Once Stalin made a short speech.
The listeners for twenty-five minutes applauded standing. Then it was a packet
of discs: one with the speech and about 15 with applauds (only applauds!). It is
told that history returns as a farce. It became true in
Cannes. Why people applauded to
Stalin one can understand – they wanted to escape brutal tortures. How the farce
was organized in Cannes is not
understandable. The ones who applauded have seen the movie and know how much it
has lie, slander, and dishonest shuffling. It is difficult to believe that it
was not a carefully organized performance.
Journalists in the
chosen for their performance) openly told the people who spoke against the
Moore movie that they
are here for collecting the positive opinions.
Moore openly admitted
that all was done to get rid of Bush.
Does not the “reputable”
psychiatrist know what will happen if his approach would be applied for Bush’s
opponents or even for him personally? On his couch would be seen much uglier
pictures as in his libel. He knows for sure!
In his own interview, the
author said that he would not cure Bush. He betrayed the Hippocratic Oath. Then
he added that this is done to force Bush to resign. It follows that he is not a
doctor but a political activist of the worst kind. In addition, very qualified
psychiatrists stated that there is no man whom it is impossible to diagnose as
seriously ill mentally.
In my opinion the President should
be defended from rude abusing. E.g., President Bush is often named as Hitler or
Stalin. This is evidently vulgar juggling with facts. Any President in a
democratic society has no possibility for such behavior and would lose his
position long before he’ll start to behave as Hitler or Stalin. The distance
between the Presidents in democratic societies from Hitler or Stalin is much
greater than the distance between the authors of such insinuations and the
ugliest rats in the dirtiest sewage. Those rascals know this; that’s why they
say this and are not afraid to be awfully tortured. It seemed that without such
ugly lies they cannot find defects in our President.
Any president is not perfect,
but in the same time, any president is a clever and gifted man, no matter if it
is Stalin, Hitler, De Gaulle, Clinton, or even Saddam Hussein. On the other
hand, bloody dictators simply cannot become Presidents of democratic societies
by their nature. In addition, the election procedure and reality in democratic
countries does not allow potentially bloody dictators to become presidents and
to keep their position. This was proved by history. Only untruthful provocateurs
may speak in such a way about presidents of democratic countries.
What big money is thrown against
the existing USA
government! Some sources are already partially known: Saddam Hussein spent
billions only for bribes (!!!) to organize anti-American and the first of all
anti-Bush campaigns: who else? Who
first uses this for profit? – Bush’s opponents for elections.
After the collapse of the Soviet
Union, Saddam’s bribes are the largest financial operation
(do not forget about money used, but not tracked in documents). The goal of
these operations is to create an unstable situation in the
to create as much as possible anti-American behavior in the world. Do
“democrats” understand this? – Sure! Do they fight this? – No! They blame Bush
that due to Saddam’s bribes and their mass media some criticize the
With or without using the bribes directly they behave as if they are paid;
exactly as Saddam expected from the ones who received those bribes. Kerry named
the ones who fight Saddam a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." He
knows that Saddam‘s bribes and terrorist support is on his side and against the
ones he abused in a way as a impudent hooligan.
Mass media and
Hollywood are playing a central part
in this. Do not touch the peaceful
Iraq! What a
good life the Iraqi people had under Saddam (according to M. Moore). Against
Bush he is ready to say any muck. Against Saddam he is afraid even now. How mass
media searched for the rich in Bush’s team! Now, when super-rich are bursting
into the White House with support of billionaires mass media are silent. Did
mass media compare Clinton’s
“military” record to his opponents’?
is an excellent, peaceful country. He is not a fool; he would prefer to live in
the free world where it is possible to create so-called “documentary” movies.
Documentary is not something filled with lies. Even the 9/11 commission (which
is not on the Bush side) finds lies in
tied to terrorists? – No! Is
tied to terrorists? – No!
Moore states this. For
him the concealing of terrorists’ paths through
is not evidence of participation in the actions of terrorists (including 9/11).
The concealment of this fact makes
Moore an accessory as
well. Moore forgot
about the bribes Saddam paid: billions to different politicians and others, but
(as Moore states) not
a penny to terrorists. Why: because this is not fixed in their passports and in
Saddam’s documents. From the title of Moore’s film “Fahrenheit 9/11” it follows
that one of it’s goals was to whitewash the instigators of terrorism and slander
those who commence war on them (first of all Bush).
One fact is completely forgotten
by mass media. In
Iraq were found
big movable laboratories which were partially dismantled and buried. Meticulous
journalists are not interested in questions like: what was dismantled from those
laboratories; who and why buried them; are those laboratories the ones which ran
away before UN inspectors visited, and so on. How can mass media suspect
Saddam?! He (as showed by Moore) is,
as Stalin was, a devoted father of his citizens.
Just before the war Saddam
honored medals (and perhaps something else?) on a group of high Soviet (sorry
Russian) military generals. Is mass media interested in this? No! This is
related to the bribes, but the mass media are against Bush just as the ones
receiving the bribes. Is this anti-American behavior completely
national security adviser under Clinton broke the law by taking some classified documents. Part of
them he was forced to return, but some he “occasionally” threw out. I am far
from a supposition that those documents had a plan for supporting terrorists.
But I am even further from a supposition that the President’s national security
advisor does not know the rules about secret documents. In this case the
State Security at Clinton times loses its meaning. But the crucial point is:
how the 9/11 Commission can make any conclusions without stressing that their
conclusions are not complete due to the escaping of documents.
How much was written about the
questioning of Condoleezza Rice. But the main participants in the tragedy were
Now it is seen that there was no national security in
Clinton times. And the
documents, which can prove this, are stolen. But the mass media masks this with
Perpetual glory to the noble and
honest madness of the brave! But the President and Commander in Chief must have
wise, powerful, and sober mentality. This is necessary for choosing qualified
and honest advisers. Does this quality mostly define the wisdom of the
President? The advisers should be chosen in such a way that it would not be
necessary to distance from them in the most critical time, e.g. as Kerry and
History shows that brave people
are seldom wise. On my knowledge, only two really brave young men became state
rulers. Both became bloody dictators: Stalin and Hitler. Are there others cases
and any in democratic countries? Democrats found out that Berger may be harmful.
They made some leak of information to get rid of him. It does not show any
cleverness or wisdom; Kerry knew this all long before. By the way, it may happen
that Kerry has nothing to do with the brave. Bush was not in Vietnam, Kerry was
not by his own will. I do not want to discuss the speculation how he got his
wounds and how serious they were; how long he was cured in the hospital. I want
to remind that the first day he had possibility to escape
he used it. He has no right to speak about others participation in that war.
Start to compare his military record with the
started a campaign about the bestiality of Americans there. He abused American
medals due to that brutality. He did not give any evidences, but abused the
USA and all
participants in that noble war against communist expansion. This may happen
because his doings were based on his personal behavior in
on you Mr. Kerry! History shows that the majority of big politicians profiteer
with false rewards. This may explain why Kerry could mix his medals with dirt.
He complains that the advertisements about him on TV are dirt. But there are
only quotes, he better knows what a dirt are his doings!
Mass media and
Hollywood are guilty for creating
such public opinion in the
US much more
than Goebbels for the public opinion in Fascist Germany. Even with his billions
Saddam did not expect such an effect, which “democratic” mass media created by
one-sided and biased news. E.g., could Saddam expect for a demand to resign the
Minister of Defense? Mass media proposed to make Abu Ghraib as a
US (not Saddam’s!) brutality. Is this
all happening due to Saddam’s bribes? Here are two crimes: against humanity and
against Bush administration (Did Bush create the
US army from
Mass media and
Hollywood are the only
ones who openly and systematically influence the public opinion in our country.
The fact that they deny this may only lead to a conclusion: that they do it
intentionally and by some plan. On the other hand, it is so one-sided that it is
difficult to escape a supposition that it is directed (and paid) from one
source. The crime against humanity is that they show the bloody Saddam regime as
better than the American one. The crime against Bush is that they are using the
conclusion of the first crime against the Bush government.
When Kerry pressed the TV not
to show the trustful advertisement mass media are silent - why? They forget
about freedom? They do not speculate what he would do when in power. Kerry told
that Bush must stop it – he is sure that the president can do such things. And
what about demonstrations organized by democrats with the “kind” slogans? What
is the Kerry’s opinion?
If there was a Democratic (not
Republican) President in time of the Iraqi war, then at the remembering of the
60th-year of landing in France the mass media would have continuously
repeated that in only one operation thousands of Americans lost their life. They
would say: How our President takes care about every American life! The long war
in Iraq with
such a devious enemy and is it possible to compare losses? One can object that a
democratic President would not start such a war. Carter did nothing, and
Clinton was capable of a random
powerful strike to somewhere. This, on my knowledge, is the only case in
American history of provoking terrorist strikes back. Bush, after analysis,
started the war with the guilty ones.
The participation in the First
World War started by Wilson (DEMOCRAT), the participation in WW2 started by
Roosevelt (DEMOCRAT), the participation in the Korean War started by Truman
(DEMOCRAT), escalation of Vietnam War started by Johnson (DEMOCRAT). The war
with terrorism, the only war
could not escape was not started by Clinton (DEMOCRAT). And this is the only war
when the casualties outside the battles are much greater than the ones in the
bombed the Iraqi nuclear installation there was a noise, but all, including
understand that it has some reasons. If instead,
bombed an Iraqi military airbase there would be a military respond for sure from
Arab countries. In response to a terrorist attack, bombing a plant, as was done
by Clinton, provoked
slogans for revenge. If instead of this
Clinton analyzed the
situation (as Bush did), then the only valid option would be to start the war
with terrorism much earlier. The WTC would still be standing, and the thousand
burned alive would still be living. Does the honorable 9/11 Commission
understand this? – Of course!
USA would not
have interfered in the
then, with a big probability, today there would have been a new Great Power. It
and others. The order would be as in the Taliban Afghanistan. To deal with it
would cost millions of lives. But today on those territories is a hunt for those
murders. Hawks (as Qaddafi) are changing into pigeons.
would make it easier for
to do the same with other rich but small and militarily weak countries. Next it
would be easy to win the war against
and so on. All humanity and Americans first must be thankful to the Bushes.
Thanks to them and to Reagan it became possible to have such low casualties in
the war with
Thanks to them we’ll have in the nearest future an SDI. Thanks to them it would
not be necessary to start a war with any bandit state, no matter how small it
is, to prevent an atomic blackmail. This is proposed by democrats: to prevent an
atomic strike without SDI. How? Europe
completed nearly all terrorist demands, but receives new
Where are the mass media to
shout about all of the above?
Really, where are the mass
to shout about all of the above?
Not we the Americans came to the
Arab countries with death and fire. They, at least majority of them, came to our
home with a cruel war. They try to enforce the Taliban regime’s order to the
entire world. They danced with joy when in the WTC tower thousands burned alive
of innocent people. They, with cruel terror, force to distance other countries
from the USA.
Only American people did not stand on their knees, and with President Bush are
in the way of terrorists. I am sure that the
USA has more
than enough possibilities to win the war with terror. But I am ashamed e.g., for
(proud in some times) Spaniards.
Where are the times of “from
Granada …”? Where are
those brave and proud people? Do the Europeans believe that distancing
themselves from the
they would get security? No! Step by step they would be forced to behave as it
was in Taliban
Their enemies do not hide their goals. The antiwar activists, especially women,
should first stop going to universities and so on. Their behavior is like the
behavior of soviet KGB agents. But some of them had in the
more possibilities than ordinary soviet citizens too. Are those girls promised
to have under Taliban some freedom? Who promised it?
Moore? Do not believe
I want to stress: the bribes were
distributed by Saddam and others long before the war. Kerry is using the
situation created by Saddam. In reality he is criticizing the policy of Clinton
and himself. Not in an hour was prepared the WTC attack; the FBI was from
Clinton times; Kerry voted for the
war; and so on. But for him all the same: in front of Jews he promises support
against Arabs, in front of Muslims he is against Israel, in front of blacks… The
only goal is votes.
Would Kerry have any chance if
starting from an empty space? No! Saddam’s bribes, the sponsors of terrorism
money created an anti-Bush platform. Democrats put Kerry on this platform (an
anti-American platform). Mass media do not stress who created the platform; that
democrats and Kerry, in particular, did not add anything sensible to those
platform. What is the difference between their slogans or that of Saddam’s or
I want to remind once more that the criminals spent
billions to get rid of Bush. Terrorists are doing anything they can to do the
same. Instead of fighting with their crimes the democrats are using the
situation created by them. Saddam’s bribes were part of their election campaign
From The Week, “48% of
Americans think that it’s likely that terrorists will attack the
before November to try to influence the election results.” From
News and World Report: “Since
al Qaeda has had the feeling of ‘We can do this. We can affect an election.’”
It’s interesting that our enemies (terrorists) prefer Kerry. The obvious
conclusion is that we should act contrarily to the interests of our enemies,
since by definition; our enemies want the worst for us. The money was robbed by
bloody dictators and by other criminal means. Did the robbers-criminals give
bribes to honest people? No, the bribes were taken by criminals. Every honest
person must fight this, but democrats do not! They use it for their goals. Who
would say that in such situation democrats are not a part of a campaign whose
source is criminal money? Don’t forget that Kerry gathered less than about $300
million but just the bribes from Saddam sum up to many billions. (Not from his
personal account but from his country’s wealth, e.g. the UN program food for
Should the citizens of the
United States of
America vote as it is dictated by money
of their enemies?
Kogan, New York, July 2004 please, copy and