"[i]And one of the police, he put a part of his stick that he always carries inside my ass, and I felt it going inside me about two centimeters, approximately. And I started screaming, and he pulled it out and he washed it with water inside the room. And the two American girls that were there when they were beating me, they were hitting me with a ball made of sponge on my dick. And when I was tied up in my room, one of the girls, with blond hair, she is white, she was playing with my dick. I saw inside this facility a lot of punishment just like what they did to me and more. And they were taking pictures of me during all these instances[/i]." - http://www.tblog.com/template... ... [i]This isn't even the "worst" of it if that is imaginable ... Children being raped and sodomized ... People being fed crap to eat [/i]...
Let me preface my remarks by clarifying that there are many Republicans who are great patriots http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... and who are [i]as disgusted [/i]with the corrupt Bush regime as are many Democrats, Independents, Libertarians and conscientious Americans of diverse political persuasions [i]alike[/i] ... However, there are those[i] Repugnant Republicans [/i]in the corrupt neo-con Bush regime and those mad-dog neo-nazis who support them, who uphold their neo-imperial "right-of-brute-power" [[i]sic[/i]] to massacre human beings [i]enmasse[/i] based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods-- and who even try to "justify" [[i]sic[/i]] their hitlerian-style murder, torture, rape, abuse and sodomy of other people including children.
Read the horrifying account of heinous murder, torture, rape, abuse, atrocities and sodomy of human beings (including children) by the Bush/Cheney regime in [i][b]The Secret File of Abu Ghraib: New classified documents implicate U.S. forces in rape and sodomy of Iraqi prisoners [/b][/i] on http://www.rollingstone.com/p...
Take a good hard [i]look[/i] at what Bush/Cheney have done to our nation. Bush and Cheney are [i]despicable[/i]!!!
And we [i]haven't[/i] as yet seen the pictures of Bush/Cheney's thugs raping and sodomizing of little children because they are [i]covering-up [/i]their War Crimes!!!
[b]Torture and Abuse at Abu Ghraib Prison ... The Red Cross warned the Bush administration who knew over a year ago and did nothing to stop this ...[/b]
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
[b]Its the "liberation" of the Iraqi people and it isnt pretty .[/b]
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
[b]These are just some of the photos that led to an investigation into conditions at the Abu Ghraib prison, once Saddams torture palace, and now run by the occupation authorities, as revealed in a shocking report broadcast by CBS on[i] 60 Minutes II[/i][/b].
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
[b]Brig. Gen. Janice Karpinski, in charge of the occupiers detention facilities throughout Iraq, has been dismissed from her post, and 6 U.S. soldiers face charges[/b].
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
[b]"This is international standards," said Karpinski, in an earlier interview with CBS. "It's the best care available in a prison facility."[/b]
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
[b]Anybody can see that .[/b]
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
[b]Below, Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski, who was responsible for military jails in Iraq, and has now been suspended in the abuse probe, meets with Donald Rumsfeld.[/b]
[b]These images are from the [i]60 Minutes II [/i]broadcast. CBS says that it has twelve of these photographs, though there are dozens more. Among them:
The Army has photographs that show a detainee with wires attached to his genitals. Another shows a dog attacking an Iraqi prisoner[/b].
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
=http://img38.photobucket.com/...
... Two Paths for America: A Choice Between Prosperity for All versus Corporate Fascism ...
[b]Now is the time for "We the People" to come to the aide of our country ...[/b]
Americans face a critical decision about the direction of our country, not just in 2004 but for the long term. One is the conservative path for America: tax breaks for the wealthy that do little for the middle class while saddling us with massive debt; government by and for corporations that is indifferent to the struggles of everyday families; and a radical and destabilizing foreign policy that has overburdened our military and left our nation less secure. The other is a progressive path for America:
[b]. Middle class tax breaks, affordable health care, and increasing economic opportunities to help the middle class. [/b]The progressive path for America is one that believes every American should have the opportunity to make the most of their lives given their talents and ambitions. Government has an important role in helping people reach their potential by promoting good paying jobs at home, supporting affordable health care for all, and providing quality education as the foundation of an increasing quality of life.
[b]. Honest and fair government that puts the needs of citizens above all else.[/b] The progressive path honors our democratic values by focusing on what is right and necessary for all Americans, not just those with high paid lobbyists and political or financial clout.
[b]. And a strong and measured foreign policy that fights our enemies everywhere and earns respect for American values and intentions.[/b] As former President Clinton stated earlier this week, "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values." America must relentlessly hunt down and eliminate fundamentalist extremists who aim to destroy our way of life. But in doing so, we must uphold our basic values, honor our international allies and prove to the world that the American way is a just and righteous way toward global security.
We have [i]a real choice [/i]in the upcoming presidential election between the opportunity of [i]prosperity for all [/i] proposed by Kerry/Edwards [i]versus[/i] the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]insane neo-con[i] corporate fascism [/i]... Don't forget that every vote counts ([i]so long as it is counted[/i])!!! ...
... Kids or grandkids going up to John F. Kerry and asking [i]"What did you do during the war[/i]?" ... Kerry can sit down and somberly & honestly give a true account of bravery, integrity and heroism in the face of battle ...
Now [i]contrast that [/i]with Dubya who ... [i]Well, Ooopppsss [/i]... [i]Can't[/i] talk about drinking parties [i]and/or [/i]slutting around ... [i]Can't[/i] talk about his AWOL cowardliness and [i]not-showing-up [/i]even to a "champagne brigade" unit ... No Band of Brothers around, because most of his drinking buddies are probably already dead from the DTs[i] and/or [/i]STDs ... Of course, Dubya could[i] always [/i]tell a[i] pack of lies [/i]... We know Dubya[i] likes to tell lies [/i]...
[i]What a contrast [/i]... Is it any wonder we're in a dire and chaotic [i]mess[/i] as a result of being hijacked by this corrupt band of buffoons??? [i]... It's time for a change [/i]... But be prepared for the vile, nasty and neo-orwellian tactics to be exploited by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]attack machine, an example: [i]Now This Is Rich ... The Irony Of It All[/i] on http://www.tblog.com/template...
[b]Kerry Reported for Duty[/b]
[i]With his Big Speech, Kerry changes the political meaning of Vietnam and positions himself well for the battle ahead[/i].
When John Kerry appeared at the convention for the most important speech of his lifetime, he showed how the screw can turn. What was his not-so-secret weapon? Vietnam. For decades, conservatives have used Vietnam the Metaphor to whack Democrats, to argue they are not serious about national defense, to claim they cannot be trusted to safeguard the United States, and even to suggest that Democrats (at least the liberal ones) are blame-America-firsters.
No more. Kerry, the war-hero-turned-war-foe, wore his Vietnam service as a bloody shirt. And he wrapped his entire party in it. Before Kerry said a single word, his swift boat crewmates stood together on the stage. Former Senator Max Cleland, a veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam, called Kerry "an authentic American hero." Kerry's daughter, Alexandra, recalled a moment when her father drove her to college ten years ago. While she was brooding away, he remarked that it was a lovely sunny day and said, "I know men your exact age, who thought they had the same future you have. Whose families were never born, who never again walked on American soil. They don't feel this sun. Ali, if there's something you don't like, something that needs to be changed, change it." Jim Rassmann, the Marine lieutenant whose life Kerry saved in Vietnam, told the crowd, "Nobody asked me to join this campaign. I volunteered." It was a reference to Kerry's own decision to volunteer for Vietnam. And in his best speech of the 2004 campaign, retired General Wesley Clark declared, "John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace, and I respect him for that, too. " Vietnam – it works both ways. Kerry was a courageous leader in the face of danger. And, as Kerry said in a biographical film, he "felt the government had not been truthful with the American public," and he challenged that government.
Vietnam is no longer a test of foreign policy machismo. John Kerry has transformed it into a test of character and credibility. The presence of his former crewmates was a reminder of a personal story of heroism. And the previous night's endorsement of Kerry by a slew of retired generals and admirals – who directly or indirectly accuse the current president of misleading the nation regarding the Iraq war – tied Bush historically to a previous war that was predicated on lies and ended badly. All this puts George W. Bush – the onetime missing-in-nonaction Guardsman who has used falsehoods to steer the United States into a poorly-planned war – on the short end of the stick. What-ifs hardly matter in political warfare. But imagine for a moment that George W. Bush spent a single day in Vietnam (perhaps even suffering a hangnail). Then the last night of the Democratic convention – and much of the previous evenings – would have been impossible.
The setup for Kerry's address was Vietnam, Vietnam and Vietnam. When broadcast network coverage began – the hour in which millions of Americans, as the pundits had proclaimed, would receive their best look at Kerry – there on the TV screen was Max Cleland. And Kerry's fellow crewmates were nearby. These were men he served with, men he had saved, men who had seen him kill the enemy. It was over thirty years ago. But post 9/11, all the Vietnam references mattered. As Rassmann said, "in a tight situation... your whole life depends on the decisions of one man." He was referring to when he had been thrown into a river and Kerry had bravely rescued him. But he was also speaking about the "tight situation" currently faced by the nation.
The convention finale was a good night for Kerry. He delivered his speech effectively. He smiled as well as he has ever done in public. He came across as firm, smart, and serious. But this was also a historical moment in the political culture. Kerry and his advisers – including Bob Shrum and John Marttila – have Jujitsued the Vietnam metaphor. Vietnam is now a liability for the Bush-Cheney Republicans, for it undermines (or, at least, neutralizes) their claims to personal toughness and symbolizes what happens when wartime commanders-in-chief do not tell the truth.
For much of the 2004 campaign, Kerry's references to his Vietnam service seemed overdone. But as his fellow vets came forward to tell the Kerry tale from their perspective – a long process that happened only as a result of much patient work conducted by a few Kerry aides – and as Bush's war became increasingly regarded as an endeavor predicated on misrepresentations and false assertions, the Kerry campaign's allusions to Vietnam have become more powerful, culminating with his acceptance speech.
Finally, the Vietnam references seemed fully – and authentically – integrated into Kerry's pitch, starting with the opening line: "I am John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty." In his speech, he repeatedly returned to the subject of credibility in government. Some examples:
* "We have it in our power to change the world again. But only if we're true to our ideals – and that starts by telling the truth to the American people. That is my first pledge to you tonight. As President, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House."
* "I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States."
* "Now I know there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities – and I do – because some issues just aren't all that simple. Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so. Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn't make it so. And proclaiming mission accomplished certainly doesn't make it so."
Kerry did what is expected for an acceptance speech. He told his life's story. He praised his wife and his running mate. He assailed his opponents for a variety of sins, such as "kicking kids out of after-school programs and taking cops off our streets, so that Enron can get another tax break" and "denying real prescription drug coverage to seniors, so big drug companies can get another windfall." He outlined his various policy proposals: enhancing homeland security measures neglected by the Bush administration, rolling back tax cuts for individuals making $200,000 a year, preserving tax cuts for the middle class, expanding health care coverage, investing in new technologies and alternative energy as part of an energy independence initiative ("I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation – not the Saudi royal family"), supporting stem cell research ("what if we have a president who believes in science?"). He declared his support for abortion rights and noted his passion for the environment. On Iraq, he stated his position simply:
"And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace. I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home. Here is the reality: That won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership – so we don't have to go it alone in the world."
Kerry had presented all these policy ideas – many of which fall on the progressive side of the fence – previously. There were no new proposals, no new plan for dealing with the mess Bush has created in Iraq. But with this speech, Kerry found an appropriate and compelling way to enlist Vietnam in his campaign against Bush. Kerry signaled he is indeed ready for the brutal political combat to come and that he is up to the fight. - http://www.alternet.org/elect...
... Now This IsRich ... The Irony Of It All ... LOL ...
President Bush's new line of attack is that John Kerry is a man of few achievements. [i]LOL[/i] ...
"My opponent has good intentions," the president said today http://www.reuters.com/printe... . "But intentions don't always translate into results. After 19 years in the United States Senate, my opponent has had thousands of votes but very few signature achievements."
This might be a plausible line of attack coming from another opponent. Unlike, say, Russ Feingold or Ted Kennedy, there's no prominent piece of legislation with Kerry's name on it, though admirers of Kerry point to his critical role in a series of high-profile Senate investigations.
But coming from George W. Bush? A guy whose handlers had to get some of the more gullible run of journalists to refer to his life before he turned forty as his 'lost years'?
I mean, even if you grant that Bush's presidency has been a tenure of transcendent achievement (and it has undoubtedly been eventful), it's a bit hard to get around the fact that even by his own account he spent his first five decades kicking back, living off family connections and playing solitaire. Moreover, Bush's tenure in Texas left the state as the most impoverished with the highest child poverty and the worst environmental track-record of any state in the union. Bush let his Poppy's corporate rapists exploit Texas first, followed by his "accomplishment" [[i]sic[/i]] of letting them [i]fuck-over [/i]the U.S.A.
It's certainly true that Mr. Kerry said certain things in his war protestor days that can now be used against him with some audiences. But until he was well into middle-age President Bush's most noteworthy public utterances seem to have been limited to various invocations and inflections of 'par-TAY' and reciting the alphabet under legal compulsion.
(I'd be surprised if the Kerry camp didn't use this as another opening to highlight the difference between how these two men spent their twenties.)
It's also another case of the Bush campaign's internally contradictory lines of attack:--
. John Kerry: [i]highly ambitious and grasping ne'er-do-well[/i].
. George W. Bush:[i] man of action, sword of steel[/i].
[i]... LOL ... LOL ... LOL ...[/i]
[i]This[/i] coming from Dubya, the AWOL drunkardly loser who was[i] only [/i]able to steal the presidency because of his Poppy and his crooked brother Jeb (and their corporate pimps who were promised a[i] free-run [/i]of raping the U.S.A. over [i]big-time[/i])-- and then Bush has botched-up the job miserably with his incompetence, foolish bombastic buffoonery and corruption.
Kerry is an outstanding man with a proven track-record of courage, integrity, distinction and diligence.
There is[i] no [/i]comparison between Kerry, a man of honor, honesty and intelligence [i]versus [/i]Bush, a dishonorable jerk-[i]cum[/i]-liar who is the most dangerously stupid coward ever to have become president (and[i] that [/i]was [i]only[/i] due to his neo-con attack machine's immoral and illegal neo-con [i]banana republican coup d'etat [/i]in 2000) ... The majority of the American people didn't want Bush [i]then[/i], and they don't want him [i]now[/i] ...
"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then … we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.""
- John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960
[b]George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and our Founding Fathers considered themselves[i] Liberal [/i]men with[i] Liberal [/i]ideas that came out of the[i] Age of the European Enlightenment[/i], the [i]Age of Reason[/i]. Washington said "[i]As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality[/i]." ...[/b] Tragically the traitorous right-wingers have co-opted the honorable name of [i]"Liberal" [/i]and have twisted and transformed it into something convoluted that is diametrically opposed to its' true meaning ... America is at heart a[i] Liberal [/i]nation, and[i] not [/i]a nation of neo-con, neo-fascist ideologues fearful of diversity, science, rational thought and civilized dialogue ... That is why "We the People" must return to our roots and be unafraid to take back the proud appellation of [i]"Liberal"[/i] and to take our nation back from the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] who stand opposed to our[i] Liberal [/i]ideals of freedom, justice, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all men and women ...
[b]Consider also ...[/b]
If all you knew about the word "liberal" is what came up when you plugged the word into Amazon's search engine on any given day in January 2004, you'd think it was among the worst insults one human being could hurl at another. There's Ann Coulter, "Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right" and "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism;" Michael Savage: "The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Languages and Culture;" Mona Charen, "Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First;" David Limbaugh, "Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christianity;" and Sean Hannity, "Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism." Of course these titles represent a kind of consensus on the right and in much of America. When Rush Limbaugh returned to the airwaves on November 17, 2003, he admitted to his 15-20 million listeners that while he may be "powerless" to overcome his drug addiction without professional help, he would not, he promised, turn into "a linguini-spined liberal." The national media, alleged by all to be infested by closet liberals, reported these insults verbatim, as if to be so obvious that they were undeserving of refutation or even reply.
At first blush is this odd. After all, 52 percent of Americans told Gallup pollsters that they "didn't respect Limbaugh now and never did," putting them, no doubt, in the "linguini-spined" category. In recent times, much of the mainstream media have incorporated many of these same attitudes, if not their occasionally obscene terminology. Liberalism, according to much of the coverage of the recent convention in Boston, is something from which savvy politicians must run—or perhaps hide under the bed at least until the guests have gone home.
Ever since George McGovern was defeated in 1972 with the help of the criminal conspiracy that was Richard Nixon's re-election campaign, the media have made a sport of bashing liberals come election time. As Michael Kinsley pointed out recently, "It's true enough that this is a moment when the Democrats are called upon to reject extreme liberalism (whatever that might be) and to embrace moderation. But that is only because every moment is such a moment. The opinion that the Democrats need to foreswear McGovernism and prove their commitment to moderation is one of the very safest in all of punditry." Yet Republicans, Kinsley notes, receive the equivalent of a free ideological pass regardless of the fact that they are led by two men whose political extremism has no analogy in power circles in the other party.
Extremism versus moderation is a beloved media leitmotif at the Republican convention as well. But there's a difference, at least in tone. It is generally considered enough if the Republicans prevent their nuttier element from actually taking over the convention. The GOP is rarely threatened with oblivion if it fails to stage a public festival of contrition. And the Republicans are under no pressure to avoid the word "conservative."
The demonization of the word "liberal" has been an ongoing project of the well-funded right and draws its fire from intellectuals who should really know better. Shelby Steele, for instance, has provided useful and interesting challenges to conventional wisdom on race and affirmative action but look what he wrote on the [i]Wall Street Journal [/i]editorial page about John Walker Lindh and liberals. Speaking of the allegedly liberal values of Marin County, California, where Lindh was raised, and taking a page from the playbook of former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Steele charged, sans evidence that "This liberalism thrives as a subversive, winking, countercultural hipness...Cultural liberalism serves up American self-hate to the young as idealism. It's too much to say that treason is a rite of passage in this context. But that is exactly how it turned out for Walker. In radical Islam he found both the victim's authority and the hatred of America that had been held out to him as marks of authenticity...And when he turned on his country to be secure in his new faith, he followed a logic that was a part of his country's culture." This begs the question, why does Shelby Steele hate America? An interesting line of reasoning, this, considering that conservatives normally reject victimization in favor of personal responsibility. Apparently, liberalism trumps free will in Steele's sociological methodology.
Ann Coulter, whom fellow right-winger Jonah Goldberg once called "barely coherent," adding that in one [i]National Review [/i]column (which the magazine refused to publish and ultimately led to her departure) she was guilty of "emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as 'judgment.'" Her book, "Treason" took liberalism to task for just about everything, from "undermining victory in the Cold War," by "Betraying the manifest national defense objectives of the country...[liberals] aim to destroy America from the inside with their relentless attacks on morality and the truth." The problem with her "reasoning, "of course, stems from the fact that without the Democratically-controlled Congress of the Cold War years, none of those large defense appropriation bills would have been passed. But no matter. She continues that "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America." And yet despite all of the above—as well as her joking about how lovely it would be if terrorists blew up the [i]New York Times[/i]—she was rewarded with a convention column by [i]USA Today [/i]until she turned in her unreadable personal attacks on the physical appearances of the delegates and [i]USA Today [/i]suddenly decided that hiring her was not such a brilliant idea after all.
Even so, it works. As Princeton professor Paul Starr notes, "The use of the vocabulary of treason is a measure of how thoroughly conservatives have transferred the passions of anticommunism into an internal war against those whom they think of as the enemies of American culture and values. And these were, as I recall from the 1960s, the same people who decried the loss of civility."
Given the rhetorical dominance of conservatives over the past several decades, one might be surprised to learn from a June[i] Wall Street Journal [/i]analysis that "[The] proportion of Americans calling themselves "liberal" edged up to 21 percent in [ pollster Stan] Greenberg's May poll from 16 percent a month earlier. Self-identified "conservatives" dropped to 37 percent from 41 percent. And why not? One of the most honored guests here in Boston this week turns out to be none other than George McGovern. As he told a reporter from National Journal when queried about his apparently alien ideological affiliation "Every program that ever helped working people -- from rural electrification to Medicare -- was enacted by liberals over the opposition of conservatives. When people tell me they don't like liberals, I ask, 'Do you like Social Security? If so, then shut up!' "
This is the[i] fifth and final [/i]of a five-part series pointing out [u]Five Things That The 9/11 Commission got wrong[/u].
Some more [i]food-for-thought [/i]...[/b]
The [i]fifth installment [/i]of my critique of the 9/11 Commission. I was happy to see David Ignatius’ [i]Post [/i]column today, one of the first blanket indictments of the commission’s wrong-headed approach to “fixing” intelligence:
[i]Okay, America, here's our intelligence reform agenda: The CIA recognized six years ago that America was at war with al Qaeda, so let's demote it. . . . Pentagon officials dragged their feet on dealing with terrorism, so let's give them more power. . . . The White House politicized the intelligence process, so let's create a new intelligence czar in the White House and give him control over domestic spying, too. The intelligence community suffers from too many fiefdoms, so let's create a few more[/i].
Maybe that's an unfair summary of the recommendations made by the Sept. 11 Commission. But as President Bush and John Kerry race to endorse the commission's agenda for change, you'd think the proposals had been handed down from heaven itself, rather than offered up for public discussion.
[i]Bravo[/i]. Kerry’s unthinking endorsement of the 9/11 Commission is craven and absurd. [Kerry is [i]in a race [/i]with Bush to prove he can handle National Security, which is indeed absurd, because Kerry is so superior to Bush in every way on this issue-- But unhappily Americans have been[i] duped [/i]by Bush who has placed us in greater danger than ever before and has undermined our National Security.] And Bush, purporting to consult with his national security team (as if he could ever grasp the issues at stake) may implement a lot of the commission’s terrible ideas right away. Both Kerry and Bush seem to want to accelerate the FBI’s transition from fighting crime and criminals to spying on Americans. So here is my fifth, and last, critique.
[b]Thing Five.[/b] The commission, not unlike backers of the USA PATRIOT Act and other terrorism crusaders, casts the FBI as a domestic CIA, with barely a caveat:
[i]We do not recommend the creation of a new domestic intelligence agency. It is not needed if our other recommendations are adopted… The FBI does need to be able to direct its thousands of agents and other employees to collect intelligence in America’s cities and towns—interviewing informants, conducting surveillance and searches, tracking individuals, working collaboratively with local authorities, and doing so with meticulous attention to detail and compliance with the law. The FBI’s job in the streets of the United States would this be a domestic equivalent, operating under the U.S. Constitution and quite different laws and rules, to the job of the CIA’s operations officers abroad[/i].
But nowhere does the commission explain against whom these “surveillance and searches” would be directed. After 9/11, Attorney General Ashcroft warned that there were 5,000 Al Qaeda sleepers in the United States, but nary one has been found—and none have committed any acts of terrorism. Yet the FBI has reinvented itself, beefing up its Joint Terrorism Task Forces, creating an Office of Intelligence, and reorienting many of its crime-fighting agents to intelligence, not law enforcement. The commission praises all this, and urges more:
[i]The Director of the FBI has proposed creating an Intelligence Directorate as a further reinforcement of the FBI intelligence program…. Recommendation: A specialized and integrated national security workforce should be established at the FBI consisting of agents, analysts, linguists and surveillance specialists who are recruited, trained, rewarded, and retained to ensure the development of an institutional culture imbued with a deep expertise in intelligence and national security. The president, by executive order, should direct the FBI to develop an intelligence cadre[/i].
Of course the commission doesn’t need to recommend the creation of an MI5-style domestic spy agency. They’ll just turn the FBI into one.[i] Hmmm[/i]. [b]I wonder who knows you are reading this?[/b]
[b]Democratic Convention Coverage:-- Watch Some Of The Great Speeches, including that of Teresa Heinz-Kerry on http://www.tblog.com/template...
The Scaife Strategy: [i]Smother Teresa[/i][/b]
Colin McNickle, the political wife-beater for billionnaire Richard Mellon-Scaife's right-wing attack machine, has set his sights on Teresa Heinz-Kerry – good thing she's willing to stand up to it.
[i]Richard Mellon-Scaife[/i]
Colin McNickle did not enter the Democratic Convention as an ordinary reporter. As the editorial page editor for the Pittsburgh [i]Tribune-Review[/i], a newspaper owned by eccentric rightist billionaire Richard Mellon-Scaife, McNickle came to Boston as an agent provocateur. "What happens when a conservative commentator infiltrates the Democratic National Convention?" the [i]Tribune-Review [/i]asked in pre-convention promotion of McNickle's coverage. McNickle answered that question on Sunday, July 25 by provoking a spat with Teresa Heinz-Kerry.
The dustup occurred after Heinz-Kerry gave a speech to the Pennsylvania delegation denouncing "some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics." McNickle approached her and asked what she meant by "un-American activities," in effect accusing her of McCarthyism. Heinz-Kerry denied using the phrase "un-American activities" and stormed off. Yet when Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell pointed out to her that McNickle was a reporter from the [i]Tribune-Review[/i], Heinz-Kerry returned to him with a rebuke. "You're from the [i]Tribune Review[/i]?" she asked McNickle with a face tightened with rage. "That's understandable. You said something I didn't say. Now shove it."
Most of the mainstream press characterized the incident as[i] The New York Times' [/i]Jim Rutenberg did: another example of "Teresa being Teresa." For them, the dustup was a resounding confirmation that their hastily scrawled sketch of an incurable free spirit who was filling John Kerry's campaign coffers while draining his political fortunes was an accurate one. However, there is much more to it than that. McNickle's provocation of Heinz-Kerry represents the latest manifestation of a poisonous dirty tricks campaign Scaife has financed to undermine Heinz-Kerry, a fellow Western Pennsylvania philanthropist whom he considers his rival. And now that Heinz-Kerry has been thrust into the national spotlight by her husband's presidential candidacy, Scaife's smears are likely to intensify.
"The dust-up between Teresa Heinz-Kerry and Colin McNickle has a long history behind it that goes back a good 15 years before McNickle even worked there," said Dennis Roddy, a columnist for the[i] Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[/i], who has covered Pennsylvania politics for over 30 years. "Scaife has had it in for [Heinz Kerry] because she's not sufficiently conservative, she's a moderate voice. She has always felt badly treated by the [i]Tribune-Review [/i]and it doesn't surprise me that her grievances finally came out."
The[i] Tribune-Review [/i]routinely sniped at Teresa Heinz during her marriage to Pennsylvania's Republican former Senator John Heinz. When the senator died in 1991, and the Massachusetts Junior Senator John Kerry stole Teresa's heart, the paper's attacks grew increasingly slanderous. On December 28, 1997, the paper featured an anonymously penned cover story falsely insinuating that a woman named Sheila Lawrence had had affairs with both Bill Clinton and Kerry. "Far from giving all to Bill, there was still something left over for Sen. John Kerry," who had "a very private tete-a-tete" with "sexy Sheila," the columnist alleged. In another column, the [i]Tribune-Review [/i]mocked John Kerry as "Mr. Teresa Heinz."
Perhaps the most spurious of the[i] Tribune-Review's [/i]attacks came in December, 2003, when it ran a piece http://www.pittsburghlive.com... accusing Heinz-Kerry of secretly "funneling cash" from her Heinz Endowment to the Tides Foundation, a group that "supports extreme left wing groups... anti-war protests... unlimited abortion rights, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy, as well as and [sic] environmental extremism." The piece was based on research conducted by the right-wing think tank Capital Research Center, http://www.mediatransparency.... yet failed to mention that Scaife granted the center $240,000 in 2002 or that he was connected to it in any way. The article also omitted the fact that the Heinz Foundation's grants were all strictly earmarked for mainstream Western Pennsylvania environmental charities, an inexcusable omission that could have been avoided if the paper had bothered to call either the Heinz Foundation or the Tides Foundation to confirm its wild claims.
Despite the article's shoddy research, its accusations became a favorite tune on the right's Mighty Wurlitzer. [i]FrontPageMagazine[/i] plugged it in a piece called, "Teresa Heinz-Kerry: Bag Lady of the Radical Left;" [i]The New York Post [/i]followed with the headline, "Teresa Heinz's Cash Connection;" Rush Limbaugh promoted the claims; the[i] Weekly Standard [/i]picked the story up. By the time FOX's Brit Hume reported the accusations, they had been brushed clean of Scaife's fingerprints.
For the past 10 years, the point man in Scaife's anti-Heinz attack campaign has been Colin McNickle, a brash ideologue who has shaped the [i]Tribune-Review's [/i]editorial page into a forum for some of the most fanatical currents of right-wing thought. Characteristic examples of McNickle's work include the anonymous obituary http://www.newsmax.com/archiv... he commissioned of Catherine Graham which implied she murdered her husband, Philip Graham, in order to seize control of [i]The Washington Post[/i]; his endorsement http://www.pittsburghlive.com... of the anti-immigrant border-patrolling Arizona militia leader, Chris Simcox http://www.salon.com/news/fea... ; his routine references http://www.pittsburghlive.com... to Gov. Ed Rendell as a "socialist;" his penchant for quoting the Austrian aristocrat and conservative intellectual pioneer, Friedrich Von Hayek (perhaps Hayek's ideas were the "un-American traits" Heinz-Kerry referred to in her speech on Sunday). And there is also the fact that the [i]Tribune-Review [/i]is the only newspaper in America which publishes columns by White nationalist author Sam Francis, a self-avowed "racialist" whose views are so extreme he was fired by the [i]Washington Times[/i].
McNickle has also displayed a disregard for journalistic ethics throughout his career. His chronic carelessness was most apparent in his July, 2000, column, http://www.post-gazette.com/h... "Thus (Mis)Speaketh Al," a collection of imbecilic quotes by then-presidential candidate Al Gore. Though the article was laugh-out-loud funny, there was one small problem: the statements McNickle attributed to Gore were actually quotes by former Vice President Dan Quayle. Yet even after his mistake was exposed, McNickle refused to give an inch. "I'll stand by where we got the information from," McNickle http://www.post-gazette.com/h... told the [i]Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[/i].
Despite McNickle's dubious background, since his dustup with Heinz-Kerry he has managed to convince the networks and mainstream press that he is a humble, workaday reporter victimized by "an arrogant, contentious billionaire," in the words of CNN's Bob Novak. In an interview on CNN on July 26, Anderson Cooper allowed McNickle to describe the [i]Tribune-Review [/i]as "a very objective, middle-of-the-road paper" without a challenge. Later that evening on MSNBC, [i]The New York Daily News' [/i]ever-credulous gossip columnist Lloyd Grove described McNickle as "just a reporter who's toiled in the past for the newswires UPI and AP." The following day McNickle innocently told Grove, http://www.nydailynews.com/fr... "I'm a little uncomfortable with all the attention I'm getting. I'm here to report the news, not make it." If Grove had only done a quick search for McNickle's clips, he may have discovered what an absurd statement that was.
Scaife's dirty tricks campaign against Teresa Heinz-Kerry is not without precedent. Indeed, it bears ominous echoes to the Arkansas Project, the $2.4 million dollar dirty tricks campaign Scaife financed during the 1990's to paint Bill and Hillary Clinton as drug dealers, thieves and murderers which included paying "sources" for information that turned out to be false. Then as now, the spurious accusations germinated in Scaife's smear factory are eagerly broadcast by the right-wing punditocracy and naively entertained by a gossip-starved mainstream press terrified of appearing to affect any liberal bias.
And just as Hillary was initially derided by the press for claiming she was the victim of "a vast right-wing conspiracy," Heinz-Kerry is ridiculed for standing up to one of Scaife's hatchet men. Nevertheless, Teresa Heinz Kerry's dustup with Colin McNickle is an encouraging sign. Because like Hillary, Teresa Heinz Kerry has a keen awareness of who her enemies are and by telling them to "shove it," she has demonstrated the courage to stand up to them.
[i][b]Max Blumenthal is a freelance journalist based in Los Angeles. Read his blog at maxblumenthal.blogspot.com[/b][/i]. - http://www.alternet.org/elect...
This is the[i] fourth [/i]of a five-part series pointing out [u]Five Things That The 9/11 Commission got wrong[/u].
Some more [i]food-for-thought [/i]...[/b]
[b]Thing Four.[/b] In its workmanlike account of the birth and rise of bin Ladenism, the 9/11 Commission flatly ignores America's role in creating the conditions for the triumph of that ideology, including of course, its support for the Afghan jihad, sponsoring the training of the “Arab Afghans,” and creating the monster that stalked the world in the 1990s. In keeping with its obsessive need to find “consensus” among the five Republicans and five Democrats on the panel—which steered the panel away from making any observations about whether the war in Iraq helped or hurt the War On Terrorism, and away from saying if the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented—the 9/11 Commission also avoided casting any blame for the pandemonium that followed on the American support for the jihadists of the 1980s in Afghanistan, and on American foreign policy more specifically.
In fact, throughout the report, its account of both the history of U.S. foreign policy and of domestic counterterrorism is painted in soft, pastel colors—no evildoers there.
The Commission’s history of the region is laughably flawed. “After gaining independence from Western powers following World War II, the Arab Middle East followed an arc from initial pride and optimism to today’s mix of indifference, cynicism and despair.” (Page 52) But the chief Arab countries—Egypt, Iraq, and Syria —were long independent by then, and Saudi Arabia was never colonized. Whatever “despair” settled in by the 1960s had more to do with America ’s imperial role in the Middle East than with some failing by Arab leaders. Secular Arab leaders—that is, those opposed to fanatical Islam—were vigorously suppressed by American foreign policy, including a countless string of CIA-inspired coups d’etat, revolts, ethnic insurgencies, and, of course, wars sparked by American- and European-backed Israeli regimes in 1956 and 1967. The Commission ignores all this, but says: “The bankruptcy of secular, autocratic nationalism was evident across the Muslim world by the late 1970s.” True—but had the United States supported Iran’s Mossadegh, Egypt’s Nasser, Algeria’s Ben Bella, and secular Syrian and Iraqi leaders rather than blindly approaching the Middle East and the Arab world as a Cold War battleground, things might have been different.
What caused bin Ladenism? According to the Commission, it was “social and economic malaise.” (Shades of Jimmy Carter!) Then, it says, “A decade of conflict in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989 gave Islamist extremists a rallying point and training field…. Young Muslims from around the world flocked to Afghanistan to join as volunteers in what was seen as a ‘holy war’—jihad—against an invader.” That’s it. No mention of the CIA’s role in backing Osama bin Laden and his crew. No mention of the CIA, working with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, in recruiting the jihadists. The fact that the CIA encouraged the most vicious of the Afghan fundamentalists because they were seen as the most bloodthirsty in killing Soviet soldiers goes unmentioned.
Not that any of this is secret. But the Commission blithely ignores history in its report. (It goes without saying that there’s no mention of U.S. support for the Taliban in the 1990s.)
This is the[i] third [/i]of a five-part series pointing out [u]Five Things That The 9/11 Commission got wrong[/u].
Some more [i]food-for-thought [/i]...[/b]
[b]Thing Three .[/b] Despite some juicy tidbits about the Bush administration’s post-9/11 obsession with Iraq, the 9/11 Commission unconscionably lets Bush[i] off the hook [/i]on this one. Nowhere in the report does it conclude, as virtually any fair-minded observer would, that the attack on Iraq had nothing to do with the so-called War on Terrorism. (In fact, even the fair-minded have concluded that the war on Iraq was a major setback to the battle against Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism.)
And nowhere does the commission say point-blank that Iraq was innocent of ties of Al Qaeda. It’s a glaring omission. And it allows Chairman Kean to get away with nonsense like this: “There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.”
With a straight face, the commission—whose chapters on Iraq seem to cite Bob Woodward’s book as much as the actual testimony and documents it received—reports many instances of Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith demanding attacks on Iraq. Best, of course, is the one reported in a footnote (page 559, Note 75), citing a memo to Rumsfeld “that appears to be from Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith.” Says the commission: “The author suggested instead hitting outside the Middle East in the initial offensive, perhaps deliberately selecting a non-Al Qaeda target like Iraq.” This, said the commission, “might be a surprise to the terrorists.” That is so hilariously stupid on so many levels that it almost doesn’t need comment—but yes, an attack on Iraq would have surprised the terrorists.
The report cites other new or authoritative examples of the Iraq obsession:
[i]The secretary [Rumsfeld] said his instinct [on September 11] was to hit Saddam Hussein at the same time—not only Bin Laden… [Condi Rice] recalled that in the first Camp David session chaired by the president, Rumsfeld asked what the administration should do about Iraq. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz made the case for striking Iraq during ‘this round’ of the war on terrorism… Powell said that Wolfowitz was not able to justify his belief that Iraq was behind 9/11. ‘Paul was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with,’ Powell told us. ‘And he saw this as one way to using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem.’ … President Bush ordered the Defense Department to be ready to deal with Iraq… Wolfowitz continued to press the case for dealing with Iraq, [saying that] the odds were ‘far more’ than 1 in 10 [that Iraq was involved]. (Page 335-6)[/i]
Charitably giving the president far more credit than he deserves, the commission notes that “as a former pilot” Bush suspected that the perpetrators of 9/11 were sophisticated and he “wondered immediately after the attack whether Saddam Hussein’s regime might have had a hand in it… He also thought about Iran.” (Page 334) There is no report that the president suspected those actually guilty of the attack, however.
The commission also debunks the theories of Wolfowitz, Feith and the seemingly deranged Laurie Mylroie that Saddam was also behind the 1993 attack on the WTC. We have found no credible evidence to support theories of Iraqi government involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing. Wolfowitz added in his memo that he had attempted in June to get the CIA to explore these theories.” (Page 559, Note 73)
And on page 228 (“Atta’s Alleged Trip to Prague”) the commission fudges a little on the question of whether Mohamed Atta, a 9/11 ringleader, met with Ahmad al Ani, an officer of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, but ends up concluding: “The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting.”
It’s clear that the commission framed its report carefully in order not to embarrass the president or to give ammunition to his critics. Indeed, it’s being cited by conspiracy theorists from Vice President Cheney to the [i]Weekly Standard’s [/i]Stephen F. Hayes (author of [i]The Connection: How Al Qaeda’s Collaboration With Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America [/i]) as proof of what they’ve been saying all along. [i][b]Alas.[/b][/i]
... "[i][b]For in the final analysis, our most basic common link, is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal[/b].[/i]..." - John F. Kennedy, [i]Speech at The American University, Washington, D.C., June 10, 1963[/i]
[b]Bush is a[i] divider [/i]and[i] not [/i]a uniter ... [/b]We need to vote for John F. Kerry because we need a leader who will bring us together and who will deliver upon the promise as stated in our U.S. Constitution to "[i]promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity[/i]" - http://www.house.gov/Constitu... ... To promote the general Welfare must be our vision, and [i]not [/i]just the[i] vast "welfare" of redistribution of our nation's wealth [/i]to the rich, powerful and greedy corporate interests and gluttonous plutocrats as the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] has done while impoverishing America's working people ...
After more than $2 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy, President Bush's supply-side economics have done almost nothing for America's middle class: employment lags; wages are stagnant or falling; household debt is at a record high; inequality and poverty are on the rise; and deficits are out of control. In contrast, the middle class flourished in the 1990s under President Clinton: 23 million new jobs; seven years of income growth; record homeownership; a sharp drop in poverty; widely shared increases in wealth; and huge budget surpluses.
[b]. America's middle class flourished under President Clinton's economic stewardship. [/b]The record of economic success in the 1990s is unparalleled: family income up 17 percent after of two decades of stagnation; the fastest and longest real wage growth since the 1970s; a 40 percent increase in median net wealth after a decade of decline; nearly 8 million Americans moving out of poverty – 100 times greater than under Reagan; and the strongest growth in homeownership on record.
[b]. In contrast, the President Bush has presided over one of the worst economic periods for the middle class in U.S. history.[/b] The Bush record speaks for itself: millions of lost jobs; higher unemployment; real wages for the middle class falling or stagnating; a 7 percent increase in poverty; increased tax burdens; rising mortgage delinquencies and foreclosure rates; and household costs escalating beyond wage increases.
[b]. The Bush administration squandered trillions of dollars in projected budget surpluses on economic policies designed by and for corporations and the wealthiest Americans.[/b] In the 1990s, a rising tide really did lift all boats. Economic growth was widely shared. Opportunities to get ahead touched everyone. Budgets were balanced. Under Bush, the exact opposite has occurred. Corporate profits are at all-time highs while average wages can't keep up with inflation. The wealthy secured almost all of the benefits from tax cuts. And skewed economic priorities will leave the government nearly $5 trillion in the hole over the next decade.
[b]As the convention builds toward the,[i] umm[/i], expected nomination of John Kerry, Bill O'Reilly decided to invite Michael Moore http://www.inthesetimes.com/s... over for a little chat about the War, and Bush's lies over it.[/b]
The bully, facing an equally loudmouthed opposition, was unusually willing to compromise and even appeared tongue-tied once or twice...
[b]On WMD:[/b]
MM: And there was no threat, was there?
BO: It was a mistake
MM: Oh, just a mistake, and that's what you tell all the parents with a deceased child, "We're sorry." I don't think that is good enough.
BO: I don't think its good enough either for those parents
MM: So we agree on that
BO: but that is the historical nature of what happened
[b]Then, after a foray into the War to Justify all Wars, WWII, Moore plays the part of O'Reilly to O'Reilly to hammer home the specifics of what soldiers are dying for here and now:[/b]
MM: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?
BO: I would sacrifice myself.
MM: You wouldn't send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?
BO: I would.
MM: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?
BO: That's right.
MM: Where's the recruiter?
BO: You'd love to get rid of me.
MM: No I don't want--I want you to live. I want you to live.
BO: I appreciate that. Michael Moore everybody. There he is...
[b]How much you [i]wanna' bet [/i]that neither the hypocritical liar-[i]cum[/i]-buffoon loudmouthed [i]blow-hard[/i] O'Reilly [i]doesn't sign-up [/i]to go to Iraq, nor will his spoiled brats, [i]by the way[/i]??? ... But,[i] boy-oh-boy [/i]he sure has [i]no problem [/i]whatsoever with [i]other[/i] people's kids dying to enrich the Bush Crime Family, Halliburton, the House of Saud, Carlyle Group, Bechtel, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Oil, etc. ... [i]Really, O'Reilly: Shame on you!!! [/i]...[/b]
[b]"We the People" should be [i]very, very alarmed [/i]at the perniciously neo-fascist actions taken by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] who are trampling upon our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ... Now they are ordering the destruction of copies of pamphlets on [i]"asset forfeiture[/i]" held in public libraries???[i] Why[/i]??? ... [/b]
The American Library Association is challenging http://www.boston.com/news/na... a new U.S. Department of Justice order that they destroy copies of certain pamphlets on [i]"asset forfeiture"[/i] kept on file.
No reason was given for requiring the destruction of the pamphlets, which the government routinely shihps to desginated libraries that hold virtually all federal government documents. Much, if not all, of the materials are[i] "the law of the land"[/i] readily available online and in law books.
[There is a[i] brewing scandal [/i] looming on the dramatic rise by corporations and wealthy plutocrats[i] aided-and-abetted by the corrupt Bush regime [/i]who are engaged in stealing personal property via [i]"asset forfeiture" [/i]and via [i]"eminent domaine"[/i] ... Is the government trying to[i] eradicate information [/i]that the American people have a [i]right to know [/i]in order to protect ourselves from neo-fascist thieves??? ... [i]More later [/i]...]
This is the [i]second[/i] of a five-part series pointing out [u]Five Things That The 9/11 Commission got wrong[/u].[/b]
[b]Some more[i] food-for-thought [/i]...[/b]
[b]Thing Two.[/b] Perhaps it’s too much to expect people like Fred Fielding, Slade Gorton, Jim Thompson, Bob Kerrey and the rest of the 9/11 Commission to say anything intelligent about how to “Prevent the Continued Growth of Islamist Terrorism,” one of the top priorities in the “What To Do? A Global Strategy” chapter of their report. After all, it’s fair to say that they are virtual know-nothings when it comes to understanding Islam, not to mention its radical and fundamentalist manifestations.
But this chapter isn’t a road map on fighting “Islamist terrorism.” It is a veritable Bartlett’s of quotable (and meaningless) platitudes. So far, at least, I haven’t seen anyone point this out.
Here are a few of the silliest (and by the way, these are not taken out of context, but are the central observations and “recommendations” of the commission in how to fight Islamic terrorism by “engage[ing] in the struggle for ideas”):
“[i]It is among the large majority of Arabs and Muslims that we must encourage reform, freedom, democracy, and opportunity."
"The U.S. government must define what the message is, what it stands for. We should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors… That vision of the future should stress life over death."
"Just as we did in the Cold War, we need to defend our ideals abroad vigorously. America does stand up for its values."
"The U.S. government should offer to join other nations in generously supporting a new International Youth Opportunity Fund[/i]."
Another key recommendation is to support a Middle East NAFTA. “The U.S. government has announced the goal of working toward a Middle East Free Trade Area, or MEFTA, by 2013…. Recommendation: A comprehensive U.S. strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve their lives.”
It goes on in this vein. The commission report (page 362) notes that “Islamic” terrorism is “motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from religion, thus distorting both. It is further fed by grievances stressed by bin Laden and widely felt throughout the Muslim world—against the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, policies perceived as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and support of Israel.” This is a nod in the direction of admitting that the terrorists don’t just “hate our freedom,” as President Bush constantly intones, but that there are fundamental policy differences that feed into anti-American sentiment in the region, and which Osama bin Laden draws upon. Yet the commission doesn’t recommend a single policy change, or even a review of those polices, or even a study to find out what policies exactly are considered “anti-Arab” and “anti-Muslim.”
I’d expect Jon Stewart to suggest that we fight Osama bin Laden though MEFTA. Or by having America “stand up for its values.” But the 9/11 Commission?
[b]The "stakes" are[i] enormous [/i]in the upcoming 2004 presidential election in November ... Above all, unlike the unjust[i] banana-republican coup d'etat of 2000 [/i]whereby the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc[i]. junta [/i]engineered an illegal take-over of our nation, we have an obligation to make sure that [i]this next presidential election[/i] is conducted in a fair and proper manner ... [/b]
"We the People" should [i]demand[/i] that United Nations (U.N.) oversight be administered in [i]all swing-states [/i]including Florida where Bush and Kerry are tied in the polls http://www.google.com/url?sa=...://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/ state/9241228.htm (and where Jeb Bush has been up to his usual election-rigging, hijinks and dirty tricks http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/gene..., and a Florida state election official recently resigned in protest http://www.miami.com/mld/miam... ) ... Please contact your Senators and Representatives in Congress http://www.congress.org in order to[i] demand [/i]that an independent U.N. commission be assigned to ensure that all eligible voters are permitted to vote; that their votes are properly counted; and, that the results genuinely reflect the will of "We the People" as per the [i]correct tally of the votes [/i]as registered by our citizens ...
[b]There is a growing concern about the proper administration of the 2004 presidential election given the fact that the polls reflect it will be a very close race between Bush and Kerry ...[/b]
Calling attention to escalating concerns about the fairness of election practices in the United States, delegates in Las Vegas at the annual [u]National NOW Conference[/u] http://www.now.org/organizati... last week passed a resolution urging United Nations oversight of the November elections.
The resolution, which passed unanimously on July 18, supports the members of Congress who sent a letter http://www.house.gov/apps/lis... to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on July 1 asking for U.N. oversight of the presidential elections. It cites a number of troubling reports relating to the 2000 presidential election, including one by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), a bipartisan federal agency that investigated widespread allegations of voter disenfranchisement and questionable practices in Florida relating to the purging of names from voter registration lists, methods of balloting, and the independence of counting and certification procedures.
NOW members vividly recall Dec. 2000, when the Supreme Court issued a decision in Bush v. Gore—one of the most controversial pieces of jurisprudence in history—preventing a complete re-counting of the votes in disputed Florida precincts and counties. Our fears were confirmed in June 2001, when the USCCR found that the electoral process in Florida resulted in the denial of the right to vote for countless persons and further that the "disenfranchisement of Florida's voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of black voters" and in poor counties.
Despite promises and federal funds to improve voting accuracy and honesty, the USCCR in April 2004 reported that voting equipment, voter list maintenance and procedures for poll worker training, election certification and reinstatement of ex-felon voting rights have not been adequately reformed, as promised, and that the potential is "real and present for significant problems on voting day that once again will compromise the right to vote."
Another potential threat is the newer touch-screen machines that use a proprietary source code and lack a paper trail, meaning that voters and voting officials have no way to verify that the votes were counted. While NOW applauds this new technology for easing the voting process for many disabled citizens, NOW is also concerned about reports from computer security experts who say these machines are vulnerable to hacking and may create more opportunities for election tampering.
Following the National NOW Conference's overwhelming support for unbiased election monitors, women's rights leaders said they continue to be troubled by statements by key Bush administration officials suggesting that the November election could be postponed in the event of perceived terrorist threats.
"I find it very disturbing—and highly suspect—that higher-ups in the Bush administration are reportedly talking about formulating plans for postponing the November presidential election on the basis of a self-generated warning of a terrorist attack," said NOW Action Vice President Olga Vives. "Quite frankly, I am worried that some politicians have the power to manipulate the fairness of our elections—and are willing to use it."
Given these concerns, NOW members resolved that "the engagement of international election monitors has the potential to expedite the necessary reform as well as reduce the likelihood of questionable practices and voter disenfranchisement on Election Day" and further resolved to support the efforts of the members of Congress who requested U.N. oversight of the November presidential election.
In passing the resolution, NOW activists also committed to encouraging their members of Congress to join the effort to guarantee that justice and equality are upheld for all in the upcoming elections.
"The presence of U.N. elections monitors would serve as a recognition of the serious flaws that exist in our voting system," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "Activists have fought long and hard to extend the right to vote—the foundation of democracy—and it is vital to preserve those gains. We know that every vote counts, and we must ensure that every vote is counted."
[i][b]For additional information about the appeal to the U.N. and to join 20,000 other progressives who have signed a petition http://democrats.com/elandsli... demanding that President Bush approve election monitors, contact Democrats.com.[/b][/i]
NOW salutes the 13 members of Congress that initiated the call to the UN to help ensure a fair and democratic election this November and encourages progressive activists to thank them with calls, letters or e-mails:
"[i]Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." [/i]--Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786. - http://etext.virginia.edu/jef...
[b]"We the People" have been[i] betrayed [/i]by the neo-con press and right-wing media that have been [i]bought-up-lock-stock-a nd-smoking-barrel [/i]by corporate interests and they [i]no longer seek the truth [/i]to keep our citizenry informed ... [/b]How can we take our nation back??? ... [i]We must be creative and we must recognize that the "big-names" no longer inform us of real news ... We must seek information from foreign news services and cross-check "news" via a mutiplicity of sources ...[/i] We must recognize that neo-fascist propagandists like Fox News, WND, Weekly Standard, Rush Limbaugh and other [i]mad-dogs [/i]are the most vile partisan traitors who propagate[i] out-and-out lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]on orders from the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]... The rest of the major [i]"news players" [/i]simply regurgitate their [i]watered-down[/i] form of "news (?)" that the corporate interests decide is [i]sufficient [/i]for our consumption and to[i] lull us into a false sense [/i]that our "leaders (?)" represent us, when they[i] don't [/i]really represent[i] us [/i]...
How can Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert, Katie Couric, Dan Rather and the rest of the cast that makes up America's big name newspeople ([i]we use that term with a wince, a wink, and a snicker[/i]) keep dishing up pro-Bushie propaganda week after week? How do they sleep nights? How can they look at themselves in the mirror or - worse - look their kids in the eye? ... [i]Easy....M.O.N.E.Y.[/i] ... Keeping Bush in office benefits THEM directly. They are in that elite top 1% of Americans who benefits the most by Bush's tax cuts - which, if he is reelected, he plans to make permanent. Buzzflash presents a sampling of salaries: Brokaw: $7 million; Couric, $12 million, Rather, $7 milllion......Kinda makes it painfully clear, eh?
"[i]Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.[/i]" - Thomas Jefferson
[b]One [i]cannot be sure [/i]whether or [i]not[/i] Dubya[i] even knows [/i]who Thomas Jefferson was-- that Thomas Jefferson drafted our 'Declaration of Independence' and was our third US president http://www.whitehouse.gov/his... . In fact, one [i]can be fairly sure [/i]that Dubya and his cabal of neo-con crooks would consider Jefferson a "terrorist" [i]and/or [/i]a "traitor" for his words about dissent [i]above[/i] and his statement: [i]"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man[/i]."
We must rid ourselves of the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] who is ruthlessly crushing our democratic ideal of dissent ... [/b]
[u][b]Dissent is Now Dangerous[/b][/u]
A young pastor with a peace pin, a retired landscaper with a bumper sticker, and a poorly dressed filmmaker with a populist streak. In America, they are dangerous dissenters. At least, many now believe so.
Freeport, Maine is a wonderland of American consumer capitalism. Its pristine nineteenth century buildings on a narrow main street give the familiar comfort of small town America - with the comfortable familiarity of big mall brand names: L.L. Bean, Abercrombie and Fitch, The Gap, Polo. And times are good among the wealthy in America. The street is jammed with well-dressed people carrying bags in both hands.
First Parish Church is also on the main street. It too was built in the nineteenth century. Out front, on the grass, sits a white, wooden peace sign three feet across. Inside, curved pews and arches pull the viewer's attention to the front stain glass window. Below that, two men talk by the pulpit. They see me and come to talk.
Ted is in his early sixties and wears a tee shirt and ball cap with the local fire department insignia. He speaks with a thick, Maine accent. Next to Ted stands the Reverend, John. He is younger, not yet 40. Passionate about their church, they describe it in detail - its history and its congregation of 100 or so.
After a while, I ask them about the peace sign on the grass. Reverend John tells me it was made by local high school students celebrating the life of Martin Luther King. I ask how the tourists, given the war, have reacted to the sign. The two men talk of some hostility, some vandalism. I ask about the congregation and where they stand on the war. "Split down the middle," says Ted.
"We work," offers Reverend John, "to find, common ground." He is uncertain, though. Common ground in America isn't so common. Ted says he supports the president, the war. But he is restrained. He notices the peace pin on my notebook. We talk for a while more, and then Ted leaves. Reverend John and I continue talking as we walk toward the exit.
At the door I ask, "Where do you stand on the war?"
He sighs and then glances past me to the street. No one is near. "If I weren't the pastor," he says pointing at my notebook, "I'd be wearing that pin." He has to be careful, he says. He wants to keep his job. We nod at each other as though we're sharing a conspiracy.
John is scared. Dissent is now unchristian.
The next morning, at the hotel, I have a coffee in the common room. I'm alone until an older man enters. Bald, with a barrel chest and a red face, he greets me heartily, "Good mornin'." He gets his coffee, sits on the opposite couch, and starts talking. "I'm Lou," he says, "from St. Louis." Lou is retired landscaper who talks rapidly of his family, his life, and his recent travels around America. While sipping his coffee, he notices my peace pin. He leans forward and lowers his voice. "Takes guts to wear that," he says.
Again, I share conspiratorial whispers. Lou "admits" he is a moderate Democrat. "Back home, after a lot of thought," he says, "I put a 'Kerry for President' bumper sticker on my truck. It was weird. On the highway, people were honkin' at me and givin' me the finger. Occasionally, someone would drive by and give me thumbs up. But truthfully, I got nervous. I thought someone might pull a gun."
Lou is scared. Dissent is now undemocratic.
Late that night, I watch news on MSNBC. The commentator is yelling. A quote from filmmaker Michael Moore flashes on the screen. It reads: more American soldiers may have to die before America realizes this war is wrong.
The commentator is spitting bile. "Michael Moore," he shouts into the camera, "is calling for the death of Americans. He is anti-American. A traitor. Why isn't the Democratic Party disavowing this dangerous dissenter? Why isn't Senator Kerry distancing himself from Michael Moore? Does he agree with him?"
The commentator is flushed with rage. Dissent is now un-American.
In the local newspaper, buried on page twelve, I read that the Bush administration is test flying the conditions necessary for postponing the November election. A terrorist attack? A hurricane? An earthquake, perhaps?
I find myself wondering: is the "dissent" of pastors, landscapers, and filmmakers enough?
[b]One could be forgiven for being[i] suspicious [/i]already of a [i]whitewash report [/i] http://www.truthout.org/docs_... that conveniently lays the blame [i]everywhere[/i], which is another way for cowards to avoid laying the blame[i] anywhere [/i]... Clearly, the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]was responsible for the 9/11 attack upon America ... Dubya was on vacation for weeks ([i]in the longest vacation of any president in modern times, and perhaps in our nation's history[/i]) prior to the attack although Clinton ([i]who thwarted over 15 terrorist attacks upon America[/i]) had told Bush to[i] watch-out [/i]for Osama bin Laden who would represent the "worst danger" we face. Moreover, Dubya [i]didn't even bother to read [/i]his Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs) that pointed to an imminent attack upon America by Al Qaeda (and [i]not[/i] Saddam Hussein and[i] not[/i] Iraq) ... [i]The barking dog didn't bark [/i]... The 9/11 Whitewash Commission [i]flubbed-up [/i]and before we [i]blindly rush[/i] to take-on their recommendations, we should seriously reflect upon the consequences ...
Some [i]food-for-thought [/i]...[/b]
I’m going to spend some time this week pointing out [b]five things wrong [/b]with the 9/11 Commission report—one each day. A thorough job could be, well, 567 pages long, which is the size of that bulky, now-a-best-seller tome. It has some good stuff in it, mostly in the form of on-the-record documentation. But there are many flaws, some of which are dangerous ones.
[b]So what’s wrong?
Thing One.[/b] There is a scary rush to judgment about implementing the Big Brother-like recommendations of the commission. You wouldn’t think that officials and members of Congress would pay that much attention to the opinion of a Republican governor of New Jersey et al. when it comes to matters of reorganizing the intelligence community. But the politicians don’t want to be accused of dragging their heels when it comes to implementing all 567 pages, in case there is a pre-election terrorist incident. Adding fuel to the fire are the families of the 9/11 victims. Let’s be honest here—having endured the tragedy of a terrorist attack doesn’t make you an expert in fighting terrorism. The commission’s proposal for reorganizing intelligence is wrong-headed and scary. It would create a Big Brother that even the authors of the USA PATRIOT Act wouldn’t have dreamed of.
First, the commission proposes the creation of a National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). It would have two functions: intelligence and operations. Of its intelligence function, the commission says: “The NCTC should lead strategic analysis, pooling all-source intelligence, foreign and domestic, about transnational terrorist organizations of global reach.” Operationally, “The NCTC should perform joint planning. The plans would assign operational responsibilities to lead agencies, such as State, the CIA, the FBI, Defense and its combatant commands, Homeland Security, and other agencies.” According to the commission, the head of the NCTC “must have the right to concur in the choices of personnel to lead the operating entities of departments and agencies focused on counterterrorism, specifically to include the head of the Counterterrorist Center, the head of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, the commanders of the Defense Department’s Special Operations Command and Northern Command, and the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism."
Then the commission would couple this all-powerful new entity with the creation of a National Intelligence Director. The NID would be an intelligence czar, overseeing both foreign and domestic intelligence collection and analysis. "The National Intelligence Director must be able to directly oversee intelligence collection inside the United States.” The NID would also have authority to “approve and submit nominations to the president of the individuals who would lead the CIA, DIA, FBI Intelligence Office, NSA, NGA, NRO, [parts of] Homeland Security and other national intelligence capabilities.” And the NID would control their budgets. The NID would also oversee covert operations. And: “The head of the NCTC would report to the national intelligence director.”
In tandem, the NCTC and the NID would create an intelligence power of truly awesome scope. Because terrorism is essentially a political crime, as the ACLU reminds us constantly, counterterrorist investigations always involve politics, dissidents and rebels. It’s not like investigating crimes, or like intelligence on war-making capabilities of nations. Just as the Patriot Act knocked down the “wall” between the CIA and the FBI, making it far easier to conduct domestic spying operations against American citizens not suspected of a crime, the NCTC-NID combination would concentrate the power to carry out domestic spying in all-powerful nexus, located (where?) in the White House. The NID would report directly to the president, or to the “POTUS,” in the pompous wiring diagram in the commission report. Says the report: “The intelligence entity inside the NCTC .. would sit there alongside the operations management unit, … with both making up the NCTC, in the Executive Office of the President.”
Such changes in our foreign and domestic spying capabilities cannot, and should not, even be considered in the months before a presidential election, with each party competing with the other to show how tough on terrorism they are. I expect that normal bureaucratic resistance will happily block the commission's radical plan this year, but you never know. One thing we do know: If Osama bin Laden & Co. are planning some attack this year, the commission's Big Brother plan won’t stop them—whether it’s enacted or not.
[b]Quite frankly, it would come as[i] no surprise [/i]that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] is ruthlessly lying about the[i] actual number of US casualties [/i]in Iraq (as well as the[i] number of innocent Iraqi civilians [/i]massacred in their blood-thirsty fiasco) ...[/b]
[b]Yesterday, I came across the[i] following [/i]article:--[/b]
[u]Journalists and Photographers Die Trying to Tell Us Truths[/u]
Mazen had previously filmed DEAD U.S. soldiers buried in the desert and in another location more DEAD U.S. soldiers wrapped in plastic by their fellow U.S. soldiers, who were ordered to HIDE the bodies.
While I don't remember the EXACT "Official Body Count" in August, 2003, I did watch continuously from that time to see if the body count went UP to include those DEAD soldiers." ...
[b]However, since no figures were provided, I put the article [i]above[/i] aside. Then, today I came across this new article as [i]follows[/i]:[/b]
... "The United States suffers far heavier casualties in Iraq than it officially admits, a Russia military diplomat claimed.
The actual U.S. military losses in Iraq may have reached 2,000 personnel, more than twice the official figure of 900, as Washington badly understates its casualty statistics, a military diplomatic source told the Itar-Tass news agency.
"Official statistics do not include casualties among non-U.S. nationals who sign up to serve in the American armed forces in order to get a U.S. `green card.' According to reliable information the share of non-Americans in the U.S. force in Iraq may be as high as 60 per cent," the source said. "The real number of U.S. losses may be as high as 2,000 casualties and up to 12,000 wounded," the military diplomat said.
[u]AP reports from Baghdad[/u]:
United States forces launched a "precision attack'' on Friday morning against a suspected gathering of guerillas outside a house in the volatile city of Fallujah, the U.S. military said.
The attack did not kill anyone, but wounded five civilians, including three children, said Kamal Al-Ani, a local hospital official. http://www.hindu.com/2004/07/... " ...
[b]Is it true??? ...[i] It could be [/i]... The question is [i]how to discover the truth [/i]since we know [i]we cannot trust [/i]the dishonest neo-con Bush regime to tell us the truth ... It appears that we can no longer rely upon the media and press [i]either[/i], for they are now [i]neo-orwellian propaganda arms [/i]acting on orders from the Bush/Cheney cabal ... [/b]
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]pressured their toadies and lap-dogs on the 9/11 Commission to produce a [i]whitewash report [/i]in order to get them [i]"off the hook"[/i] for having let 9/11 happen when [i]warnings were given to Bush and Cheney in the weeks leading up to this tragedy [/i]in which Bush decided instead to go on a nice long vacation http://slate.msn.com/id/20988... ... Moreover, Bush [i]didn't read his Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs)[/i] http://slate.msn.com/id/20988... and apparently Condi Rice [i]lacked the wit-and-wisdom [/i] http://www.thebulletin.org/is... to imagine that aircraft could be rammed into US targets despite the fact that [i]this warning [/i]is precisely what the PDBs said would occur http://www.terroranalysis.com... ...[/b]
Sibel Edmonds began working for the FBI shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. Until the spring of 2002 she worked in the FBI's Washington field office translating top-secret documents pertaining to suspected terrorists. She first gained wide public attention in October of that year when she appeared on '60 Minutes' on CBS and charged that the FBI, State Department, and Pentagon had been infiltrated by agents of a Turkish intelligence officer suspected of ties to terrorism. She also accused members of the FBI's translation services of sabotage, intimidation, corruption and incompetence. On October 18, 2002, at the request of FBI Director Robert Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft imposed a gag order on Ms. Edmonds, citing possible damage to diplomatic relations or national security.
[b][u]The Puzzling 9/11 Report[/u]
by Sibel Edmonds [/b]
The countdown is finally over, and a 567-page 9/11 Commission report [[i]pdf[/i] http://www.antiwar.com/rep2/2... ] is out. According to the Commission Chairman, they have seen "every single document" and have interviewed "every single relevant witness and authority." According to all Commission members, this report should be considered a resounding success, since it encompasses all information relevant to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and very little, almost none, has been redacted, classified, or glossed over. Yet we have heard no one screaming "classification," "sensitive diplomatic relations," "highly sensitive foreign business relations," or "national security implications." This is highly puzzling and curious.
[b]This puzzles me[/b], considering that every investigation by the Congress and the Inspector General (IG) into my issues, every report involving my already-confirmed allegations involving serious lapses within the FBI, and every legal procedure and due process dealing with my case alone, has been blocked, gagged, entirely classified, and stopped. It is extremely curious that while investigations and reports on one case alone has created so much havoc, a massive investigation and a report involving all intelligence agencies and other government bodies, including the State Department, has evoked zero objections based on "sensitive foreign relations," "highly classified intelligence matters," and/or "ongoing intelligence investigations."
[b]This puzzles me[/b], knowing the detailed information I myself provided to the commission during a three and a half hour tape-recorded briefing, yet finding only one footnote (footnote 25) briefly stating insufficient translation capability within the FBI. It is highly curious that the report mentions nothing regarding the "intentionally blocked translations by certain Middle Eastern Translators, who also breached FBI security, as confirmed by the Senate Judiciary"; nothing regarding "adamant resistance to investigations of certain terrorist and criminal activities; refusing to transfer them to counterterrorism from existing counterintelligence investigations, solely based on the vague notion of protecting certain foreign relations"; nothing regarding "continued efforts to cover up certain highly specific information received prior to September 11, even now, years after 9/11"; and nothing regarding "knowingly allowing certain individuals, directly or indirectly related to terrorist activities, to leave the United States months after 9/11, without any interrogation, and per the State Department's request."
[b]This puzzles me[/b], having firsthand knowledge of ongoing intelligence received and processed by the FBI since 1997, which contained specific information implicating certain high level government and elected officials in criminal activities directly and indirectly related to terrorist money laundering, narcotics, and illegal arms sales. It is highly curious that the report omitted all this information, knowing that others in the Congress have been briefed on these issues and have been given the names of targets involved, special agents, translators, field offices, and files. I am highly puzzled and curious.
After the many public hearing shows, in which the Commissioners very skillfully played their good cop/bad cop routine and displayed their lifelong mastery of the political art of saying but not saying, and asking but not asking, all parties and all agencies have readily accepted this report. The president apparently considered the report rosy and appropriately symbolized its presentation in his rose garden. The previous administration sighed with relief, having scored a negative 4, compared to the current administration's negative 6, in the blame game. Notorious Attorney General John Ashcroft left his over-secrecy and classification guns in their holsters. [b]In fact, this report ended up being blessed by all those responsible for our nation's security and interests, which were severely violated on September 11. I, for one, am highly puzzled and curious. How about you? [/b]- http://www.antiwar.com/orig/s...
What Would Our Founding Fathers Say About Bush's So-Called "Christianity"???
"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." - Thomas Jefferson, http://etext.lib.virginia.edu...
[b]Our Founding Fathers were adament in creating a "wall of separation between church and state" and would have been appalled at the pressure brought to bear to impose hateful intolerence & divisive ideologies by so-called "religious" zealots and tyrannical fanatics like the traitorous & hypocritical Bush (unfit to be president) who is corrupting our system of democracy ... Bush's bizarre and corrupt so-called form of "Christianity (sic)" pathetically has resulted in:[/b]
1. Bloody warfare based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods (e.g. phony WMDs posing a so-called "imminent threat" to our national security, phony links between Al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein, cynically manipulating the fear & anger of Americans in the aftermath of 9/11, when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, unlike the Saudis: Bush's buddies, etc.) for which he should be impeached;
2. Lack of compassion, lack of action to help over 45 million Americans without health care coverage (while Bush brags & smirks about Iraqis getting health care-- that is, when they are not being murdered, tortured, raped, ridden like donkeys, and abused in atrocities committed on orders from Bush, Cheney, Rice & Rumsfeld ...)-- so Americans live in miserable pain, diseased or go bankrupt with over 18,000 Americans dying each year because they can't afford health care;
3. Lack of concern, lack of action about skyrocketing poverty in the U.S.A. with over 25 million families desperately trying to to make ends meet, living below an out-dated poverty-line established over 40 years ago-- over 4 million Americans who are homeless-- between 9-15 million Americans without jobs;
4. Highest gap between the Hyper-Rich Haves & the Impoverished Have-Nots in over 75 years, with America's backbone, the Middle-Class shrinking;
5. Inflation (e.g. higher gas prices, higher costs in goods & services, more people losing their homes because they can't pay their mortgages) hitting the Middle-Class and Working people very hard, while corporations, wealthy oligarchs & hyper-rich plutocrats are awarded immoral tax cuts, tax loopholes and tax boondoggles and living like Emperor Caligulas-- supported by the rest of us who are saddled with Bush's record-level deficits and historically high debts-- that are hurting the value of the dollar and our standard of living.
Our nation's infrastructure is crumbling all around us (e.g. Bush's "Leave No Child Behind" Failure has Left Lots of Children Worse Off because no funds were allocated to enable teachers to teach [Why do you think that the rich send their kids to private schools with 15 kids/class instead of the 30-40/class sizes that public school teachers have to contend with?]!-- No money for fire-fighters-- No money for roads, hospitals, schools, etc.), while the so-called "Christian (sic)" Bush is spending over $5 Billion/Month on Iraq (over $124 Billion thus far in Iraq, with no end in sight!)-- Bush's gang of neo-con thugs bribed the embezzler, crook & liar Ahmed Chalabi with over $33 Million (including $340,000/Month) for false information, and Chalabi betrayed our nation by selling national security secrets to Iran (Which Neo-Con Traitors in the Pentagon gave their "pet" Chalabi Top-Secret US information? Shouldn't these Neo-Con Traitors including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton-- who have gotten us into this mess be fired and tried for treason?) Condi Rice was appointed head of the Iraqi Stabilization Group (ISG) back in October 2003 by Bush and the situtation has continued to spiral out-of-control ever since! Why is Rice still in office, as she is over-rated, incompetent and a liar?
Where are all of these so-called "Christian (sic)" "values"??? Americans are being damaged, harmed and impoverished by a reckless, ruthless gang of neo-con warmongers for war-profiteering... There is nothing "Christian" in their heinous War Crimes and Rape of America.
It is sad to watch the cynical manipulation of uneducated, well-meaning, but foolish so-called "Christians (sic)" who stand behind a dangerously stupid buffoon Bush who acts like a Nazi thug instead of an American. These misguided people are suckered by the Bushies who are using them/us as cannon-fodder, slave labour & sheep to further their own sordid & squalid aims. Those who profess to "love life" should be concerned (or outraged) over Bush's abortions of over 900 U.S. Soldiers and between 11,000-16,000 innocent Iraqi Civilians (pregnant women with unborn kids are amongst his casualties) with the death toll rising day-in-and-day-out and no end in sight... Moreover, do these so-called "Christians (sic)" approve of murder, rape, torture, putting a harness on the elderly and riding them like a donkey, and abuse of prisoners??? We've learned of the rape and sodomy of little children at Abu Ghraib http://www.tblog.com/template... too!!! Is this what we have to offer to the world??? If so, it is no wonder that the Arab world wants none of it... The rest of the world wants none of it ... Conscientious and thoughtful Americans want none of it either...
Let "We the People" reject the hypocrisy of the corrupt Un-Christian, Un-American Bush regime and their over-zealot followers who would make Jesus Christ weep with shame for their heinous & callous treatment of American people and other peoples around the world (especially the Iraqis and the Afghanistianis who have been mercilessly massacred, tortured, etc.) ... And, who would make Our Founding Fathers weep, for we are NOT a so-called "Christian (sic)" nation and this ugly, arrogant and self-righteous religiosity is tinny, false, abhorrent and destructive to our Republic For Which It Stands (Our Republic Stands for our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, and NOT the Bible) ...
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
In a highly informative interview by Bill Moyers (NOW with Bill Moyers http://www.pbs.org/now/societ... ) with Susan Jacoby, author of "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism" (excerpt on http://www.beliefnet.com/stor... ), they explore the dangers of our society being turned into a fanatical religious totalitarian system if we do not go back to the roots of our government, our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ... Indeed, Ms. Jacoby cites John Adams, 2nd President of the U.S., who in the Treaty with Tripoli (1796-97), reassures the Barbary States of Northern Africa that the United States of America is "not to be founded on Christianity" http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/j... ...
"We the People" must extricate ourselves from the dangerously stupid and corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta[/i], comprised of vile traitors who are undermining our nation's heritage, system of laws and historical role in the world community ...
[b]It has been obvious to many of us [i]for many months now [/i]that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] immoral and illegal neo-con war in Iraq was so badly bungled that it tragically represents the worst foreign policy blunder [i]and [/i]worst foreign defeat-[i]cum[/i]-debacle in our nation's history which will haunt us for many generations to come ...[/b]
The battle for Iraq's sovereign future is a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. As things stand, it appears that victory will go to the side most in tune with the reality of the Iraqi society of today: the leaders of the anti-U.S. resistance.
Iyad Allawi's government was recently installed by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to counter a Baathist nationalism that ceased to exist nearly a decade ago.
In the aftermath of the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein's regime shifted toward an amalgam of Islamic fundamentalism, tribalism and nationalism that more accurately reflected the political reality of Iraq.
Thanks to his meticulous planning and foresight, Saddam's lieutenants are now running the Iraqi resistance, including the Islamist groups.
In August 1995, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan. Fourteen months into the U.S. occupation of Iraq, Kamal's testimony that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed in the summer of 1991 has taken on new relevance, given the fact that to date no WMD have been found.
More important is Kamal's self-described reason for defecting: Saddam's order that all senior Baath Party officials undergo mandatory Koranic studies. For Saddam, this radical shift in strategy was necessary to his survival, given the new realities of post-Gulf War Iraq.
The traditional Baathist ideology, based on Iraq-centric Arab nationalism, was no longer the driving force it had been a decade prior. Creating a new power base required bringing into the fold not only the Shiite majority - which had revolted against him in the spring of 1991 - but also accommodating the growing religious fundamentalism of traditional allies such as key Sunni tribes in western Iraq.
The most visible symbol of Saddam's decision to embrace Islam was his order to add the words "God Is Great" to the Iraqi flag.
The transformation of the political dynamics inside Iraq, however, went largely unnoticed in the West. It certainly seems to have escaped the attention of the Bush administration. And the recent "transfer of sovereignty" to Allawi's government reflects this lack of understanding.
One of the first directives issued by Paul Bremer, the former head of the CPA, was to pass a "de- Baathification" law, effectively blacklisting all former members of that party from meaningful involvement in the day-to-day affairs of post-Saddam Iraq. The law underscored the mindset of those in charge of Iraq: Baathist holdouts loyal to Saddam were the primary threat to the U.S.-led occupation.
Senior Bush administration officials recognized their mistake - though a little too late. In April, 2004, Bremer rescinded his "de-Baathification" order. The Pentagon today speaks of a "marriage of convenience" between Islamic fundamentalists and former members of Saddam's Baathist regime, even speculating that the Islamists are taking over Baathist cells weakened by American anti-insurgency efforts.
Once again, the Pentagon has it wrong. U.S. policy in Iraq is still unable or unwilling to face the reality of the enemy on the ground.
The Iraqi resistance is no emerging "marriage of convenience," but rather a product of years of planning. Rather than being absorbed by a larger Islamist movement, Saddam's former lieutenants are calling the shots in Iraq, having co-opted the Islamic fundamentalists years ago, with or without their knowledge.
One look at the list of the 55 "most wanted" members of the Saddam regime who remain at large reveals the probable chain of command of the Iraqi resistance today. It also underscores the success of Saddam's strategic decision nearly a decade ago to disassociate himself from Baathist ideology.
Keep in mind that there was never a formal surrender ceremony after the U.S. took control of Baghdad. The security services of Saddam's Iraq were never disbanded; they simply melted away into the population, to be called back into service when and where they were needed.
The so-called Islamic resistance is led by none other than former Vice President Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, an ardent Iraqi nationalist, a Sunni Arab and a practicing member of the Sufi brotherhood, a society of Islamic mystics. His deputy is Rafi Tilfah, who headed the Directorate of General Security (DGS), an organization that had thoroughly penetrated Iraqi society with collaborators and informants during Saddam's regime.
As a former UN weapons inspector, I have personally inspected the headquarters of the DGS in Baghdad, as well as the regional DGS headquarters in Tikrit. The rooms were full of files concerning those who were working with or on behalf of the DGS. There is not a person, family, tribe or Islamic movement in Iraq that the DGS does not know intimately - information that is an invaluable asset when coordinating and facilitating a popular-based resistance movement.
I also interacted with the former director of the Special Security Organization, Hani al-Tilfah, on numerous occasions during 1997-98, when he was put in charge of riding roughshod over my inspections. Today he helps coordinate the operations of the Iraqi resistance using the very same officers.
Tahir Habbush headed the Iraqi Intelligence Service that perfected the art of improvising explosive devices and using them to carry out assassinations. In the months prior to the U.S.-led invasion, he was ordered to blend his agents back into the Iraqi population so as to avoid detection by any occupying force.
The recent anti-American attacks in Fallujah and Ramadi were carried out by well-disciplined men fighting in cohesive units, most likely drawn from the ranks of Saddam's Republican Guard.
The level of sophistication should not have come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the role of the former chief of the Republican Guard, Sayf al-Rawi, in secretly demobilizing select Guard units for this very purpose prior to the U.S. invasion.
The transfer of sovereignty to the new Iraqi government of Iyad Allawi is a charade that will play itself out over the next weeks and months, and with tragic consequences. Allawi's government, hand-picked by the United States from the ranks of anti-Saddam expatriates, lacks not only a constituency inside Iraq but also legitimacy in the eyes of many ordinary Iraqi citizens.
The truth is that there never was a significant people- based opposition movement inside Iraq for the Bush administration to call on to form a government to replace Saddam. It is why the United States has instead been forced to rely on the services of individuals tainted by their association with foreign intelligence services, or drawn from opposition parties heavily infiltrated by agents of Saddam's former security services.
Regardless of the number of troops the United States puts on the ground or how long they stay there, Allawi's government is doomed to fail. The more it fails, the more it will have to rely on the United States to prop it up. The more the United States props up Allawi, the more discredited he will become in the eyes of the Iraqi people - all of which creates yet more opportunities for the Iraqi resistance to exploit.
We will suffer a decade-long nightmare that will lead to the deaths of thousands more Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. We will witness the creation of a viable and dangerous anti-American movement in Iraq that will one day watch as American troops unilaterally withdraw from Iraq every bit as ignominiously as Israel did from Lebanon.
The calculus is quite simple: the sooner we bring our forces home, the weaker this movement will be. And, of course, the obverse is true: the longer we stay, the stronger and more enduring this byproduct of Bush's elective war on Iraq will be.
There is no elegant solution to our Iraqi debacle. It is no longer a question of winning but rather of mitigating defeat.
[b]Scott Ritter, a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, is the author of "Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America."[/b]
... Missing Records Prove Bush Was AWOL In 1972 ...
[b]Bush dodged Vietnam http://awolbush.com by using powerful family friends to get into the Texas Air National Guard "[i]Champagne Unit[/i]." Bush was required to train with his unit one weekend each month. But for at least five months in 1972 (May-Sept), Bush did NOT report for duty, but was instead partying, drinking and slutting around. The Pentagon just found the pay records that prove Bush received NO pay for those 5 months. Bush was AWOL - and a DESERTER. Why did he decide to stop flying - was it alcohol or drugs? Was there a Flight Inquiry Board? Once again, we demand Bush's MEDICAL and DISCIPLINARY records!
Can a cowardly AWOL deserter-[i]cum[/i]-liar be trusted with the precious lives of our U.S. Soldiers? Of course [i]not[/i]![/b]
[u][b]Records Fail to Shed Light on Bush Service[/b][/u]
WASHINGTON - Newly discovered payroll records from President Bush 's 1972 service in the Alabama National Guard shed no new light on the future president's activities during that summer. A Pentagon official said Friday the earlier contention that the records were destroyed was an "inadvertent oversight."
Like records disclosed earlier by the White House, the newly released computerized payroll records show no indication Bush drilled with the Alabama unit during July, August and September of 1972. Pay records covering all of 1972, released previously, also indicated no guard service for Bush during those three months.
The records do not give any new information about Bush's National Guard training during 1972, when he transferred to the Alabama National Guard unit so he could work on the U.S. Senate campaign of a family friend. The payroll records do not say definitively whether Bush attended training that summer because they are maintained separately from attendance records.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Bush kept his service commitments, pointing to the fact that Bush was honorably discharged in 1973. The White House says Bush attended enough training during other months in 1972 to fulfill his service commitment for that year.
The release came days before Democrats began their national convention in Boston to officially nominate Sen. John Kerry as their presidential candidate. Military veterans are being tapped at the convention to help tell Kerry's story as he prepares to accept the party's nomination next week.
A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee , Jano Cabrera, called the discovery Friday of Bush's records "highly questionable."
"If the Bush administration continues to search, maybe they'll find answers to the long list of unanswered questions that remain about George W. Bush's time in the Air National Guard," Cabrera said. "Bush's military records seem to show up as randomly as he did for duty."
Democrats have sought to contrast Bush's National Guard service with Kerry's Vietnam War record. Kerry enlisted in the Navy, volunteered for combat in Vietnam and earned several medals including a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. After returning from Vietnam, Kerry became a prominent anti-war activist.
[i]The Associated Press [/i]had asked a federal judge on July 16 to order the Pentagon to quickly turn over a copy of the pay records. The[i] AP [/i]had sued under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the records from a state library records center in Texas.
Records of Bush's National Guard service released previously did not explain the apparent gaps in his Guard service in 1972 and 1973.
Bush had transferred to an Alabama National Guard unit while he worked on the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount.
The Pentagon had said that the payroll records for that time period had been inadvertently destroyed.
"Previous attempts to locate the missing records at the Federal Records Center had been unsuccessful due to the incorrect records accession numbers provided," the Pentagon's Office of Freedom of Information chief C.Y. Talbott said in a letter Friday to [i]The Associated Press[/i].
"The correct numbers were obtained ... and the records were found."
Talbott wrote that the Defense Department "regrets this inadvertent oversight during the initial search and the delay it caused in your receipt of these materials."
America is Asking ... About the 9/11 Commission Report ...
[b]In the release of its report, the 9/11 Commission raised serious concerns about our nation's security nearly three years after the 9/11 attacks.[/b] [b]Read also the "On the Report of the 9/11 Commission" by John Podesta on http://www.americanprogress.o... .[/b]
The commissioners beseeched our leaders to[i] act swiftly and resolutely [/i]to begin the difficult work of bolstering our nation's defenses and reforming our intelligence system. Newspapers from across the country are now weighing in on the Commission's report and where to go from here.
[b][u]The Atlanta Journal-Constitution – Atlanta, Ga.[/u] July 23, 2004[/b]
"The members of the 9/11 commission --- led by Chairman Tom Kean of New Jersey, a Republican, and Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton of Indiana, a Democrat --- have given their country as thorough and honest a report as seems possible on the failings that left us vulnerable to attack on Sept. 11, 2001. Their unanimous recommendations for further enhancing national security are the product of compromise and a willingness to accept the good faith and patriotism even of colleagues with a different point of view.
"According to a recent poll, 63 percent of Americans believe that we're equally or even more vulnerable to a major terrorist attack than we were before Sept. 11."
[b][u]Pittsburgh Post-Gazette – Pittsburgh, Pa.[/u] July 23, 2004[/b]
"Initially opposed by President George W. Bush and slow-rolled by some government bodies, the work of the commission has played an important role.
"New information continues to emerge. Evidence of contact but not collaboration between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's Iraq revives the question of why America went to war there. It appears, for example, that Iran, not Iraq, was helpful to the al-Qaida terrorists prior to Sept. 11.
"The recommendation of the commission that will attract the most attention is that the federal government now add a new, sub-Cabinet-level intelligence czar. The reason is that the commission identified a fatal lack of coordination in collecting and analyzing intelligence among the elements of the U.S. government concerned with such matters before 9/11."
[b][u]Bangor Daily News – Bangor, Maine[/u] July 23, 2004[/b]
"While the 9-11 commission, which issued its final report Thursday, pinpointed specific instances of failures that enabled 19 hijackers to carry out their attack on the United States, they also made it clear that no specific person or agency is to blame. The danger in this conclusion is that if everyone - or at least a lot of people - are responsible for the failures that often practically means no one is responsible. To avert this unacceptable outcome, both the president and Congress need to quickly improve the country's intelligence and security operations.
"Someone needs to be in charge of all intelligence to ensure that information is shared and directed to the appropriate agency to be acted upon. Concerns have been raised that Cabinet-level intelligence director position would be too political. Given the commission's warnings, it should be possible to overcome politics to improve the gathering and sharing of information."
[b][u]The Bradenton Herald – Bradenton, Fla.[/u] July 23, 2004[/b]
"Though many of the commission's major findings have already leaked out in staff drafts, Thursday's official version is a chilling, depressing account of failure by elected leaders, cabinet officers, intelligence agency chiefs and presidential advisers.
"Also key is the recommendation for America and its allies to affect a global strategy to dismantle al-Qaida and deal with the militant Islamic ideology that feeds terrorist violence. Since 9/11, the Bush administration has had considerable success in building international cooperation in rooting out terrorist cells. However, that effort has suffered since the war in Iraq."
[b][u]The News Tribune - Tacoma, Washington[/u] July 23, 2004[/b]
"Bush, though new in the Oval Office, was the man at the helm when the Central Intelligence Agency and FBI repeatedly missed opportunities to stop the Sept. 11 hijackers. And while the president had ordered development of a strategy to destroy al-Qaida, he and those around him failed to respond effectively to a crescendo of warnings in the months preceding the terror attacks.
"The United States is much better prepared now to stop another attack-by-airliner; most of its counterterrorism efforts since Sept. 11 have revolved around airports and commercial jets. But before Sept. 11, we were also well prepared for the last major threat - military intimidation by the Soviet Union. The challenge is to anticipate tomorrow's attack, not yesterday's."
[b]Michael Moore has struck a chord across America with his outstanding film [i]'Fahrenheit 9/11' [/i]and has the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] and their GOP mad-dogs in a[i] tizzy [/i] http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... ... [i]LOL[/i] ...
Fahrenheit [i]THIS[/i]!!!
Michael Moore's [i]Fahrenheit 9/11 [/i]broke all records for documentary films when it opened in the United States. The Bush-bashing commentary has both loyal fans and rabid detractors, and has spurred the creation of numerous websites set up to discredit Moore's film and its facts. But Moore isn't the only Michael out there with ideas about politics and access to a video camera. Bill Berkowitz talks to filmmaker Michael Wilson about his forthcoming[i] Michael Moore Hates America[/i], the American Dream, and what it's like to be that other Mike[/b].
[i]Bill Berkowitz is a longtime political observer and columnist[/i].
[b]He claims that the title of his film [/b]is more satire than publicity-seeking hyperbole. He says he’s not out to get Michael Moore; he’s just trying to reinvigorate the public discourse. He’s enlisted a number of ultra right-wing commentators for his “journey across the nation” to help him “find out whether the American Dream is still alive.” Bandwagon jumper or serious filmmaker? What is Michael Wilson, the director of the forthcoming [i]Michael Moore Hates America [/i]up to?
“I think he [Michael Moore] demonstrates a distrust of America when he manipulates facts so that they skew his point. I think that’s distrustful,” Wilson told The[i] Daily Show’s[/i] Samantha Bee during a segment titled “Dislike Mike” in which Wilson goes to New York City to hunt down Moore. “I’d like to do to Michael Moore what he’s done to others,” Wilson added.
It’s morning in America for conservative nattering nabobs of negativism who don’t like Michael Moore or his politics. Moore’s Oscar-winning documentary,[i] Bowling for Columbine[/i], got the ball rolling, and this year’s Cannes Film Festival top prize-winning film, [i]Fahrenheit 9/11 [/i], sealed the deal. A number of websites dedicated to debunking the lefty filmmaker and setting the record “straight” have been established, including: “MooreWatch: http://www.moorewatch.com/ Watching Michael Moore’s Every Move," mooreexposed.com http://www.mooreexposed.com/ ; and “ Bowling For Truth—The Distortions in BFC.” http://www.bowlingfortruth.co...
There are also websites “Where people don't actually offer any sort of debunking of Moore, but rather call him names from the anonymity of cyberspace and offer him tickets to Iraq, ” Wilson said in an e-mail exchange.
The astonishing success of Moore’s[i] Fahrenheit 9/11 [/i]—which, as of this writing, had grossed more than $93 million domestically, and millions more internationally since its late-June debut—is no doubt helping drive the Moore- thumping.
A recently published book, [i]Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man [/i], has taken Moore-bashing to bestseller lists across the country. Wilson hopes his film will excite late-summer moviegoers looking for an antidote to Moore’s extraordinarily popular documentary.
[i][b]‘Michael Moore Hates America’[/b][/i]
With hopes of getting his film into theaters by late summer, Wilson is currently putting the finishing touches on [i]Michael Moore Hates America [/i]. The movie is intended to celebrate America, rather than to bash Moore, Wilson claims. “Contrary to its title,” he writes at his website, “MichaelMooreHatesAmeri ca.com http://michaelmoorehatesa meri... —The Official Site for a Documentary that Tells the Truth About a Great Nation,” the film “isn’t a hatchet job on the filmmaker. It’s a journey across the nation where we meet celebrities, scholars and average folks alike, and we find out whether the American Dream is still alive! In the process, we’ll look at Michael Moore’s claims about the country, its people and our way of life.”
“My film is different,” from the Moore-debunkers and Moore-bashers, Wilson responded to my e-mail question, “In that I'm trying to be respectful of Michael Moore the person. I'm focusing on what he has said and done in his body of work, and holding it up against the light of experience—both mine and that of hundreds of other Americans I've met on this journey.” While Wilson respects Moore’s passion, he wonders “Whether that passion clouds his honesty…and [that is] one of the themes I'm exploring in the flick."
Why the hyperbolic title? “The title isn't a thesis,” Wilson said. “It's a satirical swipe at some of the shrillness that has engulfed this big American conversation. I think audiences (especially audience members who are expecting me to do nothing but lay into Moore) will be very surprised at how it plays out in the film. And I'm not giving that part away.
Wilson has tried in vain to get Michael Moore to sit down for an interview. "The closest I got,” he told a reporter for the[i] St. Paul Pioneer Press[/i], “Was I did run into him at the (University of Minnesota) when he was on his book tour, and he started screaming at me. The screaming began when [he] mentioned the title of his film in the middle of asking a question. It was quite a sight—7,000 Michael Moore fans, just booing me," Wilson said. (And check out [u][i]The Daily Show’s [/i]hysterical send-up[/u] http://www.comedycentral.com/... of Wilson’s attempt to track down Moore in New York City.)
In the two-minute-and-30-second trailer for the film, Wilson chats with two prominent conservatives, former ultra-conservative Republican Congressman J.C. Watts of Oklahoma, and Dinesh D’Souza, an “academic” who’s been feeding at the trough of right-wing foundations for years. D’Souza, a former John M. Olin scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, is currently a fellow at the Hoover Institution. D’Souza has authored a number of books, including [i]The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society[/i], described by MediaTransparency.com as a book that “argues that low-income black people are basically ‘pathological’ and that white racism isn't really racism at all, just a logical response to this ‘pathology.’" John Stossel, the conservative ABC television commentator, and Penn Jillette, the co-host of the Showtime program[i] Penn & Teller: Bullshit![/i] also make appearances in the film.
Wilson was plugging away on the film, but “struggling through lack of cash,” when he met financier Brian R. Cartmell, according to a report from the Center for Media and Democracy’s [i]Disinfopedia[/i]. By any stretch of the imagination, Cartmell is one heck of a colorful dude who has cashed in on the American dream. Cartmell lays out his 10-point critique of Moore’s film at his website,http://www.cartmell.com/ http://www.cartmell.com/ .
In January 2000, [i]Seattle Weekly [/i]writer Mark D. Fefer reported that Cartwell “was the president of Internet Entertainment Group [IEG], the Seattle-based online pornography giant founded by Seth Warshavsky back in 1995,” headquartered in Seattle, Wash. According to Disinfopedia , “Cartmell and his employer were named as defendants in an early cybersquatting case ….[and] they were sued by the toy manufacturer Hasbro for using 'Candy Land,' one of Hasbro's trademarks, in a domain name for a porn site.
Wilson bluntly criticized the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) and its interactive[i] Disinfopedia [/i]website, claiming that when he tried “to correct the factual errors” on the site, the organization “delete[d] our changes and post[ed] more propaganda.” Wilson charged that CMD “has no interest in being ‘fair’ or ‘respecting other contributors.’" He also accused CMD of “work[ing]…hard to silence dissenting opinions.”
As of July 18, Wilson was “still negotiating the deal” and said he couldn't talk about it yet. He hopes to have the deal done within the next two weeks, he said, and have the movie in theaters in August or early September. He is optimistic that the film will draw a large audience: “There have been millions and millions of hits to the website, and I get a lot of very supportive e-mail,” Wilson said. “And I hope that people who believe everything Michael Moore tells them will see my movie. It might change them. As for numbers, I don't even want to guess.”
[i]Michael Moore Hates America [/i]may also be shown at a new film festival called the American Film Renaissance, which, according to the [i]Hollywood Reporter [/i], is a festival devoted to showing conservative films. Scheduled for Sept. 9 through 11 in Dallas, the festival was announced in late June by co-founder Jim Hubbard, who said it was being “bankrolled primarily by some ‘big-time conservative donors.’"
The ongoing buzz that [i]Fahrenheit 9/11 [/i]continues to generate will undoubtedly help Wilson’s efforts. And that the premiere date of [i]Michael Moore Hates America [/i]is likely to coincide with the release of DVD of [i]Fahrenheit 9/11 [/i]will certainly not hurt the marketability of either film.
The Truth Be Told:-- GOP Remark Saying "'Suppress the Detroit Vote'"!!! ...
[b][u]So the truth be told[/u]:-- The Bush/Cheney neo-fascist traitors and their GOP toadies [i]don't believe [/i]in our democratic process [i]enshrined[/i] in the U.S. Constitution ... Indeed, not only do they want us [i]not[/i] to cast our votes ... They are seeking ways to [i]"suppress"[/i] our votes ... ([i]Jeez[/i] .. Nope, I actually [i]don't think [/i]their plans are racist:-- The corrupt Bushies and their GOP corporate-owned-whores want to suppress [i]any and all votes not cast [/i]in their neo-con direction ...) ... [/b]
[u][b]Democrats Blast GOP Lawmaker's 'Suppress the Detroit Vote' Remark[/b][/u]
Democrats on Wednesday denounced a Republican lawmaker quoted in a newspaper as saying the GOP would fare poorly in this year's elections if it failed to "suppress the Detroit vote."
State Rep. John Pappageorge, R-Troy, acknowledged using "a bad choice of words" but said his remark shouldn't be construed as racist.
Pappageorge, 73, was quoted in July 16 editions of the Detroit Free Press as saying, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election."
"I'm extremely disappointed in my colleague," state Sen. Buzz Thomas, D-Detroit, told reporters Wednesday during a conference call. "That's quite clearly code that they don't want black people to vote in this election."
Blacks comprise 83 percent of Detroit's population, and the city routinely gives Democratic candidates a substantial majority of its votes.
Pappageorge's remark reflected the GOP's failure to send black voters a persuasive message, said Rep. Alexander Lipsey, D-Kalamazoo.
"This is the endgame strategy the Republican Party has decided to utilize, rather than positive strategies," he said. "They are strategizing, "How can we get those folks we don't care about from going to the polls?"'
Pappageorge said he had not read the remark attributed to him but did not deny making it.
"In the context that we were talking about, I said we've got to get the vote up in Oakland (County) and the vote down in Detroit. You get it down with a good message. I don't know how we got them from there to "racist,"' Pappageorge said. "If I have given offense in any way to my colleagues in Detroit or anywhere, I apologize."
[b]NOW:[/b] House Government Reform Committee Chairman Thomas M. Davis III, Virginia Republican, yesterday called the actions of Samuel R. Berger "a disturbing breach of trust and protocol" and said his committee will soon begin an investigation into the matter, despite[i] CBS News [/i]reporting "law enforcement sources say they don't expect any criminal charges will be filed." - [i]Washington Times[/i], 7/22/04; [i]CBS News[/i], 7/20/04 [[u]Source[/u]: http://www.washingtontimes.co... ]
... [i]and[/i] ...
[b]THEN:[/b] In 2003, when he was asked to hold hearings into the administration's leak of an undercover CIA operative's name, Davis declined, saying, "I know Ashcroft very well, and I'm sure he'll go by the book." He had his spokesman claim an investigation into the administration leak (unlike an investigation into the Berger matter, apparently) "should be conducted by career FBI agents." Davis has also refused to undertake a probe into Vice President Cheney's office's now-admitted "coordination" of federal contracts for his former employer Halliburton. - [i]St. Louis Post Dispatch[/i], 10/03/03 [[u]Source[/u]: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/... ] ; [i]Roll Call[/i], 9/30/03
[b]Do [i]you [/i]want to fill in the _____________??? ... [i]Jeez[/i] ...
So now that support for the Iraq war is plummeting, Bush has declared himself the "[i]peace president[/i]"??? ... [/b]It seems like only yesterday that Bush declared himself the [i]war president[/i]: "I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind." I guess that's because it virtually was; he said it in February.
Truth is, there's little need to pad this [i]Reuters[/i] article http://reuters.com/newsArticl... whose tone is incredulous and often downright snide: "Despite a surge in attacks in Iraq and U.S. warnings that al Qaeda is plotting another major strike, Bush said U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had already made America safer, and that his re-election would let him finish the job.
Then it becomes downright Orwellian http://www.alternet.org/waron... since reports yesterday quoted a U.S. government official saying "If George Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of [b]Iran[/b]."
Bush goes on to test the waters with this Kerry/Edwards diss: "I'm not a lawyer, you'll be happy to hear...That's the other team. This is the pro-small business team." Interesting contrast for a guy who: demoted the Small Business Association from a cabinet position, attempted to slash its budget by 40%, has proposed cutting hundreds of millions from many of its most successful programs and continues to propose cuts to its budget, including 10% next year.
I just hope the lawyer Bush retained for the Joseph Wilson/Valerie Plame case isn't pissed at his dig. - http://www.alternet.org
[b]During the American Revolutionary War, the Mad King George ([i]not Dubya, but the original[/i]) and his generals like General Cornwallis got [i]very, very angry [/i]because General George Washington wouldn't fight according to the "rules" ... The [i]"macaronis" [/i]or American Revolutionary soldiers wouldn't wear red uniforms and march in line to be shot at like ducks ... [/b]General George Washington, who called himself a [i]"liberal man[/i]", outwitted the anachronistic General Cornwallis and the Mad King George using an "unusual platform" of un-traditional strategies and un-conventional tactics ... Apparently the GOPpers are [i]not "happy campers"[/i] because the Democrats aren't [i]"playing into their hands[/i]" ... [i] He he he!!! [/i]...
[b]Unusual platform ruffles GOP[/b]
THE HORROR of it all: Democrats are refusing to campaign the way Democrats usually campaign.
This tactic annoys Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee. During a Monday morning conference call with reporters, Gillespie complained that the Democratic Party platform is "designed to disguise" Senator John Kerry's "out-of-mainstream voting record."
"A far-left duckling hopes to emerge as a centrist swan," Gillespie declared, so proud of his pre-rehearsed sound-bite he made certain to repeat it for a reporter who joined the conference call after it began. Republicans are mad that Democrats aren't hugging trees, demanding world peace and gay marriage. Instead, the party challenging President Bush is calling for strength at home and respect abroad.
It leaves the GOP at a loss, trying to equate the Democrats' slogan -- respect abroad -- with "whether Teresa and John . . . are going to get invited to a fancy dinner in France," as Arizona Senator Jon Kyl put it yesterday during the conference call.
What really frustrates the GOP is what Democrats left out of the party platform, or issues document. For example, it does not label the Iraq invasion "a mistake" and does not establish a publicly announced timeline for the withdrawal of US troops. It does not call for specific changes in the Patriot Act. It calls for "full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation," criticizes Bush for pushing a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and woman, but leaves the issue of marriage to be decided at the state level.
It supplies Republicans with no new ammunition to label the Democratic ticket soft on national security and values.
What's the RNC to do? It can always hope another comedian delivers a lewd anti-Bush riff at a Kerry fund-raiser. However, a Democratic "values" relapse showcasing the Hollywood left at Kerry's side seems unlikely.
After the recent Whoopi Goldberg controversy, Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island canceled plans for a convention party featuring the Dead, the rock group that used to be known as the Grateful Dead and still sings about controlled substances.
Gillespie promises Republicans will work hard to remind voters what Democrats left out of their party platform. While details of how the Bush campaign plans to run against invisible ink were not revealed, Gillespie pledged that the GOP will be in Boston during the Democrats' convention to highlight John Kerry's voting record.
Asked if he believes voters are as frightened by the term "Massachusetts liberal" as they used to be, Gillespie said he is not calling Kerry a "Massachusetts liberal" -- just someone, as Gillespie explains it, who has voted against the child tax credit, voted against repealing the death penalty, voted against funding for US troops, and voted against the unborn victims of violence act.
"People can come to their own conclusions as to whether or not those facts make Senator Kerry a Massachusetts liberal," said Gillespie.
Arizona Senator Kyl said he would characterize Senator Edward M. Kennedy as "a Massachusetts liberal" and Kerry is "to the left of the most prominent Massachusetts liberal."
Is that enough to defeat Kerry? Replied Gillespie: "I believe the majority of the American public is to the right of Ted Kennedy."
Agreed, the majority of the American voting public would probably define itself as being to the right of Ted Kennedy. But the problem for Republicans is that the same majority might also define itself as being to the left of George W. Bush. The president who ran as a uniter, not a divider, is hugging the right on issues like gay marriage and dividing the nation on war with Iraq. If you are a Kerry supporter, you might even say that the centrist swan of 2000 has revealed himself for what he is: a right-wing duckling in 2004.
Meanwhile, with apologies to Gillespie for mixing bird analogies, what's good for the goose is good for the gander; it's no surprise Democrats would figure out the way to beat Bush is to adopt the political tricks that worked for him -- pretend you are one thing to win the White House, then show your true feathers once you do.
For both Bush and Kerry, the truth of who they are lies in the record, not the rhetoric. The record pits a United States senator with a mostly liberal voting record against an incumbent president with a record measured mostly by the casualties of war. Voters will decide what matters more. - http://www.boston.com/news/gl...
------> Attack and Distract!!! ... Ha ha ha!!! ......
"[i]You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. But you cannot fool all of the people all of the time[/i]." - Abraham Lincoln
[b]How many people are[i] fooled [/i]by the blatant, ugly and barbaric attempt by the corrupt Bushies to [i]attack and smear [/i]Clinton and Sandy Berger ([i]and by association Kerry[/i]) in order to [i]distract[/i] the American people's[i] limited attention span [/i][u]away[/u] from their own heinous crimes (e.g. lies perpetrated upon us to go to war; sodomy of little children at Abu Ghraib; lies about Valerie Plame; lies about 9/11; etc.)??? [i]Not all of us[/i], and [i]not even all [/i]Republicans are [i]fooled[/i]!!! [i]Ha ha ha[/i]!!![/b]
One day before the bipartisan 9/11 Commission is scheduled to release its final report, Bush administration allies on Capitol Hill have put their partisan spin machine into high-gear. Despite overwhelming evidence that President Bush underfunded counter-terrorism, ignored repeated memos warning of an imminent attack by Osama bin Laden, and took one of the longest vacations in presidential history while the pre-9/11 security threat boiled, Republicans are seeking to blame 9/11 on the Clinton administration even before the Commission's report has been published. Their current target: former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, who in October 2003 acknowledged inadvertently losing two documents from the National Archives. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist claimed Berger was trying to deceive the 9/11 Commission. They failed to mention the Commission refuted that charge, and that even the Bush Justice Department admits the incident is so innocuous, that[b] [i]CBS News [/i]reports "law enforcement sources say they don't expect any criminal charges will be filed."[/b]
[b][u]REPUBLICANS ADMIT THE TIMING SMELLS[/u]:[/b] [i]CBS News[/i] reported last night that [b]even Republicans "say the timing of the investigation's disclosure smells like politics, leaked to the press just two days before the 9/11 Commission report comes out." [/b]Republican strategist Eddie Mahe said, "somebody is manipulating the process." Why? Because, as the [i]WP[/i] reports, the final report by the commission concludes Iraq "never established operational ties" with al Qaeda. In other words, the Commission is about to formally conclude that one of the two major justifications the administration gave for war in Iraq was a fraud. With the WMD justification also proving false, the administration is desperate to distract from polls that show a majority of Americans say the war was a mistake. Even more troubling for the White House, almost half the public now says the [b]White House "deliberately misled" America about Iraq[/b]. It was this fear that the Commission would embarrass the Bush administration that led the White House to oppose its creation. And it is no surprise that yesterday Commission Chairman Tom Kean admitted that some wanted the 9/11 Commission to fail.
[b][u]MOTIVE ACCUSATIONS JUST PLAIN SILLY[/u]:[/b] [i]Reuters[/i] reports "Republicans accused Berger of taking the documents so they could be used by the Kerry campaign at a news conference on port security." Said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): "Right after the documents were taken, John Kerry held a photo op and attacked the president on port security. The documents that were taken may have been utilized for that press conference." Although the timing in this fable may be accurate, one thing is clear: neither Kerry nor any citizen in America needs secret documents from the National Archives to know the [b]Bush administration and Republicans in Congress have dangerously underfunded seaport and airport security[/b]. As American Progress fellow PJ Crowley notes, while the Coast Guard has said it needs $7.5 billion for key port security upgrades, the White House has requested just $45 million this year. Similarly, as the Century Foundation reports, while "the Transportation Security Administration estimates there is a 35% to 65% chance that terrorists are planning to place a bomb in the cargo of a U.S. passenger plane" the administration has only provided funding to make sure that 5% of air cargo is screened.
[b][u]SAXBY CHAMBLISS – A RIGHT-WING SMEAR ARTIST[/u]:[/b] As the [i]Dallas Morning News [/i]reports, the Berger affair "took on a slightly comic note" as Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) claimed without any proof that Berger "put some papers in his trousers" (Berger categorically denies this charge). Chambliss, of course, has made his career dishonestly smearing decorated war heroes who lost limbs in Vietnam, even while he refused to explain how he avoided all military service during the war. In his 2002 race against triple amputee veteran Max Cleland, Chambliss "ran a TV ad picturing Cleland with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden." At the same time the ads were running, [b]Chambliss refused to explain how he received three draft deferments – including two for a "bum knee" even though he still found a way to play baseball in college[/b].
[b][u]WHERE IS THE LEAK OUTRAGE?[/u]: [/b][i]CBS News [/i]reports the controversy "was triggered by a carefully orchestrated leak" about the FBI's investigation of the matter. Yet, top administration officials and Republicans who have previously expressed outrage about leaks were nowhere to be found. [b]There was no statement of outrage or call for an investigation from Attorney General John Ashcroft who in 2001 said leaks "do substantial damage to the security interests of the nation."[/b] Similarly, there was nothing from the Chambliss, who one year ago said "leaks have always been a problem and continue to be a problem." And it was all quiet at the Pentagon, despite Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stating last year that leaks are "disgraceful, they're unprofessional, they're dangerous."
[b][u]NO SIMILAR OUTRAGE ABOUT BUSH RECORDS BEING DESTROYED[/u]:[/b] Even as Rush Limbaugh and the GOP's congressional leadership insinuate without proof that Berger was deliberately trying to destroy records, they have made little mention about last week's disclosure that President Bush's key military draft records were destroyed by Pentagon officials. The documents in question would have proven whether the President was lying about whether he fulfilled his military service that allowed him to avoid going to Vietnam. [b]The destruction of the documents has forced the[i] Associated Press[/i] to sue for copies of them, which are legally required to exist in the Texas archives[/b]. Despite promises to release all documents, the president has refused to release the Texas copies.
[b]Apparently Bush and the CIA are [i]at odds [/i]on Iran ... [/b]The CIA was made the [i]scapegoat [/i]for Bush and Cheney's[i] traitorous lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]that led our nation into a bloody illegal & immoral neo-con fiasco in Iraq http://www.commondreams.org/v... ... I suspect they're not going to let the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]make them the "fall-guys" [i]again[/i]!!!
The old saying "[i]Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me![/i]" should be at the [i]fore-front of our minds[/i] as we watch another round of [i]fraudulent claims [/i]by the sordid, squalid and incompetent Bushies in their insane lusts for perpetual wars for perpetual profits ...
[u][b]Bush, CIA at Odds on Iran[/b][/u]
President Bush said Monday that his administration was investigating possible links between Iran and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a statement that distanced the president from acting CIA Director John McLaughlin, who had downplayed a possible connection a day earlier.
"As to direct connections with Sept. 11, we're digging into the facts to determine if there was one," Bush said of Iran.
In a second sign of a potential rift between the White House and the intelligence agency, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that McLaughlin was not speaking for the president when he said it was unnecessary to create a new, more powerful intelligence czar, despite faulty information before the Iraq war.
"The president is very much open to ideas that build upon the reforms that we're already implementing," McClellan said. "I think [McLaughlin] was expressing his view."
McClellan's comments indicated that the White House was receptive to the idea of fundamental reform in the intelligence community, rather than the "modest changes" McLaughlin had endorsed in an appearance on a Sunday talk show.
The White House-CIA differences emerged as the independent Sept. 11 commission prepared to release its final report Thursday on the 2001 terrorist attacks. The report is expected to contain recommendations that could touch off a contentious drive toward reforming the nation's intelligence-gathering bureaucracy.
The independent commission is widely expected to report that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers had traveled freely between Iran and Afghanistan during 2000 and 2001. Last month, the panel's chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas H. Kean, said in a television interview that Al Qaeda had "a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq."
Iran's emerging prominence in the Sept. 11 investigations looms as a potentially difficult issue for the White House, because it could raise new questions about why Bush led a war against Iraq but so far has taken a distinctly less bellicose stance toward Iran.
McClellan argued that the United States indeed had been "confronting" the threat from Iran, which Bush in 2002 listed, along with Iraq and North Korea, as part of an "axis of evil." He added, however, that Iraq was "a unique situation" because it had invaded its neighbors and had possessed and used weapons of mass destruction.
McClellan also said the White House was eager to learn what the Sept. 11 commission knew about any connections between the hijackers and Iran. "Apparently it's something that's evolved over time," he said.
The Iranian government has denied knowledge or involvement in the Sept. 11 plot.
McLaughlin had said Sunday that although "about eight" of the Sept. 11 hijackers may have passed through Iran before their mission, the CIA had "no evidence that there is some sort of official connection between Iran and 9/11."
Bush on Monday noted McLaughlin's comments, but said: "We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved."
The president also renewed his accusation that Iran's rulers were "harboring Al Qaeda leadership," and urged Tehran anew to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. The United States has asked Iran to turn over Al Qaeda members to their respective countries.
The president's spokesman dismissed weekend media reports that Bush may delay naming a new CIA director until after the Nov. 2 election as having "no basis in fact."
In brief remarks to reporters after meeting with Chilean President Ricardo Lagos, Bush said that he was "still taking a good, hard look" at potential successors to George J. Tenet as CIA director. Tenet left the agency July 11.
As for the reforming the intelligence-gathering apparatus, the president said he was looking forward to seeing the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations.
"They share the same desires I share, which is to make sure that the president and the Congress get the best possible intelligence," Bush said.
"Some of the reforms, I think, are necessary: more human intelligence, better ability to listen or to see things, and better coordination amongst the variety of intelligence-gathering services," he said. "And so we'll look at all their recommendations, and I will comment upon that, having studied what they say."
The commission is expected to recommend the creation of a single Cabinet-level position overseeing the 15 agencies that make up the nation's intelligence-gathering community.
McLaughlin acknowledged on "Fox News Sunday" that "a good argument" could be made for such consolidation, but added that it was unnecessary because the CIA already had taken steps toward reform since Sept. 11 and because a restructuring would impose additional bureaucracy on the system.
White House officials have described McLaughlin as a capable leader, but have also indicated that they do not see him as a permanent replacement.
That may be in part because McLaughlin was in a senior position at the agency during a stretch that included the failure to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks and the erroneous assessments that Iraq had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and had restarted its nuclear weapons program.
But it also appears that the professorial McLaughlin, who came up through the analytical side of the CIA, doesn't have the sort of rapport with Bush that the backslapping, gregarious Tenet did.
An anecdote in a recent book by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward describes McLaughlin giving a key briefing to Bush and other senior White House officials on the evidence against Iraq before the war. Bush was unimpressed by the presentation and complained that the evidence was weak, prompting Tenet to call the case against Iraq a "slam dunk." [Tenet foolishly wanted to please his corrupt boss Bush and his insane neo-fascist side-kicks Cheney & Rice, and was willing to say anything to fulfill their lusts for their heinous neo-con war in Iraq ...]
McClellan said Monday that McLaughlin was "someone who is very capable and is doing a good job at the CIA." - http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...
[b]More[i] and [/i]more ugly details are being revealed that the [i]six-month old [/i]Sandy Berger story is simply another vile neo-orwellian propaganda attempt to [i]divert our attention [/i]from the myriad crimes committed by the sordid and squalid Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]...[/b] By ordering their right-wing mad-dog media attack-machine[i] onto this old and relatively unimportant issue (no questions have been asked of Berger in weeks!)[/i], their dire fiasco in Iraq taking the lives of US Soldiers [i]and/or [/i]innocent Iraqi civilians on a daily basis (on average 2 US Soldiers are killed in Iraq every day since "sovereignty (?)" was "handed-over (?)") http://www.guardian.co.uk/com...,3604,1264789,00.html ; their felonious ValeriePlameGate; their impeachable lies, deceptions and falsehoods perpetrated upon our nation to wage illegal and immoral wars (and cover-up their tragic bungling that enabled 9/11 to happen) by these corrupt Bushies is simply [u]wiped-off the radar[/u] [[i]kind'a like 9/11 wiped-off the radar the Bush-Cheney-Kenny-boy (Enron) Lay's Energy Swindle of America in the summer of 2000 to early 2001[/i]] ... For more on the neo-fascist Bush/Cheney's motives on this [i]sexed-up scandal[/i], refer to http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... ...
[b]Ashcroft Focuses On The Berger Nonstory While Plame Lingers And Anthrax Bomber Goes Unresolved[/b]
Remember how the GOP used to scream about how political they thought Janet Reno allegedly was, when in fact she was too much by-the-book for Clinton’s taste? Well, the new flap over Clinton NSA Sandy Berger is another example of John Ashcroft leaking something to distract folks from what is about to come out in the 9/11 Commission report while embarrassing an adviser to John Kerry in the process. The [i]AP[/i] reported last night that Berger through his attorney had admitted to removing classified security documents from the National Archives while preparing for his testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission. Yet Berger returned most of the documents last October, but the Bush Administration waited until now to reveal through a “Senior Government Official” that the FBI had investigated the removal and return of the documents and Berger’s own notes, and that a Justice Department prosecutor will decide if any laws were broken.
Keep in mind that Berger was reviewing documents about the Clinton Administration’s successful prevention of domestic terrorism attacks surrounding the Millennium, not their own failures or lawbreaking like the Bush Administration is stonewalling with the Plame matter or its own failures in acting on intelligence in the days before 9/11 or in catching the Anthrax Bomber. Yet we hear now from a “senior government official” about Berger’s behavior last year now.
The [i]Washington Post [/i]story http://www.washingtonpost.com... on this even points out that the FBI hasn't even interviewed Berger yet, nor do they consider him a target of the investigation, yet Berger removed these documents last year and has since returned most of them. Richard Clarke states that it is illogical to assume that Berger is trying to tamper with the after-event assessments of the Clinton Administration's Millennium preparations and successes, since copies of that report were spread around town. - http://www.tompaine.com/artic...
[b]The abominations described below go beyond partisan bickering and strike at the heart of our humanity ... This is chilling ...[/b]
The biggest story of the Iraq war is not about missing weapons of mass destruction, or about deep-cover CIA officers getting their covers blown by vengeful White House agents, or even about 896 dead American soldiers. These have been covered to one degree or another, and then summarily dismissed, by the American mainstream news media. The biggest story of the Iraq war has not enjoyed any coverage in America, though it has been exploding across the international news media for several weeks now.
The biggest story of the Iraq war is about the torture of Iraqi children.
A German TV magazine called 'Report Mainz' recently aired accusations from the International Red Cross, to the effect that over 100 children are imprisoned in U.S.- controlled detention centers, including Abu Ghraib. "Between January and May of this year, we've registered 107 children, during 19 visits in 6 different detention locations," said Red Cross representative Florian Westphal in the report.
The report also outlined eyewitness testimony of the abuse of these children. Staff Sergeant Samuel Provance, who was stationed at Abu Ghraib, said that interrogating officers had gotten their hands on a 15 or 16 year old girl. Military police only stopped the interrogation when the girl was half undressed. A separate incident described a 16 year old being soaked with water, driven through the cold, smeared with mud, and then presented before his weeping father, who was also a prisoner.
Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker reporter who first broke the story of torture at Abu Ghraib, recently spoke at an ACLU convention. He has seen the pictures and the videotapes the American media has not yet shown. "The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling, and the worst part is the soundtrack, of the boys shrieking," said Hersh. "And this is your government at war."
Hersh described the prison scene as, "a series of massive crimes, criminal activity by the president and the vice president, by this administration anyway," and that there has been, "a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher."
Reports of abuses at Abu Ghraib and other American prisons have been public knowledge since the release of the Taguba Report. Recently, however, some 106 annexes to the report, previously classified, have also been released. U.S. News and World Report detailed the sum of what is contained in these annexes in an article titled 'Hell on Earth.'
In it, U.S. News says, "The abuses took place, the files show, in a chaotic and dangerous environment made even more so by the constant pressure from Washington to squeeze intelligence from detainees. Riots, prisoner escapes, shootings, corrupt Iraqi guards, unsanitary conditions, rampant sexual misbehavior, bug-infested food, prisoner beatings and humiliations, and almost-daily mortar shellings from Iraqi insurgents--according to the annex to General Taguba's report, that pretty much sums up life at Abu Ghraib." According to coalition intelligence officers cited in a Red Cross report from last May, between 70% to 90% of Iraqi detainees held in these prisons were arrested "by mistake." That means they were innocent.
The orders to treat prisoners in this fashion were not manufactured by the few "bad apples" we have heard about, but came from up on high. Brig. Gen Janis Karpinski, former commander of Abu Ghraib and now scapegoat for the abuses, says the truth about where the orders came from would be revealed in the trials of the accused soldiers. Memos ordering the abuse of prisoners were signed off on by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. The Justice Department and Mr. Bush's senior legal advisor went out of their way to craft arguments justifying this, claiming that torture isn't really torture and that the President is basically above the law.
Mr. Hersh will revisit this issue within the next several weeks. In the meantime, the American news media has an obligation to report on this situation. Photographic and videotape evidence of this torture is currently in the hands of the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the U.S. Congress and the White House. It must be released.
We invaded a country based upon the false claim that Iraq was allied with al Qaeda. We invaded a country based on the false claim that there were weapons of mass destruction which needed to be destroyed. We promised freedom and democracy, and instead installed a CIA-trained strongman named Allawi who has all but created a dictatorship in Iraq, and who has been accused of killing Iraqi prisoners by his own hand. 896 American soldiers have died so we could do this.
We took thousands of innocent civilians off the streets in Iraq and threw them into hellhole prisons, where they were beaten, raped, and killed. This story has faded from public view because no new pictures of the abuses have come out in the last several weeks. Those pictures are out there, and they show the rape and torture of children. The international media is reporting on it. Coalition ally Norway may be preparing to flee Iraq because of the allegations regarding these children.
Where is the American news media? Where are the pictures? Who is responsible for this abomination? Torturing children in the name of freedom? Is this what we have become?
[i][b]William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and international bestseller of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.'[/b][/i] - http://www.truthout.org/docs_...
What To Do In Case Of A Very Vague Terrorist Alert
"[i]It's time the Fox News Channel stopped using its ridiculously inaccurate "Fair and Balanced" slogan. AlterNet has filed a legal challenge to that trademark and joined a campaign against Rupert Murdoch's partisan network[/i]." - http://www.alternet.org/media...
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] has given ugly new meanings to the word: PROPAGANDA ... For their biased, unfair and unbalanced right-wing propaganda channels (Fox, WND, Weekly Standard, etc.) and attack mad-dogs (Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, etc.) mendaciously disseminate neo-orwellian lies, deceptions and falsehoods designed to[i] prop-up their corporate-owned politicos [/i](including Bush and Cheney) and [i]brain-wash the brain-dead American public [/i]into foolishly believing that [i]we should be tickled-pink [/i]to be exploited as[i] cannon-fodder [/i]in their wars for ill-gotten profits, and to be[i] enslaved as neo-serfs [/i]working for [i]'peanuts'[/i] while these gluttonous crooks [i]take-the-big-money-and -run [/i]...[/b]
As Robert Greenwald's film "[i]Outfoxed[/i]" generates controversy and acclaim, AlterNet http://www.alternet.org joins MoveOn.org http://www.moveon.org in a major campaign to challenge Fox as a partisan news channel – a 24/7 commercial for a political party, and an insult to America's media consumers. And we're going to need your help to carry the battle forward.
Is the Fox News Channel about to lose its "Fair and Balanced" trademark? Nothing is more likely to make a serious journalist, or a concerned news consumer, gag than hearing the Fox News Channel smugly refer to itself, day after day, as being "fair and balanced." But what really rubs salt in the wound is this: Fox has actually registered those three words – "fair and balanced" – as its signature trademark. Does this mean that all journalists and news organizations in the world are legally forbidden to use those words – not only to describe themselves – but for virtually any purpose whatsoever?
As if to drive the point home, in August of 2003, Fox brought suit against the humorist Al Franken and his publisher, EP Dutton/Penguin, for allegedly infringing on Fox's three-word trademark. The offense? Franken's book, [i]Liars and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them [/i](which attacked Fox), was subtitled "[i]A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right[/i]." However, when Fox appealed for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin refused the request – adding that he found Fox's lawsuit to be "wholly without merit, both factually and legally." The judge also said that Fox's right to such a trademark was not very strong, suggesting that, if challenged, it might well be revoked. "From a legal point of view," said Judge Chin, "I think it is highly unlikely that the phrase 'fair and balanced' is a valid trademark. I can't accept that that phrase can be plucked out of the marketplace of ideas and slogans." A few days later, instead of proceeding to trial – as was its right – Fox abruptly decided to drop its lawsuit against Franken. There was no follow up to Judge Chin's suggestion. So Fox was able to retain its trademark registration – and the right to continue using it to mischaracterize its news product as "Fair and Balanced." But perhaps not for very much longer.
The Independent Media Institute ( IMI), parent organization of AlterNet, filed a legal challenge with the U.S. Trademark Office that seeks to strip Fox of its "Fair and Balanced" trademark registration on the grounds that it was "merely descriptive" (making it ineligible for trademark registration) as well as "false and misleading." AlterNet (which is a project of the Independent Media Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening and supporting independent journalism) filed its challenge with the U.S. Trademark Office on December 23, 2003, just under the wire – only hours before the clock was scheduled to run out on Fox's "contestability period," which is the legally mandated 5-year window during which a trademark registration can be challenged. After that period the right to use the trademark becomes "incontestable" and virtually invulnerable, and its holder is entitled to prevent anyone else from using it, under penalty of legal prosecution, virtually forever, and regardless of whether the trademark was legitimately registered or not. Now, for the first time, AlterNet is making that legal challenge public. We are also joining MoveOn.org in launching an international campaign to confront Fox News in its blatant efforts to use the airwaves for political gain and to promote right-wing politics. This weekend, MoveOn.org sponsored more than 2,700 house parties to view "[i]Outfoxed[/i]," Greenwald's documentary, and included dialogue with Greenwald and MoveOn.org's leadership and this writer to announce our legal challenge to Fox.
Wes Boyd of MoveOn.org told the more than 30,000 people listening and many watching over the Web: "People are steamed about the media. People get it. Washington has never seen the kind of outrage that they heard last year from citizens around the country about media consolidation. And Fox News, as Robert has shown in this film, is Enemy #1 in the undermining of democracy – they're partisan, they're bullies, they lie, they'll do anything for a buck, they don't even know what journalism is, and then they claim to be 'Fair and Balanced.' So we're going after Fox. This is just the beginning of a campaign to rebrand Fox "Unfair and Unbalanced," so that people know what they're watching. This campaign is a warning to any other media outlets, if they're thinking that the Fox model is something to copy. It isn't. Try journalism instead. Try serving the public interest."
Because AlterNet's was the only challenge filed within the contestability period, it is now the only entity with legal standing to bring this challenge to Fox's trademark registration in the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office – in what may become a landmark David-and-Goliath battle with far-reaching consequences for the crown jewel in Rupert Murdoch's media empire. Certainly Fox viewers could not fail to benefit from taking a more skeptical view of the trustworthiness of their favorite news channel, since a recent study by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy [PIPA] found that Fox News viewers were far more likely to have significant misconceptions about important news facts than viewers of any other TV news channel. In our challenge to Fox, one may wonder why it was left solely to our relatively small web magazine to pick up the trampled banner of journalistic integrity and carry it – right to the very gates of the mighty Murdoch media empire. Where, one might ask, were Murdoch's prestigious and presumably more honorable media rivals – CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post – who pride themselves on upholding the highest standards of truth and fairness, and look down their noses at Fox for its cynical pursuit of sleaze and sensationalism? We sincerely hope that all manner of media organizations and leading journalists and public figures will join the confrontation of Fox, because Fox News taints all of corporate media in its role as propagandist, reducing the public's confidence that it is getting anything remotely truthful – or fair and balanced.
So why did AlterNet go out on this limb? Mainly, because we were angry. Really angry. We felt that Fox's false and misleading claim of being "fair and balanced'" was an affront, a slap in the face, to us and to all the other honest and hardworking journalists who devote their lives (sometimes even lose their lives) to the gathering and reporting of news that truly is "fair and balanced."
We have no problem with Fox News being an unashamed spokesperson for the GOP, or even an outlet for conservative propaganda, in what is after all a free marketplace of ideas. But when Fox is allowed to frame its distorted, ideological point of view as "fair and balanced," we're all in trouble. What they're really saying is that anyone who disagrees with or challenges the conservative line is biased or a flat out liar – or just plain wrong. That kind of dangerous reasoning has to be challenged, whether it's coming from the White House or Bill O'Reilly.
According to Steve Brown – an advisor to AlterNet's trademark challenge to Fox (and also a member of the governing board of listener-supported radio station WBAI-FM in New York) – "the financial costs of challenging Fox's virtually bottomless pockets may impose a burden on AlterNet's modest revenue stream. Murdoch's personal net worth alone is estimated at $5.3 billion, and revenues from his media holdings may account for billions more."
That's why AlterNet has established a media fund to help cover the expensive legal costs connected with this challenge to Fox, and to support the research and investigation that will further reveal Fox's blatant bias masquerading as journalism. For a minimum of a $30 contribution to the AlterNet "[i]Fight Fox[/i]" fund, we'll send you a free copy of Robert Greenwald's powerful documentary "[i]OutFoxed[/i]." We appreciate your support.
[i]Send your checks (made payable to AlterNet – Fight Fox Fund) to: AlterNet, 77 Federal Street, San Francisco, CA. 94107. Or donate online https://www.alternet.org/donate/ via credit card or PayPal.
[b]The Federation of American Scientists has produced a list of "Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i... , that is worth reviewing ... The corrupt Bush regime is one of the [i]most secretive [/i]in our nation's history http://www.larouchepub.com/ot... and this is[i] an anathema [/i]to our Republic founded on the principles of (1) transparency in government, (2) a system of checks and balances, and (3) accountability to "We the People" ...[/b]
The traitorous neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]is contemptuous of the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, our Republic and of "We the People" ... We are living in a [i]tragic [/i]period of history and future historians will look back in [i]astonished disgust [/i]that the American people did [i]not[/i] stand-up and fight back ... Let us commence the Battle for Our Republic [i]today[/i] ...
[b]How can [i]anyone[/i] deny the fact that is[i] staring us in the face[/i]:-- namely that Bush is simply[i] too stupid [/i]to be president??? ... [/b]Firstly Bush lies to us regarding phony WMDs in Iraq, his mendacious [i]casus belli [/i]for waging his illegal and immoral neo-con warfare to enrich Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. ... Now we find that the arrogant, spoiled and imbecilic (AWOL during Vietnam http://www.awolbush.com/ ) Bushy-boy [i]lusts for perpetual wars for perpetual profits[/i]: for now he is planning a pre-emptive strike upon Iran http://www.sundayherald.com/4... to forcibly dictate regime change ... For an[i] insightful and factual analysis[/i], please refer to "[i]Iran End Game[/i]??? ..." on http://www.tblog.com/template...
It is worth contemplating the observations of a Harvard Business School professor who confirms that Bush was a "shallow" and "mediocre" loser who thinks "connections" entitle him to treat other people with contemptuous disregard, and [i]now[/i] like cannon-fodder and slaves.
Can we [i]really afford [/i]anymore of what the neo-cons and right-wing toadies laughably call "Bush's successes"??? ... [i]Jeez[/i] ... Please refer to "[i]The Successes of President George Bush[/i]" on http://www.tblog.com/template...
[b][u]Former HBS Prof Blasts Bush[/u]
Business scholar says president was 'shallow,' 'flippant' in 1970s class[/b]
As the race for the White House heats up and the nation’s left-leaning heads come together to unearth potential skeletons in President Bush’s closet, one line in his resume has avoided major scrutiny: the time Bush spent just across the Charles River, earning an MBA at the Harvard Business School (HBS) in the 1970s. Now, as some fervently question the commander-in-chief’s performance in the Texas National Guard decades ago and more current-minded politicos take aim at the events surrounding Sept. 11, 2001 and the invasion of Iraq, one former HBS professor is doing his best to publicize his recollections of what he calls a sarcastic, mediocre student who went on to lead the United States.
Yoshihiro Tsurumi, an avowed opponent of Bush’s current views and policies who was a visiting associate professor of international business at HBS between 1972 and 1976, said Bush was among 85 students he taught one year in a required first-year course. In the class on “Environment Analysis for Management,” incorporating elements of macroeconomics, industrial policy and international business, Tsurumi said students discussed and debated case studies for 90 minutes several times a week.
Tsurumi—now a professor of international business at Baruch College in the City University of New York—said he remembers the future president as scoring in the bottom 10 percent of students in the class.
Thirty years after teaching the class, Tsurumi said the twenty-something Bush’s statements and behavior—“always very shallow”—still stand out in his mind.
“Whenever [Bush] just bumped into me, he had some flippant statement to make,” said Tsurumi when reached at his home in Scarsdale, N.Y. “The comments he made were revealing of his prejudice.”
The White House did not reply to requests for comment on Bush’s time at HBS.
Tsurumi said he particularly recalls Bush’s right-wing extremism at the time, which he said was reflected in off-hand comments equating the New Deal of the 1930s with socialism and the corporation-regulating Securities and Exchange Commission with “an enemy of capitalism.”
“I vividly remember that he made a comment saying that people are poor because they’re lazy,” Tsurumi said.
Tsurumi also said Bush displayed a sense of arrogance about his prominent family, including his father, former U.S. President George H.W. Bush.
“[George W. Bush] didn’t stand out as the most promising student, but...he made it sure we understood how well he was connected,” Tsurumi said. “He wasn’t bashful about how he was being pushed upward by Dad’s connections.”
Tsurumi said that the younger Bush boasted that his father’s political string-pulling had gotten him to the top of the waiting list for the Texas National Guard instead of serving in Vietnam. When other students were frantically scrambling for summer jobs, Tsurumi said, Bush explained that he was planning instead for a visit to his father in Beijing, where the senior Bush was serving at the time as the special U.S. envoy to China.
In addition, Tsurumi is still sore about what he recalls as Bush’s slight to his cinematic taste. When he arranged for students to view the film of John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath during their study of the Great Depression, Tsurumi said, Bush derided the film as “corny.”
At the time, Tsurumi said his worries about his student extended no further than the boardroom.
“All Harvard Business School students want to become president of a company one day,” Tsurumi said. “I remember saying, if you become president of a company some day, may God help your customers and employees.”
When he discovered that his former pupil was vying for the presidency in 2000, Tsurumi said he tried to inform the public about his experience with the then-Texas governor at HBS—but got few results beyond hate mail.
“Last election time, if you recall, the American mass media did a shameful job of vetting [the presidential candidates],” Tsurumi said.
As another November approaches, Tsurumi is trying again to air his criticisms of the man he once taught and his actions as president.
“This time it seems to be getting around a bit more widely,” he said. “After three years of dismal record, people seem more inclined to believe that all his failed leadership was apparent during the Harvard Business School years.”
In a July 2 speech to the Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan in Tokyo, Tsurumi repeated the broadside he has launched repeatedly in the past.
“I always remember two groups of students,” Tsurumi said then, according to published reports. “One is the really good students, not only intelligent, but with leadership qualities, courage. The other is the total opposite, unfortunately to which George belonged.” - http://www.thecrimson.com/art...
Joseph Wilson Sends Niger Rebuttal Letter To The Senate Intelligence Committee ...
[b]Joseph Wilson is fighting back ... Read in [i]Salon[/i] magazine, Mary Jacoby's article "[u]Joseph Wilson vs. the right-wing conspiracy[/u]" on http://www.salon.com/news/fea... ... "[i]Gleeful conservatives insist the Senate Intelligence Committee report impeached the former ambassador's claims about Iraq and uranium. But Wilson is firing back[/i]." ... [/b]
Erroneous claims have been made regarding Wilson's disclosure of the[i] lies perpetrated by the Bush administration[/i] regarding the phony, non-existent attempt by Iraq to obtain Niger uranium: For example Jacoby cites: "The[i] Post [/i]article also contained one acknowledged [b]error[/b]: In trying to build a case that Wilson's Niger trip had actually bolstered the administration's claims, Schmidt wrote that Wilson had told the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from Niger in 1998. In fact, it was Iran that Wilson said had tried to make the purchase, as the Senate report states. [b]The [i]Post[/i] ran a correction[/b]."
And, don't miss Joe Wilson's letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, reprinted here:--
[i]The Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
The Hon. Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Dear Sen. Roberts and Sen. Rockefeller[/i],
I read with great surprise and consternation the Niger portion of Sens. Roberts, Bond and Hatch's additional comments to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessment on Iraq. I am taking this opportunity to clarify some of the issues raised in these comments.
[b][u]First conclusion[/u]: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee." [/b]
That is not true. The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife, sent to her superiors that says, "My husband has good relations with the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip. Indeed it is little more than a recitation of my contacts and bona fides. The conclusion is reinforced by comments in the body of the report that a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] reports officer stated that "the former ambassador's wife 'offered up his name'" (page 39) and a State Department intelligence and research officer stated that the "meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch him to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue."
In fact, Valerie was not in the meeting at which the subject of my trip was raised. Neither was the CPD reports officer. After having escorted me into the room, she [Valerie] departed the meeting to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. It was at that meeting where the question of my traveling to Niger was broached with me for the first time and came only after a thorough discussion of what the participants did and did not know about the subject. My bona fides justifying the invitation to the meeting were the trip I had previously taken to Niger to look at other uranium-related questions as well as 20 years living and working in Africa, and personal contacts throughout the Niger government. Neither the CPD reports officer nor the State analyst were in the chain of command to know who, or how, the decision was made. The interpretations attributed to them are not the full story. In fact, it is my understanding that the reports officer has a different conclusion about Valerie's role than the one offered in the "additional comments." I urge the committee to reinterview the officer and publicly publish his statement.
It is unfortunate that the report failed to include the CIA's position on this matter. If the staff had done so it would undoubtedly have been given the same evidence as provided to Newsday reporters Tim Phelps and Knut Royce in July 2003. They reported on July 22 that:
"A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked 'alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. 'They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,' he said. 'There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,' he said. 'I can't figure out what it could be.' 'We paid his [Wilson's] airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there,' the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said he was reimbursed only for expenses." (Newsday article "Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover," dated July 22, 2003).
In fact, on July 13 of this year, David Ensor, the CNN correspondent, did call the CIA for a statement of its position and reported that a senior CIA official confirmed my account that Valerie did not propose me for the trip:
"'She did not propose me,' he [Wilson] said -- others at the CIA did so. A senior CIA official said that is his understanding too."
[b][u]Second conclusion[/u]: "Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided."[/b]
This conclusion states that I told the committee staff that I "may have become confused about my own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that the names and dates on the documents were not correct." At the time that I was asked that question, I was not afforded the opportunity to review the articles to which the staff was referring. I have now done so.
On March 7, 2003, the director general of the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council that the documents that had been given to him were "not authentic." His deputy, Jacques Baute, was even more direct, pointing out that the forgeries were so obvious that a quick Google search would have exposed their flaws. A State Department spokesman was quoted the next day as saying about the forgeries, "We fell for it." From that time on the details surrounding the documents became public knowledge and were widely reported. I was not the source of information regarding the forensic analysis of the documents in question; the IAEA was.
The first time I spoke publicly about the Niger issue was in response to the State Department's disclaimer. On CNN a few days later, in response to a question, I replied that I believed the U.S. government knew more about the issue than the State Department spokesman had let on and that he had misspoken. I did not speak of my trip.
My first public statement was in my article of July 6 published in the New York Times, written only after it became apparent that the administration was not going to deal with the Niger question unless it was forced to. I wrote the article because I believed then, and I believe now, that it was important to correct the record on the statement in the president's State of the Union address which lent credence to the charge that Iraq was actively reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. I believed that the record should reflect the facts as the U.S. government had known them for over a year. The contents of my article do not appear in the body of the report and it is not quoted in the "additional comments." In that article, I state clearly that "as for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors -- they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government -- and were probably forged. (And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)"
The first time I actually saw what were represented as the documents was when Andrea Mitchell, the NBC correspondent, handed them to me in an interview on July 21. I was not wearing my glasses and could not read them. I have to this day not read them. I would have absolutely no reason to claim to have done so. My mission was to look into whether such a transaction took place or could take place. It had not and could not. By definition that makes the documents bogus.
The text of the "additional comments" also asserts that "during Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had 'debunked' the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa."
My article in the New York Times makes clear that I attributed to myself "a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs." After it became public that there were then-Ambassador to Niger Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick's report and the report from a four-star Marine Corps general, Carleton Fulford, in the files of the U.S. government, I went to great lengths to point out that mine was but one of three reports on the subject. I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not occur. I did not speak out on the subject until several months after it became evident that what underpinned the assertion in the State of the Union address were those documents, reports of which had sparked Vice President Cheney's original question that led to my trip. The White House must have agreed. The day after my article appeared in the Times a spokesman for the president told the Washington Post that "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union."
I have been very careful to say that while I believe that the use of the 16 words in the State of the Union address was a deliberate attempt to deceive the Congress of the United States, I do not know what role the president may have had other than he has accepted responsibility for the words he spoke. I have also said on many occasions that I believe the president has proven to be far more protective of his senior staff than they have been to him.
The "additional comments" also assert: "The Committee found that, for most analysts, the former ambassador's report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal." In fact, the body of the Senate report suggests the exact opposite:
In August 2002, a CIA NESA [Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis] report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities did not include the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium information. (page 48)
In September 2002, during coordination of a speech with an NSC staff member, the CIA analyst suggested the reference to Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa be removed. The CIA analyst said the NSC staff member said that would leave the British "flapping in the wind." (page 50)
The uranium text was included in the body of the NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] but not in the key judgments. When someone suggested that the uranium information be included as another sign of reconstitution, the INR [State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research] Iraq nuclear analyst spoke up and said the he did not agree with the uranium reporting and that INR would be including text indicating their disagreement in their footnote on nuclear reconstitution. The NIO [national intelligence officer] said he did not recall anyone really supporting including the uranium issue as part of the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, so he suggested that the uranium information did not need to be part of the key judgments. He told committee staff that he suggested, "We'll leave it in the paper for completeness. Nobody can say we didn't connect the dots. But we don't have to put that dot in the key judgments." (page 53)
On Oct. 2, 2002, the Deputy DCI [director of central intelligence] testified before the SSCI [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence]. Sen. Jon Kyl asked the Deputy DCI whether he had read the British White Paper and whether he disagreed with anything in the report. The Deputy DCI testified that "the one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations." (page 54)
On Oct. 4, 2002, the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs testified that "there is some information on attempts ... there's a question about those attempts because of the control of the material in those countries ... For us it's more the concern that they [Iraq] have uranium in-country now." (page 54)
On Oct. 5, 2002, the ADDI [associate deputy director for intelligence] said an Iraqi nuclear analyst -- he could not remember who -- raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the facts of the Niger reporting, specifically that the control of the mines in Niger would have made it very difficult to get yellowcake to Iraq. (page 55)
Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI faxed a memo to the deputy national security advisor that said, "Remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from this source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory." (page 56)
On Oct. 6, 2002, the DCI called the deputy national security advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. The DCI testified to the SSCI on July 16, 2003, that he told the deputy national security advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak." (page 56)
On Oct. 6, 2002, the CIA sent a second fax to the White House that said, "More on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points (1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British." (page 56)
On March 8, 2003, the intelligence report on my trip was disseminated within the U.S. government, according to the Senate report (page 43). Further, the Senate report states that "in early March, the Vice President asked his morning briefer for an update on the Niger uranium issue." That update from the CIA "also noted that the CIA would be debriefing a source who may have information related to the alleged sale on March 5." The report then states the "DO officials also said they alerted WINPAC [Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control] analysts when the report was being disseminated because they knew the high priority of the issue." The report notes that the CIA briefer did not brief the vice president on the report. (page 46)
It is clear from the body of the Senate report that the intelligence community, including the DCI himself, made several attempts to ensure that the president did not become a "fact witness" on an allegation that was so weak. A thorough reading of the report substantiates the claim made in my opinion piece in the New York Times and in subsequent interviews I have given on the subject. The 16 words should never have been in the State of the Union address, as the White House now acknowledges.
I undertook this mission at the request of my government in response to a legitimate concern that Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. This was a national security issue that has concerned me since I was the deputy chief of mission in the U.S. Embassy in Iraq before and during the first Gulf War.
At the time of my trip I was in private business and had not offered my views publicly on the policy we should adopt toward Iraq. Indeed, throughout the debate in the run-up to the war, I took the position that the U.S. be firm with Saddam Hussein on the question of weapons of mass destruction programs, including backing tough diplomacy with the credible threat of force. In that debate I never mentioned my trip to Niger. I did not share the details of my trip until May 2003, after the war was over, and then only when it became clear that the administration was not going to address the issue of the State of the Union statement.
It is essential that the errors and distortions in the additional comments be corrected for the public record. Nothing could be more important for the American people than to have an accurate picture of the events that led to the decision to bring the United States into war in Iraq. The Senate Intelligence Committee has an obligation to present to the American people the factual basis of that process. I hope that this letter is helpful in that effort. I look forward to your further "additional comments."
[i]Sincerely,
Joseph C. Wilson IV, Washington, D.C.[/i]
[b]Editor's note: [/b]Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee http://intelligence.senate.go... released its report on the U.S. intelligence community's prewar assessments on Iraq. An appendix discusses the role taken by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson http://www.salon.com/news/fea... in determining whether Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger. The following is Wilson's letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee pointing to errors in the Republican senators' additional comments to the report and demanding corrections. [i]Salon[/i] http://www.salon.com/opinion/...
If you don't have a subscription to [i]Salon[/i] magazine, you can still review articles with their [i]Free-One-Day-Pass[/i].
[b]Bush and Cheney are accountable http://www.tblog.com/template... for the horrors of murders, tortures and abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib ... History will condemn them for their War Crimes even if this generation lacks the courage to do so ... The following account is truly horrifying:--[/b]
Seymour Hersh says the US government has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
... "[i]The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking," the reporter told an ACLU convention last week. Hersh says there was "a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher[/i]." ...
I'll try transcribing some of the more important bits.
[my transcription from 1:31 - 1:32]
... "Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok. Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib which is 30 miles from Baghdad [...]
The women were passing messages saying "Please come and kill me, because of what's happened". Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out." ...
It's impossible to say to yourself how do we get there? who are we? Who are these people that sent us there?
Chilling.
An Example of Someone Who Really Needs to "Get A Grip" ...
[b]Today much discussion is taking place on the issue of civility, civil discourse and open-mindedness with [i]alot of attacks [/i]made against those who virulently despise the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] for their illegal and immoral war waged against Iraq, [i]as well as[/i], their fiscal policy of making the rich, richer and the rest of us poorer ...[/b]
[u]Here is an exmple of someone who really needs to "get a grip":[/u]
A blog called [i]BlueGrassRoots[/i] http://bluegrassroots.blogspo... has a post up saying that the Louisville Kentucky Republican party (specifically, the [i]Jefferson County Republican Party[/i] http://www.lougop.org/lougop/... ) is handing out signs that read "Kerry is bin Laden's Man/Bush is My Man."
I http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... put in a call to the head of the Jefferson County Republicans, Jack Richardon IV and asked him if this were true.
Richardson told me that he'd seen a[i] bumper sticker [/i]with that phrase on it and agreed with it heartily. "I believe that if you look at John Kerry's voting record in the senate," he told me, "why wouldn't bin Laden prefer Kerry over Bush?" [Oh [i]yeah[/i]? Then [i]why [/i]didn't Bush go after bin Laden http://www.fromthewilderness.... instead of waging his insane neo-con war on Iraq who [i]didn't[/i] even pose a threat to us?]
When I pressed Richardson on whether or not his party organization was distributing it, he acknowledged that they probably were handing it out on their campaign literature tables at recent events. And if it was being handed out, "I make no apologies for it."
"I think it's funny how the truth not only can be amusing but also make a point," Richardson went on. "Why wouldn't Kerry be bin Laden's man? Bush certainly isn't bin Laden's man."
Toward the end of our conversation Richardson told me I should also be writing about equally anti-Bush signs and bumper stickers he'd seen and other "slanderous things" being said about the president. I told him that made a lot of sense and asked whether he could tell me about similarly aggressive campaign material being distributed by Democrats in his area.
No luck.
"Quite frankly, I don't care what they put out," Richardson said. "They run their business and I'll run ours."
[b]So the bottom-line is:-- the Democrats are [i]not[/i] resorting to the kind of ugly and vile smear campaigning that the Republicans are perpetrating against the American people in their neo-con, neo-orwellian propaganda war against Kerry/Edwards. Who needs to "get a grip"? ...[/b]
New Evidence: Bush Misleads (Lies) on Prison Abuse Scandal ...
[b]President Bush is a liar who refuses to do what is right by the American people because he is an opportunistic crook only interested in his own dictatorial powers and enriching himself and his crime family ... [/b]New evidence has arisen that warrants Donald Rumsfeld's http://www.commondreams.org/h... immediate dismissal, arrest and trial for War Crimes ... If Bush[i] refuses [/i]to fire Rumsfeld, then he is [i]also[/i] guilty of aiding and abetting his cohort, the vile Rummy-the-War Criminal and should be impeached immediately and put on trial for War Crimes (which Bush/Cheney should be [i]anyway[/i] for having waged their illegal and immoral neo-con war in Iraq based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods) ...
[b]Consider this ...[/b]
President Bush has claimed that the prison abuse scandal in Iraq was just "conduct by a few American troops."1 But with Congress investigating the scandal,2 a series of explosive new reports provides evidence that the tactics may have been approved at the highest levels of government. Even worse, one leading investigative journalist says the Administration is holding videotapes of soldiers sodomizing Iraqi children.
According to a newly released Pentagon memo from 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld personally authorized the use of controversial interrogation tactics,3 including using dogs to intimidate, stripping prisoners of their clothes and placing hoods on prisoners so they cannot see. Rumsfeld also ordered military officials to hold prisoners without listing them on prisoner rolls requested by the International Red Cross.4 And according to Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who was the head of detention operations at Abu Ghraib, Rumsfeld "approved tactics at the prison"5 directly. As reported by [i]Newsweek[/i], these memos and orders were signed off by Rumsfeld, President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft and were part of a "secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods"6 of abuse seen in Iraq.
Making matters worse, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh of the[i] New Yorker [/i]told the American Civil Liberties Union this week that videotapes were made of young boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib. "The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking," the reporter told the group's convention. Hersh reports there was "a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher." See the video of Hersh's ACLU speech7 - the information about the prison comes at about 1 hour and 30 minutes in.
1. "Bush Seeks to Reassure Nation on Iraq ," Washington Post, 5/25/04. 2. "House Panel Reviews Iraq Prison Reports," Washington Post, 7/15/04. 3. "Report: Former head of Iraqi prisons says Rumsfeld OK'd coercive tactics," San Francisco Chronicle, 7/02/04. 4. "The Reach of War: Prison Abuse; Rumsfeld Issued an Order to Hide Detainee in Iraq," New York Times, 6/17/04. 5. "Report: Former head of Iraqi prisons says Rumsfeld OK'd coercive tactics," San Francisco Chronicle, 7/02/04. 6. "The Roots of Torture," Newsweek, 5/24/04. 7. "America at a Crossroads," 2004 ACLU Members Conference.
[b]It is a nightmare, an unthinkable catastrophe to contemplate: four more years [i]of hell-on-earth [/i]if the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] steals, rigs and/or hijacks the election [i]again[/i] in November.[/b] It is clear that the traitorous Bushies who abuse and trample upon the American people [i]and[/i] mistreat our Republic and the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights with contempt, will do [i]anything, absolutely anything [/i]to "win" at all costs ... And [i]yet[/i], it is[i] our [/i]country, [i]not [/i]theirs ...
[b]Sure, hope for the best. But we better have a plan if we get four more years.[/b]
[b]It is almost a relief to hear the other shoe drop. [/b]This week, [i]Newsweek[/i] reported that the Bush administration is considering a mechanism to delay the November election in case of a terrorist attack.
What a surprise.
According to the magazine, the Department of Homeland Security has asked the Justice Department to analyze what steps would have to be taken to postpone the election in the event it is disrupted by terrorism. Officials say they are looking at ways to “secure” the election. For whom do they want to secure it?
This follows Tom Ridge’s announcement last week that so-called “chatter” suggests that Al Qaeda wants to mess up our electoral process, and officials pointed to what happened with the train bombings in Spain. But the election process wasn’t disrupted in Spain—it went forward and resulted in a regime change that was odious to the Bush administration. That might qualify as interference in the internal politics of Spain, but it was not interference in the election itself.
[b]Federal elections in America must be inviolable, as reliable as sunrise. [/b]As faulty as the system is, and as corrupt as the process was in 2000, it nevertheless is the one means that we have to control our destiny. Our elections should be bombproof and bulletproof (and, by the way, Florida-proof). Voting is certainly as sacred as shopping, which Bush exhorted us to do in the wake of 9/11, despite our fears.
Whether terrorists try to affect our elections remains to be seen, but in a sense they have already won another victory with this revelation. Just as the Bush response to the 9/11 attacks was to plunge us into the Iraq war on false pretenses, thereby making terrorism worse (according to the administration’s own revised report on global terror), the mere suggestion that terrorism could derail our election—even temporarily—is to admit that we are one attack away from losing our most precious right.
Not only does it hand the terrorists a moral victory at no further cost to them—which is why terror works—but it gives Bush’s re-election campaign an unfair advantage. The team he controls—the federal government—is announcing that, if need be, they can move the goal posts if the Democrats ever get past the 50-yard line. Forgive the football analogy, but it’s true that people with a vested interest in the outcome of the game are brazenly asserting control over the rules and the clock.
It also strikes me as a formal announcement that Bush is again ready to do whatever it takes to stay in power.
Which raises an important question: If you oppose the Bush regime, what will you do if (when?) Bush is re-elected, reappointed, or remains otherwise snugly ensconced in the Oval Office?
It is a grim possibility all anti-Bush folks have to consider, even if the election is reasonably fair and open. Even with the renewed vigor of the ticket of the two Johns, there is a distinct possibility— perhaps even likelihood—that Bush will prevail, one way or another.
[b]Will you be a good sport and accept the outcome?[/b] If the election is fair, you must. That’s what democracy’s about. But certainly the “chatter” among many liberals I talk to reminds me of the kind of conversations that occurred during the Vietnam War as young men considered their options if drafted: Sweden or Canada? How many people do you know who have said they’re moving to another country if Bush wins? Canada won’t give you political asylum, but there are many places you can play ex-pat, many with better health care, transportation, media, and democracy than here. Bush’s policies, cheap airfares, and global communications have already created a kind of brain drain. Some English-speaking havens look mighty appealing. Middle-earth—I mean, New Zealand—anyone?
There are problems with cutting and running, however. One is that the grass rarely is greener. The other is that it will only make the retaking of America more difficult for those left behind.
For those who choose to stay, what are the options? Political involvement, yes, but what kind? More activism? Liberal militias? Open resistance to Bush policies? Is it legitimate to consider a kind of quasi-secessionism? Can Blue states protect themselves with political walls of some kind? Can those of us in Ecotopia find ways to fend off the Bush influence here and protect our interests, despite the leadership in Washington? In looking at the election ahead (if there is one), it seems important to find ways to surround ourselves with effective elected officials who will stand up to the administration’s extremes.
An important factor will be how the election is won, if it is held. A fair win by Bush might make us miserable, but it will not rob us of hope. But another 2000—or worse—could, and should, indicate a true national crisis. If so, are you ready to do your part for defense of the Homeland?
I would like to hear what you would do in the event of a Bush victory—legitimate or otherwise. Hope for the best, of course, but prepare for the worst. Write to Mr. Berger at kberger@seattleweekly.com - http://www.seattleweekly.com/...
For the Sake of Our Health, It's Worth Repeating ...
The overwhelming majority of Americans want a National (Universal) Health Care System http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003... , but since we have been hijacked by neo-con fascists in the corrupt Bush regime,[i] that fact (like most facts)[/i] doesn't matter to our traitorous[i] corporate-bought-and-paid -for [/i]"leadership [[i]sic[/i]]".[/b]
Thousands of doctors across our nation endorse a National (Universal) Health Care System http://www.commondreams.org/h... because it is barbaric for over 45 million of our citizens to be at risk and unable to get care, due to the fact that they cannot afford or lack the ability to obtain health care coverage, that is over-priced and exorbitantly expensive in our country. Moreover, it is unconscionable for over 18,000 of our citizens to die each year because we lack a National (Universal) Health Care System. Our current[i] corporate-owned system [/i]is wrong-headed and broken for it works well for the rich or for those who can afford good health care plans-- but it leaves out millions of American families including children. A National (Universal) Health Care System is perfectly feasible if we contain the costs by placing a pricing-structure on health care providers and regulating the over-charging by hospitals, HMOs, pharmaceuticals, and insurance[i] scam-artists [/i]who are bilking sick patients in order to become fabulously rich off of the misery of others.
"We the People" should be ashamed of our government, letting the richest nation on the planet squander hundreds of billions (even trillions) of US taxpayer dollars on the Military Industrial Complex in a neo-arms-race started by the insane Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] whose crazy lusts for never-ending warfare are illegal, immoral and disastrously stupid because it undermines our prosperity and the ability to care for our people ...
Courtesy of Kieran Healy, the chart below shows relative spending on healthcare among a bunch of advanced capitalist economies. Basically it shows that the United States has (a) much less public involvement in healthcare than the other countries and (b) much higher healthcare costs.
My contribution to this debate is the big red arrow pointing to the United States, just in case you miss it way up there in the corner. Note that the chart doesn't really demonstrate any special trend, but it does show that conservatives who insist that national healthcare systems are nothing more than vast boondoggles that inevitably produce huge amounts of waste and higher costs just isn't looking at the evidence. As near as I can tell, France has a better healthcare system than the United States http://www.washingtonmonthly.... on practically every measure, and does it at half the cost. - http://www.washingtonmonthly....
[b]Actually Kerry/Edwards is a [i]good team, a good ticket [/i]representing a [i]vast improvement [/i]over the corrupt and incompetent Bush/Cheney ... I am more enthusiastic in my support of Kerry/Edwards than Jesse Walker who authored the following list of reasons to get rid of Bush/Cheney ... My reasons for supporting Kerry/Edwards will be forthcoming in the days ahead ... [/b]However, out of respect for the [i]sane Libertarians among us[/i], you may find the following of interest ...
[u][b]If you're looking for reasons to be disgusted with George W. Bush, here are the top 10:[/b][/u]
[b]1. The war in Iraq.[/b] Over a thousand soldiers and counting have died to subdue a country that was never a threat to the United States. Now we're trapped in an open-ended conflict against a hydra-headed enemy, while terrorism around the world actually increases.
One of the silliest arguments for the invasion held that our presence in Iraq was a "flypaper" attracting the world's terrorists to one distant spot. At this point, it's pretty clear that if there's a flypaper in Baghdad, the biggest bug that's stuck to it is the U.S.A.
[b]2. Abu Ghraib. [/b]And by "Abu Ghraib" I mean all the places where Americans have tortured detainees, not just the prison that gave the scandal its name. While there are still people who claim that this was merely a matter of seven poorly supervised soldiers "abusing" (not torturing!) some terrorists, it's clear now that the abuse was much more widespread; that it included rape, beatings, and killings; that the prison population consisted overwhelmingly of innocents and petty crooks, not terrorists; and that the torture very likely emerged not from the unsupervised behavior of some low-level soldiers, but from policies set at the top levels of the Bush administration. Along the way, we discovered that the administration's lawyers believe the president has the power to unilaterally suspend the nation's laws—a policy that, if taken seriously, would roll back the central principle of the Glorious Revolution.
Two years ago, when Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was running for governor of Maryland, I noted her poor oversight of a boot camp program for drug offenders where the juvenile charges had been beaten and abused. "It's bad enough," I wrote, "to let something like institutionalized torture slip by on your watch. It's worse still to put your political career ahead of your job, and to brag about the program that's employing the torturers instead of giving it the oversight that might have uncovered their crimes earlier. There are mistakes that should simply disqualify a politician from future positions of authority." Every word of that applies at least as strongly to Donald Rumsfeld and to the man who has not seen fit to rebuke him publicly for the torture scandal, George Bush.
[b]3. Indefinite detentions.[/b] Since 9/11, the U.S. government has imprisoned over a thousand people for minor violations of immigration law and held them indefinitely, sometimes without allowing them to consult a lawyer, even after concluding that they have no connections to terrorist activities. (Sirak Gebremichael of Ethiopia, to give a recently infamous example, was arrested for overstaying his visa—and then jailed for three years while awaiting deportation.) It has also claimed the right to detain anyone designated an "enemy combatant" in a legal no-man's land for as long as it pleases. Last month the Supreme Court finally put some restrictions on the latter practice, but that shouldn't stop us from remembering that the administration argued strenuously for keeping it.
[b]4. The culture of secrecy. [/b]The Bush administration has nearly doubled the number of classified documents. It has urged agencies, in effect, to refuse as many Freedom of Information Act requests as possible, has invoked executive privilege whenever it can, and has been very free with the redactor's black marker when it does release some information. Obviously, it's impossible to tell how often the data being concealed is genuinely relevant to national security and how often it has more to do with covering a bureaucrat's behind. But there's obviously a lot of ass-covering going on.
And even when security is a real issue, all this secrecy doesn't make sense. Earlier this year, the Transportation Security Administration tried to retroactively restrict two pages of public congressional testimony that had revealed how its undercover agents managed to smuggle some guns past screeners. Presumably they were afraid a terrorist would read about it and try the method himself—but it would have made a lot more sense to seek some outsiders' input on how to resolve the putative problem than to try to hide it from our prying eyes. Especially when the information had already been sitting in the public record.
The administration has been quick to enforce its code of silence, regularly retaliating against those within its ranks who try to offer an independent perspective on its policies. While the most infamous examples of this involve international affairs, the purest episode may be the case of chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster, who apparently was threatened with dismissal if he told Congress the real projected cost of Bush's Medicare bill. Even if the White House didn't know about the threat—and I strongly suspect that it did—it created the organizational culture that allows such bullying to thrive.
[b]5. Patriot and its progeny. [/b]The Patriot Act sometimes serves as a stand-in for everything wrong with the administration's record on civil liberties, and at times is blamed for policies it didn't create—those detentions, for example. Nonetheless, there's plenty of reasons to despise a law that allows warrantless searches of phone and Internet records; that gives police the right to see what books you've bought or checked out of the library while prohibiting the library or bookstore from telling you about the inquiry; that requires retailers to report "suspicious" transactions and, again, prevents them from telling you that they've done so. And there are plenty of reasons to despise an administration that rammed this bill through at the eleventh hour—and still wants to extend its reach.
[b]6. The war on speech.[/b] Not all of the White House's assaults on our freedoms are linked to the war on terror. In March 2002, Bush signed the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" bill, whose restrictions on political speech in the months approaching an election—i.e., at the time when political speech is most important—are so broad that they've forced a filmmaker, David T. Hardy, to delay the release of his documentary The Rights of the People until after November because it mentions several candidates. Bush approved this bill fully aware that it was a First Amendment nightmare; it's generally believed that he did so assuming that the Supreme Court would strike down its unconstitutional elements. Surprise: The Court weeded out a few measures but left most of them in place.
That's not to say the government hasn't done anything to increase the amount of political speech. Its ham-handed crackdown on "indecent" broadcasts—an effort that is to the cultural realm what McCain-Feingold is to the political sector—has turned Howard Stern into Amy Goodman.
[b]7. The drunken sailor factor.[/b] Fine, you say: We all expect a Republican president to molest our civil liberties. But this one has poached the Democrats' turf as well, increasing federal spending by over $400 billion—its fastest rate of growth in three decades. Even if you set aside the Pentagon budget, Washington is doling out dollars like crazy: Under Bush, domestic discretionary spending has already gone up 25 percent. (Clinton only increased it 10 percent, and it took him eight years to do that.) "In 2003," the conservative Heritage Foundation notes, "inflation-adjusted federal spending topped $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II."
Of all those spending projects, Bush's Medicare bill deserves special attention. It will cost at least $534 billion over the next decade, and probably more. And it doesn't even deliver on its liberal promises: It does much more to distribute new subsidies and tax breaks to doctors, HMOs, and the pharmaceutical industry than it does to help seniors. The Medicare bill is to Bush's domestic policy what the Iraq war is to its foreign policy: an enormous expense of dubious merit that's come under fire from both the left and the right.
[b]8. Cozying up to the theocrats.[/b] There are those who believe the White House is being run by religious fanatics, and there are those who believe it's mostly paying lip service to Bush's Christian base. I lean toward the second view. But whether he's cynical or sincere, there's nothing good to be said for the president's willingness to demagogue the gay marriage issue (and throw federalism out the window in the process), or—worse yet—to restrict potentially life-saving research on therapeutic cloning because it offends that constituency's religious views.
[b]9. Protectionism in all its flavors.[/b] Bush has repeatedly sacrificed the interests of consumers to help politically significant industries, giving us tariffs on products from steel to shrimp. This doesn't just make a mockery of his free-trade rhetoric—it's also bad policy.
[b]10. He's making me root for [i]John Kerry[/i].[/b] I haven't voted for a major party's presidential candidate since 1988, and I have no plans to revert to the habit this year. The Democrats have nominated a senator who—just sticking to the points listed above—voted for the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, McCain-Feingold, and the TSA; who endorses the assault on "indecency"; who thinks the government should be spending even more than it is now. I didn't have room in my top ten for the terrible No Child Left Behind Act, which further centralized control of the country's public schools—but for the record, Kerry voted for that one too. It's far from clear that he'd be any less protectionist than Bush is, and he's also got problems that Bush doesn't have, like his support for stricter gun controls. True, Kerry doesn't owe anything to the religious right, and you can't blame him for the torture at Abu Ghraib. Other than that, he's not much of an improvement.
Yet I find myself hoping the guy wins. Not because I'm sure he'll be better than the current executive, but because the incumbent so richly deserves to be punished at the polls. Making me root for a sanctimonious statist blowhard like Kerry isn't the worst thing Bush has done to the country. But it's the offense that I take most personally. - http://www.reason.com/links/l...
[b]In an interview recently that Michael Moore granted to Charlie Rose, Rose asked Moore about some of the questions that the right-wingers had regarding the content of his movie[i] "Fahrenheit 9/11[/i]", and Moore said that he was prepared to defend the facts and that no one had been able to dispute the specific claims cited in his film ... Moore went on to say that if the media and press[i] had asked even one-half (1/2 ... i.e. 50%) of the questions [/i]of Bush/Cheney (who are supposedly in charge of our government,[i] by the way[/i]) that[i] they did of his film[/i], then we might have uncovered some of the corrupt Bush regime's lies and sordid motives beforehand.[/b]
A new attack out by the neo-fascist American Enterprise Institute, funded by the corporate rapists who put the sluts Bush/Cheney in office, is not exactly "[i]objective[/i]" ... Do I detect just a[i] wee note of defensiveness [/i]by the hypocritical right-wingers as Americans start to wake-up to the fact that our nation has been duped by the ruthless neo-fascist Bushies??? ...[i] He he he [/i]...
The researchers at the conservative and corporate-sponsored American Enterprise Institute came out roaring in their report http://www.aei.org/news/newsI... on Michael Moore's [i]"Fahrenheit 9/11[/i]," claiming that Moore has poisoned "political debate." But after their [i]ad hominem [/i]introductory barrage, it seems the researchers got cold feet.
You'd expect challenges on the ties that Moore draws between the bin Ladens and the Bush family, or perhaps Moore's evidence that shows the inhumane approach of oil contractors in Iraq. None of the assertions that make Moore's documentary so devastating are questioned.
Instead, the AEI researchers (who include "resident scholar" John R. Lott Jr.) dwell entirely on the introduction to [i]"Fahrenheit 9/11[/i]." They attack Moore for showing footage of the Florida in the 2000 election and attempting to demonstrate that a lot of black voters were taken off the rolls in Florida for dubious reasons. "Some non-felons were erroneously removed from the rolls -- but the errors didn't 'target' minorities," they write. That's a soft piece of logic coming from crack conservative researchers. If the "errors" that took voters off the rolls truly were honest mistakes, then of course they couldn't be willing attempts to target minority voters.
The folks at AEI finish their attack on Michael Moore saying that he "has been honest in one regard: He freely admits he hopes his film helps defeat President Bush this fall." If these are the folks in charge of defending Bush, then Moore won't have to hope too hard. - http://www.alternet.org/elect...
[b]The GOP Senate toadies have[i] not yet [/i]commenced their investigation into the corrupt Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rove White House heinous (ab)uses of the intelligence that they clearly ignored when it didn't suit their sordid and squalid purposes [Refer to "Bush/Cheney Inc. Ignored Iraq/Al-Qaeda Intelligence ..." on http://www.tblog.com/template... ][/b]
Dubya is still running around like a[i] panic-striken-numb-skull [/i]persuading only the [i]dumbest-of-the-dumb [/i]that the war in Iraq was still "okay" simply because he, the Mad King George, says it is "okay" http://www.commondreams.org/h... when all the facts point(ed) to the fact that Saddam Hussein posed no threat to our national security ... [i]Jeez[/i] ... The neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Doctrine of 'Pre-Emption' is sheer and utter insanity dreamt-up[i] in the bowels [/i]of their corrupt neo-con torture chambers ...
[b]Senate panel's report is a damning indictment of the Bush Doctrine.[/b]
Well, the CIA managed, barely, to get one thing right on Iraq: There never was a case for linking Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden or the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a key rationale for President Bush's invasion of Iraq.
In an otherwise scathing report on how American intelligence agencies fell for misinformation that touted Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States, the Senate Intelligence Committee went out of its way to endorse the CIA finding that "the intelligence community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other Al Qaeda strike." This was also the preliminary conclusion of the bipartisan 9/11 commission appointed by the president.
Yet, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney still insist that the war against Bin Laden somehow naturally extended to Iraq. As recently as a June 17 interview with CNBC, Cheney asserted, without providing evidence, that "there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming." Nor would he rule out that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 plot. He even suggested that he had access to information that the 9/11 commission had not seen, an assertion that was later refuted by the commission's Republican chairman. Apparently, Cheney can now add the CIA and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee to the list of those to be condemned for not embracing his lies.
Of course, this outrageous stubbornness in the face of overwhelming evidence shouldn't be surprising. With no weapons of mass destruction found in occupied Iraq, almost 900 American soldiers dead and U.S. taxpayers having already coughed up more than $100 billion, the quagmire must be justified as being "the central front in the war on terror" if Bush is to win reelection in November.
That Bin Laden and Hussein were the unlikeliest of allies was long known by the CIA, as noted in the Senate report, and no facts unearthed have effectively challenged that. CIA analysts concluded, according to the Senate committee report, that Hussein "generally viewed Islamic extremism, including the [Saudi-based] school of Islam known as Wahhabism, as a threat to his regime, noting that he had executed extremists from both the Sunni and Shiite sects to disrupt their organizations" and "sought to prevent Iraqi youth from joining Al Qaeda."
Meanwhile, Bush has consistently ignored the fact that Al Qaeda had been largely funded and supported by powerful extremists in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, two "allies" his administration coddled both before and after 9/11. Pakistan was even exporting nuclear weapons technology to "axis of evil" countries Iran and North Korea, as well as Libya – but not to Iraq.
Does any of this make sense? Where are the common-sense consistency, the respect for truth and the logical hierarchy of priorities in our foreign policy? Why can't the president explain – without lying – why we are in Iraq? Why are Americans dying in a country that had no weapons of mass destruction, had no role in 9/11 and posed no immediate threat to the U.S.?
The 511-page Senate Intelligence Committee report makes it clear that despite the haughty posturing of national security heavyweights, we do not have adults watching the store. The report's epic series of embarrassing conclusions about how the intelligence on Iraq became distorted is a testament to how political ideology and ambitions consistently trumped logic and integrity. The Senate report is a thoroughly damning indictment of the Bush administration's doctrine of "preemptive" war based on intelligence. In the case of Iraq, the intelligence that was false was adopted by the administration, while the intelligence that was true was ignored as inconvenient. And it is telling that the CIA, try as it did to accommodate the White House, couldn't find any evidence that Al Qaeda and Iraq were collaborators.
Not that the CIA didn't try, though. "This intelligence assessment responds to senior policymaker interest in a comprehensive assessment of Iraqi regime links to Al Qaeda. Our approach is purposefully aggressive in seeking to draw connections," said one report. "I was asking the people who were writing [the report on Iraq-Al Qaeda links] to lean far forward and do a speculative piece. If you were going to stretch to the maximum the evidence you had, what could you come up with?" the deputy director for intelligence at the CIA told the Senate committee.
With this approach, we might as well base our foreign policy on reruns of "The X-Files." Maybe this is why the president wants us to go to Mars: It's a preemptive strike.
[b]We finally know what George Bush was talking about when he was carrying on about bringing democracy to the Middle East: [i]Martial law[/i].[/b] The newly appointed Iyad Allawi government announced a new security law on Wednesday, justifying it as Iraq's version of [u]The Patriot Act[/u] http://www.motherjones.com/ne... . According to Knight Ridder http://seattletimes.nwsource.... :
... "[i]The new law allows Allawi and his Cabinet to declare a 'state of emergency' for up to 60 days in part or all of Iraq. That would allow authorities to detain and search people, even without a warrant, in "extreme exigent circumstances," according to the English version released yesterday. It also allows the government to seize terror suspects' property[/i]." ...
The sad fact is that many Iraqis approve of the new strong-arm policies, if only because it holds out some hope of reestablishing law and order in the country. But if the [u]Patriot Act[/u] http://www.motherjones.com/ne... is any indication, the national security measure bodes ill for the very people who welcome its institution.
[b]Just wait to see what happens here at home to our "freedom" if Bush/Cheney's popularity ratings [i]fall[/i] much farther ...[/b]
"[i]Noble fathers have noble children[/i]." - Euripides, BC 480-406, Greek Tragic Poet
[b]No, not the recently deceased ex-president, but Junior, his son.[/b] Ron Reagan will appear http://www.philly.com/mld/phi... at the Democratic Convention to talk about stem-cell research and to help defeat Bush.
Though it's something of an embarrassment to Bush, it's not terribly surprising, his disdain for the Republican Party is well known. He even refuses to attend an RNC tribute to his dad: ""I don't think, in good conscience, I could take the chance that somebody could read that as an endorsement of this administration...I'll support any viable candidate who can defeat Bush."
In the midst of the Reagan memorial week, Junior commented, "My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush." [And[i] that [/i]is saying something!]
[u][b]Ron Reagan to address Democratic convention[/b][/u]
In a move sure to embarrass Republicans, Ron Reagan will address the Democratic National Convention this month.
Reagan, son of former President Ronald Reagan and an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, will be at the podium on the second night of the four-day event in Boston, July 27, in support of stem-cell research, he said Sunday in an interview here.
David Wade, a spokesman for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, confirmed Reagan's appearance, but sources said the date had not been determined. Scott Stanzel, press secretary for President Bush's campaign, declined to comment.
Reagan, a Seattle resident with his wife, clinical psychologist Doria, said he was contacted about two weeks ago by the Democratic National Committee. He said he "had a nice chat" on the phone with Kerry, "but he wasn't pushing me. I had already decided."
A registered independent who has long been an outspoken political liberal, Reagan said he would not campaign for Kerry or any other candidate. He said he would vote for Kerry, however, "as a way to defeat Bush."
Reagan, 46, said he also did not vote for Bush in 2000, despite the fact that Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, was vice president during Ronald Reagan's two terms in the White House.
President Bush "has made some terrible mistakes," most notably, attacking Iraq, Reagan said.
Reagan also opposes Bush's stand on stem-cell research. That is the only reason Reagan accepted the Democrats' invitation, he said.
The Democratic Party's platform calls for lifting restrictions on research using stem cells from human embryos. Bush signed an executive order in August 2001 that limited federal help to financing stem-cell research on embryonic stem-cell lines then in existence. He said such a limit would not require the destruction of any more embryos.
Day-old embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted, and the process is opposed by some conservatives who link it to abortion.
Reagan and his mother, Nancy Reagan, are passionate advocates for stem-cell research, which could lead to a cure for Alzheimer's disease, among other disorders. After a 10-year battle against Alzheimer's, Ronald Reagan died June 5 at age 93.
"If they had asked me to say a few words about throwing George Bush out of office, I wouldn't do it," said Ron Reagan, in Los Angeles to attend "Hardball" host Chris Matthews' session with TV critics. Reagan is a political commentator for the show on MSNBC.
"This gives me a platform to educate people about stem-cell research," Reagan said. "The conservative right has a rather simplistic way of characterizing it as baby killing. We're not talking about fingers and toes and brains. This is a mass of a couple hundred undifferentiated cells."
Reagan, who will cover the Democratic and Republican conventions for "Hardball," said he expected criticism from many Republicans for his five-to-eight-minute speech to the Democrats.
"The Republican Party now is not the Republican Party of my father, not that it would be of great concern to me, one way or the other," he said. "I'm not a Republican and I never have been.
"My father wouldn't expect me to be a Republican just to emulate him. He raised his kids to be independent thinkers. ... I'm not terribly popular, apparently, with a lot of Republicans. I imagine some of them are pretty angry about what I've said about the Bush administration."
Should he be asked, Reagan said he would not attend the planned tribute to his father at the Republican convention, which is Aug. 30-Sept. 2 in New York.
"I don't think, in good conscience, I could take the chance that somebody could read that as an endorsement of this administration," he said. "I'll support any viable candidate who can defeat Bush."
Instead, Reagan suggested that the Republicans invite his half-brother, Michael, an evangelical and stem-cell research opponent, to speak at their gathering.
[b]"We the People" should be demanding the impeachment [i]and[/i] trial for treason of the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i], who not only conducted their illegal and immoral neo-con war in Iraq for war-profiteering (just ask Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. how much [i]gold[/i] they've [i]raked in [/i]...)-- based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods ...[/b] But their looting (of lives and treasure) of America and Iraq is a [i]Crime Against Humanity [/i]which demands redress from Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the neo-cons who have clearly betrayed the public trust ... Please contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that impeachment hearings commence immediately to rid our nation of the sordid & squalid Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]... In the meantime, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Feith and the rest of this ugly cabal of neo-con neo-fascists should be fired ...
[b]Consider this ...[/b]
[b]Looting of Iraq is theft from Iraqi and American taxpayers that, according to several new reports, dwarfs the crimes of Adelphia and Ken Lay[/b]
The CEO and founder of Adelphi Communications has now been convicted of looting his company of hundreds of millions of dollars. Ken Lay has (finally) been indicted for his Enron dealings. What lesson may we learn?
If you really want to steal a lot of money, and get away with it, skip the private sector and go with government work.
While business corruption headlines briefly resurface, virtually no attention has been paid to a trio of reports that, combined, paints a picture of occupied Iraq as a place where staggering amounts of public money have been botched or stolen with little or no oversight.
Let us start with the White House itself, which helpfully buried, on the Friday afternoon before a July 4 weekend, its release of a White House Office of Management and Budget report that reveals that of the nearly $20 billion earmarked by Congress for reconstruction in last fall's emergency Iraq spending bill, only a tidy $366 million has actually been spent. Breaking it down further, we discover that we wealthy Americans, in the 14 months we officially occupied Iraq, spent none of our own money on roads, nothing on hospitals and public health, nothing on clean water. The biggest chunks -- about $100 million each -- were spent on training Iraqi police and trying to restore constantly sabotaged electricity. What little progress has been made has come almost entirely from foreign governments, private donors, and Iraq's oil money.
No wonder the Iraqi public is furious with the Americans for not honoring our word on the street. Americans should be angry, too -- originally, in January, the OMB estimated that $10.3 billion of the money would be spent by now. And when that $87 billion was rammed through Congress last fall, it was with the insistent message that the money was needed immediately, if not sooner.
Never mind.
But Iraqis deserve to be even angrier about the fate of their own money. Iraqi oil exports, remember, were also supposed to be helping with both security and the reconstruction effort.
Problem is, nobody has any idea where the money's gone.
The Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-run agency that put itself out of business with the June 29 handover, didn't even get around to appointing an auditor for its funds until April of this year, after the date of its dissolution was already fixed and with far too little time left to track down its spending. The British NGO Christian Aid took a crack at it, issuing a report when the handover took place that reads, in part, as follows:
... "[i]The billions of dollars of oil money that has already been transferred into the US-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority has effectively disappeared into a financial black hole... the US-controlled coalition in Baghdad is handing over power to an Iraqi government without having properly accounted for what it has done with some $20 billion of Iraq's own money[/i]." ...
Now, that's not the $20 billion of American taxpayer money -- that's a different pool, being held up due to a combination of ineptitude, security concerns, and lawsuits launched by various Friends of Dick and George that didn't get the contracts they wanted. But we spent Iraq's money -- after we took it from Iraq's public treasury -- and nobody knows where it's gone. Here's an educated guess: Halliburton. Here's another: Bechtel.
For others, consult Kenneth Lay's Christmas card list.
To top it all off, after Christian Aid released its report, and a day after the handover, the CPA auditor issued his own series of unfinished reports, saying, essentially, Yep. They're right. We have no idea where all that money went.
Aside from the sheer magnitude of the theft involved here, this matters because the looting of Iraq isn't over -- it's just moved to a new phase. One of the things a sovereign (albeit hand-picked) government of Iraq can do, which under international law an occupying army can't do, is sell off Iraq's public resources. That's what's now under way. The Bush Administration has an ambitious plan, unprecedented among underdeveloped countries, to privatize virtually every agency ever run under the umbrella of the government of Iraq. It's a fire sale to pyromaniacs, and aside from the fact that Iraq's public resources will be sold off to mostly foreign, mostly American bidders at pennies on the dollar, the contracts that they in turn let are likely to set new standards for corruption and cost-plus accounting -- particularly in a country that barely has its own police force, let alone one capable of investigating high-level wheeling and dealing of this order.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and the same curious set of companies keeps reappearing as stars in this little amorality play. These vast fortunes may not have been what motivated the invasion of Iraq, but it's hard to remember a time when taxpayers have paid so much -- hundreds of billions of dollars already, plus all those lost lives -- and the benefits have accrued to such a well-defined few.
[b]The Senate intelligence report released on Friday has turned out to be a disappointment, primarily because it has not addressed the key question of[i] responsibility for leadership run amok[/i] in the corrupt Bush regime http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... .[/b] The Republican chairman Senator Pat Roberts and the Democratic vice-chairman Senator John Rockefeller have been making the rounds of talk-shows stating that they will be studying the uses (and abuses) of the "lousy intelligence" by the Bush/Cheney White House, but that no conclusions will be drawn before the November elections. This is outrageous primarily because there is already sufficient evidence http://www.letstalksense.com/... despite their putrid attempts to cover-up for Bush and Cheney:-- that the White House pressured the CIA into providing false intelligence because of their strong desire to invade Iraq (for reasons having nothing to do with their fraudulent [i]casus belli[/i]: WMDs posing an imminent threat to our national security). Of course, the CIA was at fault, for they should have come forward and expressed their dissatisfaction and reservations with the fraudulent ways in which the corrupt neo-cons in the Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]were misleading the American public and the entire world community.
A deeper issue still is outstanding, and is tragically not being discussed and debated [i]at large[/i], and that is the climate of corrupt, atrocious and incompetent leadership by Bush and Cheney in their neo-con ideological zeal, that led to this catastrophic mismanagement, malfeasance and dishonest manipulation of the intelligence analysts, process and information http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... . A wise and intelligent president would have demanded that evidence be verified via multiple sources and substantiated prior to taking the nation to war. Indeed, a man of integrity would have questioned the NSA, CIA and British, upon being informed that the Unted Nations, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese and many other allies were warning that Bush/Cheney's so-called "intelligence" was flawed ... Bush/Cheney failed to do so, because in fact, they were prepared to go to war in Iraq (for oil) no matter what the consequences-- and they knew that their phony WMDs "excuse" was [i]a sales ploy used to ruthlessly manipulate [/i]the American people.
Bush/Cheney and their neo-fascist cohorts (Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Feith, Powell, etc.) have committed treason and should be impeached/fired and then put on trial for [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]... To continue to cover-up and make excuses for their reckless criminal activities perpetrated against us will only bring ever more destruction of our democracy [i]down upon our heads [/i]... Please contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that impeachment hearings commence for Bush/Cheney forthwith and that Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the rest of this corrupt cabal of neo-con thugs be fired immediately ... "We the People" owe it to over 884 US Soldiers and over 16,000 innocent Iraqi Civilians who have been ruthlessly massacred by the Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods,[i] as well as [/i]to future generations who will bear the unconscionable stigma of heinous American War Crimes and the back-breaking Financial Debt ...
[b][u]On the Senate Committee Report on Iraq War Intelligence[/u][/b]
The Senate intelligence report released on July 9, 2004, is a whitewash for the White House. The report is a lame attempt by the Republican-controlled Senate to absolve the Bush administration – and specifically the president and vice president – of responsibility for manipulating and misusing intelligence in making the case for an optional war in Iraq.
The good news is that the American public won’t be fooled. As recent polls demonstrate, an [b]astonishing 80 percent of those polled say that George Bush was either hiding information or lying [/b]about the reasons he took us to war in Iraq.
While the committee is right that we must modernize and strengthen the intelligence community, this report leaves out critical information. It is no coincidence that the most potentially damning conclusions about the administration will be delayed until after the election. When you only look at half the information, you're bound to get half-truths.
Despite the demands of committee members, the Republican leadership limited the scope of the inquiry. There is no mention of the role of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans – Vice President Dick Cheney's personal intelligence service – nor is there anything about the role of top officials in paying Ahmed Chalabi millions of dollars to deliver false intelligence.
Of course, none of this should come as a surprise. Let's not forget that, no matter what the intelligence told them, George Bush and his posse were bound and determined to go to war in Iraq.
There is no doubt that our intelligence was stale, incomplete and in some cases outright false. But the most important question is who used the intelligence and for what purpose.
The American people accept that deposing Saddam will help Iraqis in the long run. But reports like this will not change Americans' minds that the invasion was a mistake, they were misled by the president, and we are less secure today because of it. Beyond intelligence, that’s a failure of policy and leadership.
[i][b]Statement made by Robert O. Boorstin, who is senior vice president for national security at the Center for American Progress[/b][/i]. http://www.americanprogress.o...
[b]Isn't it interesting to listen to the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] and their traitorous GOP toadies [i]defend their indefensible secrecy [/i]in order to [i]hide the government's (i.e. Bush/Cheney corporate cronies) business [/i]from "We the People", and then watch them [i]howl like monkeys[/i] for their political opponents to disclose every personal and private detail that they can exploit in their neo-fascist, neo-orwellian propaganda campaigns??? ...[/b]
"We the People" should be extremely concerned, angered and outraged at the un-democratic and destructive fascist secrecy and imperial powers being employed against us by the neo-con Bush regime, for they are [i]refusing to release documents and information [/i]that have a direct impact and important bearing upon the nature of their criminal and incompetent governance ...
[b]Consider this ...[/b]
In 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush demanded Vice President Al Gore release various documents related to his past. He said on March 15, 2000, "I challenge you to clear the air on some serious charges. I hope you will encourage the White House and the Department of Justice to release all records and photographs relating to the investigation of fundraising." But now, facing far more serious allegations than fundraising irregularities, the President has categorically refused to release critical documents in a host of areas.
[b]BUSH REFUSES TO CALL ON TEXAS TO RELEASE MILITARY RECORDS:[/b] Though the Bush administration now says the Pentagon "inadvertently" destroyed key documents about the President's military service at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the President has refused to call on the state of Texas to release copies of those military files that are legally-required to exist there. According to AP, "Under Texas law, a copy of military personnel files of those serving in the Texas Air National Guard must be retained on microfilm at the Texas archives." The Texas Air National Guard has told AP that the files in the Texas state archive are under control of the federal government. But according to the NY Times, the chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of Information Office refused to comment about obtaining the documents. [[u]Sources:[/u] NY Times, 7/9/04, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... ; AP, 6/22/04, http://www.sunherald.com/mld/... ]
[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO RELEASE TORTURE MEMOS:[/b] "Attorney General John Ashcroft said that President George W. Bush never authorized torture of detained terrorism suspects, but he refused to release internal memos that discuss when torture is allowed. In a testy three-hour Capitol Hill hearing, Ashcroft repeatedly rejected Democratic demands for memos recently leaked to the media which say that treaties and laws do not bar Bush from authorizing torture of terrorism suspects." [[u]Source:[/u] Newsday, 6/9/04, http://www.commondreams.org/h... ]
[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSED TO RELEASE INFORMATION ABOUT MEDICARE BILL:[/b] During the negotiations over the Bush administration's controversial Medicare Bill, the administration threatened to fire a government actuary if he released cost estimates of the bill to Democrats. Even today those estimates "still have yet to be made public or turned over to congressional Democrats who have requested them." In March, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson "promised to release them and said an inspector general's investigation would clear the air. But since then, "he has refused to release the documents in question. House Democrats have sued for the documents in federal court and The Associated Press, which sought the same materials under the Freedom of Information Act, has appealed the withholding of 149 pages out of 162 pages that the agency acknowledges are responsive to its request." [[u]Source:[/u] AP, 7/7/04, http://www.lasvegassun.com/su... ]
[b]CHENEY REFUSES TO RELEASE ENERGY TASK FORCE RECORDS:[/b] "Vice President Dick Cheney refused to release records of meetings with company executives to discuss energy policy." According to the Washington Post, Cheney met in early 2001 with executives from the oil and gas industries, including Anadarko Petroleum's Robert Allison and then-Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay. Cheney has acknowledged meeting multiple times with Enron representatives during the California energy crisis while the administration was developing its energy proposal. [[u]Sources:[/u] Financial Times, 1/27/02, http://specials.ft.com/enron/... ; MSNBC, 4/26/04, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4... ; ABC News, 1/9/02, http://abcnews.go.com/section... ]
[b]BUSH REFUSES TO RELEASE RECORDS OF HARKEN TENURE:[/b] "The White House refused to release records of Bush's service on Harken's board. Bush had pointed to those records during a news conference on Monday when asked about his role in the sale of a subsidiary. The transaction later was used by Harken to mask losses." [[u]Source:[/u] Washington Post, 7/11/02, http://www.washingtonpost.com... ]
[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO RELEASE CORRECTED CENSUS DATA:[/b] In 2001, "The Census Bureau refused to release statistically adjusted census data to disburse billions in federal dollars." The decision was an effort to prevent the release of data showing the "raw figures undercount minorities, the poor and children." According to the House Government Reform Committee, "When the Commerce Department used similar techniques as part of the 1990 census, federal courts ordered the data released and rejected claims that information was in any way confidential."[[u]Sources:[/u] National Journal, 10/18/01; AP, 10/17/01; House Government Reform Committee, 5/21/00, http://www.house.gov/reform/m... ]
[b]WHITE HOUSE REFUSES TO RELEASE BUDGET INFORMATION TO CONGRESS:[/b] "The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayer money, has developed an efficient solution: It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers. The decision -- one that Democrats and scholars said is highly unusual -- was announced in an e-mail sent Wednesday to the staff of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. House committee Democrats had just asked for information about how much the White House spent making and installing the "Mission Accomplished" banner for President Bush's May 1 speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln." [[u]Source:[/u] Washington Post, 11/7/03]
[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO RELEASE FOIA'D DOCUMENTS:[/b] "The Justice Department refused to release records from its Office of Legislative Affairs because reporter Michael Ravnitzky had 'failed to address how [his publication] intends to use the records subject to the request,' according to the Justice Department. For a 2001 story, Ravnitzky asked for a series of Security Summary Synopses concerning airports. In the aftermath of 9/11, he urged the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to expedite the request in order to inform the public which airports were not secure. The FAA has responded twice, arguing that 'there is no identifiable urgency to inform the public.'" [[u]Source:[/u] Insight Magazine, 4/8/02, http://www.insightmag.com/mai... ]
[b]WHITE HOUSE REFUSED TO RELEASE ABORTION REPORT FROM ITS OWN OFFICIALS:[/b] According to Knight Ridder in 2002, an independent team that the administration sent to China in May concluded that allegations that a U.N. family planning program supports forced abortions were untrue. In fact, one of the officials said, the report concluded that the U.N. program improved women's lives by helping them prevent unwanted pregnancies through education and birth control and, therefore, reducing the number of abortions under China's restrictive family planning policy. The team's report recommended that Bush release $34 million to the U.N. Population Fund. But the administration "refused to release the report, even to congressional Republicans working on the issue." [[u]Source:[/u] Knight-Ridder, 7/14/02, http://www.realcities.com/mld... ]
[b]Turning the Tide:[/b] The official weblog of Noam Chomsky, including exclusive, original observations drawn from personal correspondence,[i] ZNet Sustainer Forums [/i]posts http://www.zmag.org/sustainer... , and direct blog entries. {Note: Only [i]ZNet Sustainers [/i]can comment. Everyone can see all comments.]
[u][b]The Wall and Israel's Aims[/b][/u]
[b]By Noam Chomsky[/b]
If the goal were security, Israel would have built the fence a few km inside its borders. It could then be a mile high, patrolled on both sides by the IDF, mined with nuclear weapons, utterly impenetrable. Perfect security.
The problem would be that it would not take valuable Palestinian land and resources (including control of water), drive out the population, and lay the basis for still further expansion as Palestinians flee from the dungeons that are left, like the town of Qalqilya. So to interpret as a land grab seems appropriate.
Doubtless a side benefit is to increase a narrow form of "security," while probably in the long run seriously increasing insecurity not only because of the regional impact but because sooner or later it is likely to inspire terrorist acts against Israelis abroad in revenge. But terror and security are not driving concerns, any more than they have a high priority in the planning of "the boss-man called `partner'," as more astute Israeli commentators describe Washington.
Sharon's strategic thinking seems straightforward enough. There are excellent descriptions in recent books by Tanya Reinhart and Baruch Kimmerling. It is also not radically different from that of Rabin and Peres. The goal is to take over the valuable parts of the West Bank (Gaza is mostly a burden), and to leave the population that remains under local administration, to rot and decline.
The basic principle was explained to the Cabinet of the Labor Government 30 years ago by Moshe Dayan, perhaps the most sympathetic to the Palestinians among the Israeli leadership: we should tell the Palestinians in the territories that "You shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes, may leave, and we shall see where this process will lead."
The occupation should be "permanent," he believed, in one or another form, and to the objection that Israel must consider its moral stand, he responded that "Ben-Gurion said that whoever approaches the Zionist problem from a moral aspect is not a Zionist."
There have been differences as to how these principles should apply, but a fair consensus among leading political echelons that if they can be applied, that's fine. Sharon's basic conceptions were outlined years ago, and he is pursuing them systematically, relying on the material and diplomatic support of the boss-man.
Across the spectrum, the "ideal" solution might well be something like Ben-Gurion's expansive vision that goes far beyond anything currently considered even within the realm of dreams. - http://blog.zmag.org/ttt/arch...
4000 Scientists Confront Bush Administration ... So Should We ...
[b]The Union of Concerned Scientists, [i]Parte Deux[/i][/b]
So here's the news I was telling you about. I'm in the middle of listening to a phone-in press conference by the Union of Concerned Scientists, in which the group has announced that more than four thousand of scientists have now signed their February statement on scientific integrity http://www.ucsusa.org/global_... --including 48 Nobel Laureates. The group also just released a new report (available here http://www.ucsusa.org/global_... ) showing that the Bush administration has blithely continued to do what it was originally accused of: Egregiously politicizing science.
The new case studies highlighted at the press conference have all been previously covered on this blog. They concern membership on the President's Council on Bioethics, the Pacific salmon issue (in which the Bush administration proposed counting hatchery fish for Endangered Species Act purposes), and the administration's refusal to appoint top scientists to advise the NIH's Fogarty International Center. UCS got leading scientists to discuss each issue on the recent conference call: Janet Rowley, a President's Council on Bioethics member and renowned cell biologist at the University of Chicago; Robert Paine, a zoologist at the University of Washington who's served as a previous head of the Ecological Society of America and is a salmon recovery expert; and Dr. Gerald T. Keusch, who until recently served as director of NIH's Fogarty International Center.
In a subsequent post, I will describe what these scientists have to say. But for now, start reading the report http://www.ucsusa.org/global_... ....
[b]We need to [i]get back to caring about [/i]science, scientific thought and rational reasoning, instead of the calamitous Dark Age of superstition and irrational bunk ushered in by the corrupt neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i], who seem to think that [i]they can simply bark [/i]any number of obscene, untrue statements (i.e. lies, deceptions and falsehoods) and that we obedient, unthinking citizens should [i]blindly lap-it up like brain-dead sheep [/i]no matter how nonsensical or unsubstantiated their neo-con, neo-orwellian bile proves to be ...[/b]
British Spy Chiefs 'Retract WMDs Intelligence' ...
[b]The fraudulent case for waging their ([i]Corrupt [/i]Bush/Cheney & [i]'Poodle' [/i]Blair) illegal and immoral neo-con war in Iraq has fallen apart http://www.lewrockwell.com/kw... ... [/b]DimWit Bush & FuckWit Cheney can no longer be trusted and have indeed squandered the "public trust" http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... ... Only an imbecilic buffoon would continue to believe their never-ending lies, deceptions and falsehoods [i]again[/i] ...
Some neo-con fascists have been hoping beyond hope that the British would [i]"pull-a-rabbit-from-th e-hat" [/i]and exonerate the United Kingdom's Prime Minister Tony [i]'Poodle'[/i] Blair-- but the Brits are starting to find out that they've been as duped, scammed and swindled as the American public ...
[b]Consider this ...[/b]
Spy chiefs have retracted the intelligence behind Tony Blair’s claim that Iraq posed a “current and serious” threat, it was reported tonight.
The Prime Minister’s case for war was supposedly based on evidence that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles and was trying trying to produce more.
But MI6 has since withdrawn the assessment underpinning that case, a senior intelligence source has told[i] BBC1’s Panorama[/i].
The rare step amounts to an admission that it was fundamentally unreliable, according to The Observer which reveals details of the interview.
Mr Blair has already admitted that Iraqi WMD may never be found ahead of Lord Butler’s report on intelligence failings.
However, the PM insisted it would have been wrong to suggest that Saddam did not pose a WMD threat.
Now he will face questions about why he did not give ground earlier ahead of the Butler report on Wednesday.
The claim that the intelligence has been withdrawn comes from a single, anonymous intelligence source but meets new [i]BBC [/i]guidelines introduced in the wake of the Hutton report.
And former senior figures in the secret services have gone on the record with their criticisms of Mr Blair in the [i]BBC1 Panorama [/i]programme, screened 10.15pm Sunday. - http://news.scotsman.com/late...
[b]"That's gotcha journalism." That was George Bush's imbecilic retort to reporters asking questions about his drinking past on the campaign trail in 1999. [You'll notice Dubya has never been able to defend his AWOL drunkardliness while better men were killed during Vietnam and, [i]oopsies[/i], his military records are "suddenly" destroyed http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... [i]Hmmm[/i] ... ] [/b]"This is a desperate attempt to smear my campaign." That was Nader's tendencious retort to Howard Dean http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm... in a debate on July 9th when Dean pointed out that 46% of the signatures on the petition to get Nader on the ballot in Arizona were by Republicans.
What both of these quotes have in common is evasion, plain and simple. In other circumstances, a guy with an investigative mind like Nader's would be interested in finding out what sorts of people signed his competitors' petitions. It's probably hard to swallow that your "supporters" don't think of you as a candidate, but as a Trojan horse, especially if you believe in yourself so fanatically that you are willing to martyr the best chance for progress.
Howard Dean ridiculed, then flattered, then bargained with Ralph Nader in the debate, saying that both could serve in the cabinet together. Dean got no promises -- just laughs from the crowd. Nader could be right about the desperation of the Democrats, and if he continues to campaig long enough, the offers are likely to get bigger and bigger.
Come on Ralph Nader ... This really isn't a [i]serious[/i] presidential campaign, is it!?! ...
[b]Poor little, [i]'bad-luck' [/i]George Bush: this guy just can't catch a break.[/b]
First, the CIA sandbags President George Bush with a bunch of bogus intelligence http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_w...%3fformat=html about Iraq.
Now it turns out that the military payroll records that could have helped prove that he really did serve his Air National Guard duty in Alabama in 1972 and 1973 were [i]"inadvertently destroyed"[/i] in a tragic microfilm accident.
If poor little, [i]'bad-luck' [/i]George Bush continues his run-in-a-string of ill-fated [i]"accidents"[/i] ([i]none of his own making, of course [/i]...), then what will happen in November??? ...
The Whistle-Blower that Bush/Cheney are trying to Silence ...
[b]Sibel Edmonds began working for the FBI shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.[/b] Until the spring of 2002 she worked in the FBI's Washington field office translating top-secret documents pertaining to suspected terrorists. She first gained wide public attention in October of that year when she appeared on[i] '60 Minutes' [/i]on [i]CBS[/i] and charged that the FBI, State Department, and Pentagon had been infiltrated by agents of a Turkish intelligence officer suspected of ties to terrorism. She also accused members of the FBI's translation services of sabotage, intimidation, corruption and incompetence. On October 18, 2002, at the request of FBI Director Robert Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft imposed a gag order on Ms. Edmonds, citing possible damage to diplomatic relations or national security.
[b][u]Our Broken System[/u][/b]
[b]by Sibel Edmonds [/b]
On Tuesday, July 6, 2004, Judge Reggie Walton made a decision and ruled on my case. Under his ruling, I, an American citizen, am not entitled to pursue my 1st and 5th Amendment rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. The vague reasoning cited, without any explanation, is to protect "certain diplomatic relations for national security." Judge Walton reached this decision after sitting on this case with no activity for almost two years. He arrived at this decision without allowing my attorney and I any due process: NO status hearing, NO briefings, NO oral argument, and NO discovery. He made his decision after allowing the government attorneys to present their case to him, privately, in camera, ex parte; we were not allowed to participate in these cozy sessions. Is this the American system of justice we believe in? Is this the due process we read about in our civics 101 courses? Is this the judicial branch of our government that is supposed to be separate from the other two branches in order to protect the people's rights and freedom?
This court decision by itself would have been appalling and alarming enough, but in light of all other actions taken against my case for the past two years it demonstrates a broken system, a system abused and corrupted by the current executive, a system badly in need of repair.
Under this broken system the attorney general of the United States is being allowed to illegally gag the United States Congress regarding my case. And even worse, the United States Congress is readily complying with this illegal gag.
Under this broken system the attorney general of the United States is being allowed to hinder ongoing investigations such as those of the 9/11 Commission and the DOJ-Inspector General.
Under this broken system the Attorney General of the United States is getting away with interfering and tampering with pending cases under the judicial process, such as my court cases and the lawsuit by the 9/11 victim families.
John Ashcroft's relentless fight against me, my information, and my case, on various fronts, from the Congress to the courts, and from the 9/11 Commission to the Inspector General's Office, has been taking place under his attempt at a vague justification titled "Protecting Certain Foreign and Diplomatic Relations for National Security."
On September 11, 2001, 3,000 lives were lost. Yet this administration has hindered all past and on going investigations into the causes of that horrific day for the sake of this vague notion of protecting "certain diplomatic and foreign relations."
As a result of the attack on 9/11, many thousands lost their loved ones and had their lives changed forever. Yet, this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act go free – untouched and uninvestigated – by simply citing "protection of certain foreign and diplomatic relations for national security."
Today, we are told that we are still under the threat of terrorists, and remain under various colors of the color-coded threat system invented and promoted by this administration. Yet, this same administration is relentlessly preventing any real investigations into finding out the facts, the real facts, regarding acts, semi-legit organizations, and people, involved in plots against this country and its people – under their sorry excuse of "protecting certain foreign and diplomatic relations."
Isn't it time to ask what diplomatic or foreign relations they keep referring to?
Isn't it fair to demand that they should let the people know what kind of foreign relations are worth 3,000 lives lost?
Isn't it this administration's obligation to justify these costs in lives and in our national security for the sake of maintaining certain foreign relations that benefit only the few?
Just take notice of the means this administration has used in my case alone to accomplish covering up and protecting those "foreign relations," and to dodge any accountability themselves: illegal reclassifications, secrecy, gagging congressional inquiries, blocking court proceedings, stopping investigations, invoking the rarely invoked State Secret Privilege, asserting national security.
It is apparent that this administration confidently expects the American people to sign blank checks unquestioningly. It is obvious that they believe they are entitled to unchecked power, unlimited authority, and unquestioning citizens' support. To them, our Bill of Rights under the Constitution is nothing more than an inconvenient roadblock to overcome; our American system of checks and balances can be bypassed by overusing national security; and people's dissent is a problem that can be diverted away by a culture of fear and complete submission to government authority.
As I have stated many times previously, I will continue this fight, since in taking my citizenship oath I pledged that I would support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Therefore, as an American citizen, I have the right and the obligation to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against John Ashcroft's assaults. - http://www.antiwar.com/orig/s...
... Sleazy: Bush Demands bin Laden's "Capture" Before Election ...
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] has ordered the Pakistani government to capture Osama bin Laden and other terrorists before the November election.[/b] Like a demanding patron at a classy restaurant, they'd like their politically expeditious capture on a particular date, "it would be best if the arrest or killing of HVT [high value targets] were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"-- the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.
According to [i]The New Republic's [/i]report, http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?... "The Bush administration has matched this public and private pressure with enticements and implicit threats." Including, but not limited to, designating Pakistan a non-NATO ally, zipping their lips when they pardoned a nuclear scientist who exported nuclear secrets to 66.6% of the axis of evil (Iran and N. Korea) -- in addition the trusty nation of Libya, plus a $3 billion "aid package." The only thing the Bush administration has held back are war planes, which, TNR reports, will tilt the regional balance of power away from India. Democratic India. Pakistan is essentially a dictatorship. Could there be a more apt display of the Bush administration's duplicitousness?
And what is likely to happen if Pakistan's Musharraf follows orders? "A Pakistani offensive in that region, aided by American high-tech weaponry and perhaps Special Forces, could unite tribal chieftains against the central government and precipitate a border war without actually capturing any of the HVTs." Or: more regional instability.
US President George W. Bush walks away from a briefing with the media, [i]refusing to answer questions [/i]after he was asked about Enron and the reported indictment of former CEO Kenneth Lay, who was a close adviser and fund-raiser for Bush and his father, earning him the presidential nickname of [i]'Kenny-Boy[/i].'(AFP/Paul J. Richards)
[b]Update:[/b] Georgie-boy and his White House toadies are trying to distance the DimWitted Dubya from his close buddy Kenny-boy ... Read on http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...
[b]Is it any wonder that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] "laugh-all-the-way-to-the -bank" while they succeed in swindling, lying and misleading us by committing heinous criminal activities for which they are given a "pass" http://www.tblog.com/template... ??? ... [/b]The American people are turning into [i]blithering idiots [/i]because they are[i] too fat, dumb & lazy[/i] to read; don't know history; and get their faux news [i]spoon-fed to them like babies [/i]from neo-con propaganda outlets like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Neo-Nazi channel, WorldNetDaily, Weekly Standard, Rush Limbaugh and other neo-fascist blow-hard liars and mad-dog lunatics ...
[b]Consider this ...[/b]
The reading of books is on the decline in America, despite Harry Potter and the best efforts of Oprah Winfrey. A report released Thursday by the National Endowment for the Arts says the number of non-reading adults increased by more than 17 million between 1992 and 2002.
Only 47 percent of American adults read "literature" (poems, plays, narrative fiction) in 2002, a drop of 7 points from a decade earlier. Those reading any book at all in 2002 fell to 57 percent, down from 61 percent.
NEA chairman Dana Gioia, himself a poet, called the findings shocking and a reason for grave concern.
"We have a lot of functionally literate people who are no longer engaged readers," Gioia said in an interview with The Associated Press. "This isn't a case of `Johnny Can't Read,' but `Johnny Won't Read.'"
The likely culprits, according to the report: television, movies and the Internet.
"I think what we're seeing is an enormous cultural shift from print media to electronic media, and the unintended consequences of that shift," Gioia said.
The decline came despite the creation of Oprah's book club in 1996 and the Harry Potter craze that began in the late 1990s among kids and adults alike. Reading fell even as Barnes & Noble boasted that its superstore empire was expanding the book market.
In 1992, 72.6 million adults in the United States did not read a book. By 2002, that figure had increased to 89.9 million, the NEA said.
"Whenever I hear about something like this, I think of it as a call to arms," said Mitchell Kaplan, president of the American Booksellers Association. "As booksellers, we need to look into what kinds of partnerships we can get into to encourage literacy and the immediacy of the literary experience."
In May, the nonprofit Book Industry Study Group reported that the number of books purchased in the United States in 2003 fell by 23 million from the year before to 2.22 billion.
The NEA study, titled "Reading at Risk," was based on a Census Bureau survey of more than 17,000 adults.
The drop in reading was widespread: among men and women, young and old, black and white, college graduates and high school dropouts. The numbers were especially poor among adult men, of whom only 38 percent read literature, and Hispanics overall, for whom the percentage was 26.5.
The decline was especially great among the youngest people surveyed, ages 18 to 24. Only 43 percent had read any literature in 2002, down from 53 percent in 1992.
Gioia said the electronic media that are contributing to the problem do offer possible remedies. He praised Winfrey's use of television to promote literacy and said he wished for a "thousand variants" of the idea.
"There's a communal aspect to reading that has collapsed and we need to find ways to restore it," Gioia said.
The title "Reading at Risk" is modeled on "A Nation at Risk," a 1983 government study that warned of a "rising tide of mediocrity in elementary and secondary schools" and led to numerous reforms. But Gioia avoided specific proposals in the NEA report.
"I don't believe the NEA should tell the culture what to do," he said. "The reason we are bringing this study out is that we consider it a crisis situation that requires a national conversation." - http://www.commondreams.org/h...
[b]Have you heard about the recent arson http://www.sun-sentinel.com/n...,0,210690.story?coll=sfla-news-palm at the WomanCare clinic in Lake Fort Worth, FL?[/b] A vicious fire attack destroyed the facility on July 2nd. This is the kind of home-grown American terrorism that doesn't get a whole lot of attention. The Concord Feminist Health Center http://www.feministhealth.org... in New Hampshire--which suffered an arson attack itself in 2000 http://www.listproc.bucknell.... --is organizing a campaign asking people to send donations to help the clinic get back on its feet.
Wearing abortion providers down is an explicit anti-choice strategy. It's critical to let those on the frontlines of care know that they have support and that the pro-choice movement won't let the anti-choicers win a war of attrition through violence.
To contribute, please make out a check of whatever amount is affordable to "WCWP Women's Relief Fund" and mail it to: WomanCare of West Palm, 1622 North Federal Highway, West Palm Beach FL 33460. And click here http://www.prochoiceamerica.o... and here http://www.feministhealth.org... to keep up with the latest developments in the fight for reproductive freedom in the US.
[b]Karl Rove must think that we are [i]all[/i] a bunch of blithering idiots ... [/b]We will[i] not all [/i]fall for the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] neo-con [i]tricks-and/or-treats [/i]... From TNR's new piece, [i]'July Surprise'[/i] http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?... ...
... "A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs [i.e., high-value al Qaida targets] before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston." ...
[b]Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz publicly estimated the number of troops killed in Iraq at 500 - the actual number at the time was 722 during a public statement before Congress this last spring http://pressherald.mainetoday... .[/b] Wolfowitz is like his vile "birds of a feathered" vultures in the corrupt Bush regime, including Dubya, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the neo-con cabal of thugs and neo-fascist goons ... These sluttish creeps[i] don't give a damn [/i]about the U.S. Soldiers-[i]cum[/i]-Canno n-Fodder who they are massacring each and every day in order to enrich themselves (and their corporate pimps: Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.)-- so why the hell should they remember an[i] "unimportant statistic [sic]" [/i]like the number of our U.S. Soldiers killed (After all, [i][u]their[/u][/i] off-spring-[i]cum[/i]-bra ts [i]aren't in any danger [/i]... [i][u]They[/u][/i] [i]ain't serving [/i]in Iraq or [i]anywhere else for that matter[/i]) ...
Richard Reeves discusses the "20/20 Hindsight in Iraq" http://www.uexpress.com/richa... by some of the media gurus ... The American media and press have let the American people down because they didn't ask tough questions of the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] before their illegal and immoral massacres, murders, rapes, tortures and abuses in Iraq ... All of this chaotic death, tragic misery and unconscionable mayhem are based upon the Bushies' lies, deceptions and falsehoods perpetrated against Americans as well as the entire world community ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, an obsessive architect of the war in Iraq, appeared before Congress last week to say that the big problem out there is cowardly reporters afraid to leave Baghdad to find out how well the Bush-driven liberators are doing these days. That, finally, seemed to get the press's attention about our own role in all this.
To begin with, at least 35 very brave reporters have been killed in Wolfowitz's excellent adventure. That means, among other things, that it has been much more dangerous to be a journalist in Iraq then to be an American soldier or Marine. There are hundreds of journalists, unarmed, in Iraq, but there are tens and tens of thousands of well-armed, well-trained uniformed troops.
But Wolfowitz does have a point about press cowardice. Most of us were afraid of showing and shouting that the Bush administration was misleading Americans into a war of choice. Now we know. This week alone, three great journalists or gentlemen, scholars and patriots have conceded that they were misled or deliberately deceived in the crazed run-up to unnecessary invasion.
. [u]William F. Buckley Jr[/u]., perhaps the most influential political thinker and writer of his generation, being interviewed about giving up control of the [i]National Review[/i], the conservative magazine he created 50 years ago, said this: "If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would have been in, I would have opposed the war. ... With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein was not the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration a year ago."
. [u]Bob Woodward[/u] of [i]The Washington Post[/i], the leading journalist of his, younger, generation, found, before the invasion, that some of his many intelligence sources did not believe there was persuasive evidence that Saddam possessed WMD, weapons of mass destruction. Now he writes: "I did not feel I had enough information to effectively challenge the official conclusions about WMD. In light of subsequent events, I should have pushed for a front-page story, even on the eve of war, presenting more forcefully what our sources were saying."
. [u]Kenneth Pollack[/u] of the Brookings Institution, and author of the October 2002 book, [i]"The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq[/i]," is more measured now, admitting that things went wrong. Now he writes: "The primary cause for our current problems in Iraq is the reckless and often foolish manner in which this administration has waged the war and reconstruction."
I might add to that list Richard Holbrooke, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a supporter of the war, who was asked where we stand now on [i]ABC News [/i]last Sunday. He answered: "The situation in Iraq is like diving off a diving board without knowing if there is any water in the pool."
That has the ring of a prepared answer, but it also has the ring of truth. In fact, he or anyone else would have been correct if they gave that answer before the invasion. Most of us did not know what we were getting into and just typed out or broadcast whatever fools like Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney whispered to us. To what end? In the same edition of Newsday, the Long Island newspaper, that I read Buckley's quote there was a sad ongoing story about a New England Journal of Medicine report headlined: "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder -- Study: One in Six Iraq Veterans Show Symptoms."
Like the military, the press acquitted itself relatively well on the battlefield itself -- whatever Wolfowitz, who later apologized, really thinks. But like the White House, the press failed before the battles, writing down whatever the president and his men, sourced and anonymous, told them. It is as if a Pavlovian president controlled most of the press into believing this:
"I am the only president you have. I know things you will never know. I don't say these things are true. These things are true because I say them."
But much of it, critical parts, was not true. And the press made few attempts to check. We forgot that we are supposed to be outsiders, the guys at the edge of the crowd shouting that the emperor has no clothes! We failed the body politic. How could the crowd know -- particularly when it was being led by one of the most secretive administrations of modern times?
In the end, though, this war, the separate war on terrorism and the many failures of the press should provide all Americans with a greater lesson: In a great and free country, the more the people know, the safer and better off they are. We, the press, should have fought harder and smarter to get out the real story of the lousy and stupid war we started in Iraq. - http://www.uexpress.com/richa...
"[i]I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.[/i]" - George McGovern
[b]The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Representative, 30th District, California, wrote the following indictment of the Republican-controlled Congress's refusal to do its duty ... [/b]Please contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand an investigation into the criminal activities committed by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]that were perpetrated against the American people to mislead us into an illegal and immoral incursion into Iraq, that has resulted in http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/co... the back-breaking costs to the American taxpayers and the heart-breaking loss of life of so many Americans and Iraqis ...
[u][b]Free Pass from Congress[/b][/u]
In the past four years there has been an abrupt reversal in Congress's approach to oversight.
During the Clinton administration, Congress spent millions of tax dollars probing alleged White House wrongdoing. There was no accusation too minor to explore, no demand on the administration too intrusive to make.
Republicans investigated whether the Clinton administration sold burial plots in Arlington National Cemetery for campaign contributions. They examined whether the White House doctored videotapes of coffees attended by President Clinton. They spent two years investigating who hired Craig Livingstone, the former director of the White House security office. And they looked at whether President Clinton designated coal-rich land in Utah as a national monument because political donors with Indonesian coal interests might benefit from reductions in U.S. coal production.
Committees requested and received communications between Clinton and his close advisers, notes of conversations between Clinton and a foreign head of state, internal e-mails from the office of the vice president, and more than 100 sets of FBI interview summaries. Dozens of top Clinton officials, including several White House chiefs of staff and White House counsels, testified before Congress. The Clinton administration provided to Congress more than a million pages of documents in response to investigative inquiries.
At one point the House even created a select committee to investigate whether the Clinton administration sold national security secrets to China, diverting attention from Osama bin Laden and other real threats facing our nation.
When President Clinton was in office, Congress exercised its oversight powers with no sense of proportionality. But oversight of the Bush administration has been even worse: With few exceptions, Congress has abdicated oversight responsibility altogether.
Republican Rep. Ray LaHood aptly characterized recent congressional oversight of the administration: "Our party controls the levers of government. We're not about to go out and look beneath a bunch of rocks to try to cause heartburn."
Republican leaders in Congress have refused to investigate who exposed covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose identity was leaked after her husband, Joe Wilson, challenged the administration's claims that Iraq sought nuclear weapons. They have held virtually no public hearings on the hundreds of misleading claims made by administration officials about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda.
They have failed to probe allegations that administration officials misled Congress about the costs of the Medicare prescription drug bill. And they have ignored the ethical lapses of administration officials, such as the senior Medicare official who negotiated future employment representing drug companies while drafting the prescription drug bill.
The House is even refusing to investigate the horrific Iraq prison abuses. One Republican chairman argued, "America's reputation has been dealt a serious blow around the world by the actions of a select few. The last thing our nation needs now is for others to enflame this hatred by providing fodder and sound bites for our enemies."
Compare the following: Republicans in the House took more than 140 hours of testimony to investigate whether the Clinton White House misused its holiday card database but less than five hours of testimony regarding how the Bush administration treated Iraqi detainees.
There is a simple but deplorable principle at work. In both the Clinton and Bush eras, oversight has been driven by raw partisanship. Congressional leaders have vacillated between the extremes of abusing their investigative powers and ignoring them, depending on the party affiliation of the president.
Our nation needs a more balanced approach. Congressional oversight is essential to our constitutional system of checks and balances. Excessive oversight distracts and diminishes the executive branch. But absence of oversight invites corruption and mistakes. The Founders correctly perceived that concentration of power leads to abuse of power if unchecked.
The congressional leadership is wrong to think that its current hands-off approach protects President Bush. In fact, it has backfired, causing even more harm than the overzealous pursuit of President Clinton. Lack of accountability has contributed to a series of phenomenal misjudgments that have damaged Bush, imperiled our international standing and saddled our nation with mounting debts.
Asking tough questions is never easy, especially if one party controls both Congress and the White House, but avoiding them is no answer. Evenhanded oversight is not unpatriotic; it's Congress's constitutional obligation.
Cheney "Caught With His Pants Down" (And It Ain't A "Pretty Sight")!!! ...
[b]Cheney is "caught with his pants down" ... (And it sure as hell [i]ain't[/i] a "pretty sight")!!! ...[/b]
What did Cheney know that the 9/11 commission[i] didn't know[/i] during the ramp up to war? [i]Absolutely nothing[/i]. http://wireservice.wired.com/... Looking back, you'd think that Cheney was holding on to ultra-secret information that proved a collaborative link between al Qaeda and Saddam. But there was nothing, says the 10-member 9/11 panel, whose recent reports say that such a link did not exist. "The 9-11 Commission believes it has access to the same information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9-11 attacks," the commission said in a statement.
By Michael Moore: "My First Wild Week with "Fahrenheit 9/11"" ...
[b]Go, [i]Michael Moore[/i], Go!!! ... "[i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i]" is a must-see film for[i] all [/i]Americans ...[/b]
[b][u]By Michael Moore[/u]:[/b]
[b]Friends,[/b]
Where do I begin? This past week has knocked me for a loop. "[i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i]," the #1 movie in the country, the largest grossing documentary ever. My head is spinning. Didn't we just lose our distributor 8 weeks ago? Did Karl Rove really fail to stop this? Is Bush packing?
Each day this week I was given a new piece of information from the press that covers Hollywood, and I barely had time to recover from the last tidbit before the next one smacked me upside the head:
** More people saw "[i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i]" in one weekend than all the people who saw "Bowling for Columbine" in 9 months.
** "[i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i]" broke "Rocky III's" record for the biggest box office opening weekend ever for any film that opened in less than a thousand theaters.
** "[i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i]" beat the opening weekend of "Return of the Jedi."
** "[i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i]" instantly went to #2 on the all- time list for largest per-theater average ever for a film that opened in wide-release.
How can I ever thank all of you who went to see it?
These records are mind-blowing. They have sent shock waves through Hollywood - and, more importantly, through the White House.
But it didn't just stop there. The response to the movie then went into the Twilight Zone. Surfing through the dial I landed on the Fox broadcasting network which was airing the NASCAR race live last Sunday to an audience of millions of Americans -- and suddenly the announcers were talking about how NASCAR champ Dale Earnhardt, Jr. took his crew to see [i]'Fahrenheit 9/11'[/i] the night before. FOX sportscaster Chris Myers delivered Earnhardt's review straight out of his mouth and into the heartland of America: 'He said hey, it'll be a good bonding experience no matter what your political belief. It's a good thing as an American to go see.' Whoa! NASCAR fans - you can't go deeper into George Bush territory than that! White House moving vans - START YOUR ENGINES!
Then there was Roger Friedman from the Fox News Channel giving our film an absolutely glowing review, calling it 'a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.' Richard Goldstein of the Village Voice surmised that Bush is already considered a goner so Rupert Murdoch might be starting to curry favor with the new administration. I don't know about that, but I've never heard a decent word toward me from Fox. So, after I was revived, I wondered if a love note to me from Sean Hannity was next.
How about [u]Letterman's Top Ten List[/u]: [i]'Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11[/i]":
10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing
9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election
8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words
7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported
6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger
5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true
4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe
3. Where the hell was Spider-man?
2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth
1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball
But it was the reactions and reports we received from theaters around the country that really sent me over the edge. One theatre manager after another phoned in to say that the movie was getting standing ovations as the credits rolled - in places like Greensboro, NC and Oklahoma City -- and that they were having a hard time clearing the theater afterwards because people were either too stunned or they wanted to sit and talk to their neighbors about what they had just seen. In Trumbull, CT, one woman got up on her seat after the movie and shouted "Let's go have a meeting!" A man in San Francisco took his shoe off and threw it at the screen when Bush appeared at the end. Ladies' church groups in Tulsa were going to see it, and weeping afterwards.
It was this last group that gave lie to all the yakking pundits who, before the movie opened, declared that only the hard-core "choir" would go to see "[i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i]." They couldn't have been more wrong. Theaters in the Deep South and the Midwest set house records for any film they'd ever shown. Yes, it even sold out in Peoria. And Lubbock, Texas. And Anchorage, Alaska!
Newspaper after newspaper wrote stories in tones of breathless disbelief about people who called themselves 'Independents' and 'Republicans' walking out of the movie theater shaken and in tears, proclaiming that they could not, in good conscience, vote for George W. Bush. The New York Times wrote of a conservative Republican woman in her 20s in Pensacola, Florida who cried through the film, and told the reporter: 'It really makes me question what I feel about the president... it makes me question his motives'
Newsday reported on a self-described 'ardent Bush/Cheney supporter' who went to see the film on Long Island, and his quiet reaction afterwards. He said, "It's really given me pause to think about what's really going on. There was just too much - too much to discount." The man then bought three more tickets for another showing of the film.
The Los Angeles Times found a mother who had 'supported [Bush] fiercely' at a theater in Des Peres, Missouri:
'Emerging from Michael Moore's [i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i],' her eyes wet, Leslie Hanser said she at last understood. My emotions are just....' She trailed off, waving her hands to show confusion. I feel like we haven't seen the whole truth before.'"
All of this had to be the absolute worst news for the White House to wake up to on Monday morning. I guess they were in such a stupor, they "gave" Iraq back to, um, Iraq two days early!
News editors told us that they were being "bombarded" with e-mails and calls from the White House (read: Karl Rove), trying to spin their way out of this mess by attacking it and attacking me. Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett had told the White House press corps that the movie was "outrageously false" -- even though he said he hadn't seen the movie. He later told CNN that "This is a film that doesn't require us to actually view it to know that it's filled with factual inaccuracies." At least they're consistent. They never needed to see a single weapon of mass destruction before sending our kids off to die.
Many news shows were more than eager to buy the White House spin. After all, that is a big part of what [i]"Fahrenheit"[/i] is about -- how the lazy, compliant media bought all the lies from the Bush administration about the need to invade Iraq. They took the Kool-Aid offered by the White House and rarely, if ever, did our media ask the hard questions that needed to be asked before the war started.
Because the movie "outs" the mainstream media for their failures and their complicity with the Bush administration -- who can ever forget their incessant, embarrassing cheerleading as the troops went off to war, as though it was all just a game -- the media was not about to let me get away with anything now resembling a cultural phenomenon. On show after show, they went after me with the kind of viciousness you would have hoped they had had for those who were lying about the necessity for invading a sovereign nation that was no threat to us. I don't blame our well-paid celebrity journalists -- they look like a bunch of ass-kissing dopes in my movie, and I guess I'd be pretty mad at me, too. After all, once the NASCAR fans see "[i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i]," will they ever believe a single thing they see on ABC/NBC/CBS news again?
In the next week or so, I will recount my adventures through the media this past month (I will also be posting a full FAQ on my website soon so that you can have all the necessary backup and evidence from the film when you find yourself in heated debate with your conservative brother-in-law!). For now, please know the following: Every single fact I state in "[i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i]" is the absolute and irrefutable truth. This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time. No fewer than a dozen people, including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one- time fact-checkers from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying. Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them until they are answered.
In closing, let me say that the most heartening response to the film has come from our soldiers and their families. Theaters in military towns across the country reported packed houses. Our troops know the truth. They have seen it first-hand. And many of them could not believe that here was a movie that was TRULY on their side -- the side of bringing them home alive and never sending them into harms way again unless it's the absolute last resort. Please take a moment to read this wonderful story from the daily paper in Fayetteville, NC, where Fort Bragg is located. It broke my heart to read this, the reactions of military families and the comments of an infantryman's wife publicly backing my movie -- and it gave me the resolve to make sure as many Americans as possible see this film in the coming weeks.
Thank you again, all of you, for your support. Together we did something for the history books. My apologies to "Return of the Jedi." We'll make it up by producing "Return of the Texan to Crawford" in November.
[i][b]May the farce be with you, but not for long[/b][/i],
[b]Michael Moore www.michaelmoore.com mmflint@aol.com [/b]
P.S. You can read letters from people around the country recounting their own experiences at the theater, and their reactions to the film by going here.
P.P.S. Also, I'm going to start blogging! Tonight! Come on over and check it out.
[b]Bush is a neo-con con-artist, an ignoramus and a fraud ... [/b]The Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] economic fiasco-[i]cum[/i]-train-w reck truly represents the ruthless and reckless [i]Rape of America [/i]by corporations and the wealthiest plutocrats who [i]take-all[/i], leaving massive record-level deficits for the Middle Class and Working People to[i] "pick-up" [/i](i.e. [i]back-breaking bill for the rest of us to pay-off[/i]) so that these neo-fascist crooks can live gluttonous lavish neo-imperial life-styles ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
[b]ECONOMY: We're 'Stuck'[/b]
Despite a "disappointing" new report showing "far less than expected" new jobs created in June, President Bush claimed the report proved the economy was "vital and growing." As the [i]Baltimore Sun [/i]reported, America's "employment engine sputtered last month, producing half as many new jobs (112,000) as expected." The unemployment rate remained stuck at 5.6 percent - with a "high number of people hav[ing] stopped looking for work" because the job market has become so bleak over the last two years. The report http://www.indystar.com/artic... "raised new misgivings about the strength and endurance of the rebounding jobs market." Although the White House boasts that 1.5 million jobs were added in the last 10 months, columnist Paul Krugman notes, "that figure is barely enough to keep up with a growing working-age population." The [i]New York Times [/i]notes that it is "surprising that President Bush would want to play the game" of sugarcoating the economic numbers: "the economy has still lost 1.1 million more jobs than it has gained on his watch, leaving Mr. Bush at risk of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs." As [i]Economy.com's [/i]chief economist Mark Zandi said, the new jobs report means "President Bush can write off hopes of restoring the 1.8 million private-sector jobs lost during his term." (Read a statement from American Progress http://www.americanprogress.o... on June's job numbers.)
[b]OTHER TROUBLING NUMBERS:[/b] Along with the disappointing June numbers, the Labor Department revised the April and May jobs figures to show 35,000 fewer jobs were created than originally reported. Additionally, in a separate report "that implied a leveling off in the pace of the economy," the Commerce Department said new orders at U.S. factories slipped 0.3 percent in May on top of a 1.1 percent decline in April. Economy.com's Zandi also pointed out that statistics prove "if you're unemployed, you're stuck: The duration of unemployment is about as long as it has ever been. In June [the average] was 19.9 weeks -- it doesn't get much longer than that."
[b]THE MYTH THAT GROWTH IS HELPING WORKERS:[/b] The president claimed the report showed "steady, consistent growth" which means that "citizens will be able to find a job." But as [i]Bloomberg News [/i]reports, record-high corporate profits are not "trickling down to U.S. workers in the form of pay increases." The new Labor Department report showed nominal weekly earnings actually declined by 0.5 percent. Over the last year, wages have only risen by 2.2 percent - a rate "more than offset" by inflation. CATO's William Niskanen, who served as chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, said, "I don't see any substantial increase in average real wages for some time." Stephen Roach, chief economist for Morgan Stanley & Co., said stagnating wages are "far short of the nearly 10% gains that occurred in the first 29 months of the preceding six cyclical recoveries. This translates into a shortfall of $280 billion in 'missing' real personal income." As the [i]NYT[/i] notes, "take-home pay, as a share of the economy, is at its lowest level since the government started keeping track in 1929." Read more about the costs of the upside-down economy http://www.americanprogress.o... .
[b]THE HEALTH CARE SQUEEZE CONTINUES:[/b] The president of Aetna, one of the nation's biggest health insurers, recently told investors, "It's fair to say that a lot of the jobs being created may not be the jobs that come with benefits." In other words, workers are feeling squeezed not only by stagnant wages, but also by skyrocketing health care costs. In its two-part series on the health care challenges facing America, the Toledo Blade noted for the average American family with the median household income of $42,409, the Bush administration's refusal to deal with health care "has meant steep increases in what [families] and their employers have paid for health insurance. Last year, the average premium for a family of four was $9,086, up from $6,348 in 2000." Even when companies do offer health insurance, new studies show that many employees can't accept it because premiums are too high. Meanwhile, more than 43 million Americans have no health insurance at all. See American Progress's analysis http://www.americanprogress.o... of the White House's inadequate response to the health care crisis.
[b]Surprise!!! ... Surprise!!! ... Surprise!!! ... [i]Uh-huh, yeah, right [/i]...[/b]
Bush appointee to the newly created "Election Assistance Commission" http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... is concerned that there are no guidelines for canceling [i]OR [/i]rescheduling elections in the event of a terrorist attack. (Guess what'll happen folks if it looks like Kerry/Edwards are [i]way-ahead [/i]of Bush/Cheney? What [i]deals[/i] have the corrupt neo-con thugs & neo-fascist goons in the traitorous Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]already made with over 400 Al Qaeda cells embedded in the U.S.A.?[i] Hmmm [/i]...)
Come again? [i]Or[/i] rescheduling? That ought to put fear into the hearts of, well, those who value Democracy.
The chairman of the commission, DeForest B. Soaries, has written to Condi and Tom Ridge but neither has yet to respond.
As it happens this scenario is perfectly illustrative of the Bush administration whose relentless, criminal maneuvering is topped only by its staggering incompetence.
*** Powerful little video about that wonderful Bush sense of humor http://www.musicforamerica.or... the Washington press corps get such a kick out of.
Where is Hypocritical Bush on Qatar's Qaeda??? ...
[b]Apparently the Mad King George was prepared to [i]go-after[/i] Iraq's Saddam Hussein for all sorts of bizarre "reasons" that proved to be heinous lies, deceptiosn & falsehoods (i.e. WMDs that proved[i] phony [/i]... links between Al Qaeda & Iraq that [i]also[/i] proved [i]phony[/i] ... implied involvement in 9/11 that proved[i] phony too [/i]... [i]etc. etc. etc[/i].), and yet when Saudi Arabia and/or Qatar [i]actually are proved [/i]to have real linkages with Al Qaeda, they get a [url=]"pass"[/url] ... [i]Hmmm [/i]... [/b]No wonder the entire world community sees the corrupt Bush regime for what they truly are:-- liars, neo-fascist hypocrites, neo-con thugs and War Criminals ...
So Qatar, the Marx Brothers-like thumb-shaped nation in the Persian Gulf, joins the list of nations protecting Al Qaeda. [i]Ooopps[/i], that would be the Qatar that also hosts the local headquarters of the U.S. Central Command (Centcom). (Actually, I feel bad comparing Qatar to Fredonia, the fictional Marxist state, since Groucho’s regime was at least a republic. Qatar is an oil monarchy.)
I don’t know much about the war in Chechnya. But the Qatar court’s action yesterday sets a new low in the Double Standard Sweepstakes.
[b]The facts:[/b] Some Russian spies killed a Chechen separatist leader in Qatar. That leader, Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev (try saying that three times fast), was considered to be an Al Qaeda partisan by both the United States and the United Nations, reports today’s [i]New York Times[/i] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... . Yesterday a Qatar court convicted the Russians of murder for the killing of Yandarbiyev.
Now, presumably, the guy lived within a stone’s throw of Centcom HQ, since the entire nation of Qatar is only a stone’s throw across. [i]Hmmm[/i], couldn’t our War President take a few minutes out of his busy schedule to have ordered Centcom to do something about an Al Qaeda dude who’d set up his HQ near our HQ? After all, the War President is fighting an all out War On Terrorism Against All Enemies, and here was one of them camping out in plain view. Russia had repeatedly requested the extradition of the guy, but Qatar said no, no, no. Presumably, that was okay with Washington, since Washington pretty much calls the shots in Qatar.
Worse, not long ago the CIA fired rockets into a vehicle in nearby Yemen, obliterating it and the alleged terrorist suspects riding in it—an Israeli-style targeting killing that didn’t raise a lot of protest noise. I didn’t see Yemen’s government trying to track down the killers—yet here is Qatar, our ally, nobly bringing Russian spies to justice for taking out another Al Qaeda operative. (The lawyers for the accused Russians, by the way, says Qatar’s crack security forces tortured the Russians, who—among other not-niceties—were bitten by dogs, further proof, perhaps, that Qatar is a U.S. ally.)
[b]So my question is:[/b] Why is it okay for the War President of the United States to order assassinations of Al Qaeda suspects, but it’s not okay for the president of Russia to do the same? It’s a[i] Pandora’s Box [/i]opened by the Bush’s administration global crusade. - [i]TomPaine.com[/i]
"[i]Courage is grace under pressure[/i]." - Ernest Hemingway
[b]One sign of a person's[i] true character [/i]is how they behave when [i]under pressure [/i]... [/b]Most people can maintain their cool and grace when everything is going well and their problems are few ... However, when the proverbial[i] 'chips-are-down'[/i], the man (or woman) of courage will maintain their grace (i.e. their inner strength),[i] whereas [/i]the man (or woman) who is a shallow, superficial and mean-spirited "empty-suit" will [i]"lose it" (i.e. panic) [/i]and resort to dirty, barbaric & ugly tactics ... That is what we now see with the panicky Bush and obscene Cheney: "[i]There is a very sound reason why so many people believe George Bush to be a simplistic, ill-informed, shallow little man: that is because he is a simplistic, ill-informed, shallow little man[/i]." (Refer to "[u][i]Mr. President, please seek help[/i][/u]" on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... )
The American people are starting to see that the traitorous Bushies and their vile henchmens' neo-orwellian rhetoric and insanely mendacious attacks against[i] anyone and everyone who refuses to bow-down before them [/i]is dangerously tyrannical and abhorrent to our democracy.
[b]Consider the following ...[/b]
The vice president upbraids a senator on the floor of the chamber for what he calls personal attacks, then ends the conversation with a transitive verb straight from the barnyard.
A chief architect of the Iraq war refers to journalists covering the conflict as cowardly rumor-mongers during a congressional hearing, and is forced to apologize the following day.
The president himself finds it necessary to be questioned by a special prosecutor probing the outing of a covert CIA operative by someone in the administration bent on political retaliation.
The White House, faced with a prisoner abuse scandal that won't go away, is forced into the ultimate embarrassment of a Clinton-style document dump - only to discover that the new material only fuels the controversy.
Washington-watchers have seen these tropisms before, and they are not symptoms of health. They are the hallmarks of an administration under increasing pressure, and starting to stagger and stumble under the accumulated weight.
Indeed, the best news for President George W. Bush in the recent flood of poll numbers is the fact that he is still essentially even with Democratic opponent John Kerry despite all the recent setbacks and missteps.
But Bush's good news begins and ends there. A new [i]CBS-New York Times [/i]poll puts his approval rating at 42 percent, the lowest of his presidency.
Then there is what might be called the poll of the box office. Movie-goers are lining up to watch "[i]Fahrenheit 911[/i]," which portrays the president as clueless, duplicitous and corrupt.
Most worrisome for Bush is the finding in the latest [i]Gallup[/i] poll that for the first time a majority of Americans say it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq. It took three years for a majority to turn against the war in Vietnam - but once that happened, [i]Gallup[/i] notes, support for the war never regained 50 percent.
Even the relatively good news from Iraq has not come unalloyed. The United States turned over formal sovereignty to an interim government two days early; but the reason for the early handoff, to forestall insurgent attacks, and the setting, in a heavily fortified compound, hardly inspires confidence.
As events in Iraq and elsewhere have driven its support down, an administration that once prided itself on discipline and sure-footedness has begun to appear wobbly and off-balance. Like a metal structure subjected to increasing stress over time, the damage is gradual rather than catastrophic - but difficult to reverse.
One error that stands out as especially costly is the decision last year to blame the CIA for the president's inaccurate claim that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa. Picking a fight with the agency is never a good idea given its capacity for self-protective retaliation, and the administration has paid a stiff price. The latest installment came last month when the CIA cleared a new book by a senior official calling the Iraq war a blunder.
The handling of the prisoner abuse mess has been equally ham-handed. The old rule of get the bad news out early, get it over with quickly and put your own spin on it was ignored for weeks. Finally, last week, the White House swallowed its pride and resorted to a favorite Clinton tactic: releasing hundreds of pages of documents so late in the day that reporters had time for only a limited look before deadline.
If the document dump was an embarrassing reminder of an administration the current White House loves to hate, Bush's interview with special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald must have been as well. Bill Clinton spent most of his presidency dogged by special prosecutors. Bush ended every rally in 2000 by vowing to restore "the honor and dignity" of the presidency. For Bush to face a new incarnation of this presidential nemesis could not have been pleasant.
If the warning signals of a foundering administration are visible, the outcome of the voyage is far from certain. Other presidents have stumbled badly amid adversity only to right themselves - think Clinton winning easy re-election in 1996 just two years after crushing defeats in Congress and at the polls.
But once a perception of fecklessness settles in around an administration, it is difficult to reverse - especially in the fevered climate of a campaign. It is not clear that such a turning point has been reached. But the extraordinary polarization of the electorate gives Bush little margin for error, and recent events do not project an image of an administration confidently marching toward success. - http://www.commondreams.org/h...
