot of material there, and you can do searches by topic. Read what's available on Israel and 9/11 for starters. If you'd like to see what some American sources have come up with on 9/11 do a google search on Stanley Hilton. Hilton is the formere chief of staff for Bob Dole, and has a lawsuit filed against a number of the Bush administration for $7 billion and is representing 400 family members of 9/11 victims. Hilton's suit is for treason and mass murder. Also do a google search on Michael Ruppert and his new book, "Crossing the Rubicon" Ruppert came up with similar conclusions as Hilton's lawsuit as to who and what were behind the 9/11 attacks.

No it ain't pretty, and it's hard to get your brain around. Nobody wants to believe we have a bunch of criminals running the White House. It ain't the first time and it probably won't be the last. There's a lot of evidence that several of the hijackers from 9/11 were trained and funded by the FBI and the CIA. Several of the alledged hijackers have also turned up alive back in their home countries. They never left to take part in the attacks. The lies and fabrication surrounding the whole thing is mind boggling. Remember that OBL is a bought and paid for CIA asset. If we wanted to find him, don't you think we'd have found him by now? Why was his pre-election video conveniently released the Friday before the elections? My take is to scare the American public into voting for the incumbent, because he talks a better game of "let's whup ass." Walter Cronkite said on Larry King that the pre-election OBL video was probably the work of Karl Rove. Ain't that interesting?

Anyway, sorry to go on and on. Just trying to give you another viewpoint and some research sources. One of the last things the Saudis want is an American military presence in their neck of the woods. Israel on the other hand stands to benefit immensely. Just my thoughts.

Cary
 

Judge Bean

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
1,257
Likes
1
Our new esteemed Head of Homeland Security

Originally posted by dancho@Dec 9 2004, 04:50 AM
....the original Bush (senior) plan to hold the Saudis hostage using Saddam's army as our (very covert) ally.

Anyway, the Saudis and very shrewd. They tell Bush \"Get rid of your attack dog (Saddam) and settle our score with the Taliban and you can have the Iraqi oil and whatever you can get out of Afghanistan too.\"

...a weird sort of \"war by proxy\" has been going on in the Gulf Region since the first Gulf War and it's still going on. ?

.... The government of Saudi Arabia is blackmailing Bush in order to \"undo\" the mischief done by his father's administration. If he doesn't do as he is told, the Saudis will 1) launch more terror attacks 2) start another oil embargo 3) call for a Jihad against the U.S.A., and

4) Squeal on Bush The Elder's scheme with Saddam to swindle the world. That's the clincher. Bush Jr. will not leave his dad twisting in the wind.


In light of this, it is interesting to note that Rumsfeld was the chief emissary to Iraq during the long war with Iran-- i.e., the one making sure that Saddam was pumped up on American arms while he was gassing his own people. The full details of these transactions will never be made public.

Also, during the "Gulf War" (I love to put these pert phrases in quotes, since they strike me as being so far from the truth, but are instead only packing labels) the Saudi security was a primary concern, and a deal was made to install our military there permanently. To lodge Judeo-Christian troops in the Holy Land has never been a votegetter in Arabia, not to mention allying the tribes with the Infidel against a brother nation.

Also, 911 looks more and more like a Saudi operation the closer you look at it: the money, the nationality of the hijackers, the slick execution... without much religious hoopla, either, which was, after all, the ostensible purpose of the attack-- to stage a spectacular martyrdom. I doubt we can tell how far apart politics and religion really is in the modern world, but there is a joint effort by all sides to stage the current global conflict as a religious war. The trouble is that under the surface it's still primarily about the economy.

"It's about the economy, stupid," is the slogan that Clinton supposedly had framed on his wall while he ran for president. The question is, then, who is supposed to be stupid, Bush while banging the wardrums, or all of us English speakers (with the notable classy exception of Canada and a few others) for marching to them?
 

dancho

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
84
Likes
0
Our new esteemed Head of Homeland Security

Originally posted by CaryP@Dec 9 2004, 10:11 AM

dancho,

Why would the Saudis want the U.S. attacked, only to have our military in the Arab world? Yes, taking out Saddam would be to their liking, but evidence has surfaced that Saddam wasn't much of a threat as a military force. We had troops in Saudi Arabia, but they were pulled out during the Iraqi invasion and occupation. Do/did the Saudis want our troops presence in their country to protect the royal family from Islamic fundamentalists? No idea, if the rhetoric is to be believed, the jihadists want to take down the House of Saud, and Arabia into an Islamic fundamentalist state. I'm not saying the Saudi's are our friends. Yes, it's documented that they \"don't like\" us, but they sure like our money for their oil. To destroy America means a big customer goes away, along with most of the world economy. If the Saudis were behind the attack wouldn't that be to their detriment? Would they risk pissing off the most powerful military force in the world? IMO, this was a classic case of a \"false flag\" operation. Just like Oswald was the lone gunman, and the \"super bullet\" theory in the Kennedy assasination.


Cary
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I believe that Israel is very happy to see conflict between Islamic fundalmentalists and the USA-- and for the reasons that you outlined. But, I'm still convinced that the attacks were planned and executed by Saudi agents.

You asked why the Saudis would do such a thing, if it meant bringing American troops to the Gulf Region. The answer to this is that the US troops have been in Saudi Arabia since 1991-- after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The Saudis attacked the US on 9/11 as part of scheme to blackmail Bush Jr. and get the US troops OUT of Saudi Arabia.

I'm saying that old-time CIA stooge Saddam Hussein and old-time CIA chief G. Bush Sr. cooked up a plot to get US troops into the middle east using a brilliant plan of deception. Saddam sent his troops to Kuwait to loot and pillage (and get killed) while he cooled his heels in Baghdad. The key thing here is that Saddam did not give a damn about his people-- once you accept that, the rest of the plan makes a twisted kind of sense. We don't know (and probably will never know) what Saddam was paid to do the deed, but I'm convinced he would sell out for less than you might think.

Think about the fact that it took six months for the Allied (US) forces to deploy to Saudi Arabia. Six months! In that much time, Saddam could have launched dozens of terror attacks at the US. But he did not. He could have held US and Allied civilians (mostly oil company employees) hostage in Iraq-- but he did not. In fact, he forced them to leave the country. Finally, consider the final outcome of the battle. A few dozen Allied casualties (mostly due to friendly fire). Saddam is the "hero" of the Arab world. A half million US and allied troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. And, ultimately, if Kuwait or Saudi Arabia fail to follow orders from Washington, we would withdraw out troops. Saddam's military may have been "weak"-- but it was strong enough to conquer Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. And hang the Saudi King from a lamp-post in the name of the Bath Revolution. And at no time would any of the "suckers" (that's us) suspect that this was all part of a plan to control middle eastern oil from Washington. Of course, once Saddam invaded Saudi Arabia, we could come "riding to the rescue" again and "save the day." Yeah. Right.

So, the critical thing is that the Saudis attacked America in order to get the troops OUT of Saudi Arabia. And to get rid of Saddam. And to get rid of Osama Bin Laden and his anti-Saudi Al Queda organization. In 2001 the Saudis launched a counter-offensive in a weird war that has been going on since 1991. And they are winning (so far).

So where is Saddam? Did he leave Iraq and go to Syria as The Mossad assumed he would? Of course not. He surrendered to the US, his true "allies" despite the fact that we turned on him, because he desperately wants to "make another deal." After all, wouldn't you do the same thing? His "testimony" is golden to the Bush admininistration. Just wait and see what he ends up doing. I'm looking forward to it.

I'm convinced that the Neocon strategy for world domination was hatched after the Falklands War. That war demonstrated the proper technique for waging a war-- quick and clean. The Grenada invasion proved that US imperialism would fly. Then came the big test-- Panama. We invaded and occupied a "friendly" country and used a CIA stooge (Noriega) to pull it off. Where is Noriega now? Is he really at his private "prison" apartment where he still wears his old uniforms and where other prisoners rarely see him? Is he?

Then came the ultimate prize. Saudi Arabia using a, well, DASTARDLY, plan that involved another CIA stooge, Saddam Hussein. And the plan worked like a charm, except that the Saudis were clever enough to know that if they could pay for Bush Jr.'s election, they could launch their counter-offensive and regain their sovereignty. After all, they couldn't blackmail anyone else in quite the same way.

Hey, you'll know I'm on the right track if I suddenly disappear! :)
 

PyRo99

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
566
Likes
1
Our new esteemed Head of Homeland Security

He withdrew, so now they can put in an even stiffer neocon. >:D<