Which will we see first?

Saddam Hussein’s trial ending with him convicted and scheduled for execution, or Dick Cheney being indicted by Fitzgerald on conspiracy charges in the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame?

Or Karl Rove being indicted, with charges paralleling Libby’s?

Or George W. Bush being impeached for gross incompetence? (Of course, Bush can probably escape impeachment by copping a plea of insanity. This will follow the start of a war with Iran, which Israel will start with a pre-emptive strike, after which the Pentagon’s Iranian war plans will be put to use upon the orders of Bush. You see, this way Bush can claim he really didn’t have plans in place to attack Iran. He really did hope diplomacy would work. But since the Israelis “started” it, and Persian Gulf oil routes were threatened, Bush just had to join in for national security reasons). One has to really pay attention to what the Bush administration says…and doesn’t say. Because what is often left unsaid is just as important as the frontal-assault spin they use.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..;cset=true

I’ve got $5 for the first person who can name one thing, anything, Joseph Wilson found on his 2002 trip to Niger that proved “false” President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union statement, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Come over here if you’re looking for the five bucks.

When I saw you use the word internecine in reference to possible infighting at the Whitehouse, it reminded me of this Word History article. Just another small example of how our collective understanding of historical events, ideas, and meanings can so easily morph and distort.

http://www.answers.com/topic/internecine

Word History: When is a mistake not a mistake? In language at least,
the answer to this question is “When everyone adopts it,” and on rare
occasions, “When it’s in the dictionary.” The word internecine
presents a case in point. Today, it usually has the meaning “relating
to internal struggle,” but in its first recorded use in English, in
1663, it meant “fought to the death.” How it got from one sense to
another is an interesting story in the history of English. The Latin
source of the word, spelled both internecnus and internecvus, meant
“fought to the death, murderous.” It is a derivative of the verb
necre, “to kill.” The prefix inter- was here used not in the usual
sense “between, mutual” but rather as an intensifier meaning “all the way, to the death.”

This piece of knowledge was unknown to Samuel Johnson, however, when
he was working on his great dictionary in the 18th century. He
included internecine in his dictionary but misunderstood the prefix
and defined the word as “endeavoring mutual destruction.” Johnson was
not taken to task for this error. On the contrary, his dictionary was
so popular and considered so authoritative that this error became
widely adopted as correct usage. The error was further compounded when
internecine acquired the sense “relating to internal struggle.” This
story thus illustrates how dictionaries are often viewed as providing norms and how the
ultimate arbiter in language, even for the dictionary itself, is popular usage.

Primordial Ooze — it’s taken me a year to SEE it, I guess. I wonder if the bolding in the text wasn’t there the first time I read the article.

Cross-check the dates against key events in the CIA Leak case. I think there’s a strong correlation.

–

But the whole scenario plays to those that believe in the return of the 12th Imam (”…the Mahdi; a figure considered by both Sunnis and Shias to be the ultimate saviour of humankind…)

DEVELOPING – A Very dangerous unstable/volatile situation…

“…organized religion is for people who are afraid of hell. Spirituality is for people who’ve already been to hell.” – Oliver Stone

This is a point I’ve been making for years, and I find it astounding how people willfully ignore the historical record to maintain their disbelief of this eventuality.

Historically, when there has been a belligerent and overpowering nation, the rest of the nations tend to band together for mutual defense, even if they hate each other. It’s simple logic.

If you had a mean neighbor with a big gun who liked to use it to get his way, you can bet that it would make you work more closely with your other neighbors even if you’d otherwise never want to speak with them.