Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
2003 August
2003 July
My Links
Contact Congress
Casualties in Iraq
National Debt Clock
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| ... *** REVERSE ROBIN HOOD *** ... |
| 03.31.04 (5:45 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" need a [i]real[/i] Robin Hood ... Instead we've been saddled with rapacious Reverse Robin Hood(s) named Bush-[i]N[/i]-Cheney ([i]the siamese twins[/i]) who steal, plunder and loot American families and working people [i]struggling to make ends meet[/i], while the gluttonous corporations, criminal robber-barons, filthy rich plutocrats and wealthy oligarchs are getting [i]richer and richer and richer [/i]on an obscenely obese scale by wantonly exploiting, swindling and impoverishing their fellow citizens ...[/b]
Why? ... Because the traitorous Bush regime has[i] handed over our foreign and domestic policies [/i]to neo-fascist corporations and neo-imperial oligarchs & plutocrats who [i]criminally lust[/i] to turn us into a [i]neo-con 3rd world [/i]military [i]junta[/i] and [i]neo-fascist slave state [/i]... [b]Look at the facts[/b]:
... Dubya has skyrocketed the largest [i]Gap Between the Haves-and-the-Have-Nots [/i]unseen in over 75 years ...
... Dubya has recklessly and irresponsibly spent us into the [i]largest deficits in our nation's history [/i]creating an unconscionable[i] debt burden [/i]that will wreck our economy ...
... Dubya has [i]lost over 3.3 million jobs [/i]with an estimated [i]9-15 million citizens seeking-and-unable [/i]to find[i] work [/i]... (Contrast Dubya's appalling and callous malfeasance with Clinton's economic policies that created over 22 million jobs) ...
... Dubya has caused [i]poverty[/i] and[i] misery [/i]in the U.S.A. to dramatically increase with over 4 million of our fellow human beings [i]homeless[/i] and over 25 million families living below an outdated 1960s [i]poverty-line [/i](the situation is far more dire than reported by the census figures) ...
... Dubya has ignored the plight of over 45 million of our citizens without[i] health care coverage[/i]-- and over 18,000 Americans [i]die each year [/i]because they can't get [i]health care [/i]if they fall ill ...
... Dubya has [i]ruthlessly massacred our people and innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq[/i], based upon [i]impeachable[/i] lies, deceptions and falsehoods-- creating a potential humanitarian crisis in the Middle East and causing increased violence, death and misery around the world ...
The horrific consequences of the Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] neo-con, neo-fascist treason is the increasingly dire and desperate circumstances [i]driving more of our citizens into penury, neo-slavery and desperate poverty [/i]... while the blood-thirsty Bushies and their hyper-rich ghoulish corporate cronies drink the profits of[i] the blood, sweat, and tears-of-misery [/i]of our weakest and most vulnerable citizens ... Sitting back and doing nothing in the face of such ugly and criminal injustice, economic rape and wanton exploitation is unconscionable and unthinkable ... [i]Where are you Robin Hood??? ... Robin Hood is "We the People"!!! ... It is time to take our nation back!!!! [/i]...
[u][b]Reverse Robin Hood[/b][/u]
Congressional leaders are attempting to finish work on the 2005 budget this week, though they still face significant hurdles. The 2005 budget in its current form diverts money for many crucial programs into tax cuts for the wealthy, which some conservatives are attempting to protect. According to new analysis by the [i]Center on Budget and Policy Priorities[/i], the 2005 budget contains myriad provisions that will have a detrimental effect on many Americans http://www.cbpp.org/3-4-04bud... : the budget "would likely lead to increases in the number of people without health insurance by requiring cuts in Medicaid. It also would raise taxes and reduce benefits for low-income workers by cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit." In fact, funding cuts of about $117 billion over five years "would affect nearly all domestic program areas, including education, veterans, environmental, and housing programs, among others."
[u][b]WINDFALL FOR SOME[/b][/u]: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has some good news. It's not for average Americans, however. [u][i]It's for the rich[/i][/u]. "At the same time that the resolution would cut domestic programs and raise taxes on some low-income workers, it would provide tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, by accelerating repeal of the estate tax and making permanent those tax cuts — such as estate tax repeal, the capital gains and dividend rate cuts, and the reductions in marginal tax rates — that provide huge benefits to the families with the highest incomes."
[b][u]"DIGGING THE HOLE DEEPER"[/u][/b]: If discretionary spending is slashed to the bone, it still has little effect on the burgeoning deficit as the hole gets deeper and deeper. The CBPP writes, even by "reducing funding for domestic discretionary programs, calling for cuts in Medicaid and the EITC, and necessitating further cuts to cover costs related to welfare-reform reauthorization, the Senate Budget Committee plan would increase the deficit in each of the next five years. The plan would cause deficits to be $178 billion higher over the next five years than they would otherwise be."
[u][b]TAX CHEATS REJOICE![/b][/u]: If you're a tax cheat, there's good news for you in the President's budget. Even though the number of taxpayers is constantly growing, the IRS is set to have fewer agents to look into returns next year than in 2002. For the fourth year in a row, President Bush has underfunded the IRS while calling for staff increases. "As a result,'' said a new report by the Oversight Board, "the administration's proposed [staff] increase" for next year "will erode before new employees can be hired, more taxpayer phone calls answered or new audits of possible tax cheats can be conducted." An average of 1,450 tax-law enforcement jobs have been proposed but not created because of "unrealistic budget proposals" each year.
[u][b]PEACE CORPS SHORT SHRIFT[/b][/u]: President Bush's budget underfunds the Peace Corps. At a time when the U.S. is working to improve its global image, paltry funding allocated for next year threatens to slow the growth of the Corps. After 9/11, interest in the Peace Corps sparked among Americans and applications grew to levels not seen since the 1970s. And the need is definitely there; the agency began projects in four new countries last year and has a waiting list of 20 nations seeking new projects. However, the President hasn't followed through on the money, and the agency is not on track "to reach 14,000 volunteers within the five-year period Bush proposed in his 2002 State of the Union address."
[u][b]THE COMPROMISE[/b][/u]: The Senate previously passed a progressive-led provision in its version of the budget that would require Congress to actually pay for any tax cuts. The measure passed against the wishes of Senate leaders; House leaders refused to have such a provision included in their bill, instead creating a separate bill that would protect tax cuts. In the Senate, Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) support the tax cut restrictions, saying "they will oppose the budget on final passage if they are watered down." However, two other senators who supported the tax restrictions, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, are less sure. CongressDaily reports Snowe yesterday "signaled Monday her willingness to compromise over pay/go enforcement rules on the FY05 budget resolution conference report." Collins is reportedly undecided.
[b]Source:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| Can't Bushy-boy Testify Without Someone Holding His Hand??? |
| 03.31.04 (1:37 pm) [edit] |
[b]It is almost too laughable for words ([i]if instead, it was not so pathetic[/i]) ... [/b]Like watching a[i] poorly crafted parody from a 3rd rate comedy flick [/i]in which the [i]dumb-hapless-boob-for- prez says to his vicious-mafia-style-veep[ /i]: "You'll come with me, [i]won't you [/i]Dick? I just couldn't face them, all by my lonesome. Please, oh please don't leave me [i] alone[/i] with them." ...[i] Jeez [/i]... [b]The [i]ugly truth [/i]is that this [i]is the reality [/i]of the corrupt Bush White House ...[/b]
In their neo-orwellian damage control to contain their neo-con criminal activities that warrant[i] impeachment [/i]from office, the corrupt Bush regime has agreed to let the [i]overrated NSA liar [/i]Condi Rice testify under oath in public-- but only on condition that she cannot be re-called & no one else from the White House can be questioned ... ([i]Ooopppsss, so much for their "inviolate stand on principle" ... which was a sham from the beginning, much like their phony WMD scam[/i]) ... And, so much for[i] honestly resolving [/i]any discrepancies that may arise from conflicting testimonies given to the 9/11 Commission Toadies-- in this heinous [i]Whitewash [/i]...
But the funny ([i]or not so funny, really[/i]) conditions set by the neo-imperial Bushies[i] are that [/i]the neo-fascist Bush-and-Cheney-[i]duo[/i ] will be [i]tied together like siamese twins [/i]and that [i]they will not testify under oath[/i]... because Bushy-boy [i]is unable to testify alone -- doesn't want to testify under oath -- and subsequently be charged with perjury and doesn't want to go to hell (I presume) [/i]...
Why won't Bushy-boy testify [i]alone[/i]??? ...
... Is it that Bushy-boy is [i]too stupid to remember his lines [/i]and keep their neo-fascist lies straight?
... Is it that Bushy-boy [i]might accidentally smirk-out [/i]the truth and incriminate himself & his corrupt cabal of neo-con thugs & goons?
Or, is it that Bushy-boy [i]needs someone with him because he is unable to face [/i]the cold, hard scrutiny of questions[i] by himself[/i], having always been protected by others?
Also, don't forget that [i]no [/i]tape, transcription or recording will be made of Dubya-and-Cheney[i]-duo's [/i]testimony-- so that if they are challenged later, they can deny it ... This is outrageous.
The[i] ne'er-do-well-frat-boy-cu m-spoiled-AWOL-deserter [/i]has [i][u]never[/u][/i] had to face the consequences of his disastrously reckless and irresponsible decisions [i]throughout his failed life[/i], while destroying the lives of others, so that [i]he can criminally swagger and swan off to the next "party"[/i] ...
"We the People" surely deserve better than this despicable [i]imbecilic creep-cum-coward [/i]of a president and his [i]neo-fascist gang [/i]of liars, thieves, felons and war criminals-cum-corporate-t oadies.
[b]Source:[/b]
"Rice to testify in public, under oath - Bush, Cheney to meet [jointly] in private with full 9/11 commission" on http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO...
|
|
|
| |
| Who Is Behind Dubya's Fundraising & What They Expect In Return ... |
| 03.31.04 (11:19 am) [edit] |
[b]Our Founding Fathers knew that in order for "We the People" to keep hold of our rights and freedoms under the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights that our people must be vigilent, well-informed and responsible citizens.[/b]
Our nation was established to promote the General Welfare of All Citizens, and was not meant to be hijacked by corporations, corporate-robber-barons and their sluttish puppets put in office in order to corrupt our system into becoming a neo-slave state protected by a neo-nazi military[i] junta [/i]devised to service neo-con warmongers for war-profits and neo-fascist corporate-take-all pimps ... Economic poverty is the most pernicious form of enslavement known to mankind ... and corporate rule is a form of fascist, dictatorial government that feeds off the misery and slavery of working people, the vulnerable and those too weak to fight back ... Our government must be accountable to "We the People" and must protect our interests and not pander to the gluttonous rape of our nation by the neo-imperial corporations, plutocrats and oligarchs, otherwise we return to the bad, mad old days of miserable feudalism ...
We live in very dangerous times and must fight against this disastrous trend towards a neo-fascist Global Corporate Empire ...[i] Follow the Money [/i]and see who really gains/profits from the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]domination of our country ... It is [i]not[/i] the American Middle-Class or American Workers who are helped or who benefit from this mendacious and traitorous tyrannical Bush regime ... Refer to "[i][b]Bought and Paid For[/b][/i]" by[i] Craig Aaron[/i], In These Times, on http://www.inthesetimes.com/c... :
[u][b]Who’s behind the president’s fundraising machine—and what they expect in return[/b][/u]
[b]It’s official:[/b] [i]President Bush’s re-election campaign is underway[/i].
For those who haven’t been paying attention—and Bush, Cheney and their corporate cronies certainly hope you haven’t—the president officially launched his campaign at a March 20 “kickoff” rally in Orlando. “I’m looking forward to this campaign ahead,” Bush told the assembled party faithful between chants of “Four more years!” and “USA! USA!” “With you at my side, there is no doubt in my mind we’re headed to a victory.”
Bush may claim the “political season” is just beginning, but he has spent the past nine months crisscrossing the country on a dash for cash, personally headlining 45 million-dollar fundraising events on the way to amassing an unprecedented $170 million campaign war chest. Awestruck by the sheer amount of cash on hand, the media sometimes mistake Bush’s piles of money for popularity. Venality is more like it. Bush has turned the election into an auction, an invitation-only opportunity for Corporate America to prove its loyalty to the president.
The engine in Bush’s money machine has been an elite regiment of 455 “Rangers” and “Pioneers,” the honorary titles bestowed on fundraisers who can collect at least $200,000 or $100,000, respectively. Legally, each of these individuals is limited to a maximum donation of $2,000. But the Bush campaign has perfected a sophisticated system of bundling—by which corporate executives, lobbyists or other insiders pool a large number of contributions to maximize their political influence. The Rangers and Pioneers have collected at least $64.2 million so far.
In return, these worthies have received access to the administration, relaxed regulations, legislative favors, targeted tax breaks, lucrative federal contracts, and plum appointments at home and abroad. But some hold more of a stake in Bush’s re-election than others: The 10 industries profiled on the following pages have been among the most generous supporters of the president—and they stand to reap the greatest rewards if Dubya prevails in November.
[b]Bullish on Bush[/b]
Nearly one in five Rangers and Pioneers comes from the financial sector. This group of 85 bankers, stockbrokers and wealthy private investors—which has bundled at least $12.5 million for the 2004 Bush campaign—includes 20 top Wall Street executives. Wall Street firms account for six of the top 10 companies whose employees have donated the most to Bush this cycle.
Bush’s economic policies—particularly the sweeping dividend, capital gains and income tax cuts—have lined Wall Street’s pockets. Now the industry is leading the drive to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, endorsing administration plans to overhaul the retirement system and salivating over the prospect of Social Security privatization.
These same firms have been at the center of almost every major corporate scandal from Enron to Worldcom to Martha Stewart. Yet Wall Street is banking on Bush to muzzle watchdogs like New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and fend off further regulation of mutual funds, derivatives trading and arcane, highly profitable tax-avoidance schemes. The[i] Wall Street Journal [/i]reported that hedge fund consultant Lee Hennessee sent out invitations to a March 11 Bush fundraiser with this message: “The current administration is favorable to the hedge fund industry, and we need to do all we can to keep them in office.”
[b]Under the Influence[/b]
Fundraising for Bush is a win-win situation for Washington lobbyists. Achieving Ranger or Pioneer status ensures insider access to the administration, which these influence-peddlers can then turn around and market to their clients. The client lists of major Bush backers read like a corporate scandal sheet—from Boeing and Wal-Mart to Tyco and the tobacco companies.
The 55 Rangers and Pioneers registered as federal lobbyists have bundled at least $6.7 million in contributions for Bush this cycle. These same lobbyists met repeatedly with Dick Cheney’s secret energy task force to do the bidding of energy interests, took millions from drug companies to help push through the Medicare bill and led the fight for Bush’s tax cuts on behalf of the business community.
While the Bush campaign has produced ads attacking Senator John Kerry for being beholden to “special interests,” the president has accepted more in direct contributions from lobbyists in 2003 than Kerry did in the past 15 years. “The issue is hypocrisy in saying you’re going to take on the special interests, not who took the most special interest money,” Bush media strategist Mark McKinnon told the[i] Washington Post[/i]. “You don’t hear the president in the Oval Office railing against the special interests.”
[b]Shocking Developers[/b]
Real estate developers, who have donated at least $32.2 million to Bush campaign efforts since 1999, have helped shape the White House’s anti-environment agenda. Working closely with its developer friends and donors, the Bush administration repeatedly has attempted to weaken the protection of wetlands. And under Bush, the Endangered Species Act—long seen as a major obstacle by developers—is threatened with extinction.
Nowhere is the Bush administration’s favortism for developers more apparent than in Florida, home to a third of the more than three dozen Rangers and Pioneers from the real estate industry. To oversee the fragile western Everglades, President Bush appointed an EPA regional administrator who has made it nearly impossible to deny permits for developers wishing to build there. EPA biologist Bruce Boler quit after the agency endorsed a developer-financed study that concluded wetlands discharge more pollution than they absorb.
One of the developers who helped finance the study—which implied water quality could be improved by replacing wetlands with golf courses and mansions—is Al Hoffman, a Ranger and finance chairman of the Republican National Committee. Hoffman has described regulators as radicals “who think the world will end if they can’t protect that little tree.”
[b]Power Play[/b]
In May 1999, Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, sent a letter to his colleagues in the electric utility industry soliciting support for Bush’s nascent presidential campaign. Kuhn exhorted them to include his campaign tracking number on their checks to “ensure that our industry is credited.”
The industry must have earned extra credit for the $5.2 million it contributed to Bush in the 2000 election. Electric utility officials and their high-priced lobbyists served on the Bush transition team and met behind closed doors numerous times with Cheney’s secret energy task force. “Just because somebody makes a campaign contribution,” Cheney told the Associated Press, “doesn’t mean they should be denied the opportunity to express their view to government officials.”
Recommendations by the Cheney task force led to the undoing of a key clean air rule that required electric utilities to install modern anti-pollution equipment at old, coal-fired plants when they made major upgrades that significantly increased emissions. The rule change will save the utility companies billions. Bringing the plants into compliance would have reduced emissions by nearly 7 million tons annually, cutting air pollution from U.S. power plants in half.
Next on Bush’s agenda was the Clear Skies initiative, which would allow the release of far more sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and airborne mercury than existing regulations—delaying by as much as a decade cuts currently required under the Clean Air Act. Kuhn has called Clear Skies “an exciting opportunity for our industry.”
The biggest prize of all for the electric utility industry may be the proposed repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which would lead to widespread deregulation and consolidation of electric utilities. Repealing PUCHA would put an estimated $1 trillion in regulated electric power generation, transmission and distribution facilities up for sale to the highest bidder. This would allow big power companies and Bush backers like Southern Co. and Cinergy to merge and expand, encouraging further Enron-style debacles.
[b]Oil Slicksters[/b]
The Bush administration’s handouts to the oil and gas industries have gone beyond a wildcatter’s wildest dreams. Oil and gas companies, which gave $13.4 million to Bush campaign efforts in 2000, were welcomed in Washington with open arms. At least a dozen industry officials were named to the Bush transition team. Not surprisingly, the administration’s energy policy has focused on expanding the supply of fossil fuels—largely by opening up public lands to exploration—rather than reducing demand through efficiency and alternative energy sources.
The centerpiece of the administration’s strategy is drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even though this precious ecosystem likely contains only enough oil to satisfy six months of U.S. demand. The Senate rejected this scheme again last year, but the administration continues to press forward. Bush’s 2005 budget includes $2.4 billion in projected revenues from oil lease sales in ANWR in 2006.
In 2000, the oil and gas industry produced 41 Pioneers. But in the current cycle just a dozen industry rainmakers are on the list. They include several longtime Bush supporters from Texas such as billionaire Lee Bass and Nancy Kinder (Ken Lay’s former secretary, whose husband Richard, was an ex-president of Enron). The oil goliaths such as ConocoPhillips and Exxon may be holding back until passage of the energy bill, which contains billions in industry benefits. Or perhaps these companies are keeping a lower political profile, hoping to avoid a Halliburton-like backlash.
[b]King Coal[/b]
“You did everything you could to elect a Republican president,” William Raney, director of the West Virginia Coal Association told a group of industry executives in May 2001, after the Bush administration reneged on its pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and abandoned the Kyoto global warming treaty. “You are already seeing in his actions the payback, if you will, his gratitude for what we did.”
The paybacks just kept coming. In 2002, the EPA adopted an environmentally devastating rule promoting mountaintop removal coal mining, which would allow companies to bury hundreds of miles of streams under piles of rubble. A federal judge found that the rule change was “designed simply of the benefit of the mining industry.” Bush Pioneer James H. “Buck” Harless sits on the board of Massey Energy, one of the biggest practitioners of mountaintop removal mining.
An even bigger gift to the mining industry would be passage of the energy bill. Even the “slimmed down” version of the bill crafted to speed its passage still contains $7.4 billion in subsidies and tax breaks for the mining industry. Jack Gerard, head of the National Mining Association and another Bush Pioneer, told the West Virginia Coal Symposium in January that “the Energy Policy Act may well be the best opportunity the mining industry will have in our lifetimes.”
[b]Prescription for Profits[/b]
Pharmaceutical companies and their executives have spent half a billion dollars since 1999 on lobbying, campaign contributions and industry front groups in an all-out effort to prevent a Medicare prescription drug benefit that would give government the power to negotiate lower prices. Decrying “price controls” and clamoring for a “market-based” solution, the nation’s drug-makers—already the most profitable industry in the country—have made it clear they won’t tolerate any threat to their bottom line.
The Medicare bill passed by Congress and signed by Bush last fall is tailor-made to their interests. Projected to cost taxpayers at least $530 billion over 10 years, the bill greatly expands the customer base for the pharmaceutical giants but ensures that the prescription drug benefit will be administered by private companies. In fact, the bill expressly prohibits the government from negotiating lower prices.
The drug industry also has aggressively opposed the “re-importation” of less expensively priced drugs from Canada. Pfizer, whose CEO Hank McKinnell is a Ranger, has threatened to blacklist any Canadian pharmacy that sells drugs to Americans. The Bush administration has marched in lockstep with the drug-makers, insisting drugs from Canada pose a risk to public safety. Yet when pressed by Congress to substantiate these claims, one top FDA official admitted, “We have very little evidence.”
The real danger, it seems, is to drug company profit margins.
[b]Bad for Your Healthcare[/b]
Executives in managed care, hospitals and nursing homes also stand to profit from the massive Medicare package, which promises them additional billions. For example, managed-care companies like UnitedHealth—which is headed by Pioneer William McGuire—will take in at least an extra $14.2 billion over 10 years in payments designed to entice them to offer drug coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And Medicare revenues for managed-care companies are expected to increase six-fold from $37 billion in 2003 to $226 billion by 2010.
Meanwhile, the president is pushing federal medical malpractice legislation, which would insulate healthcare providers from the costs of their own negligence by limiting court awards to patients, especially those who have been catastrophically injured. Charles “Chip” Kahn III, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, told the [i]National Journal[/i]: “Medical-malpractice reform is a mountaintop issue for our members. That’s why people were motivated and why we were successful” at soliciting enough campaign contributions to become a Pioneer.
Bush’s push for medical malpractice legislation also earns him points with doctors’ groups and nursing homes. Consider the potential benefits to Ranger W. Andrew Adams, president of the nursing home chain National Healthcare Corp. When it comes to negligence and liability, Adams has obvious concerns: As of June 2003, his company faced at least 87 personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits—including 46 suits in Florida alone, where the company was forced to close up shop after its insurer canceled its liability policy. More lawsuits may be on the way: A fire in September killed 14 residents in a company facility in Nashville that had not been equipped with sprinklers.
[b]Unfairness Inc.[/b]
Tort reform also is a top priority of the insurance industry, which has given more than $12 million to Bush’s federal campaigns. The Class Action Fairness Act—a Bush-backed bill now held up in the Senate—would help insurance companies and their corporate clients by pushing more cases from state to federal courts, where judges are far more likely to avoid certifying class action lawsuits.
Of the nine insurance companies with Bush Pioneers, at least seven have faced potential class-action suits for illegally denying claims for necessary medical treatments, using misleading sales practices, deceiving shareholders, retaliating against internal whistleblowers, and even failing to pay benefits on policies held by Holocaust victims.
None of this fazes Bush, who has praised the industry for working “long and hard” on the tort reform issue. As one official boasted to an industry trade magazine, “Any time the president of the United States uses his bully pulpit to remind the American people that an out-of-control legal system hurts consumers—that is a good day.”
[b]Media Monopolies[/b]
On February 2, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) swung into action, promising a “thorough and swift” investigation of a burgeoning national media calamity: Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl striptease.
For his part, President Bush claimed he dozed off during the second quarter and missed all the excitement. Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” may have garnered all the headlines, but the real outrage at the FCC under Bush has been the nonstop deregulation and unfettered consolidation of the companies controlling the airwaves. On these issues, the president hoped to catch the public napping.
Yet the FCC decision to allow one company to own television stations reaching up to 45 percent of the U.S. viewing public was second only to the Iraq war in the number of complaints received on Capitol Hill last year. Eventually, the White House signed off on a “compromise” ownership cap of 39 percent—just enough to ensure that neither News Corp. nor Viacom would have to sell any stations.
But returning Bush to office—and thus preserving the 3-to-2 Republican majority at the FCC—is crucial for the next round of media mega-mergers to win approval. After all, that narrow 3-to-2 margin made possible the controversial $3 billion merger of Univision and Hispanic Broadcasting. Univision Chairman and CEO Jerry Perenchio, a Pioneer, profited handsomely from the deal, which combined his television network with the country’s largest Spanish-language radio network.
But the Univision merger was small potatoes compared to Comcast’s plans for media domination. On February 11, the country’s largest provider of cable TV and broadband Internet services made an unsolicited offer to buy Walt Disney for $47.8 billion. If the deal goes through, it would create the largest media company in the world. Comcast Cable President Stephen Burke already has raised $200,000 for Bush’s re-election.
[i][b]Craig Aaron writes a monthly column from Washington, where he is an investigative reporter for Public Citizen's Congress Watch and www.WhiteHouseForSale.org He is the former managing editor of In These Times and the editor of Appeal to Reason: 25 Years In These Times (Seven Stories Press). Now a senior editor of the magazine, his reporting, commentary and criticism also have appeared in The Progressive, TomPaine.com, The Memphis Flyer and other publications[/b][/i]. - http://www.inthesetimes.com/c...
[i][b]Refer to the [i]WhiteHouseForSale[/i] website: [/b][/i] http://www.WhiteHouseForSale....
|
|
|
| |
| Dubya's Abortions: Over 590 U.S. Soldiers & Over 15,000 Innocent Iraqi Civilians!!! |
| 03.30.04 (2:28 pm) [edit] |
[b]Where are the hypocritical self-righteous so-called "Right-to-Life [[i]sic[/i]]" crowd when it comes to Dubya's abortion of over 590 U.S. Soldiers & over 15,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, in his insane neo-con war-mongering in Iraq for neo-fascist war-profiteering, and based upon [i]treasonable lies, deceptions and falsehoods[/i]??? ...[/b]
"We the People" should be getting pretty tired by now of [i]the tinny-sounding cliches' and neo-orwellian propaganda [/i]from those whom [i]on-the-one-hand claim to "love life [[i]uh-huh ... jeez[/i]]" so much [/i]that they oppose abortion (... [i]without even comprehending the circumstances surrounding a woman's right to choose [/i]...) ... and yet, [i]on-the-other-hand[/i], these same neo-con, neo-fascist hypocrites in the corrupt Bush regime [i]treat life-post-womb [/i]like cannon-fodder, waste and trash to be thrust down the garbage disposal of unnecessary illegal and immoral war ... [b]Dubya commits abortions every day based upon heinous greed and blood-thirsty fabrications-- [i]not out of self-defense [/i]...[/b]
Consider also "[i][b]The [hypocritical] 'war president' waged a war of lies[/b][/i]" by Eric Margolis, Toronto Sun, on http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand... :
A cascade of embarrassing revelations and accusations are demolishing George W. Bush's slickly packaged, made-for-TV persona as a "war president" and the scourge of Islamic terrorists.
Former president Jimmy Carter accused Bush and British PM Tony Blair of waging a war of "lies" against Iraq.
Poland's president said he was "deceived" by Bush into sending troops to Iraq. Spain's new prime minister denounced Bush's Iraq adventure as a "fiasco" and a "war based on lies."
A group of leading American business executives ran a full-page ad in The New York Times entitled "Have you noticed what's happened to chief executives who lie?" with a picture of an executive being led away in handcuffs. The ad described the Iraq invasion as a "state-sponsored deception (that) already dwarfs the damage done by the worst corporate scandals," citing 566 American dead and a cost of $125 billion US (not to mention 20,000 Iraqi deaths).
The underlying message was stark: the president and his "war cabinet" ought to face criminal charges for lying to the nation and starting an unnecessary war for domestic political reasons.
The fourth bombshell exploded when Richard Clarke, the respected former counter-terrorism chief under presidents Clinton and George Bush Sr., went public with the most damning accusations yet made against the White House. His testimony before a commission investigating the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. asserted the Bush administration damaged U.S. national security, did not do enough to prevent the 9/11 attacks, and obsessed over Iraq while largely ignoring al-Qaida's threat.
Bush, said Clarke, did "a terrible job" in fighting terrorism. Bush's obsession with Iraq left the U.S. "needlessly unprepared" to counter an al-Qaida attack. He also criticized, somewhat less strongly, the Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.
Clarke, a Republican, insisted there were no links between Iraq and either 9/11 or terrorism, and that Iraq had no concealed weapons, a position long maintained by this column. But the feeble, politicized 9/11 commission failed to follow up on this dramatic testimony.
Vice President Dick Cheney was described by Clarke as a "right-wing ideologue." He accused Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a principal architect of the Iraq War, of "belittling" the al-Qaida threat.
We learned Defence Secretary Rumsfeld was so preoccupied with anti-missile defence before 9/11 he ignored al-Qaida.
[b]Urgent warnings [/b]
The commission's report stated Rumsfeld "did not recall any particular counter-terrorism issue that engaged his attention before 9/11," though the CIA claimed to have urgently warned both Bush and Rumsfeld of impending attacks.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who refused to testify, was shown to be a dithering, confused amateur and a character assassin who has led the White House attacks on Clarke.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, another self-styled scourge of terrorists, actually proposed cutting spending on counter-terrorism exactly one day before 9/11 - and again, afterward. Unfortunately, the commission failed to ask why the Bush administration had been sending millions in aid to the "terrorist" Taliban until four months before 9/11.
This column has repeatedly asserted the Bush administration was asleep on guard duty on 9/11.
True, there were no warnings hijacked airliners were coming on that specific day. But with the benefit of hindsight, we see the same ineptitude and confusion that preceded the attack on Pearl Harbor - a combination of distraction, smugness, self-deception, disbelief and bungling. On Dec. 7, 1941, Japan's naval codes were being intercepted and deciphered; her attacking aircraft were spotted by radar. Yet the obvious conclusions somehow were not made. The same applies to Sept. 11, 2001.
In the U.S. Navy, a ship's captain is responsible for all accidents or misfortunes, no matter what the excuse. But no senior member of the Bush administration has accepted responsibility for the death of some 3,000 people on 9/11. No one resigned.
No senior U.S. official acted with the honour and courage of Britain's foreign secretary, Robin Cook, who resigned to protest a war against Iraq he charged was based entirely on falsehoods and disinformation.
Instead, the Bush administration launched a trumped up war against Iraq to mask its own negligence prior to 9/11, and to satisfy America's lust for revenge by attacking a nation innocent of that crime.
Clarke, at least, had the decency to apologize to the families of the 9/11 victims, saying, "the government failed you. And I failed you." We have yet to hear a peep of self-criticism from the blundering but arrogant Bush White House.
Of course not. This administration is running for re-election on its "war record" against Iraq, and its so-called war on terrorism. Bush is playing Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman.
But his claim to be a war president is like the man who murders his family, then begs for mercy because he is an orphan. The Iraq war was not one of self-defence, like World War II, but an unprovoked, illegal aggression engineered by the Bush administration and justified by a torrent of shameful lies. Bush's "war on terrorism" is a police action that was unnecessarily and foolishly militarized.
Richard Clarke, no matter his motives, has done his nation an important, badly needed service.
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Puts A 'Cancer' On The Presidency ... |
| 03.30.04 (2:00 pm) [edit] |
[b]Make no mistake about it: [i]another[/i] four years of the hellish [i]'Useful Idiot' [/i]Bush means unrelenting, bloody warfare throughout the Middle East ... Next stop: [i]Syria & Iran [/i]... All based upon the corrupt Bush regime's [i]heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods[/i] of phony WMDs or other fabricated threats and [i]'sexed-up' [/i]neo-orwellian propaganda ... [/b]
[u]Who[/u] pays the[i] heart-breaking price in blood and misery [/i]and the [i]back-breaking costs in U.S. taxpayer dollars[/i] for the corrupt Bush regime's illegal and immoral neo-con nightmarish fantasies-turned-warfare of Global Corporate Empire? ... [i]Not [/i]the neo-fascist Bushies --[i] Not [/i]their wealthy campaign contributors -- [i]Not [/i]their corporate-take-all pimps and war-profiteers (Halliburton, Bechtel, the Carlyle Group, Unocal, etc.) ... It is "We the People"[i] who are asked to spill our loved-one's blood and go-broke paying off record-level deficits as far as the eye can see[/i], while these tyrannical traitors in Bush's cabal of neo-con, neo-fascist arm-chair chicken-hawks [i]revel in their infinite power and vast wealth [/i]...
Let "We the People" put a stop to this [i]insanity[/i] ... [i]before it is too late [/i]... It is [i]already [/i]too late, as over 590 U.S. Soldiers & over 10,000-15000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been ruthlessly slaughtered in order to satiate the blood-thirsty lusts of the dictatorial Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i], based upon their [i]treasonous lies, deceptions and falsehoods[/i] used to mislead the American people and the entire world community.
Consider "[i][b]Bush puts a 'cancer' on the presidency[/b][/i]" by[i] Robert Scheer[/i], L.A. Times on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
"[i]Worse Than Watergate[/i]," the title of a new book by John Dean, Richard Nixon's White House counsel, is a depressingly accurate measure of the chicanery of the Bush/Cheney cabal. According to Dean, who began his political life at the age of 29 as the Republican counsel on the House Judiciary Committee before being recruited by Nixon, "This administration is truly scary and, given the times we live in, frighteningly dangerous." And when it comes to lies and cover-up, the Bush crowd makes the Nixon administration look like amateurs. As Dean writes, they "have created the most secretive presidency of my lifetime … far worse than during Watergate."
Dean knows what he's talking about. He was the one who dared tell Nixon in 1973 that the web of lies surrounding the Watergate break-in of the Democratic Party headquarters had formed "a cancer on the presidency." When Dean went public about that conversation, the Nixon White House smeared him as a liar. Fortunately, the conversation had been taped, and Dean was vindicated.
The dark side of the current White House was on full display last week when top officials of the Bush administration took to the airwaves to destroy the credibility of a man who had honorably served presidents Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes.
The character assassination of Richard Clarke, the former White House anti-terrorism chief, was far more worrisome than Nixon's smears of Dean because it concerned not petty crime in pursuit of partisan political ambition but rather the attempt to deceive the nation and the world as to the causes of the 9/11 assault upon our national security — and to justify an unnecessary war in Iraq.
First, Bush's aides suggested that Clarke had invented the meeting in which Clarke said the president pressured him to find a link between the 9/11 attack and Iraq, ignoring Clarke's insistence that intelligence agencies had concluded that no such link existed. But on Sunday, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice was forced to admit that Bush had pressed Clarke on an Iraq connection. This backed up earlier assertions by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill as to Bush's obsession with Iraq from the very first days of his administration at the expense of focusing on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
That the Bush lies didn't work this time may be because just too many veterans of the U.S. intelligence community are finding their voices and are willing to denounce an administration that has seriously undermined the nation's security.
They are speaking out, as 23 former CIA and other defense intelligence agents did in Robert Greenwald's devastating documentary, "[i]Uncovered[/i]." They have stepped forward, as did David Kay, Bush's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq.
This is an administration that has been dominated by the neoconservative ideologues who condemned the logical restraint of the first Bush administration on foreign policy as a betrayal of the national interest.
These neocons have made a horrible mess of things, but that gives them no pause. They went to war with a nation that had no weapons of mass destruction and few connections to terrorism — but have coddled Pakistan, which sponsored the Taliban and Al Qaeda and which recently was revealed as the source of nuclear weapons technology for North Korea, Iran and Libya.
The president's team is wrong to believe its outrageous lies can continue to lull a gullible public. Nixon's lies won him a second election, but then he lost the country.
Bush smiles better than Nixon, but when the lies are exposed, the smile turns into a character-revealing smirk. That happened last week when the White House released photos of a skit, performed for the amusement of jaded media heavyweights, in which the president pretended to look under his desk for the missing weapons of mass destruction. This may have amused his cynical audience, but to the general public, the carefully lip-synced policy pronouncements of the man who cried wolf has morphed into a sick joke.
|
|
|
| |
| ... Gangsters In The White House ... |
| 03.30.04 (9:57 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" had [i]better wake-up before it is too late [/i]to the vile nature of the criminal gang of neo-con thugs and neo-fascist goons who have hijacked our nation ... [/b]The crooked neo-con Bush regime represents the worst sort of dictatorial and tyrannical war-mongering administration that has undermined the principles of our republic enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, unseen in America's 229 year old history ...
[u][b]There are gangsters in the White House[/b][/u].
Whenever the Bush Administration gets criticized, it responds like Tony Soprano, and Bush's capos put a hit out on whoever dares to question the don.
That's the way it was when Paul O'Neill, Bush's former Treasury Secretary, said Bush wanted to go to war against Iraq way before 9/ll. Within hours, the Bush goons were threatening O'Neill with prosecution for allegedly publicizing classified information.
That's the way it was when former ambassador Joseph Wilson went public with his account of how the Bush Administration played up the false story of uranium in Niger. Within days, the White House was outing Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA officer, with Karl Rove reportedly saying, "His wife's now fair game."
And that's the way it is today, with Bush surrogates unloading on Richard Clarke, the counterintelligence pro who has leveled two serious charges against the Administration.
First, that it was "lackadaisical" about Al Qaeda prior to 9/ll.
And second, that Bush's Iraq adventure has "greatly undermined the war on terrorism."
Rather than just debate the merits of these accusations, rather than have Condoleezza Rice testify in public before the Sept. 11 bipartisan commission, the Bush thugs have revved up the slime machine. [Condoleezza Rice apparently will now testify under oath in public, but only on the condition that no other White House officials are called by the 9/11 commission http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... ... This is morally wrong and makes a mockery of the 9/11 commission hearings.]
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist slammed Clarke for being, in Frist's words, "consumed by the desire to dodge blame for the 9/11 attacks" and for "profiteering." But he didn't stop there. Frist went on to make very unsubtle threats about prosecuting Clarke for perjury, alleging that Clarke lied to Congress. [Later Frist admitted that he hadn't read any of Clarke's testimony.]
Then the White House began to blackball Clarke. "You're not going to make another dime in Washington again," said one White House staffer, Clarke told Tim Russert.
Hostile to the very essence of democracy, which is the freedom to dissent and to criticize our government, the Bush gang wants to rule by fear, intimidation, and goon squad tactics.
--[i] Matthew Rothschild[/i] - The Progressive, http://www.progressive.org/we...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's Gang: Wild, Mad Attack Dogs Foaming At The Mouth!!! |
| 03.30.04 (8:30 am) [edit] |
... Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) claimed that between his 2002 testimony and his recent testimony, Richard Clarke "has told two entirely different stories" http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... to Congress. Frist later admitted he has not read Clarke's earlier testimony http://slate.msn.com/id/20978... ...
[b]Like wild, mad attack dogs foaming at the mouth, the savage and brutal on-slaught of the blood-thirsty ravaging & cannibalizing of Richard Clarke is a national disgrace.[/b] The corrupt Bush regime has unleashed a neo-fascist propaganda campaign to smear Clarke's reputation with slander & libel of his personal and professional life, because they are unable to counter his facts ... http://www.progressive.org/we...
"We the People" had better differentiate between the Bush/Cheney Inc[i] junta's [/i]brutish and mendacious character assassination and the cold, hard facts revealed by Joseph C. Wilson IV, Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke and others ...[i] Our lives may well depend upon it [/i]...
[b]Foaming At The Mouth ...[/b]
Conservatives are continuing their assault on former Bush counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, a man who President Bush personally praised upon his retirement. The right-wing attack machine is now resorting to unsubstantiated claims and even racially charged rhetoric to try to change the subject. On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) demanded that Clarke's 2002 private testimony to the congressional 9/11 commission be declassified claiming that Clarke "has told two entirely different stories." Frist specifically recounted details of what he said was Clarke's closed-door testimony. But as questions were raised about the legality of Frist's disclosure of still-classified testimony, Frist quickly "retreated" from his claims, admitting "that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between" Clarke's 2002 testimony and his testimony last week. On the talk shows, Ann Coulter disparaged Clarke, saying he was just "upset a black woman took his job" while Robert Novak asked a guest "Do you believe Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman, Condoleezza Rice?" But in all of the huffing and puffing, not one Bush official or right-wing pundit has addressed the fundamental question: why was the Bush Administration asleep at the wheel before 9/11?
[u][b]POWELL ASKED QUESTION BY AMERICAN PROGRESS; HAS NO ANSWER[/b][/u]: Appearing on [i]CBS Face the Nation[/i], anchor Bob Schieffer told Secretary of State Colin Powell, "[i]The Center for American Progress[/i] has posed this question: If, as the administration claims, the White House did make terrorism a priority, why did Vice President Cheney wait five months to establish a terrorism task force which then never met?" Powell responded by claiming other meetings had taken place, but according to the official transcript, said "With respect to the task force, I--I--I can't answer the specific question. I'm not familiar with the--with the document." See a video of the interchange.
[u][b]SELECTIVELY DEFINING "THE PUBLIC INTEREST"[/b][/u]: White House press secretary Scott McClellan defended releasing an off-the-record background briefing Clarke gave in 2002, saying "It's important for the American people to know the facts" and that the release "was very much in the public interest" (For his part, Clarke is welcoming the declassification of all of the documents). However, the same standard is not being applied to Condi Rice, who refuses to testify publicly before the 9/11 commission, and who even refuses to go under oath or allow commissioners to transcribe her private testimony. Similarly, the White House "public interest" argument is also being ignored as the Administration refuses the 9/11 commission's request to make public some of the President's Daily Intelligence briefings.
[u][b]ATTACKING CLARKE FOR APOLOGIZING[/b][/u]: Instead of demanding the White House live up to its "personal responsibility" mantra and publicly offer contrition, conservatives are attacking Richard Clarke for his apology to 9/11 families. Frist said Clarke's apology "was not his right, his privilege or his responsibility." A White House official said Clarke's apology was "bull___." Condoleezza Rice categorically refused to take any responsibility at all on [i]60 Minutes[/i], despite being the top national security official at a time of one of the worst national security failure in American history. Clarke defended himself, saying "I have felt an enormous sense of guilt since September 11th...There are 3,000 families around the world who lost loved ones, and I'm sorry if Senator Frist thinks I don't have a right to apologize, but I do."[i] Newsweek [/i]reports that "for many families of 9/11 victims, Clarke's apology was important" and evoked "elation" that at least one Bush official would admit some culpability. He was publicly embraced by many of those families at the hearings last week after his apology.
[u][b]BILL FRIST, HYPOCRITE[/b][/u]: Frist further disparaged Clarke by saying that "I am troubled that someone would sell a book, trading on their service as a government insider with access to our nation's most valuable intelligence, in order to profit from the suffering that this nation endured." Of course, it was Frist who capitalized on the traumatizing anthrax attacks of 2002: instead of waiting until the situation was brought under control, he actually published a new book on bioterrorism and aggressively promoted it while the crisis was still unfolding. For his part, Clarke said he wrote the book (which was cleared for publication by the White House) because "I had to tell the families of the victims who have been asking me, 'What went wrong?'" and wanted to offer suggestions about how we structure "the government so that we can avoid this kind of thing in the future." He also said he plans to make "substantial donations from the profits of this book" to 9/11 families.
[u][b]RICE'S CLAIMS ABOUT AFGHANISTAN IN QUESTION[/b][/u]: Rice last night claimed that "The president focused our energies and our attention" on Afghanistan after 9/11 – but even that claim was refuted by a new USA Today story which notes that as early as 2002, special forces were "pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for Iraq" while the White House "took CIA specialists away from the Afghanistan effort" for Iraq. Now, two years later, the U.S. is being forced to send in reinforcements, as the United Nations warns that Afghanistan "is in danger of reverting to a terrorist breeding ground." For more on Rice's interview last night, see this[i] American Progress [/i]backgrounder http://www.americanprogress.o... .
[b]Source[/b]:
[i]The Center for American Progress[/i], http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| George Bush, Lying and The Mad Dogs of War ... |
| 03.29.04 (3:18 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" have been ruthlessly manipulated by the neo-hitlerian Bush regime who have committed heinous acts of neo-fascist barbarity, cruelty and inhumanity towards our fellow men here at home and abroad. [/b]The insane neo-con doctrine of Global Corporate Empire used to invade Iraq (...[i] while the real culprits of terrorism were allowed to get away, and the real 'war on terrorism' was criminally 'put-on-the-back-burner' by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc[/i]. ...) is in violation of the basic tenets of civilization and decency and moreover contravenes international law.
It is time to reject the illegal and immoral neo-con war machine massacring thousands of innocent human beings-- for war-profiteering in order to enrich the rapacious and sluttish Bush regime's corporate pimps: Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. Contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfowitz and the rest of their criminal gang of liars, thieves and traitors, be [i]impeached-or-fired [/i]and tried for [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]...
[b]"[i]Cry ‘Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war[/i]."
- [i]Shakespeare[/i], Julius Caesar[/b]
Before the Iraqi war, the Bush administration cried "[i]Havoc[/i]!" and used a number of lies to justify setting the dogs of war loose.
The non-existent weapons of mass destruction and the phony uranium purchases from Niger weren't the only falsehoods. There also were lies about Al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq http://www.caabu.org/press/do... , aluminum tubes http://www.caabu.org/press/do... , Hussein kicking the UN inspectors out of Iraq http://www.fair.org/activism/... , unmanned airplanes that could attack the East Coast of America http://www.informationclearin... , mobile bioweapon laboratories http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD... , and on and on and on.
Once the war was underway, the folks who brought us death and destruction peddled further lies: the triumphant toppling of the Hussein statue http://www.informationclearin... , the Jessica Lynch story http://www.thestar.com/NASApp... (she actually got a medal for bravery despite not doing anything), the bogus stories to explain the killing of civilians, and more.
[u][b]It Never Stops[/b][/u]
Now that the war is over, the discredited prewar lies have been discarded, and the administration is resorting to new claims, such as:
• The world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein gone.
• The Iraqi people are finally free.
• Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator.
• "The defense of freedom is always worth it," as George Bush said last week.
[u][b]Character Assassination[/b][/u]
And we need to add to these prevarications the character assassination the administration fires at anyone who exposes its lies by relating personal experiences within the administration. Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke have felt the full force of the government-press partnership.
The moment Clarke went public with statements that Bush was determined to blame 9-11 on Iraq, and that Bush was much more eager to attack Iraq than attack Al-Qaeda, the administration redirected the dogs of war from Hussein to Clarke.
Top administration officials have already appeared on numerous national news shows. Condoleezza Rice showed up on all five national morning shows (on NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, and CNN). The attack dogs said very little about the actual charges, preferring to attack Clarke personally as a hypocrite who previously praised President Bush's response to terrorism.
Providing their usual support for big government, TV and press reporters repeated and discussed statements Clarke made in 2001 and 2002 — statements that seemed to back up the charge that Clarke was an opportunistic hypocrite.
But did you notice that every reporter showed us exactly the same statements from Clarke? Some of the apparent "statements" weren't even complete sentences. Why did everyone who commented on Clarke's apparent flip-flop focus on exactly the same fragments?
They did so because those were the only fragments they had to work with. The quotes were all provided by the Bush administration — and they're the only quotes available. If the reporters had possessed the original documents, some of them would have picked out other statements or fragments from those documents.
It is very, very, very important to realize that . . .
Virtually everything we think we know about a foreign-policy issue is only what the government tells us.
We have no way of knowing whether the fragments are actually true statements Clarke once made. Nor do we know in what context the fragments appeared originally. All we know is that this is what the administration wants us to believe.
Even if every fragment is true and indicative of Clarke's previous opinions, it doesn't mean he's a hypocrite. What he said in 2001 or 2002 may have seemed true to him at the time, but has since been refuted by reality.
For example, Clarke supposedly said in 2002 that the Bush administration "changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda." But that doesn't mean the strategy did change. Politicians continually make statements promising revolutionary improvements that never come to pass. One year after making that statement, Clarke quit working for the government — partly, we presume, because Bush's actions didn't match his promises.
Fox TV News has provided a complete transcript of a press briefing http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,115085,00.html Clarke gave in 2002 — from which the above quote was taken. You can search the entire transcript and not find unequivocal praise for George Bush.
We have no way of knowing what Clarke really thought about Bush in 2001 and 2002, because we have mostly only out-of-context fragments of statements Clarke made — fragments that have been carefully selected and released by the Bush administration in order to discredit Clarke. And the press dutifully publicizes those statements without pointing out that they are necessarily only small, out-of-context pieces of the puzzle.
So let me repeat what you should never forget . . .
[i]Virtually everything we think we know about a foreign-policy issue is only what the government wants us to know[/i].
[u][b]Other Postwar Lies[/b][/u]
What about the Bush administration's postwar lies? . . .
• The world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein gone.
Is it really?
Tell that to the 200 people who died in Spain two weeks ago — or to their families. Tell it to the Israelis who continue to be killed in Palestine suicide attacks. Tell it to the Palestinians who continue to be killed in Israeli military attacks. Tell it to the people in America who have been jailed without formal charges, without benefit of an attorney, without a speedy trial or the opportunity to confront their accusers.
[u][b]Free At Last!, Thank God Almighty, We Are Free at Last![/b][/u]
• The Iraqi people are finally free.
Oh really?
The country is occupied by a foreign power.
Its officials are appointed by that foreign power.
Its citizens must carry ID cards http://www.commondreams.org/h... , and submit to searches of their persons and cars at checkpoints and roadblocks.
They must be in their homes by curfew time http://www.commondreams.org/h... .
Many towns are ringed with barbed wire http://www.commondreams.org/h... .
The occupiers have imposed strict gun-control laws, preventing ordinary citizens from defending themselves — making robberies, rapes, and assaults quite common http://truthout.org/docs_03/0... .
The occupiers have decreed that certain electoral outcomes won't be permitted.
Families are held hostage http://www.washingtonpost.com...¬Found=true until they reveal the whereabouts of wanted resisters — much like the Nazis held innocent French people hostage during World War II.
Public protests are outlawed.
Private homes are raided or demolished http://www.commondreams.org/h... — with no due process of law.
Newspapers, radio stations, and TV are all supervised by the occupiers.
[u][b]Brutality[/b][/u]
• Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator.
So what?
Is it the duty of the American people to give their resources — and maybe their lives — to topple every dictator in the world and make sure the Bill of Rights is enforced in every country (except, perhaps, the United States)?
And if toppling dictators is so important, why is George Bush cozying up to brutal dictators in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan?
If George Bush wants to donate his own money to revolutionary movements in oppressed countries, he has a right to do so. If he wants to quit his job and go fight in one of those revolutionary movements, he has a right to do so.
But he has no constitutional authority to commit American money and American lives to the fight for freedom in other countries.
Even the claims of Hussein's brutality are suspect, because they come mostly from the same administration that has already discredited itself. The "human shredder" http://www.lewrockwell.com/sp... atrocity story has already been refuted, and who knows how many more of George Bush's favorite horrors will be exposed as lies eventually?
[u][b]Say What?[/b][/u]
When confronted with the charge that he misled the American people about the need to go to war with Iraq, President Bush replied http://www.usatoday.com/news/... , "The defense of freedom is always worth it."
Is that right?
Worth what?
The loss of more of our freedoms in America?
A cost of hundreds of billions of dollars paid by Americans for the freedom of people in foreign countries?
And worth it to whom?
Obviously, the Iraqi war was worth it to George Bush. (At least it seemed so until now.)
But was it worth it to the hundreds of Americans who died?
Was it worth it to the thousands of Iraqis who died?
Was it worth it to the families of those who died?
And what freedom are we talking about?
The U.S. was never threatened by Saddam Hussein. He had no capability to attack America, and he never indicated any desire to attack America.
In short, American "freedom" was never threatened by Saddam Hussein. So why is an unprovoked attack on another country considered to be a "defense of freedom"?
[u][b]The Dogs of War[/b][/u]
So the lies continue.
And the dogs of war are unleashed on anyone who threatens to expose those lies and seems to have the public forum in which to do so.
[b]Source[/b]:
Harry Browne, http://www.harrybrowne.org/ar...
|
|
|
| |
| The Corrupt Bush Regime and Rice's Betrayal of Democracy ... |
| 03.29.04 (12:10 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime (...[i] and particularly the over-rated, dishonest, incompetent and traitorous Condoleezza Rice[/i] ...) are betraying the principles of democracy ...[/b]
"We the People" have a right to hold our leaders accountable for their decisions that affect our nation's well being and especially those that lead us into war ... Moreover, we have a right to know whether or not our leaders have betrayed our trust or simply badly bungled our national security through incompetence and malfeasance ... The insane, neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime was so obsessed with Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the early days of their mad reign that they neglected advice and warnings from CIA, FBI and NSA officials regarding the potential terrorist threats from Al Qaida prior to 9/11 (... [i]Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaida [/i]...) ...
Instead of testifying under oath and demonstrating a respect for "We the People", the neo-orwellian Bushies are using obfuscation and cynical manipulation to ruthlessly deceive us with mendacious T.V. propaganda ... This is outrageous and we should violently protest against the disgraceful Bush regime's [i]myriad lies, deceptions and falsehoods[/i] representing [i]impeachable[/i] High Crimes under the U.S. Constitution ... Contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that Bush, Cheney, Rice and the other neo-con thugs & neo-fascist goons in this insane, criminal regime be subpoenaed to testify before an investigative committee truly interested in our nation, instead of their own sordid and squalid political gains ...
Refer to "[i][b]The Rice Dilemma[/b][/i]" by[i] Beldeu Singhon [/i]on http://www.independent-media....%20Reported
All American ideals pertaining to governance and holding public office and officers who serve the American public directly or indirectly through the Oval Office stamp from "government of the people, by the people, for the people." That is the founding principle that sums up democracy and the working of democracy and life under democracy.
It is the sacrosanct duty of every American citizen and its institutions to uphold this founding principle and never to violate it but to give full effect to it through their actions, deeds and conduct as officers and officials whether they are appointed or elected. Equally, it is the duty of the people to any time to call on these officers or officials to give a full and proper effect to it. It must be fully supported and protected by laws, relevant provisions of statutes that govern the conduct and duty of these officers and officials in order to deliver good governance to the people of America. Only then will democracy blossom.
Good governance is one of the basic rights of the people. Frank and forthright testimony and truth-telling are essential demands that buttress the pillars of responsibility and accountability. Without these pillars there is no democracy, and if there is one to start with, it will be driven into a coffin and sealed in it, in good time.
The founding principle is not just a political statement that stands frozen in a speech. It is the breath of America and it must be kept alive as a basic legal precept for creating laws that form the foundational premise for good governance to deliver the rule of democracy, not the rule of persons. It is the overriding principle that governs conduct of officers and officials.
The Presidency in the American structure of political life is an instrument of democracy that rests on the founding principle. Nothing more. It is not above it. It cannot rise above it. It is incumbent upon the entire political structure to, at all times, hold it on the highest pedestal.
Going against the people of America or against public policy or acting in ways or in any manner that creates suspicion or charges of breach of public trust or anything that conjures or amounts to treason against the public is a betrayal of the founding principle and it naturally necessitates the establishment of a commission or a body for inquiry into these suspicions or acts for it is an inviolable principle.
Any instance or event or a series of instances or a series of events or a combination of instances and events involving the misuse of public funds or misleading the public or misleading the Congress or misleading the public and Congress or misleading any public institution whether by tendering or giving false information with or without fraudulent intention and precipitating an event or causing it to happen on the basis of false information or by misleading or by lies or by deceit or by lies and deceit or by avoidance to tell the truth, based on the founding principle, comes under public scrutiny and the public have a right to hear testimony publicly, simply because "government for the people" precludes rule by misdeeds, lies, deceit, misleading, fraud or fraudulent intent and avoidance to tell the truth.
Each of these elements form the anti-thesis of "government for the people". These elements are destructive to the spirit of democracy that is to bloom forth from the founding principle.
Inherent in the founding principle, therefore, is the compelling element that ought to persuade Condoleeza Rice to testify publicly for the people to hear rather than "tell a good story" through writing or television appearances. The art of telling good stories through such writings and appearances lies outside the body and scope of the founding principle, the purpose of which is only to exact the truth for the public to hear in connection with all matters that encompass government of and by the people.
A public Body or a Commission established for purposes of such a hearing is automatically empowered by the founding principle to compel anyone to testify under oath for the public to hear and no specific laws or frames of reference can curtail it or render it limp or impotent to serve democracy or the people.
Rice has created a dilemma for American democracy and if she refuses to testify under oath before the Commission, she stands in contempt of the founding principle and her "good story" in television appearances and writings in the media will seem nothing more than public relations and an avoidance to tell the story under oath. Public relations efforts can often be crafted to dress-up truth but the requirement under the founding principle is the naked truth.
Will Rice prevail or will the founding principle and the right of the American people to hear the truth publicly prevail? White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales said that in order for presidents to receive the most candid advice from their staffs, "it is important that these advisers not be compelled to testify publicly before congressional bodies such as the Commission."
The whole issue is not about giving or receiving advice. An officer or official is free to give any advice - the crux of the matter is the act, conduct or deed that is relevant because it is the happening or the event or occurrence that the public scrutinizes in a public hearing. So, in a democracy, the need for accountability is more fundamental and pressing that to "receive the most candid advice from their staffs". The lack of accountability is the tomb of democracy.
The constitution, the presidency and the courts cannot be used to carve a tomb for democracy by destroying accountability because they are instruments of democracy to uphold democratic ideals and to perpetuate democracy.
In the final analysis, public scrutiny is about the actions taken or the deeds and misdeeds or the conduct and misconduct or leading and misleading and not about the giving and receiving of any kind of advice. In other words, it is about the nature of acts, deeds and conduct that is embodied in "government for the people" that the people need to hear and know.
The "government for the people" is the very purpose of the Constitution, the Presidency and any Body or any Commission constituted to receive testimony under oath, and when such a body or commission is constituted, the Presidency is in a subservient position to the body or the commission and it has to submit to it, more so when the President is under inquiry for his lies or deceit or his lies and deceit or any of his actions, deeds or events precipitated by him or under his leadership. That is the natural order of things.
It is about the truth and the virtue of truth in ruling and governing people. The founding principle ensures that the people prevail not the people who govern and in that resides the force that blossoms democracy.
|
|
|
| |
| Corrupt Bushies LUV To Wage Wars That Turn Into Miserable Failures ... |
| 03.29.04 (11:07 am) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] [u]LUVs[/u] to wage wars, but they are miserably inept at it ... The insane neo-fascist Bushies' illegal and immoral neo-con warfares for war-profiteerings (e.g. [i]Failed Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq[/i] ...) inevitably turn into miserable failures and bloody guerrilla quagmires ...[/b]
Condi Rice, an over-rated, incompetent and mendacious traitor, arrogantly pretends to [i]stand on "principle"[/i] to avoid testifying under oath before the 9/11 Commission about the National Security Agency's intelligence briefings prior to 9/11 ... Boy, how[i] funny [/i]to hear this[i] win-at-all-costs [/i]criminal Bush regime [i]stand on "principle"[/i], when they are willing to break the law, slander-and-libel whistle-blowers, and betray our nation by being the most [i]secretive Stalinist-style [/i]administration in US history while perpetrating heinous [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]here at home and abroad.
"We the People" [i]are not persuaded [/i]according to a new poll http://msnbc.msn.com/id/46148... that the vile and arrogant neo-imperial Bushies are telling us the truth ... They are incompetent, corrupt and self-obsessed with their own infinite power and riches-- and these liars, thieves and war criminals have ruthlessly betrayed us in order to achieve their own blood-thirsty aims.
Refer to "[b]The War Against Clarke Is a Miserable Failure[/b]" by the[i] Pundit Pap Team[/i], on http://www.americanpolitics.c... :
The number one priority of George W. Bush is to defeat the biggest danger to his administration.
Osama bin Laden? [i]Uh-uh[/i].
Ayman al-Zawah'ri? [i]Nope[/i] -- and we doubt Li'l Shrubya can even pronounce it correctly.
John Kerry? [i]Not even warm[/i].
The number one threat to Bush comes from one Richard Clarke, onetime senior counterterrorism advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton, and allegedly the top counterterrorism chief to "[i]Popular Wartime Preznit [/i]©" George -- although it has come to light that the Junior Bush's handlers were keeping Clarke as far away from El Smirko and the entire Cabinet as possible, allowing him contact for the most part with their senior staffers.
Remember -- this is the one guy in the executive branch who had a better handle on the real threat of terrorism than anyone.
This is also the man who dared to personally apologize to the families of the victims of Al Qaeda's Sept. 11, 2001 attacks -- and dared say that the government had "failed" -- during a tempestuous and dramatic appearance before the 9/11 commission earlier this week.
And now he's the number one target of Team Shrub -- because not only do the revelations from the afore-mentioned appearance (under oath, mind you) destroy the credibility of Bush's so-called "war against terrorists" during an election year, but Clarke's daring assertion that the Iraq escapade actually undermined and continues to undermine the campaign to take out terrorists supports a position the Democrats are already pushing.
For their part, the administration let "Uncle Donald" Rumsfeld do the talking on FAUX News Sunday and [i]ABC's This Week[/i]. Condolleeza Rice will be appearing on [i]60 Minutes [/i]-- but will not be put under oath before the 9/11 Commission for even 60 seconds. The reason by now is obvious: her testimony would corroborate Clarke's. We bet that she actually does want to testify -- but the callow Bush Boy refuses to allow such a thing to happen.
Clarke himself appeared on [i]Meet the Press [/i]-- in what will be remembered as one of the most important Sunday interviews of the year -- and the lukewarm "[i]Late Edition[/i]," with Judy Woodruff recycling Tim Russert's questions.
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Whitewash: Conflict-of-Interest At The Heart Of The 9/11 Commission ... |
| 03.28.04 (12:18 pm) [edit] |
"[i]Many family members believe the "fix was in" from the very beginning and cite the appointment of Philip Zelikow as the commission's executive director as proof positive.
Zelikow was a Bush-appointee who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; he worked under Jim Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Sr; spent three years on the first President Bush's National Security Council and, as well as working with Condoleezza Rice, wrote two books with her as well[/i]."
"We the People" are witness to a phony neo-con scam in progress ... The heroic and patriotic Richard Clarke, author of "[i]Against All Enemies[/i]" http://www.commondreams.org/v... , http://www.commondreams.org/v... , has the courage to be a [i]whistle-blower[/i], knowing that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] would unleash its massive mad-dog attack machine and ugly court-jesters [i]out-in-force [/i]to attempt to destroy him, with their vile lies and mendacious neo-orwellian propaganda-- because they are [i]unable to counter his credibility or claims [/i]with facts ...
It is obvious to anyone with an [i]iota of brain-matter[/i], watching these tragic events unfold that the 9/11 Commission is a [i]cowardly gang of traitorous toadies[/i], "marching in lock-step" to the orders given by Dubya, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Rove-- instead of doing their duty to the American people ...
Please contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that the liars and war criminals in the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime be[i] impeached from office [/i]for High Crimes in waging illegal and immoral warfare in Iraq based upon [i]heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods,[/i] on behalf of their gluttonous and criminal war-profiteers: Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.
Consider "[i][b]White House Whitewash[/b][/i]" by [i]Neil Mackay[/i], Sunday Herald, Scotland, on http://www.commondreams.org/h... :
[u][b]A conflict of interest at the heart of the US 9/11 Commission hearings has been exposed by the families of the Twin Towers victims[/b][/u]
ANDREW Rice is angry with George Bush. His brother David was 31 years old when he died as United Airlines Flight 175 ploughed into the south tower of the World Trade Center where David worked as a financier with the investment firm Sandler O'Neill.
Andrew doesn't buy the rhetoric from the White House that Bush is a great war president who can make America stronger and safer. To Andrew, Bush is a charlatan making a mockery out of the deaths of his brother and the some 3000 other men, women and children who died on September 11, 2001.
You'd be forgiven for thinking that Andrew Rice might then be glad to see the bloody battering that the Bush administration took this week during the ongoing commission hearings in Washington into whether or not the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.
Bush and his team were painted as a feckless, lazy and ill-informed bunch who had little clue about al-Qaeda, and were fixated on Iraq. Security seemed far from the top of their agenda while an ideological obsession with taking out Saddam appeared to obscure the real dangers posed by Osama bin Laden's network of fundamentalist killers.
But the hammering that Bush took during the hearings did little to appease Rice and other family members like him. To Rice, who chairs the 9/11 Commission Committee of the September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows organization, the whole inquiry is one big fix that will do everything it can to hide the truth of what the US president and his closest advisors knew about the attacks.
Last week saw Dick Clarke, the former White House anti-terrorism chief under Bush and Bill Clinton, give evidence before the inquiry. Most of America already knew what he was going to say as they'd read it in his bestseller Against all Enemies where he claimed that the Bush administration ignored mounting warnings of a coming terror attack. Clarke said that when 9/11 did happen the Bush inner circle was desperate to link it to Saddam .
Clarke also said that Bush's national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, who has refused to testify before the 9/11 Commission under oath, didn't seem to know what al-Qaeda was. Rice gave Clarke the brush-off when he warned Bush officials in a January 2001 memo about the growing al-Qaeda threat. Dilatory plans by the Bush administration to deal with al-Qaeda, which weren't finalized until a week before the 9/11 attacks, were scorned by commission member Bob Kerry, who said he'd seen the document and it contained "nothing new whatsoever".
While Democrats might be whooping it up at the expense of Bush, Andrew Rice and many other families of 9/11 victims see these events as nothing more than political point-scoring. They don't care which politician comes off best, what they care about is the truth and they are sure that they are not going to get it.
You can hardly blame Rice for his pessimism. Many family members believe the "fix was in" from the very beginning and cite the appointment of Philip Zelikow as the commission's executive director as proof positive.
Zelikow was a Bush-appointee who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; he worked under Jim Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Sr; spent three years on the first President Bush's National Security Council and, as well as working with Condoleezza Rice, wrote two books with her as well.
Zelikow supported the White House when the administration said it would only release the president's daily briefings (PDB), prepared by the CIA, to the commission once they had been edited. Zelikow said: " The notion that the commission should want to read PDB articles that have nothing to do with al-Qaeda would be a novel suggestion."
One Democrat on the commission, Timothy Roemer, said agreeing to the White House demands would remove the context in which intelligence was presented and allow any "smoking guns" to be hidden from public scrutiny.
The White House acknowledged back in 2002 that a copy of the PDB in August 2001 noted that al-Qaeda might use hijacked planes in an attack on the USA. The commission has designated four members to read the reports. They will be allowed to take notes, but the White House can edit their notes to remove anything deemed sensitive.
Family members believe Zelikow's key conflict of interest stems from his role in the transition period between the Clinton and Bush presidencies. It was then that Zelikow worked on Bush's team to smooth the handover in terms of intelligence and to help formulate national security policy.
The Clinton administration has claimed that al-Qaeda was a top security priority. Zelikow would know, therefore, just how much importance both the Clinton and Bush governments placed on al-Qaeda. He would also have had a role in fine-tuning the Bush policy on al-Qaeda.
Clarke says he clearly and bluntly warned Bush officials about the risk of al-Qaeda when they took office. "It was very explicit," he said. "Rice was briefed ... and Zelikow sat in." Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the 9/11 Commission, said there was no question of any conflict of interests regarding Zelikow.
Andrew Rice seethes over information like this. "I've contacted the commission to say that it's laughable that Zelikow was appointed to such a position. I have big problems with the White House editing the PDBs, but Zelikow defended the decision. He worked with these people and now he is defending them.
"This commission was created by the establishment and the friends of the establishment are now part of the commission. Is it really an investigation? Zelikow is a symbol of the way this inquiry has been constructed. As far as the Clinton and Bush administrations being held to account - we won't hear about it. It is not about transparency, it is just there to appease the public.
"But it won't appease me or many other family members. We need a truly independent commission that is outside the realm of government. Zelikow should never have been in this in the first place. Aren't there other and better people out there who didn't work with Condoleezza Rice?
"The worst case scenario is that I fear this could be a whitewash and a cover-up. We know these people were obsessed with Iraq and not al-Qaeda - and that could ruin the administration. We also know the administration had strong ties to the Saudis.
"Bush only wants to be re-elected. It is so disingenuous of him to portray himself as the 9/11 president. He doesn't want people to look at all the dirty relationships."
The commission findings won't be published until April 2005 - after the presidential election in November. "We know the commission's findings can't affect the election, so why don't we push back the deadline further and get a new guy in?" asks Rice.
" No-one at any level of government - from a security guard at an airport to the President - has been held accountable for the biggest security failure in the history of this country."
Rice suspects that at the end of the inquiry a "figure like Ollie North will take the spear in the chest, while the rest will all be protected".
"In a situation like this, there is so little I can do," he adds. "I'm as powerless as when I watched my brother murdered on TV. We have so little recourse to find out who is responsible, who, by their mistakes and incompetency, helped this happen.
" My brother's death will not be in vain. I have to work hard to illuminate the hypocrisy of politicians who want to benefit from these tragedies while not caring about transparency.
"There is such a lack of humility. Bush runs ads draping himself in this tragedy. My brother wouldn't have wanted that. If we want to be secure then we need to know the full truth."
When Clarke told the September 11 families crowded into the commission chamber that he was sorry, that "the government failed you and I failed you", they got to their feet, with tears in their eyes, and cheered and clapped him. Why the outpouring of thanks and sadness? Simple, says Kirsten Breitweiser, a 9/11 families spokeswoman: "It was the first time we received an apology, or any acknowledgement of mistakes."
|
|
|
| |
| Retired Top Military Brass Urges Dubya To Stop Scamming American Taxpayers ... |
| 03.27.04 (4:27 pm) [edit] |
[b]Dubya has been neo-con[i] conning, scamming and swindling [/i]the American taxpayers ([i]yes, with immoral and criminal tax cuts for corporations and the rich, but also[/i] ...) with awarding insane, obscenely costly no-bid, no-audit, no-accountability 'contracts' for outrageous weapons systems boondoggles ([i]that don't even work[/i]) to his corrupt corporate campaign contributors in the rapacious Military Industrial Complex ...[/b]
Already it is [i]well-documented [/i]that vile [i]war-profiteers-cum-tra itors[/i] at Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, and the ghoulish Defense Contractors, are gluttonously helping themselves to the[i] 'spoils-of-looting'[/i] engineered via their vicious[i], illegal and immoral war-mongering in Iraq[/i], in order to steal and embezzle vast riches from the American taxpayers, while our U.S. Soldiers and Innocent Iraqi Civilians are 'cannon-fodder' [i]taking the hit [/i]for these blood-thirsty War Criminals ...
"We the People" should support the surprising, but welcome request by 49 Retired Military Top Brass, asking Dubya to [i]stop scamming Americans [/i]while we are at war ([i]of the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime's making[/i]) and in the record-level deficit disaster heading for an economic train-wreck ([i]of the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime's making, too[/i]) not seen since the Great Depression ...
P.S. The phony 'Defense Shield' is a "perpetual money-making machine" for greedy and traitorous Corporate Top Dogs & Fat Cats ... [i]The damn thing doesn't even work[/i]! http://www.tompaine.com/featu...
Consider "[b]Retired top brass say [i]no[/i] to 'missile shield'[/b]" by [i]Bryan Bender[/i], The Boston Globe, on http://www.independent-media....%20Reported :
Forty-nine retired generals and admirals yesterday urged President Bush to suspend plans for a national missile shield and instead use the money to secure nuclear materials abroad and ports and borders at home.
The Bush administration plans to field a nationwide defense system in September to shoot down missiles armed with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, and has budgeted $3.7 billion this year for the project.
Lexington, Mass.-based Raytheon is one of the main government contractors and is developing the missile interceptor and most of the radar technology.
But the 49 former senior military leaders contend that the system remains unproven. They also said it is more likely that terrorists would smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States than a country would launch a missile at the United States, risking a devastating retaliatory strike.
"As you have said, Mr. President, our highest priority is to prevent terrorists from acquiring and employing weapons of mass destruction," wrote the former officers, including retired Admiral William J. Crowe, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and retired General Joseph P. Hoar, former chief of the US Central Command.
The retired officers added that "the militarily responsible course of action" is to use the funding for the missile shield "to secure the multitude of facilities containing nuclear weapons and materials and to protect our ports and borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States."
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, recently concluded that only two of the antimissile system's 10 key technologies have been fully tested. Meanwhile, to make the September deadline, the Pentagon has waived some operational testing requirements. The military's top weapons tester stated earlier this month that such testing is not planned "for the foreseeable future."
The letter calls on the president to "postpone operational deployment of the expensive and untested" system.
It is one element of a larger missile defense effort -- estimated to cost $53 billion over the next five years -- that will use ships at sea and other methods to track and deflect missile launches. Navy Secretary Gordon England announced Monday that a specially equipped Aegis destroyer will be positioned this fall in the Sea of Japan, where it will be an alert for North Korean missile launches.
Raytheon builds the "kill vehicle" designed to destroy an incoming missile. The firm also makes many of the system's radars, including ones positioned on Cape Cod, the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, and the Pacific island of Kwajalein.
|
|
|
| |
| Dubya's Universe: 1st World Militarily??? 3rd World Inequality??? |
| 03.27.04 (1:18 pm) [edit] |
[b]In Dubya's bizarre and terrifying universe:--[/b]
[b]* Brute force trumps diplomacy, respect for others and the ability to negotiate peaceful compromises with opponents ... No respect for the rule of law ... [/b]Oh [i]yes[/i], it is[i] 1st world military might-through-naked-power -and-aggression[/i], with vast sums of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars diverted into obscene spending on WMDs, weapons boondoggles ([i]that often don't work[/i]!), and over-bloated stockpiles of armaments, instead of a [i]sane[/i] military and defense expenditure with oversight to ensure that greedy Defense Contractors don't swindle, steal and loot Americans ... Spending more than the top 17-18 richest industrialized nations combined is [i]sheer lunacy [/i]... The USA will be spending more than all other nations on this planet combined in the next 5-10 years-- [i]sheer madness [/i]... Dubya's neo-fascist Military Industrial Complex is a neo-con swindle that scams us into blindly-believing-[i]cum[ /i]-fantasizing that we are safer, when instead it impoverishes us and makes us less safe ...
* [b]Corporations and the rich are entitled to [i]welfare-for-the-wealth y [/i]on a grand scale creating the largest [i]Gap[/i] between the [i]Hyper-Rich-Greedy-Have s [/i]and the[i] Impoverished-Neo-Slave-Ha ve-Nots[/i], unseen in over 75 years ... [/b]Dubya's neo-fascist 3rd world[i] slave-state-cum-outsourci ng [/i]for an insane Global Corporate Empire that rapes and exploits working people and natural resources across the world in order that a few Neo-Emperor Caligulas can live in lavish, obesely pornographic splendor off the misery and hardship of others-- is an outrageous, barbaric crime. Dubya is turning the USA into a 3rd world-style impoverished country where workers are systematically being denied a living wage, overtime, rights to a safe work place, health care, unemployment benefits, etc.-- in order that the so-called growth in profits can be [i]gorged-and-swilled [/i]by over-rated, over-paid Corporate CEOs, Top-Dogs & Fat-Cats who are Criminal Embezzlers, Thieves and Neo-Slave Owners.
"We the People" must put a stop to the insane nightmarish fantasies that the Mad King George is thrusting upon us in order to enrich and empower himself and his ghoulish neo-con, neo-fascist corporate paymasters. Contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that Dubya's immoral and criminal tax cuts, tax loopholes and boondoggles for corporations and the hyper-rich plutocrats be repealed immediately.
While blacks are[i] hit hardest today[/i], the rest of the privileged white population (and other minorities) will be feeling the horrific effects of sluttish Dubya's reckless and irresponsible mis-management of the economy on behalf of his corporate pimps [i]tomorrow[/i]. For a look into [i]your future[/i], consider also [i]The Center for American Progress' [/i]report entitled "[i][b]Inequality in America[/b][/i]" on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
The Urban League recently unveiled its first "[i]Equality Index[/i]," a statistical measure designed to gauge the disparities that exist between whites and blacks in a variety of socioeconomic categories. The results are an alarming reminder of America's persistent equity gaps. The report found that, "despite substantial progress, the status of African Americans is .73, or 73 percent, when compared to their white counterparts." The economic data were particularly troubling: African Americans came in at 56 percent of the white America's index. The Urban League report, combined with other recent data on Americans' economic well-being, shows that:
[b]1. Employment and benefit numbers for minorities are worse than those of white Americans. [/b] The unemployment rate for African Americans has been over 10 percent for 15 consecutive months (versus 7.3 percent in March 1999). African American teenage unemployment was an astounding 33 percent in 2003. Minorities are less likely to be offered any sort of retirement savings plan at work than are white Americans: 49 percent of Hispanics and 58 percent of African Americans have this option, while 73 percent of white Americans do.
[b]2. In terms of health status and insurance coverage, minorities are measurably worse off than are white Americans. [/b]Forty-one percent of Hispanic adults are uninsured, compared to 20 percent of African-Americans and 12 percent of whites. Minorities are also less likely to get health care than are whites: 27 percent of Hispanics did not visit a health care provider in the last year, compared to 15 percent of whites. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic women and 20 percent of African American women report that they are in fair or poor health, compared to 3 percent of white women.
[b]3. Proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicaid have a disproportionate impact on minorities.[/b] According to the AARP, older African Americans receive more than 44 percent of their total income from Social Security. The program is the only source of income for one-third of African-Americans over the age of 65. The numbers for Medicaid are similar. Recent proposals to privatize Social Security and cut Medicaid funding would thus exacerbate the equity gaps that already exist.
|
|
|
| |
| Dubya Admits Negligence ... Rice Is A Proven Liar ... Dubya & Rice Should Resign ... |
| 03.26.04 (4:20 pm) [edit] |
[b]Dubya is guilty of [i]gross negligence for ignoring warnings [/i]of the likely eventuality of terrorist attacks upon America, leading up to 9/11 ... Moreover, instead of focusing on the dire warnings by experts within the U.S. Government of the dangers of Al Qaida, Dubya has been [i]insanely obsessed [/i]with Saddam Hussein (who had nothing to do with 9/11 and Al Qaida). Dubya's side-kick Condi Rice is an over-rated, self-obsessed [i]liar, who is a proven incompetent [/i]and highly dangerous to our national security, because she spends her time [i]sucking-up [/i]to powerful and rich "contacts", instead of listening to employees and managing the National Security Agency[/b].
"We the People" should contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that they ask Dubya & Rice to[i] resign [/i]... Of course, the corrupt Bush regime should be[i] impeached [/i]from office, but as many journalists and commentators have pointed out:-- With a Republican-controlled Congress and a Corporate-owned right-wing media, that event is unlikely to occur ... But[i] not impossible [/i]if the American people will simply loudly express our outrage and disgust enmasse ...
Refer to [i]The Center for American Progress' [/i]report entitled "[i][b]Bush Admits Negligence[/b][/i]" on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
President Bush yesterday once again tried to fend off charges of gross negligence before 9/11, saying, "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people." But with more evidence emerging this week that the White House received repeated warnings before 9/11 of an imminent Al Qaeda attack, the President's "had I known" defense raises two disturbing scenarios: Either a) the Administration is telling the truth, actually did not know of the threat despite receiving repeated warnings and was totally oblivious to a brewing national security crisis. Or b) the Administration is not telling the truth, actually knew about the threat from the warnings it received, and yet still failed to act with adequate urgency. See a list of warnings the Administration received before 9/11 and what they failed to do in response: http://www.americanprogress.o...%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A52 1-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/911TC.DOC . Also see these internal government documents showing how the Administration downgraded and tried to slash funding for counterterrorism before 9/11: http://www.americanprogress.o...%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A52 1-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/911TC.DOC
[u][b]DISHONEST – RICE REFUTES HERSELF[/b][/u]: National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice this week reiterated the President's "ignorance" defense, but in doing so repeated a lie that she had previously admitted was a lie. In 2002, she supported the President's "had I known" defense saying, "I don't think anybody could have predicted...that [terrorists] would try to use an airplane as a missile." But when presented this month with overwhelming evidence that the Administration had been warned about such a plot, she admitted privately to the 9/11 Commission that she had "misspoken." Yet, even after this admission, she proceeded to repeat the same dishonest claim, writing in a [i]Washington Post [/i]op-ed this week that "we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles." As one widely-respected FBI terrorism expert said, the Administration's "ignorance" defense is "an outrageous lie. And documents prove it's a lie." See this new [i]American Progress [/i]backgrounder analyzing Rice's dishonesty: http://www.americanprogress.o... .
[u][b]DISHONEST – BUSH ADMINISTRATION REFUTES RICE[/b][/u]: Rice this week said the Administration had formulated a National Security Policy Directive (NSPD) before 9/11 "that called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership." But according to the 9/11 Commission, "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Bush Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was asked whether Rice's assertions were true, and responded, "No."
[u][b]DISHONEST – RICE DISCREDITS HERSELF[/b][/u]: Rice claimed this week that "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." But the 9/11 Commission reported, "On January 25th, 2001, Richard Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan http://www.washingtonpost.com... to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice."
[u][b]NEW EVIDENCE – BEFORE 9/11, BUSH ADMIN SAYS BIN LADEN FOCUS WAS "MISTAKE"[/b][/u]: New evidence emerged yesterday that discredits the Bush Administration's claim that fighting terrorism was their "top priority" when they came to office. On 4/30/01 the Bush Administration released the government's annual report on terrorism, but unlike previous Administrations, it decided to specifically omit an "extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official told [i]CNN[/i] the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden." Similarly, [i]AP[/i] reported in 2002 that the Bush Administration's "national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions."
[u][b]NEW EVIDENCE – BEFORE 9/11, BUSH ADMIN REJECTED BIPARTISAN COMMISSION[/b][/u]: President Bush yesterday claimed that "Prior to September the 11th, we thought oceans could protect us." That is a troubling statement from a President, considering that in January of 2001, the U.S. Government's Commission on National Security gave the White House a bipartisan report that warned of an attack on the homeland and urged the new Administration to implement its specific "recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism" (an intelligence warning of a domestic attack was also given to the White House in May of 2001). Unfortunately, according to Sens. Warren Rudman (R-NH) and Gary Hart (D-CO), the Administration rejected the Commission's report, "preferring to put aside the recommendations." Instead, the White House said it would have Vice President Cheney head up a task force to analyze the threat himself. The Administration then waited five months to officially create the task force, and then failed to convene a single meeting of the task force in the four months before 9/11.
|
|
|
| |
| Four Months Before 9/11, Neo-Fascist Bushies Said Focusing on Osama bin Laden is "A Mistake"!!! |
| 03.26.04 (12:19 pm) [edit] |
[b]Evidence sufficient to[i] impeach [/i]the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]from office has arisen ... [/b]Four months prior to the 9/11 attacks upon America, the corrupt and incompetent Bushies declared it "[i]a mistake to focus[/i]" so much attention on Osama bin Laden ... This is hardly surprising when [i]one focuses one's own attention [/i]upon "[b]Exposed: [i]the Carlyle Group[/i][/b]" on http://www.tblog.com/template... , that reports Poppy Bush 41, some shady Carlyle Group cronies and the bin Laden family were in meetings together on 9/11 and watched the attacks upon America on T.V. ... Within a day or so following 9/11 ([i]while airspace was closed down to all commercial and private aircraft[/i]), the bin Ladens were [i]mysteriously allowed to whisk themselves back [/i]to Saudi Arabia on instructions from the White House ([i]Jeez ... One assumes of course, the secretaries don't give orders-- but that Bush, Cheney & Rice gave the go-ahead [/i]...) ...
"We the People" should [i]stop hiding [/i]from the truth: The traitorous Bush Crime Family has long-standing ties to the bin Laden family, who illegally and immorally funnels monies ([i]bribes from foreign interests[/i]) to the Bushies in return for favors, at the back-breaking expense of the American people:-- a vile act of treason under the U.S. Constitution ... Isn't it time for us to oust the treasonous and dangerously fascist neo-con Bush regime from office??? ... [i]Of course, it is [/i]... Please contact Congress http://www.congress.org , attaching this article and demand the [i]impeachment[/i] of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, Powell, Rumsfeld and their band of neo-con, neo-fascist criminals and traitors ...
Consider "[b]White House, 4/01: [i]Focus on Bin Laden "A Mistake"[/i][/b]" on http://www.misleader.org/dail... :
A previously forgotten report from April 2001 (four months before 9/11) shows that the Bush Administration officially declared it "a mistake" to focus "so much energy on Osama bin Laden." The report directly contradicts the White House's continued assertion that fighting terrorism was its "top priority" before the 9/11 attacks1.
Specifically, on April 30, 2001, [i]CNN[/i] reported that the Bush Administration's release of the government's annual terrorism report contained a serious change: "there was no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden" as there had been in previous years. When asked why the Administration had reduced the focus, "a senior Bush State Department official told [i]CNN [/i]the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden."2.
The move to downgrade the fight against Al Qaeda before 9/11 was not the only instance where the Administration ignored repeated warnings that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent3. Specifically, the [i]Associated Press [/i]reported in 2002 that "President Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions"4. Meanwhile, [i]Newsweek[/i] has reported that internal government documents show that the Bush Administration moved to "de-emphasize" counterterrorism prior to 9/115. When "FBI officials sought to add hundreds more counterintelligence agents" to deal with the problem, "they got shot down" by the White House.
[b]Sources[/b]:
1. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, 03/22/2004.
2. CNN, 04/30/2001.
3. Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11; Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry, ABC News, 05/16/2002.
4. "Top security advisers met just twice on terrorism before Sept. 11 attacks", Detroit News, 07/01/2002.
5. Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002.
|
|
|
| |
| Now The Corrupt Bushies Are 'Playing the Race Card' ... Jeez ... Neo-Con Nutjobs!!! |
| 03.26.04 (8:49 am) [edit] |
[b]The White House can't discredit Richard Clarke with facts http://www.alternet.org/story... ... So, now the corrupt neo-con Bushies are [i]'playing the race card' [/i] ([i]ala Johnny Cochran's fear-tactic used in the O.J. Simpson trial[/i]) ... [i]Jeez[/i] ... We all are very well-versed now with the vile[i] mud-slinging, slandering and libelling [/i]by the treasonous Bush regime's neo-fascist right-wing media and neo-orwellian mad-dogs vomitting their stinking bile and slime ... [/b]But now these neo-con thugs & goons are telling the American people: [i]'Hey, if you dare to criticize our 'blacks', we'll call you a racist'!!! [/i]... This transparent [i]neo-con scam [/i]gets Dubya and the rest of the neo-crooks [i]'off-the-hook' [/i]quite nicely ... The desperate, panic-stricken Bushies tell us that if the self-obsessed, incompetent Condi Rice [i]lies, cheats, steals and murders innocent human beings[/i], we're all supposed to [i]'look the other way'[/i], for fear of being[i] intimidated, terrified and cowered [/i]by those who will [i]point their sticky finger at us and call us a the dreaded R-word[/i]??? ... Methinks[i] not [/i]...
"We the People"[i] are [u]not[/u] going to fall for this [/i]sordid and squalid ploy ... If Condi Rice is a liar, a crook and a traitorous thug-- [i]then that is what she should be called [/i]... and moreover, the over-rated, incompetent and criminal neo-con NSA [i]puppet-cum-toady [/i][u][i]deserves[/i][/u ] to be fired ([i]on her own (dis)merits[/i])!!! ... Nope, it's [i]not [/i]a racist comment ... Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Powell, Wolfowitz along with the rest of their [i]neo-fascist cabal of liars, crooks and traitors[/i] should [i]all[/i] be [i]impeached and/or fired[/i] from office and tried for their heinous [i]Crimes Against Humanity[/i], the [i]'whites' as well as the 'blacks'[/i]!!! ... It's the[i] crimes[/i]-- [i]not[/i] the race, [i]Stupid[/i]!!!
Refer to [i]Joshua Micah Marshall's [/i]Talking Points Memo on http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... :
[b]How low will they go? [There is [i]no[/i] crime that the Bushies will [i]not[/i] commit in order to grab power and riches][/b] Now Clarke's a racist (from last night's [i]Crossfire[/i] http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPT... )... [Bob Novak is the crazy, traitorous bastard who toadied for Neo-Nazi Reich Marshal Karl Rove to commit a felony and out an under-cover CIA operative in an act of vile revenge by the Bushies for her husband's telling the truth about Dubya's [i]willful lie[/i] regarding phony Niger uranium yellow-cake sales to Iraq] ...
[b]ROBERT NOVAK[/b]: Congressman, do you believe, you're a sophisticated guy, do you believe watching these hearings that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?
[b]RAHM EMANUEL[/b]: Say that again?
[b]ROBERT NOVAK[/b]: Do you believe that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?
[b]RAHM EMANUEL[/b]: No, no. Bob, give me a break. No. No.
And then from Ann Coulter http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... , [Ann Coulter is the crazy, discredited bitch who slandered and libelled Max Cleland for[i] daring not [/i]to bow down & genuflect before the Mad King George] ...
[i]Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger -- but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas. Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us[/i].
The [i]"abuse" [sic][/i] http://www.hillnews.com/marsh... this White House has suffered from career civil servants ... [i]
[b]Jeez [/i]... The traitorous Bushies are neo-con nutjobs!!![/b]
|
|
|
| |
| For Stupid and Shallow Bush, It's A Joke ... But, Is The Joke On Us??? ... |
| 03.25.04 (7:18 pm) [edit] |
[b]Dubya is a dangerously stupid and shallow man ... One sign of intelligence ([i]at least emotional intelligence [/i]...) is [i]sensitivity to others [/i]and [i]understanding the impact [/i]of one's own words and actions upon our fellow-men and women ... [/b]
For example, to make jokes about Holocaust victims would be extremely hurtful to those who lost loved-ones killed by the Nazis, as well as to all intelligent people who abhor the heinous nature of their callous and destructive massacre of innocent human beings ... Only a very stupid and shallow thug-and-creep would joke about such a painful and horrendous event ...
"We the People" are tragically witness to an[i] imbecilic ne'er-do-well-cum-buffoon -boy president in Dubya[/i]: a man who[i] callously and meanly jokes (to despicably win some cheap laughs and some squalid 'brownie-points') [/i]about his traitorous[i] lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]regarding WMDs in Iraq. Meanwhile, nearly 590 U.S. Soldiers & 10,000-15,000 innocent Iraqi Civilians have been ruthlessly slaughtered based upon the corrupt Bush regime's [i]casus belli [/i]for their illegal & immoral neo-con, neo-fascist war: [i]so-called WMDs in Iraq supposedly posing an imminent threat to our national security[/i].
Surely, we deserve a [i]better man [/i]than [i]this ignorant, insensitive and corrupt criminal[/i] ... Read the [i]sickening report [/i]of Dubya's unconscionable [i]insensitivity [/i]described by [i]David Corn [/i]in his eye-witness account entitled "[b]MIA WMDs--[i]For Bush, It's a Joke[/i][/b]", in[i] Capital Games[/i], by The Nation, on http://www.thenation.com/capi... :
[i]Only in Washington[/i].
Last night I was at the [i]Radio and Television Correspondents' Association Dinner[/i]. It's a formal-and-fun affair where thousands of media folks assemble at the Hilton for a fancy dinner and fab pre- and post-parties. I'm not going to denigrate such soirees. I enjoy them. While bookers and producers jiggled and jostled on the dance floor and media and political celebs dissected the news du jour (this time it was Richard Clarke's dramatic appearance before the 9/11 commission), I was able to chat with former weapons hunter David Kay and learn about some troubling developments in the intelligence community (more on that down the road). And there was free sushi.
But an awful you're-all-alone moment came during George W. Bush's comments that followed the sit-down dinner. The current president is often the honored guest at this annual affair, and the audience toasts him in what is supposed to be a sign of communal and nonpartisan spirit. And, the tradition is, that the president has to be funny; he has to provide us with an amusing speech that pokes fun at himself and his political foes. After all, political journalists love to see politicians engage in self-deprecating humor. Bill Clinton was quite good at these performances. Bush seems to enjoy them less. Rather than do straight standup, he sometimes relies on a humorous slide show, and that was how he chose to entertain the media throng this time.
It's standard fare humor. Bush says he is preparing for a tough election fight; then on the large video screens a picture flashes showing him wearing a boxing robe while sitting at his desk. Bush notes he spends "a lot of time on the phone listening to our European allies." Then we see a photo of him on the phone with a finger in his ear. There were funny bits about Skull and Bones, his mother, and Dick Cheney. But at one point, Bush showed a photo of himself looking for something out a window in the Oval Office, and he said, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."
The audience laughed. I grimaced. But that wasn't the end of it. After a few more slides, there was a shot of Bush looking under furniture in the Oval Office. "Nope," he said. "No weapons over there." More laughter. Then another picture of Bush searching in his office: "Maybe under here." Laughter again.
Disapproval must have registered upon my face, for one of my tablemates said, "Come on, David, this is funny." I wanted to reply, [i]Over 500 Americans and literally countless Iraqis are dead because of a war that was supposedly fought to find weapons of mass destruction, and Bush is joking about it[/i]. Instead, I took a long drink of the lovely white wine that had come with our dinner. It's not as if I was in the middle of a talk-show debate and [i]had[/i] to respond. This was certainly one of those occasions in which you either get it or don't. And I wasn't getting it. Or maybe my neighbor wasn't.
At the end of the slide show, Bush displayed two pictures of himself with troops and noted these were his favorites. The final photograph was a shot of special forces soldiers--with their faces blurred to protect their identities--who were posing in Afghanistan where they had buried a piece of 9/11 debris in a spot that had once been an al Qaeda camp. Bush spoke about the prayer the commander had said during the burial ceremony and noted he had this photograph hanging in his private study.
So what's wrong with this picture? Bush was somber about the sacrifice being made by U.S. troops overseas. But he obviously considered it fine to make fun of the reason he cited for sending Americans to war and to death. What an act of audacious spin. One poll recently showed that most Americans believe he either lied about Iraq's WMDs or deliberately exaggerated the case to justify the war. And it is undeniable that in seeking public support for the war he made many false assertions that went beyond quoting intelligence that turned out to be wrong. (I've written about this in many other places. If you still don't believe Bush mugged the truth, check out this short guide http://www.tompaine.com/featu... .) As the crowd was digesting the delicious surf-and-turf meal, Bush was transforming serious scandal into rim-shot comedy.
Few seemed to mind. His WMD gags did not prompt a how-can-you silence from the gathering. At the after-parties, I heard no complaints. Was I being too sensitive? I wondered what the spouse, child or parent of a soldier killed in Iraq would have felt if they had been watching C-SPAN and saw the commander-in-chief mocking the supposed justification for the war that claimed their loved ones. Bush told the nation that lives had to be sacrificed because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used (by terrorists) against the United States. That was not true. (And as Kay pointed out, the evidence so far shows these weapons were not there in the first place, not that they were hidden, destroyed or spirited away.) But rather than acknowledge he misinformed the public, Bush jokes about the absence of such weapons.
Even if Bush does not believe he lied to or misled the public, how can he make fun of the rationale for a war that has killed and maimed thousands? Imagine if Lyndon Johnson had joked about the trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin incident that he deceitfully used as a rationale for U.S. military action in Vietnam: "Who knew that fish had torpedoes?" Or if Ronald Reagan appeared at a correspondents event following the truck-bombing at the Marines barracks in Beirut--which killed over 200 American servicemen--and said, "Guess we forgot to put in a stop light." Or if Clinton had come out after the bombing of Serbia--during which U.S. bombs errantly destroyed the Chinese embassy and killed several people there--and said, "The problem is, those embassies--they all look alike."
Yet there was Bush--apparently having a laugh at his own expense, but actually doing so on the graves of thousands. This was a callous and arrogant display. For Bush, the misinformation--or disinformation--he peddled before the war was no more than material for yucks. As the audience laughed along, he smiled. The false statements (or lies) that had launched a war had become merely another punchline in the nation's capital.
[b][For Stupid and Shallow Bush, Missing WMDs is a [i]Joke[/i]??? ... It Sounds to Me, Like the [i]"Joke [sic]" [/i]is On [i][u]Us[/u][/i]!!!][/b]
[b]DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, [i]The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception[/i] (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob...%3D1060280098/sr%3D11-1/r ef%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-1250 273-6970361 The [i]Library Journal [/i]says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations....Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." For more information and a sample, check out the book's official website: http://www.bushlies.com. [/b]
|
|
|
| |
| "IMPEACH BUSH!" Is Starting To Resound Across The Fruited Plains ... |
| 03.25.04 (4:20 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" will [i]put-up with alot-- [u]too much[/u], in reality [/i]... But there is[i] a limit [/i]to the corruption and violation of our principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, that we will permit ... [/b]The insane neo-con, neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] is [i]testing that limit [/i]([i]and although they long ago exceeded the bounds of law, decency and humanity[/i])-- these criminal traitors are[i] only protected because the so-called "news" is mis-managed [/i]by a dishonest, greed-ridden corporate-owned, right-wing media full of neo-orwellian mad-dogs and court-jesters[i] willing to lie, cheat and steal [/i]in order to [i]cover-up and protect [/i]the corrupt Bush regime who [i]pays them back with illegal & immoral favors [/i]by betraying and swindling the American working people ...
Consider ""[b]Impeach Bush!" [i]Resounds Across the Country[/i][/b]" on http://www.libertyforum.org/s... :
[u]Across the Country the Call for Impeachment is Heard on March 20[/u]
[i]To Every Congressional Candidate that Wants Your Vote: Demand They Support Impeachment
Spring is Here - a Time for ImpeachBush.org Lawn Signs to Blossom Everywhere[/i] http://www.congress.org
Dear [i]Liberty Forum [/i]Member,
Congratulations on making March 20 such a powerful success! On the first anniversary of the attack on Iraq, people came into the streets united in huge numbers to repudiate the Bush administration. From coast to coast, in New York, in San Francisco and Los Angeles, in Chicago, in Crawford, TX the call to[i] Impeach Bush [/i]also rang out. Demonstrations were held in more than 250 cities and towns throughout the U.S. and [i]VoteToImpeach[/i] contingents and individuals carrying the [i]Impeach Bush [/i]message were out in full force.
It is no wonder that so many more people are joining the campaign to remove Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft from office. Each and every day a new lie promoted by the administration unravels in full public view. It is no longer a secret, if it ever was, that the administration was planning to carry out a war to conquer Iraq from the first day it took office. While the people of the country were in a state of shock and mourning, Bush and high administration officials saw September 11 as an "opportunity" to escalate its plans for war against Iraq. ([i]See the accounts of former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill and those of Richard Clarke, Bush's former top counterintelligence official[/i].) Bush's war of aggression has led to tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq, nearly 600 deaths of U.S. Gi's and created a climate of hatred.
Over the past months, impeachment activists have worked to introduce impeachment resolutions in their local city and town councils, and have undertaken letter writing campaigns and delegation visits to their representatives to push for impeachment. All of us have built this grassroots movement across the United States, reaching neighbors, friends and co-workers to build the campaign.
March 20 was built from the ground up. As people distribute leaflets, flyers, bumper stickers, wear t-shirts, and display lawn signs, each of us is making a difference. During the months ahead every candidate running for office (and all 435 members of the House of Representatives are up for election) should hear the message from the people that they demand that elected officials uphold the Constitution and impeach George W. Bush, Cheney and the others.
Let's get the word out there as far and wide as possible. Spring is not only a time of renewal (and hopefully warmer weather) it is also a time to make sure every block has an[i] ImpeachBush.org [/i]lawn sign, that for every median strip cluttered with candidate signs the bright yellow [i]ImpeachBush.org [/i]sign is prominent, and that the[i] Sticker it to Bush [/i]campaign goes into full bloom. You can pick up materials by clicking here http://www.impeachbush.org for the [i]Impeach Bush [/i]Resource Center.
Please write to Congress http://www.congress.org to demand the [i]impeachment[/i] of the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| 9/11 Hearings Reveal The Corrupt Bush Regime's Reckless Incompetence & Malfeasance |
| 03.25.04 (1:28 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime was [u][i]so[/i][/u] [i]pre-occupied (i.e. obsessed) with their neo-con plans for neo-fascist warmongerings (for war-profiteering) in Iraq[/i], that they recklessly ignored the warnings that Al Qaida-based terrorism (and [u][i]not[/i][/u] Saddam Hussein or Iraq) was a major threat to our national security.[/b]
Watching the 9/11 hearings reveals an[i] arrogant and incompetent Bush regime committing malfeasance by [/i]refusing to take protective actions proposed by CIA Director Tenet and ignoring advise of "underlings" ([i]high officials[/i]) "in the bowels of the administration", who weren't part of the [i]"sacred inner-circle" [sic] [/i]of hate-filled ideologues and corporate rapists surrounding an [i]isolated[/i] Dubya and a[i] self-obsessed [/i]Condi Rice. Dubya, Cheney and Rice should be [i]impeached[/i] by Congress http://www.congress.org for having[i] clearly violated their oaths of offices [/i]and [i]betraying our nation[/i].
"We the People" cannot in good conscience continue to watch this despicable charade of an imbecilic ne'er-do-well president ([i]who jokes about WMDs, while nearly 590 US Soldiers & over 10,000-15,000 innocent Iraqi Civilians have been slaughtered to enrich Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc[/i].)-- a criminal-thug-of-a-vice-p resident ([i]who lies, bribes Supreme Court 'Quack-Quack' Scalia to cover-up his treasonous crimes, as he perpetrates heinous, vicious frauds upon our nation[/i])-- and, a vile, traitorous and over-rated national security adviser ([i]who chooses not to associate with those she considers "low-lifes", who are her employees in her agency, because she prefers to hob-nob and suck-up to Dubya while watching sports events, instead of doing her job[/i]) ...
Consider "[i][b]9/11 Hearings Reveal Administration Inaction[/b][/i]" by [i]The Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
Americans this week heard former and current government officials testify about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. They learned that during the 1990s, there was a focus on al Qaeda. Intelligence resources were specifically targeted against bin Laden as early as 1996. Military action was taken in August 1998 and plots were disrupted and prevented, particularly related to the Millennium in 1999. Upon entering office, the Bush administration was specifically told that al Qaeda was responsible for the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. The Bush administration chose not to respond to the attack, and then failed to accelerate a comprehensive strategy against al Qaeda – even as intelligence reported that a major attack was forthcoming. Yesterday, former Bush counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke made clear the Bush administration did not consider counterterrorism efforts "urgent" and, in many ways, was "unprepared to act." This week's commission testimony clearly demonstrates that:
[b]1. Prior to Sept. 11, the Bush administration did not devote sufficient high level attention and intensity to the threat of terrorism. [/b]Top level Bush officials did not review a plan to address the threats posed by al Qaeda and the Taliban until just days before Sept. 11, even though it was available in January. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified that he "did not recall any particular counterterrorism issue that engaged his attention before 9/11." Even President Bush admitted he was not as focused on the issue as he should have been, telling Bob Woodward last December, "I was not on point" in fighting terrorism before 9/11.
[b]2. The administration focused more on Iraq rather than al Qaeda – even though Iraqi sponsored terrorism against the United States ceased in 1993.[/b] In Richard Clarke's book, [i]Against All Enemies[/i], prior to Sept. 11 Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is quoted as asking why "why are we... talking about this one man bin Laden?" rather than state-sponsors of terrorism like Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell testified that after the attacks, "Secretary Wolfowitz raised the issue of whether or not Iraq should be considered for action during this time." This fits with President Bush's words after Sept. 11: "I believe that Iraq was involved" he said in one meeting, adding, Iraq "probably was behind this in the end."
[b]3. By continually attempting to discredit former officials who are critical of the administration's approach to terrorism, Bush officials are creating a credibility problem.[/b] It's clear that Richard Clarke, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, and Rand Beers are telling the truth. Bush administration priorities set before Sept. 11 and decisions made after the attacks have "squandered the opportunity to eliminate al Qaeda." Despite heavy criticism from the administration (according to Bush officials, Richard Clarke was "out of the loop" and "missed a lot of what was going on"), it is now apparent that the former officials who have been criticizing the administration are right on the mark. As the [i]Washington Post [/i]notes, yesterday's reports, "confirm some of the key criticisms made by Richard Clarke."
|
|
|
| |
| Neo-Con Men & Their Neo-Con Tailspin ... |
| 03.24.04 (7:47 am) [edit] |
[image]WinstonSmith_10993 32668.gif[/image]
[b]"We the People" have been [i]ruthlessly scammed, swindled and neo-con conned [/i]by the corrupt Bush regime who have no sense of decency, honor or patriotic duty to our nation ... These neo-con traitors and neo-fascist liars, thieves and embezzlers are [i]only[/i] 'out-for-themselves' ...[/b]
Review "[b]White House Tailspin[/b]" by [i]David Sirota, Christy Harvey and Judd Legum[/i], The Progress Report, on http://www.alternet.org/story... :
One day after counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke's well-documented criticism of the Bush Administration's lackadaisical attitude towards terrorism, the White House is deploying top officials in a vicious barrage of personal attacks on a man with 30 years of public service under four presidents. The attacks reveal the vicious tactics this Administration uses to intimidate and threaten truth-tellers, but is so filled with inconsistencies, contradictions and lies that it actually bolsters Clarke's credibility. As Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said, "This is a serious book written by a serious professional who's made serious charges, and the White House must respond to these charges" – something that, despite the personal attacks, the White House has not yet done. See [i]American Progress's [/i]full rundown of the Administration's [i]distortions[/i] http://www.americanprogress.o... yesterday, and internal Justice Department/FBI [i]documents[/i] http://www.americanprogress.o... substantiating Clarke's claims.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed that Clarke "chose not to" voice his concerns about the Administration's counterterrorism policy, or lack thereof. But the White House itself acknowledges Clarke sent a memo to Rice on January 24, 2001 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack, and that top officials rejected Clarke's request, saying they "did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." Of course, Rice is the same person who denied ever being warned about putting the false uranium claim into the 2003 State of the Union Speech. When her dishonesty was exposed, she claimed, " I either didn't see the memo [or] I don't remember seeing the memo" from the CIA.
Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley – the same man who ignored CIA orders to remove false uranium claims from the President's pre-war State of the Union – defended the Administration by saying, "All the chatter [before 9/11] was of an attack, a potential Al Qaeda attack overseas." But according to page 204 of the bipartisan 9/11 congressional report, "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon found out that bin Laden associates "had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States."
On [i]Fox's[/i] Hannity and Colmes, Bush National Security spokesman Jim Wilkinson called Clarke's accusations a "work of fiction," and said the Bush Administration was focused on terror before 9/11. As proof, he claimed "it was this president who expedited the deployment of the armed Predator" (the unmanned plane). But according to Newsweek, it was the Bush Administration which "elected not to relaunch the Predator" and threatened to veto the defense bill if it "diverted $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism" programs like the Predator. As a result, AP reports, "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months." While "the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001," the Bush Administration failed to resolve a bureaucratic "debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate" the system, and it did not get off the ground before 9/11.
One of the most odious charges from the White House yesterday was that Clarke was personally responsible for all previous al Qaeda attacks against America. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice – who oversaw the worst national security failure in American history and yet refuses to testify publicly about it – said, "what's very interesting is that, of course, Dick Clarke was the counterterrorism czar in 1998 when the embassies were bombed. He was the counterterrorism czar in 2000 when the Cole was bombed. He was the counterterrorism czar for a period of the '90s when al Qaeda was strengthening and when the plots that ended up in September 11 were being hatched." Vice President Cheney echoed the very same criticism on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Rice and Cheney conveniently ignored the President's own "buck stops here" declaration and desire for a " culture of personal responsibility": Both refused to mention that they were Clarke's bosses in the lead up to 9/11, and that they ignored Clarke's repeated efforts to get the Administration to take terrorism more seriously. They also failed to elucidate why, if Clarke's record was so terrible, they called him an " outstanding public servant" and decided to keep him on board at the White House.
Top Bush officials claimed Clarke's criticism was not credible because, as Vice President Cheney said, Clarke " was out of the loop" after the White House counterterrorism office was downgraded from the top position it occupied under previous administrations. But this attack implicitly acknowledges that counterterrorism was downgraded as a priority at the White House, and thus disproves the Administration's claims that it was taking terrorism seriously before 9/11. And such downgrading is consistent with other internal administration documents. As columnist Paul Krugman notes, before 9/11 not only did the Administration "completely drop terrorism as a priority – it wasn't even mentioned in his list of seven 'strategic goals' – just one day before 9/11 it proposed a reduction in counterterrorism funds."
Vice President Cheney claimed "a process was in motion throughout the spring" to develop a "more effective" terrorism policy – an allusion to the counterterrorism task force he was asked to head in May. But, while Cheney convened his energy task force at least 10 times ([i]and had six other meetings with Enron executives[/i]), he never once convened the counterterrorism task force. Similarly, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett claimed, "President Bush understood the threat of terrorism when he took office." But when pressed to prove this claim in the face of Cheney's task force negligence and internal documents proving otherwise, Bartlett could only muster, "George Tenet personally briefed [[i]the President about terrorism[/i]] every single morning."
|
|
|
| |
| Claim vs. Fact: Administration Officials Respond to Richard Clarke Interview |
| 03.23.04 (11:03 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" are being[i] told ([i]lied to[/i]) [/i]by Dubya and his White House spin-meisters, and their powerful neo-con mad-dogs and neo-fascist court-jesters in the corporate-owned media & press that [i]everyone [/i]who [i]dares to criticize [/i]the Mad King George and who [i]refuses to bow-down and genuflect [/i]before the insane Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i], is some sort of 'whack job' or 'liar' or 'opportunist' ... The not-funny [i]"funny thing [sic]" [/i]is that the actual forensic evidence proves that the long line (... and is growing longer as time goes by ...) of patriotic whistle-blowers are indeed[i] correct [/i]... After all:--[/b]
1. Why do Bush, Cheney & Rice [i]refuse to testify in public under oath[/i] before the 9/11 commission? No one said that Clinton[i] shouldn't testify in public under oath[/i] during the Lewinsky scandal? What are Bush, Cheney & Rice[i] hiding regarding what they knew and when they knew it [/i]concerning advance warnings of the attacks upon America on 9/11?
2. Why did Bush[i] blow 3 chances to get Osama bin Laden before [/i]9/11? Why was [i]Poppy Bush with the bin Laden family[/i] on 9/11?
3. Why was Bush [i]obsessed with Iraq instead of fighting the real terrorists[/i] who posed a threat to our national security ([i]whereas Iraq posed no threat[/i])? Where are those [i]WMDs in Iraq [/i]that were going to wipe-out millions of us leaving "mushroom clouds" in their wake?
The vile Bushies are trying to destroy Richard Clarke ... Paul O'Neill ... Karen Kwiatkowski ... Joseph C. Wilson IV, and other insiders ... Will the traitorous Bushies be able to destroy everyone who tries to tell us the truth?[i] It's up to us to choose truth over lies[/i]!
Also consider "[b]Claim vs. Fact: [i]Administration Officials Respond to Richard Clarke Interview[/i][/b]" by [i]The Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
In the wake of Richard Clarke's well-supported assertions that the Bush Administration neglected counterterrorism in the face of repeated terror warnings before 9/11, the Bush Administration has launched a frantic misinformation campaign – often contradicting itself in the process.
[b]CLAIM #1[/b]: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to."
– [i]National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04[/i]
[b]FACT[/b]: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11.
– [i]White House Press Release, 3/21/04[/i]
[b]CLAIM #2[/b]: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11."
–[i] National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04[/i]
[b]FACT[/b]: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection.
[b]CLAIM #3[/b]: "[Clarke] was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things."
– [i]Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04[/i]
[b]FACT[/b]: "Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principle counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did."
– [i]White House Press Release, 3/21/04[/i]
[b]CLAIM #4[/b]: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations…The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11."
– [i]National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04[/i]
[b]FACT[/b]: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'"
– [i]Washington Post, 3/22/04[/i]
[b]CLAIM #5[/b]: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11."
– [i]National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04[/i]
[b]FACT[/b]: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks."
– [i]Washington Post, 3/22/04[/i]
[b]CLAIM #6[/b]: "Well, [Clarke] wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff…"
– [i]Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/22/04[/i]
[b]FACT[/b]: "The Government's interagency counterterrorism crisis management forum (the Counterterrorism Security Group, or "CSG") chaired by Dick Clarke met regularly, often daily, during the high threat period."
– [i]White House Press Release, 3/21/04[/i]
[b]CLAIM #7[/b]: "[Bush] wanted a far more effective policy for trying to deal with [terrorism], and that process was in motion throughout the spring."
– [i]Vice President Dick Cheney on Rush Limbaugh, 3/22/04[/i]
[b]FACT[/b]: "Bush said [in May of 2001] that Cheney would direct a government-wide review on managing the consequences of a domestic attack, and 'I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.' Neither Cheney's review nor Bush's took place." By comparison, Cheney in 2001 formally convened his Energy Task Force at least 10 separate times, meeting at least 6 times with Enron energy executives.
– [i]Washington Post, 1/20/02 , GAO Report, 8/22/03, AP, 1/8/02[/i]
[b]CLAIM #8[/b]: All the chatter [before 9/11] was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas.
– [i]Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, 3/22/04[/i]
[b]FACT[/b]: Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States."
[[i]Joint Congressional Report, 12/02[/i]]
|
|
|
| |
| Former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee: Bush Failed in War on Terrorism!!! |
| 03.22.04 (4:17 pm) [edit] |
[b]Statements have been issued by government and ex-governement officials who are appalled by the corrupt Bush regime's miserable failure in their so-called 'War on Terrorism' ([i]Dubya's misleading aphorism for neo-con warmongerings to enrich traitorous war-profiteers: Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc[/i].)-- It is clear that the squalid Bushies are liars, who ignored advanced warnings regarding the 9/11 attack upon America because they were obsessed with invading Iraq ...[/b]
"We the People" should call upon Congress http://www.congress.org to [i]carry-out [/i]the [i]impeachment [/i]of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell and the neo-con, neo-fascist criminals who have committed [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]by invading Iraq based upon[i] myriad lies, deceptions & falsehoods[/i], and moreover have enflamed more terrorism, hatred, anger and ugly atrocities that occur on a daily basis in Iraq and throughout the Middle East ...
Consider "[i][b]Debate Grows Over Bush's Handling of Terror Threat[/b][/i]" by [i]Carl Hulse[/i], The New York Times, on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... :
The accusations by Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism specialist, that the Bush administration failed to take the threat of Al Qaeda seriously before Sept. 11 overtook other campaign developments on Sunday and promised to reverberate this week when the Sept. 11 commission conducts a public hearing.
The White House moved quickly to respond to the harsh criticism by Mr. Clarke and his account of how top White House advisers were fixated on Iraq. It issued a detailed rebuttal that said Mr. Bush had "specifically recognized the threat posed by Al Qaeda."
In an interview on [i]ABC's "Good Morning America[/i]," President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, noted that Mr. Clarke had been in the counterterrorism office for a number of years and that, in her view, the United States "didn't have a strategy" for fighting Al Qaeda when the Bush administration came into office in January 2001.
"We were in office eight months," Dr. Rice said, referring to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Dick Clarke had been here a good deal longer."
But [i]Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida[/i], who is a former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, barely let Mr. Clarke's appearance on[i] CBS's "60 Minutes[/i]" end before he issued a scathing statement about the administration's record on terror.
"[i]The facts are that within six months of the first bombs falling on Afghanistan, this administration was diverting military and intelligence resources to its planned war in Iraq, which allowed Al Qaeda to regenerate[/i]," said Mr. Graham, who was one of the first lawmakers to label the war with Iraq a distraction from the fight against terror. "[i]As the people of Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and most recently Spain have learned painfully well, this president failed to execute the real war on terrorism[/i]."
Mr. Clarke's new book was also a topic on the Sunday talk shows as lawmakers and analysts tried to interpret the implications of such critical views coming from a White House insider with access to the highest levels of the administration.
"I am much more concerned about the safety of my granddaughter in school here in Washington because of Al Qaeda than I am with 10 Saddam Husseins,"[i] Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware[/i], the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said on[i] ABC[/i]. "And we took our eye off the ball because of a preoccupation with Iraq."
But his Democratic colleague, [i]Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut[/i], said on[i] Fox [/i]that he saw "no basis" for the accusation that the administration was too focused on Iraq in the wake of Sept. 11. "I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric and not to go about what happened in the past so totally that we divide ourselves," he said.
The focus on Mr. Clarke's account of what he described as the president's failure on terrorism could not be welcome at the Bush campaign headquarters, where strategists had been celebrating what they saw as new success with their attacks on Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate.
A furor over the president's handling of terrorism threatened to shift attention from the Bush campaign's efforts to keep Mr. Kerry on the defensive over tax and spending policy.
|
|
|
| |
| Blatant Distortions and Untruths (i.e. LIES) Regarding the Bush Regime's Attack On Richard Clarke .. |
| 03.22.04 (3:00 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" will have the opportunity to read accounts of the serious charges made by Richard Clarke http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/am... regarding the corrupt Bush regime's [i]outrageous criminal negligence [/i]with respect to[i] Al Qaida and Terrorism Prior to 9/11 [/i]... [/b]Of course, [i]if there is smoke, is there fire[/i]??? ... Anyone want to [i]'connect-the-dots' [/i]and ask the supplemental question: [i]Why are the Bushies stonewalling the 9/11 investigative commission??? [/i]... Could it be that Bush, Cheney, Rice and other neo-cons knew that the 9/11 attacks were coming and did nothing in the hopes of having an 'excuse' to invade Iraq ([i]although Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden or terrorism-- a phony series of links that the traitorous Bushies keep trying to make, unsuccessfully, because it is an outrageous lie used to cover-up and justify their heinous criminal activities[/i])??? ...
[i]Joshua Micah Marshall[/i], TalkingPointsMemo, http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... has an insightful assessement of some of the misstatements, deceptions, untruths (i.e. LIES) that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] are mendaciously propagating:
Vice President Cheney has been out of sight for a long time. But of late he's been out a lot, doing media interviews, giving campaign speeches and so forth.
Isn't it time someone asked him about the fact that senior members of his staff are at the center of a criminal investigation into the intentional leak of the identity of a clandestine operative at the CIA?
He's doing a lot of press. Why is no one asking him about this?
Now to the point at hand.
Cheney was on Rush Limbaugh today fighting back against Richard Clarke.
Now, I don't expect Limbaugh to ask the question above. But look what Cheney said about Clarke.
RUSH: All right, let's get straight to what the news is all about now before we branch out to things. Why did the administration keep Richard Clarke on the counterterrorism team when you all assumed office in January of 2001?
CHENEY: Well, I wasn't directly involved in that decision. He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things. That is, he was given the new assignment at some point there. I don't recall the exact time frame.
Cheney frequently gets a pass for what his aides later portray as unintentional misstatements of fact. But there are two or three levels of dishonesty involved in this response. The key one is timing. It's convenient that Cheney doesn't "recall the exact time frame" since the time frame puts the lie to his entire point.
Clarke was put in charge of cyberterrorism (a pet interest of his); but that was after 9/11.
He's saying that Clarke wasn't really so central to the terrorism big picture prior to 9/11 because he was tasked with dealing with cyberterrorism (which Cheney describes as something like a glorified version of Norton AntiVirus). But, as noted, this happened after 9/11. That's after the period in which Clarke claims the White House wasn't paying attention to the terrorism issue.
If there's any question that's the period Cheney is talking about it becomes more clear as the conversation continues ...
RUSH: Cybersecurity? Meaning Internet security?
CHENEY: Yeah, worried about attacks on computer systems and, you know, sophisticated information technology systems we have these days and that an adversary would use or try --
RUSH: Well, now, that explains a lot, that answer right there.
CHENEY: Well, he wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff, and I saw part of his interview last night, and --
RUSH: He was demoted.
CHENEY: It was still -- he clearly missed a lot of what was going on. For example, just three weeks after the -- after we got here, there was communication, for example with the president of Pakistan laying out our concerns about Afghanistan and al-Qaeda and the importance of the -- going after the Taliban and getting them to end their support for the al-Qaeda. This is say within three weeks of our arrival here. So the only thing I can say about Dick Clarke is he was here throughout those eight years going back to 1993, and the first attack on the World Trade Center in '98 when the embassies were hit in east Africa, in 2000 when the USS Cole was hit, and the question that out to be asked is, what were they doing in those days when they -- when he was in charge of counterterrorism efforts?
So Cheney's claim is that Clarke "wasn't in the loop ... on a lot of this stuff."
[i]Consider what that means[/i].
Clarke, as we've said, was the counter-terrorism coordinator at NSC. That means he ran the inter-agency process on terrorism issues. Cheney says Clarke wasn't in the loop; but that means that he actually ran the loop.
If he was out of the loop on the central points of what the White House was doing on terrorism that means there was a complete breakdown of the interagency process.
[b]Saying Clarke was out of the loop is [i]less a defense [/i]of the administration[i] than an indictment of it[/i][/b].
We'll be saying more on this. But I think we can already see from this and other defenses coming from administration officials that the White House's [i]line on this is filled with clear distortions and misstatements of fact [/i]-- most of which are easily identifiable by people who have even a rough understanding of the timing and issues involved.
[b]If they're resorting to blatant distortions and untruths this quickly they must not have a good defense[/b].
|
|
|
| |
| Former U.S. President Savages Bush & Blair: 'Their War was Based on Lies'!!! |
| 03.22.04 (9:24 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" should seriously consider the admonishment levelled by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter against the corrupt Bush regime for having misled our nation into an illegal and immoral war in Iraq, based upon heinous neo-con [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]...[/b]
Of course, neo-fascist Bush and Cheney have their neo-orwellian propaganda attack machine [i]out-in-force [/i]to attempt to discredit, smear and destroy all of their critics and all of their whistle-blowers, but it is doubtful that they can effectively undermine everyone ... After all, is it likely that Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Joseph C. Wilson IV, Karen Kwiatkowski, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker and others are all lying??? ... Methinks [i]not[/i] ... Not when the evidence of the traitorous Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's [/i]criminal treason, malfeasance and negligence is [i]staring us in the face[/i]!!! ... The arrogant and corrupt Bushies have [i]betrayed [/i]our nation and should be[i] impeached and removed [/i]from office!!!
Consider "[b]Carter Savages Blair and Bush: [i]'Their War was Based on Lies'[/i][/b]" by [i]Andrew Buncombe[/i], Independent U.K., on http://www.commondreams.org/h... :
Jimmy Carter, the former US president, has strongly criticized George Bush and Tony Blair for waging an unnecessary war to oust Saddam Hussein based on "lies or misinterpretations". The 2002 Nobel peace prize winner said Mr Blair had allowed his better judgment to be swayed by Mr Bush's desire to finish a war that his father had started.
In an interview with [i]The Independent [/i]on the first anniversary of the American and British invasion of Iraq, Mr Carter, who was president from 1977 to 1981, said the two leaders probably knew that many of the claims being made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were based on imperfect intelligence.
He said: "There was no reason for us to become involved in Iraq recently. That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and from Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for [the] 9/11 attacks, claiming falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And I think that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence ... a decision was made to go to war [then people said] 'Let's find a reason to do so'."
Before the war Mr Carter made clear his opposition to a unilateral attack and said the US did not have the authority to create a "[i]Pax Americana[/i]". During his Nobel prize acceptance speech in December 2002 he warned of the danger of "uncontrollable violence" if countries sought to resolve problems without United Nations input.
His latest comments, made during an interview at the Carter Center in Atlanta, are notable for their condemnation of the two serving leaders. It is extremely rare for a former US president to criticize an incumbent, or a British prime minister. Mr Carter's comments will add to the mounting pressure on Mr Bush and Mr Blair.
Mr Carter said he believed the momentum for the invasion came from Washington and that many of Mr Bush's senior advisers had long ago signaled their desire to remove Saddam by force. Once a decision had been taken to go to war, every effort was made to find a reason for doing do, he said.
"I think the basic reason was made not in London but in Washington. I think that Bush Jnr was inclined to finish a war that his father had precipitated against Iraq. I think it was that commitment of Bush that prevailed over, I think, the better judgment of Tony Blair and Tony Blair became an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush policy".
Mr Carter's criticisms coincided with damaging claims yesterday from a former White House anti-terrorism co-ordinator. Richard Clarke said that President Bush ignored the threat from al-Qaida before 11 September but in the immediate aftermath sought to hold Iraq responsible, in defiance of senior intelligence advisers who told him that Saddam had nothing to do with the conspiracy.
With an eye to November's presidential elections, Mr Bush sought on Friday to use the anniversary of the Iraq invasion to say that differences between the US and opponents of the war belonged "to the past".
Speaking at the White House, he told about 80 foreign ambassadors: "There is no neutral ground in the fight between civilization and terror. There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy."
But in the US and Britain, and elsewhere, there is growing anger among people who believe the war in Iraq was at best a deadly distraction and at worst an impediment to the war against al-Qa'ida - diverting resources and energy from countering those groups responsible for attacks such as the train bombings in Madrid.
Over the weekend millions of anti-war protesters poured on to the streets of cities around the world to call for the withdrawal of US-led troops from Iraq. It was estimated that in Rome - which saw the biggest crowds - up to one million turned out.
Mr Carter, 79, has recently published a novel. [i]The Hornet's Nest[/i] is centered on America's revolutionary war against the British. That period had many lessons for the present day, Mr Carter said.
|
|
|
| |
| George W. Bush: The Last Seven Days, The Last Fourteen Lies ... |
| 03.21.04 (6:35 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" should [i]wake-up to the continual on-slaught of never-ending lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]perpetrated by the corrupt Bush regime ... How do we get the message across to the ignorant and lazy American public who do not seem to hear, nor do they seem to listen to the alarm bells and warnings that our nation is in dire peril??? ...[/b]
Maybe it's the beginning of the presidential campaign that has caused George W. Bush to [i]pick up the pace[/i]. [i]He's spending more money, running more ads, and sending his henchmen out to promote and defend his policies.[/i] [b]But what has increased more than anything is the level of deception[/b].
Over the past seven days, we've seen fourteen occurrences of either new lies or revelations of old ones. http://www.independent-media....%20Reported ere's a summary, with links to the original news sources:
1. The GAO ruled that brochures prepared by the Bush administration "misrepresented the prescription drug benefits that would be offered to millions of elderly and disabled people." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
2. A group of residents and workers filed suit against the EPA, charging that they mishandled environmental hazards after the collapse of the World Trade Center, and that Christie Whitman "displayed a 'shockingly deliberate indifference to human health' when she issued reassuring statements about air quality downtown that proved to be misleading." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
3. The EPA claimed that it had met its goal of ensuring 91% of drinking water was safe, even though "EPA's own analysis, supported by our review, indicated the correct number was unknown but less than what was reported." http://nytimes.com/aponline/n...
4. When the government's chief analyst of Medicare costs wanted to make the true cost public before congress voted for the overhaul bill, he was told he would be fired if he did so. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
5. The Bush administration proposed counting hamburger flipping as "manufacturing" thereby boosting employment in a sector that has actually seen a loss of 2.8 million jobs. http://www.post-gazette.com/p...
6. New polls show that a "significant number of Americans now believe they were misled by the Bush Administration in the run up to the war." http://news.scotsman.com/late...
7. The new prime minister of Spain, elected primarily because the former government lied to the people, accused Bush and Blair of doing the same thing. "You can't organise a war with lies," he said. http://politics.guardian.co.u...,1320,1170294,00.html
8. Now even CIA Director George Tenet revealed that he had to privately correct public statements made by Bush administration officials, including Cheney. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...
9. The Bush administration staged phony news reports, with actors pretending to be reporters, to sell its Medicare bill to the public. http://nytimes.com/2004/03/16...
10. A new Bush campaign ad attacks John Kerry for voting against the $87 billion bill to rebuild Iraq, but misleads viewers by insinuatiing that Kerry voted against individual items in the bill. The ad also failed to mention that troops in Iraq were lacking the latest equipment well before the bill even came up for a vote. http://nytimes.com/aponline/n...
11. Bush continues to claim that the economy is in fine shape, but ignores key statistics. http://www.boston.com/news/gl...
12. The recent Pew Research Center report found widespread distrust of America in eight foreign countries. http://www.arabnews.com/?page...§ion=0&article=41429&d=18 &m=3&y=2004
13. Even Republican John McCain disputed the administration's claims that John Kerry was "weak on defense." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
14. Joining the chorus, the president of Poland says that "we were misled about weapons of mass destruction." http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...§ion=news
|
|
|
| |
| Past Their "Shelf-Lives": Bush & Blair Are Starting To Smell Really Bad!!! |
| 03.21.04 (2:02 pm) [edit] |
"[i]George Bush yesterday ignored global anti-war protests on the anniversary of the war in Iraq and instead proclaimed that it had been “good for America” [Only if you're a corporate top-dog or fat-cat who has lived the life of Emperor Caligula, making no sacrifice while others are sent to die or be maimed for life ...] But in sharp contrast Tony Blair remained publicly silent as tens of thousands took to the streets in London and Glasgow while the former Labour foreign secretary, Lord Owen, used the occasion to call on Blair to stand down, saying his “shelf-life” was almost over and he should not repeat the mistake of Margaret Thatcher by staying too long[/i]."
[b]"We the People" should acknowledge,[i] however difficult, however hard[/i], that the incumbent Bush regime is a corrupt cabal of neo-con liars, thieves and war criminals-- responsible for their heinous massacre of over 580 U.S. Soldiers & over 10,000-15,000 Innocent Iraqi Civilians, constituting the horrendous illegal & immoral act of [i]Crimes Against Humanity[/i]-- for which Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell and the rest of their neo-con, neo-fascist traitors should be tried in an International Court of Justice and found guilty ... How will this generation be remembered by future historians??? ... Methinks that they will[i] weep as our generation weeps [/i]for the [i]lost souls [/i]who refused to [i]stand-up [/i]against the Nazi government and the Holocaust ...[/b]
Review "[b]One year on: [i]Blair told it’s time to quit[/i][/b]" by [i]James Cusick[/i], Westminster Editor, Sunday Herald, on http://www.sundayherald.com/4... :
George Bush yesterday ignored global anti-war protests on the anniversary of the war in Iraq and instead proclaimed that it had been “[i]good for America[/i]”. [Uh-huh, yeah right, only if you didn't go fight and die to enrich Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.]
But in sharp contrast Tony Blair remained publicly silent as tens of thousands took to the streets in London and Glasgow while the former Labour foreign secretary, Lord Owen, used the occasion to call on Blair to stand down, saying his “[i]shelf-life[/i]” was almost over and he should not repeat the mistake of Margaret Thatcher by staying too long.
Owen said he had held discussions with Blair over Mrs Thatcher staying in office too long. “[i]He was very conscious of this fact[/i].” Speaking on[i] GMTV [/i]today Owen said he thought eight years in power for Blair was enough and that “[i]his [Blair’s] shelf life is coming to an end and he ought to have enough sense to see it[/i].”
Blair’s former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, will also say today that 12 months after the US-led invasion there is “[i]no sign of success[/i]” and only an anniversary of “[i]failure[/i]”.
The Liberal Democrat’s foreign affairs spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, said yesterday that a year on from the military action, the case for war had still not been proven, no weapons had been found, and there was no evidence the world was any safer from terrorism.
Large scale demonstrations were held throughout most European capitals, in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles as well as Australia, New Zealand, Egypt, Japan, India, South Korea, Thailand, Hong Kong, and South Africa.
In most cities Bush and Blair were the focus of the marches. Burned effigies of Bush and Blair were a common theme throughout the world.
As many of the global anti-war protests began being screened on US news networks, Bush used his weekly radio address yesterday to celebrate the toppling of Saddam Hussein. He said the liberation of the Iraq had been “good for Iraqis, good for America and good for the world.”
Later in Florida at an election rally, as supporters chanted “four more years” Bush again turned to the Iraq war. Focusing on the aftermath of 9/11, he linked Saddam and al-Qaeda together and promised no “hole” would be deep enough for terrorists to hide in.
Although Bush has previously acknowledged there was no link between the former Iraq dictator and al-Qaeda, his speech yesterday indicates his re-election team intend to ignore this in the run in to November’s election.
Today on [i]GMTV [/i]Cook says the war in Iraq did not help combat terrorism. He attacks the US president’s version of what the last 12 months had meant. “[i]George Bush said it [Iraq] is now the central front in the battle against terrorism. There were no international terrorists in Iraq till we went in there[/i].”
Cook also blamed “[i]our failure to know what we were going in to do[/i]” which he said created an opportunity for terrorists. “[i]This is not a sign of a success of our strategy, it is a sign of our failure[/i].”
[b]He said the war had created “[i]a whole new field of operations for al-Qaeda” and he called on the government “to be honest with the electorate[/i]”. [/b]
|
|
|
| |
| Vanity War: A Frat Boy's Keg Party Approach to Foreign Policy ... |
| 03.21.04 (8:51 am) [edit] |
"[i]Vanity of vanities; all is vanity[/i]." - Ecclesiastes
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] abused the trust of our nation ([i]and recklessly squandered our goodwill and credibility around the world[/i]) to mislead us into an [i]illegal and immoral war in Iraq[/i], based upon myriad [i]heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]... [/b]
More and more ex-Bush regime officials are '[i]coming-out-of-the-clo set' [/i]to show the vile and arrogant nature of the incompetent and criminal Bush gang who committed their neo-fascist [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]for ulterior motives [i]at odds [/i]with the insane neo-con rationalizations that they mendaciously and cynically[i] continue [/i]to propagate ... More and more citizens throughout the world are[i] rising-up in protest in the millions,[/i]against the neo-hitlerian occupation of Iraq ... [- Ex-Aide Says Bush Doing 'Terrible Job': http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm... , - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 : http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO... - Millions Protest Worldwide on Anniversary of Iraq War : http://www.washingtonpost.com... ]
"We the People" should call upon Congress http://www.congress.org for the[i] impeachment [/i]of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, and the rest of the neo-con liars, thieves and war criminals ... Our fellow citizens and innocent Iraqi civilians should not be massacred for the vanity of a dangerously stupid man (Dubya) and his gluttonous neo-fascist corporate cronies (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.) ...
Refer to "[b]'Vanity war: A[i] frat boy's keg party approach to foreign policy[/i][/b]" by [i]Daniel Ruth[/i], Tampa Tribune, on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
Well it took over a year, but finally Vice President Dick Cheney, the Bush administration's leading towel snapper, actually stumbled upon a truth the other day when he suggested if it were up to Sen. John Kerry, "... Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Iraq."
Yes, and more than 570 American military personnel might still be alive. And hundreds more of the 3,000 soldiers wounded in George W. Bush's vanity war would not need to be fitted with a prosthetic limb. [Over 10,000-15,000 innocent Iraqi civilians would also be alive.]
And countless other U.S. families would not have had their lives imploded simply because the president of the United States and his fellow country club warriors took a [i]"Get Smart"[/i] intelligence approach to going to war.
Good grief, there have been times over the past 12 months when the Don Adams-In-Chief has appeared to be on the very verge of saying; "Would you believe ... we went to war because ... uh, ... because, uh, Saddam was keeping his neighbors up all night playing Bobby Darin records?"
[b]Keg Party[/b]
Perhaps this is what happens when you take a frat boy keg party approach to foreign policy - you wind up having to concoct more erratic excuses for killing bunches of people than Joe Pesci in "[i]Goodfellas[/i]."
Of course, this isn't to say blowing up a country now and then is necessarily a bad thing.
What's the point in being the world's foremost superpower if you can't unleash the full brunt of your military contractors on some poor, unsuspecting Third World tin-horn dictatorship that just happens to be sitting on the mother of of all mother lodes of oil?
Thus the Bush administration plunged the nation into the Iraqi war with less of a grasp on reality than Ezra Pound.
And therein lies the irrefutable genius of the Bush White House.
You can tell more whoppers about weapons of mass destruction than Joe Isuzu, Pete Rose and Nathan Thurm combined, and as long as you can make the public think they might wake up tomorrow to find Saddam Hussein living next door, the citizenry will still get more morally outraged over Bill Clinton playing coochie-coochie-coo with an intern.
[b]Both Sides [/b]
But for sheer chutzpah, perhaps nothing topped Cheney's feigned Scarlett O'Hara-like outrage over comments made by Kerry alluding to the "coalition of the coerced and the bribed" serving as "window dressing" in support of the U.S.-led Iraqi occupation.
"If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Senator Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition," Cheney vamped, with a straight face, on both sides.
Inasmuch in the buildup to the beginning of hostilities the United States regarded the international community with all the thoughtful collegial consideration of the galley captain in the ramming speed scene from "Ben-Hur," Cheney would have been more properly obligated to call this moment the golden shower of diplomacy.
As well, it is sort of hard to fathom any future nation that would want to enter into a common bond with this country if its own troops had paid the ultimate battlefield sacrifice after having been deceived and treated as little more than Republican National Committee campaign bunting.
A year after the war began, a brutal dictator has been driven from power, replaced by a puppet government with less authority than Groucho Marx's rule over Fredonia.
It's true, however, that the populace no longer has to worry about being taken away to some horrific torture chamber.
Now for their convenience, Iraqis can be blown up by insurgent elements in the comfort of their own homes. In the parallel universe of the White House, that counts as progress.
|
|
|
| |
| Not Feeling Safer, Because We're Not Safer: Worldwide Protests Against Dubya's Neo-Con Warmongerings |
| 03.20.04 (9:17 pm) [edit] |
[image]WinstonSmith_13678 67002.jpg[/image]
[i][b]Hungarian protesters formed a human peace sign in Budapest[/b][/i] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mi...
[b]Local media is reporting that hundreds of thousands [in fact, millions http://www.washingtonpost.com... ] of antiwar protesters poured into streets around the globe on today's one-year anniversary http://www.thenation.com/doc.... of the [neo-con's illegal and immoral] invasion of Iraq to demand the withdrawal of US-led troops.[/b]
From Sydney to Tokyo, Madrid, London, New York and San Francisco, protesters condemned US Iraqi policy and the Bush Administration's http://www.thenation.com/dire... [insane neo-con] doctrine of pre-emption. Journalists estimated that at least a million people streamed through Rome, in the biggest single protest. In London, two activists evaded security http://www.reuters.co.uk/news...§ion=news to climb the historic Big Ben clock tower at the Houses of Parliament, unfurling a banner reading "[i]Time for Truth[/i]," as approximately 25,000 demonstrators streamed through central London, many carrying "[i]Wanted[/i]" posters bearing the faces of Bush http://www.thenation.com/dire... and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, http://www.thenation.com/dire... his main war ally. Some 3,000 people turned out in Sydney, chanting "end the occupation, troops out" and carrying an effigy of Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch war supporter. About 10,000 protesters marched in Athens, Greece, and an estimated 120,000 took part in peace protests across Japan.
Read [i]Nation[/i] editor Katrina vanden Heuvel's report http://www.thenation.com/edcu... from Moscow's antiwar march, click here http://www.canada.com/calgary... to read a report on Rome's major protest, and watch [i]The Nation Online[/i] http://www.thenation.com/ for upcoming dispatches from New York City, London and Madrid. You can also check the [i]United for Peace [/i]website http://www.unitedforpeace.org... for updates on continuing antiwar activism in the US, including this Wednesday's "[i]National Iraq Call-in Day[/i]." http://www.unitedforpeace.org...
[b]"We the People" should [i]Act Now![/i] and call upon Congress http://www.congress.org to [i]impeach[/i] the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]from office in order to face trial for their heinous [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]...[/b]
[b]Sources:[/b]
"ActNow! One Year Later" by Peter Rothberg, The Nation on http://www.thenation.com/actn...
"Worldwide protests mark Iraq war", BBC News, on http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mi...
|
|
|
| |
| Another Ex-Advisor Says Bush "Eyed" Bombing of Iraq on 9/11!!! ... |
| 03.20.04 (1:43 pm) [edit] |
[b]Bush and his corrupt neo-con regime of neo-con fascist traitors should be [i]impeached, tried for treason [/i]and sent to the Hague to be tried for their heinous [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]... Dubya and his neo-orwellian henchmen (Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc.) all told us that a war in Iraq was [i]only a "[u]last resort[/u]"[/i] in the event that Saddam Hussein did not "[u][i]give-up[/i][/u]" his WMDs posing an imminent threat to our national security ...
"We the People" were [i]purposely[/i] bamboozled, scammed, neo-con conned and criminally deceived:-- (1) No WMDs in Iraq, (2) Iraq posed no threat to us, and (3) Neo-fascist warfare-for-war-profiteer ing was not a "[i][u]last resort[/u][/i]", but had been planned [i][u]before[/u] 9/11, [/i]and 9/11 was [i]abused as an "excuse"[/i] to commit their horrendous war crimes ...[/b]
More than one advisor in the inner-circle of the Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]have admitted publicly that Dubya planned his illegal and immoral neo-hitlerian invasion of Iraq [i]far in advance of 9/11 [/i]... http://www.commondreams.org/h... http://www.rense.com/general2... ... Moreover, the fact that the traitorous Bushies [i]did not go after the real criminals-cum-terrorists who perpetrated the atrocities against America on 9/11[/i]-- but instead focused and directed our government to invade a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, represents:-- [i]gross negligence, malfeasance, treason and corruption that comprise a litany of High Crimes, impeachable under the U.S. Constitution [/i]... Please contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand the [i]impeachment[/i] of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell and the rest of these irresponsible and ruthless criminals [i]today [/i]...
Bush wanted an "excuse" to invade Iraq ... It is reasonable to ask the question whether or not the vile Bushies actually[i] allowed 9/11 to occur [/i]in order to provide their much needed "excuse" ([i]although Saddam Hussein/Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not support Al Qaida[/i]), particularly when they knew such an attack would[i] terrify [/i]the American people into forgetting all about their economic rape of America-- and that Americans would then [i]follow blindly like sheep-to-the-slaughter[/i ] into an illegal and immoral war, chaos and a bloody, nightmarish fiasco in Iraq ... http://www.monitor.net/monito...
To allow the sluttish Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] corporate pimps: Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. to hijack our foreign and domestic policies (an act of high treason) is tantamount to [i]negligence on our part [/i]... http://www.propagandamatrix.c... Please take some time and watch the video clip entitled "[b]Exposed: [i]The Carlyle Group[/i][/b]" on http://www.tblog.com/template...
"We the People" have a[i] sacred obligation and duty [/i]to our nation-- to those who have fought and died to preserve our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights-- and to future generations, to take action against the corrupt Bush regime and their rapacious corporate neo-fascists who have hijacked our government ...
More than one Bush administration insider has exposed the corrupt Bush regime's criminal activities. Consider "[i][b]Ex - Advisor Says Bush Eyed Bombing of Iraq on 9 / 11[/b][/i]" by [i]REUTERS[/i], on http://www.nytimes.com/reuter... :
A former White House anti-terrorism advisor says the Bush administration considered bombing Iraq in retaliation after Sept. 11, 2001 even though it was clear al Qaeda had carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Richard Clarke, who headed a cybersecurity board that gleaned intelligence from the Internet, told [i]CBS ``60 Minutes'' [/i]in an interview to be aired on Sunday he was surprised administration officials turned immediately toward Iraq instead of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
``They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12,'' Clarke says.
Clarke said he was briefing President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld among other top officials in the aftermath of the devastating attacks.
``Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq. ... We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan,'' recounts Clarke, ``and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.'''
Clarke, an advisor to four presidents, left his position in February 2003 after the White House transferred functions of the cybersecurity board to Homeland Security.
Clarke's comments are the latest to raise the question of the Bush administration's focus on overthrowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, fired in a shake-up of Bush's economic team in December 2002, told [i]``60 Minutes'' [/i]in an interview aired in January he never saw any evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- Bush's main justification for going to war.
O'Neill also charged that Bush entered office intent on invading Iraq and ousting its leader, Saddam Hussein.
``I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection'' between Iraq and al Qaeda, Clarke tells [i]``60 Minutes[/i].''
``But the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,''' says Clarke.
|
|
|
| |
| Spinning the Past, Threatening the Future ... |
| 03.20.04 (8:32 am) [edit] |
[b]One year ago today, the corrupt neo-con Bush regime[i] illegally and immorally invaded[/i] Iraq based upon [i]heinous fraud [/i]perpetrated upon the American people and the entire world community ...[/b]
Irrespective of their futile attempts to [i]re-write and spin the past events [/i]of the last year, the reckless and irresponsible Bushies have squandered U.S. goodwill and have lost all credibility (wantonly damaging America in the process) around the world-- Foreign Leaders, Diplomats, Military and Intelligence Experts, U.N. Officials, Conscientious Democrats, Republicans and Independents, and Concerned Citizens throughout the world are [i]outraged, revolted and angered [/i]by the arrogant[i] lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]criminally fabricated and disseminated by the insane neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] devised in order to wage an act of neo-hitlerian aggression against a sovereign nation that posed no threat to our national security or that of any other nation.
It is for this reason and the other tyrannical violations of international law, moral reason and a civilized code of conduct, that many thousands of patriotic and freedom-loving human-beings are [i]taking to the streets today in protest[/i] of the treasonous Bush regime's betrayal of the principles and doctrines enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/...
"We the People" should take [i]today[/i] to consider the disastrous direction that the corporate sluts in the Bush regime have taken our nation. Having pandered so viciously and traitorously to their corporate pimps (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.), it is just and proper that we exert our rights to demand that Congress http://www.congress.org conduct [i]impeachment hearings [/i]for Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, and the rest of this ugly neo-con cabal of lying thugs and murderous goons: arm-chair-chicken-hawks and war-profiteers who are responsible for the massacre of thousands of innocent human beings in order to enrich themselves.
An article worth reading is entitled "[i][b]Spinning the Past, Threatening the Future[/b][/i]" by [i]Norman Solomon[/i], CommonDreams, on http://www.commondreams.org/v... :
Political aphorisms don't get any more cogent: "[b][i]Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past[/i][/b]."
[b]George Orwell's famous observation goes a long way toward explaining why -- a full year after the invasion of Iraq -- the media battles over prewar lies are so ferocious in the United States. [/b]Top administration officials are going all out to airbrush yesterday's deceptions on behalf of today's. And tomorrow's.
The future they want most to control starts on Election Day. And with scarcely seven months to go in the presidential campaign, the past that Bush officials are most eager to obscure is their own record. In late 2002 and early last year, whenever the drive to war hit a bump, they maneuvered carefully to keep the war caravan moving steadily forward.
There was no doubt, they were a hard-driving bunch. The most powerful squad of the Bush foreign-policy team ran on the fuel of certitude at such a prodigious rate that even their momentum had momentum -- maybe, in part, because their lives' trajectories seemed to demand it. War had been declared first within themselves.
Perhaps such steeliness has been almost boilerplate in history; excuses for aggressive war have never been hard to come by. In this case, no amount of geopolitical analysis -- from media pundits, academics and other commentators -- could really do more to shed light than the lightbulb comprehension that these people in charge had from the outset made the determination that war it would be.
So, every attempt at civic engagement and demonstrations against the war scenario was, in effect, trying to impede "leaders" who had already gone around the bend. A very big bend. One of the American mass media taboos was to seriously suggest the possibility that the lot of them -- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and, yes, Powell -- were, in their pursuit of war on Iraq, significantly deranged.
Working back from their conclusion of war's necessity, top Bush administration officials -- with assistance from many reporters and pundits -- were reading the calendar backwards, hellbent on getting the invasion underway well before the extreme heat of summer.
There was also political weather to be navigated. Though much more susceptible to manipulation than the four seasons, the electoral storms would be starting for the 2004 presidential contest, and a secured victory over Iraq well in advance seemed advisable.
The peace-seeking pretense was dripping with charade in the months before the invasion. Journalists kept writing and talking about the chances of war as though President Bush hadn't already made up his mind to order it. Yet what Bush said in public was exactly opposite to reality -- a "one-eighty." When he talked about preferring to find an acceptable alternative to war, he was determined to bypass and destroy every alternative to war.
Rational arguments would not work to forestall the presidential order to unleash the Pentagon. Despite the obstacles, which included vital activism and protests for peace, the chief executive easily got to have his war -- the best kind, to be fought and endured only by others.
Eighteen months ago, looking out at Baghdad from an upper story of a hotel, I thought of something Albert Camus once wrote. "[i]And henceforth, the only honorable course will be to stake everything on a formidable gamble: that words are more powerful than munitions[/i]." Later, any and all words were to be vastly outmatched by the big guns trained on Iraq.
One afternoon, 14 months ago, inside a little shop in Baghdad's crowded souk, a young boy sat behind an old desk, brown eyes wide, quietly watching his father unfurl carpets for potential customers, and I wondered: "Will my country's missiles kill you?"
Key questions of the past are also crucial for the future. For instance, can the United States credibly wage a "war on terrorism" by engaging in warfare that terrorizes civilians?
Close to 10,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of the war during the past year.
Does the mix of mendacity and deadly violence from the Oval Office really strike against terrorism, or does it fuel terrorist cycles?
And, in the realm of news media, how many journalists are willing and able to go beyond reliance on official sources enough to bring us truth about lies that result in death?
[i][b]Norman Solomon is co-author, with Reese Erlich, of "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You." [/b][/i]
|
|
|
| |
| Does Dubya Give-A-Damn About The Many Soldiers & Innocent Civilians Massacred In Iraq??? Nope ... |
| 03.19.04 (4:16 pm) [edit] |
[b]Do you really think that the corrupt Dubya or any of his neo-con, neo-fascist arm-chair chicken-hawks "[i]lose any sleep[/i]" or otherwise [i]give-a-damn [/i]about the hundreds of U.S. Soldiers & tens of thousands of Innocent Iraqi Civilians massacred in Iraq??? ... What about the many, many thousands of innocents maimed, injured and/or scarred for life, as a result of his illegal & immoral neo-con guerrilla quagmire in Iraq??? ... Nope, [i]he doesn't [/i]...[/b]
Witness the [i]imbecilic dim-wit grins [/i]smirked by Dubya and the rest of the neo-con traitors, liars, thieves and criminals-- Of course, they have [i]visions of the many, many hundreds of millions of $$$ in gluttonous, ill-gotten profits (that they are embezzling from the U.S. Treasury)[/i] dancing in their insane heads ... War-profits unconscionably reaped [i]off-the-blood-and-back s of the American working people and the lives of poor kids[/i] -- while these vile, despicable sluttish war-profiteers pander to their war-mongering pimps ([i]who have hijacked our foreign & domestic policies[/i]) including Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. etc. etc.
A year ago the corrupt Bush regime committed a heinous atrocity in illegally and immorally invading Iraq, for which they should be [i]impeached, tried for treason[/i] and sent to the Hague to be convicted for [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]...
Dubya [i]ain't [/i]worried: he's stupidly (and [i]wrongly[/i]) prancing around dressed-up in military garb, campaigning, attending fund-raisers & sports-events, etc.-- while [i]others [/i]are dying or being maimed, severely injured and damaged in [i]his[/i] blood-thirsty warmongerings ([i]Dressing-up in bizarre costumes seems to be one of Dubya's crazy, teenage-mentality fetishes[/i]) ... Dubya has never served, as he was AWOL in a drunken stupor during Vietnam, while better men went, fought, and died or suffered miserable injuries and scars ... Dubya doesn't "[i]worry[/i]" though ... Dubya doesn't have the[i] mental capacity, humanity or even the experience-of-life [/i]to "[i]worry[/i]" ... So it's[i] easy to smirk imbecilic cliches and ideological bullshit [/i]when, like Dubya, you don't suffer any consequences because [i][b]others[/b] pay the heavy prices and burdens [/i]of your insane lusts, recklessness and greed ... It's the [i]sordid and squalid story [/i]of Dubya's[i] irresponsible and destructive life [/i]...
"We the People" were ruthlessly deceived by the corrupt Bush regime ... but now [i]it is up to us [/i]to be deceived no longer ...
Another new item is "[i][b]Bush Urges Allies to Stick With Mission[/b][/i]" on http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... :
Faced with wavering allies and a divided America, President Bush said Friday "there is no neutral ground" in the struggle against terrorism. A visit to the bedsides of wounded soldiers underscored the one-year toll of 570 American deaths in Iraq. [Iraq had nothing to do with "terrorism". Iraq wasn't involved with Al Qaida, 9/11 or Osama bin Laden, etc.]
Ambassadors and diplomats from 84 countries came to the White House to hear Bush's call for resolve.
"We are the nations that have recognized the threat of terrorism, and we are the nations that will defeat that threat," the president said in a speech marking the one-year anniversary of his launch of the invasion of Iraq. [Fighting "terrorism" by co-operating with other nations and focusing on "terrorists" is the right approach-- instead of massacring and enslaving innocent civilians and looting and swindling the resources (oil) of a sovereign nation to enrich Dubya's corporate cronies.]
Divisions over the war still shake the international stage, particularly in Europe. [That is a gross understatement.]
Spain's new leader, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, is moving to pull his country's 1,300 troops from Iraq unless the United Nations takes control of the military mission. France's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, blamed the war for unleashing violence. "Terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before," de Villepin said. "Today, it is one of the world's principal sources of world terrorism." [Dubya has instigated terrorism and is responsible for it's increasing threat.]
The continuing violence and rising U.S. death toll have thrust Iraq and questions about Bush's leadership to the forefront of the presidential campaign. After nearly a year of searches, the United States still has not found any of the supposed weapons of mass destruction that Bush had cited as a cause for war.
The president sought to put Iraq differences aside.
"There have been disagreements in this matter, among old and valued friends," he said. "Those differences belong to the past." [However, other nations don't see differences "in the past" as they are opposed to a new insane, neo-hitlerian doctrine of neo-con pre-emptive invasions in contravention of international law.]
Hoping to emphasize unity over division, Bush recited the names of more than three dozen countries that have suffered terrorist attacks or have been involved in the response to them. He allowed no room for nations to waver, laying down what he called an inescapable choice between standing with or against the U.S.-led anti-terror battle.
"There is no neutral ground — no neutral ground — in the fight between civilization and terror," the president said. "There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy. Any sign of weakness or retreat simply validates terrorist violence and invites more violence for all nations." [Stupid statement, as Dubya is trying to coerce, intimidate and use brute force to push other nations to collaborate in neo-nazi incursions of other nations ... Dubya is not fighting "terrorism".]
Secretary of State Colin Powell reinforced Bush's warning from Baghdad, where he met with Iraqis, coalition leaders and U.S. troops. [Arab reporters walked out, disgusted the massacre of an Iraqi journalist by U.S. Occupation troops.]
"This is not the time to say, 'Let's stop what we're doing and pull back,'" he said. "It's time to redouble our efforts ... and not run and hide and think it won't come and get us." [Nope, why should others die for arm-chair chicken-hawks who abuse troops to die to enrich themselves and their corporate cronies.]
Much of Bush's speech was devoted to defending the war in Iraq. He said the toppling of Saddam Hussein removed a source of violence and instability [What violence? What instability? None existed until Bush illegally and immorally invaded Iraq ... Another Bush lie ...] in the Middle East, and he linked Iraq to the broader war on terror, including the ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
"We've set out to encourage reform and democracy in the greater Middle East as the alternatives to fanaticism, resentment and terror," he said. [Nope, Dubya is replacing Islamic rule with the Global Corporate Empire and the fanaticism of corporate fascism and economic enslavement while the few plutocrats get rich and gorge on the flesh-and-blood of working neo-serfs.]
The past week has seen bombings, shootings and mortar attacks across Iraq, including a suicide bombing at Baghdad's Mount Lebanon Hotel that killed seven and an insurgent attack in western Iraq that killed two Marines.
The military said the death toll of American service members had reached 570.
After the speech, Bush and first lady Laura Bush went to Washington's Walter Reed Army Medical Center to visit with the "wounded who have made a decision to sacrifice for the nation's security." The hospital has treated scores of soldiers wounded in Iraq. [Dubya wants a cynical photo-op stunt for his campaign ... Dubya hasn't "wasted his time" with wounded soldiers before now.]
The "coalition of the willing" that the administration cites in Iraq — three dozen nations contributing military forces to the U.S.-dominated mission there — also showed some cracks.
South Korea announced would not send its troops to the area of Iraq that U.S. commanders had requested. Although the Defense Ministry said it would position them elsewhere in Iraq, the shift could pose a problem for Pentagon planners.
Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski told Bush his country's 2,400 troops would stay put in south-central Iraq. His assurance came a day after Kwasniewski said his country had been misled before the war over Saddam's suspected weapons of mass destruction.
At home, polls of the American voting public offer other reasons for Bush to endeavor to connect his actions in Iraq to the larger war on terror. While he receives the support of about two-thirds of those surveyed for his anti-terror campaign, Bush has about as many detractors on his Iraq policies as backers.
Sen. John Kerry, his Democratic presidential rival, has sought to seize on those doubts. Speaking on behalf of Kerry, former national security adviser Sandy Berger acknowledged that "Saddam is gone and that is unreservedly good."
"But all of this has come at a very heavy price — there is uncertainty as far as the eye can see," he said, faulting Bush for going to war without significant allied contributions and without a clear plan or sufficient troops for a postwar Iraq.
"It's increasingly clear that how we conducted the war in Iraq — hurried along unprepared for the day after — has made the terrorism problem more difficult," Berger said. "It took our focus off al-Qaida. It became a rallying point for jihadists in Iraq and elsewhere and we've been losing allies, not gaining them."
|
|
|
| |
| Iraq: One Year After ... |
| 03.19.04 (10:32 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" should be outraged, angered and fed-up [i]once and for all [/i]with the corrupt Bush regime for misleading us into an unnecessary, illegal and immoral neo-con war resulting in the deaths of over 570 U.S. Soldiers and over 10,000-15,000 Innocent Iraqi Civilians ... The neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] are [i]War Criminals [/i]who have raped and stolen the precious lives of innocent human beings and our U.S. Treasury on behalf of their corporate pimps who have hijacked our nation and are warmongering to enrich themselves with gluttonous, looted assets belonging to the U.S. and Iraqi peoples ... The Bush gang deserves to be tried for their heinous [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]...[/b]
One year after Dubya's neo-hitlerian incursion into Iraq, and[i] what [/i]is the [i]balance sheet[/i]?
... A world community that [i]no longer trusts or respects [/i]the American government ... Many informed Americans [i]no longer trust or respect [/i]our government[i] either [/i]for they ruthlessly lied, deceived and falsified information in order to wage their bloody-thirsty incursion turned horrendous guerrilla quagmire in Iraq ...
... Carnage, massacre, mayhem, chaos and misery in Iraq with [i]no end in sight to the violence, killing and hatred [/i]of the illegal and immoral U.S. occupation ... The vast majority of the Iraqi people[i] want us out [/i]of their country ... Moreover world-wide danger of terrorism and violence is[i] sharply increased [/i]as a result of Dubya's insane invasion of Iraq ...
... Record-level [i]deficits and debts here at home[/i], [i]embezzled and swindled from hardworking American taxpayers [/i]who are subsidizing the most rapacious and hateful form of looting: War-Profittering by Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.-- for whom this ugly and criminal blood-thirsty war was waged ...
These are [i]but a few of the many, many crimes [/i]committed by the vicious and traitorous Bush regime, who have placed our nation in dire peril and deprived our nation of the investment needed to be a prosperous and democratic leader of the free world ... Call upon Congress http://www.congress.org to[i] impeach [/i]Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, Rumsfeld, Powell and the neo-fascist cabal of neo-con thugs & goons who have imperiled our nation and are hateful traitors ...
Consider also "[i][b]One Year After[/b][/i]", N.Y. Times, on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... :
One year ago, President Bush began the war in Iraq. Most Americans expected military victory to come quickly, as it did. Despite the administration's optimism about what would follow, it was also easy to predict that the period after the fall of Baghdad would be very messy and very dangerous. In that sense, right now we're exactly where we expected to be.
It's nonetheless important to remember that none of this might have happened if we had known then what we know now. No matter what the president believed about the long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he would have had a much harder time selling this war of choice to the American people if they had known that the Iraqi dictator had been reduced to a toothless tiger by the first Persian Gulf war and by United Nations weapons inspectors. Iraq's weapons programs had been shut down, Mr. Hussein had no threatening weapons stockpiled, the administration was exaggerating evidence about them, and there was, and is, no evidence that Mr. Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Right now, our highest priority is making the best of a very disturbing situation. Even our European allies who opposed the war want to see Iraq stabilized and turned over to its citizens — even if they don't necessarily see Washington as the force to do that. The other possibility, an Iraq flung into chaos and civil war, open to manipulation by every unscrupulous political figure and terrorist group in the Middle East, is too awful to contemplate.
This is a good moment to take stock of what has been accomplished and what has not, especially since the day is rapidly approaching when the United States hopes to turn over the governing of Iraq to the leaders of the nation's three major ethnic or religious groups — who have shown no serious signs of being able to cooperate.
[b]Grim Scenes From Iraq [/b]
In the short run, the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of its leader have done virtually nothing to stop terrorism. In Iraq, as in Spain, Turkey, Indonesia and other countries, terrorist attacks have continued since the capture of Mr. Hussein. On Wednesday, and again yesterday, Americans saw on television news the flames and casualties from bombings in Baghdad and Basra by forces opposed to the American-led occupation, which have become more deadly and more sophisticated in response to every change in tactics by American soldiers. Indeed, the war in Iraq has diverted scarce resources from the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and other places.
For many Iraqis, freedom has come at a high price. In Baghdad, civilians line up at offices where the American military doles out money to compensate them for relatives killed, limbs lost and eyes blinded in the war. The innocent Iraqi casualties of Mr. Bush's war are literally countless because the Pentagon refuses to estimate their number.
Still, there have been important gains that are the basis of our hopes for the future.
A bloodthirsty dictator who tortured and murdered his people, and sacrificed their well-being to his gilded palaces, is locked up. An interim constitution has been adopted, a step toward laying the groundwork for a democratic government in Iraq, should the country's fractious groups ever resolve their differences. American-led efforts to rebuild Iraq have progressed to the point that some services are better than they were under Mr. Hussein, and Iraqis are starting to express satisfaction with how things are going. Iraq's power grid, for example, generates more electricity than ever.
Still, there are enormous gaps. According to the United States Agency for International Development, Iraq has a third less drinking water than it did before the war. And the pace of the rebuilding is alienating some Iraqis who clearly overestimated the powers and efficiency of the occupying forces. While some of that disappointment was inevitable, there was a bewildering lack of planning put into the occupation by an administration that seemed to believe its own talk about American soldiers' being greeted with flowers as an army of liberation.
The so-called surgical bombing did indeed limit damage to Iraq's civilian areas, but American troops did not come into Baghdad in enough force last April to deter the shocking sabotage and looting that occurred. In addition, the American government, under presidents from both parties, had spent 13 years in denial about the civilian toll of the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq. The Bush administration was unprepared for the total collapse of Iraq and for the disastrous state of crucial services.
[b]Strains on the American Military [/b]
The American military's ability to deal with all of this — and supervise the construction of a new democracy — is declining by the week. Even with the current rotation, reducing American troop strength to 110,000 from 130,000, the Army, Marine, National Guard and Army Reserve forces cannot sustain the occupation.
Roughly one in three of the Army's 480,000 active-duty soldiers are on duty overseas, and an even higher proportion of its combat brigades are either in the field or have just returned. Rotations are spaced too closely together — some of the troops that took part in the invasion of Iraq are to return there later this year — and that cuts into training and readiness. The strain on the Reserves and the National Guard is already enormous. While sending more American troops to Iraq is not the answer, the United States does need a larger active Army.
For Iraq, the only answer is greater peacekeeping and police help through the United Nations, from nations as varied as France, India, Bangladesh, Russia and the Arab countries. These nations can provide more than the token forces the United States is getting from most of its current allies, but are unlikely to help until their citizens see real United Nations authority, transforming a military occupation into a legitimate exercise in international nation-building.
Some members of Mr. Bush's coalition are shaken by the electoral defeat of the Spanish government that joined the invasion despite the opposition of some 90 percent of its citizens. In Poland, President Aleksander Kwasniewski said yesterday that he might withdraw troops from Iraq next year earlier than planned, adding that Poland had been "misled" about Iraq's weapons programs.
[b]Repairing the Diplomatic Damage [/b]
Winning the cooperation of countries like France and Russia will require the Bush administration to be far more serious about turning over real responsibility in Iraq to the United Nations and NATO. The United Nations is, commendably, no longer so hesitant about taking the lead in Iraq.
The Bush administration has barely begun the job of repairing the damage from its virtually unilateral rush to war last year. What the public and foreign leaders have learned about the way it managed the run-up to the invasion is only worsening the situation.
Asking a political leader to take his country to war in the teeth of overwhelming popular opposition is tough enough. Add to that a public that feels misinformed about the reasons for the war, and you've got political combustion. Polls show that a plurality of Americans say it was worth a war simply to remove a vicious dictator — an argument that Mr. Bush offered after it became obvious that his original justifications for the war were vaporous. But in Europe, there remains overwhelming popular opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney was wrong on Wednesday when he accused Spain of abandoning the war against terrorism by talking about withdrawing its forces from Iraq unless the U.N. becomes more involved. It's nonsensical to suggest that the Spanish people are appeasers, and doing so only isolates Washington further.
This page strongly opposed invading Iraq without international backing. The events since Mr. Bush decided to go ahead with only Britain as a major ally have further underscored the recklessness of this sort of adventurism.
It is not, as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have argued in campaign speeches and commercials, a question of getting permission from the United Nations to do the right thing. It is a matter of listening to the reasonable objections of proven friends, like Germany, which was privately warning Washington about the quagmire that Iraq represented.
[b]Stability for a Divided Iraq [/b]
The United States is now about 100 days away from June 30, when it hopes to turn Iraq's government over to Iraqis. As welcome as the adoption of the interim constitution was, it underscored how much more remains to be done before the Iraqis can begin to hope for a stable, workable leadership to govern their wounded country. So far, the United States has not found the formula for accomplishing what has in the past always seemed impossible: getting Iraq's majority Shiites, minority Sunnis and separatist Kurds to make real concessions and cooperate in governing Iraq. Days after compromising on the constitution, Shiite leaders were talking of amending it, and it took an ultimatum from Washington this week to make them back down.
Without any culture of trust and accommodation, any form of real elective democracy empowers the Shiites, reduces the influence of the Sunnis and once again leaves the Kurds, who have long wanted to break away from Iraq, at the mercy of people they do not trust. A Shiite-dominated Iraq may run into trouble with Iraq's Arab neighbors, who generally identify with the Sunni Iraqis, who dominate the country's military and ruling classes.
One temporary solution could be a prolonged period of Iraqi federalism imposed from the outside or an international trusteeship. Either, however, is likely to generate intense Iraqi opposition. Whatever model emerges, it must be guided by international bodies and not Washington alone.
In some ways, the prime-minister-in-waiting of Spain, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, did Mr. Bush a favor when he said he would withdraw Spain's symbolic military force from Iraq if the United Nations' role did not significantly increase after June 30. He has, in effect, given the president time to plan and to get cooperation from those countries that can contribute real forces. We hope the president uses this time to plan his next steps better than he planned the occupation.
|
|
|
| |
| Oxford Poll's "Troubling News" Of Iraqi Attitudes About U.S. ... |
| 03.18.04 (7:20 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]are misleading us [i]yet again [/i]... [i]What else is new??? [/i]... [/b]All these[i] happy-go-lucky [/i]Iraqis who are [i]thrilled-n-tickled-pin k[/i] with Dubya's rape of their OIL and the massacre of their people??? ... Sorry, but recent polls show that the Iraqi people want Dubya's illegal and immoral neo-con occupiers and his neo-fascist [i]corporate-take-all [/i]rapists out of their country ...
It is time for "We the People" to call upon Congress http://www.congress.org to [i]impeach[/i] the neo-con, neo-fascist [i]liars, thieves, embezzlers-cum-swindlers [/i]and[i] traitorous war-criminals [/i]in the blood-thirsty Bush regime from office ...
Consider "[i][b]Oxford Poll's Troubling News Of Iraqi Attitudes About U.S[/b][/i]." by[i] Nicholas F. Benton [/i](nfbenton@fcnp.com), Falls Church News-Press, on http://www.fcnp.com/402/comm2... :
The Bush administration in the U.S. and the Blair government in Britain are deluding themselves if they think the terrorist attack in Spain last week caused the subsequent electoral overthrow of a regime that participated in the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.
There is no doubt that the unprecedented outpouring of grief and anger over the terrorist attacks, and the more than 200 lives of innocent civilians claimed, contributed to the public turnout on election day.
But the public in Spain was already overwhelmingly opposed to the Iraq operation, and to Spain's participation. Terrorist attacks or no, there was strong evidence that the only important ally of Bush and Blair in the Iraqi fiasco would be soundly defeated. What happened in Spain was not, as some contend, a victory for al Qaeda and terrorism so much as it was a defeat for the Bush administration and its heavy-handed coercion of the ousted Spanish government.
As one pundit put it a few days ago, Bush's Iraq invasion has, indeed, achieved a regime change. In Spain.
But that may only be the beginning. Seeing beyond the smoke and tears of the horrible events that preceded the Spanish election, the electoral outcome there may be a harbinger of things to come in the U.S. in 2004 and Great Britain in 2005.
Indeed, the new prime minister-elect in Spain, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, suggested as much himself in a radio interview Monday. "What happened now that the Socialist government in Spain has taken power will have a great impact in the November elections in North America in the duel between Bush and Kerry," he said.
Zapatero is also not afraid to assert loudly from his new high-profile bully pulpit as he did throughout his campaign, that Bush lied to the global community as a pretext for invading Iraq. He vowed to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq unless brought under United Nations direction soon.
Bush's so-called "coalition" involved in the invasion of Iraq has lost one of its most important elements. It will only escalate trends, globally and in the U.S., to speak out against the invasion at the ballot box.
Even in Iraq, itself, the public is deeply divided and in no way decidedly supports what the Bush administration has done. According to the first scientific poll conducted inside that country since the U.S.-led occupation, commissioned by a number of news organizations, the Iraqi people are split right down the middle on attitudes toward the U.S.-led action. The poll reports that 41.8 percent of the Iraqi people believe the U.S.-led forces "liberated" Iraq, and 41.2% believe that the U.S. "humiliated" Iraq. The Oxford Research International, Ltd., conducted the poll and it was published by the BBC.
While the poll shows that a majority feels that Iraq is a better place now than before the invasion, it was not by that much, and this should come as no surprise, at least for now. No one has ever claimed that Saddam Hussein was anything but a brutal and repressive dictator. Given that, it could be considered surprising if any less than 99% of the Iraqis don't think things are better now. Given that, it is enlightening to see, according to the Oxford poll, that only 56.5% now think things are better than under Hussein. Over 42% think either there has been no change or that matters are actually worse.
The poll indicates that a clear majority of Iraqis now want the U.S. forces out of the country, although most say not until a new government is in place.
Asked whether or not they support the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq, only 39.5% of respondents said yes and 50.9% said no. Among the no's, 31.3% said they "strongly oppose" the presence of the forces.
This is a serious blow to the Bush administration's attempt to paint the invasion as a liberation hailed by a grateful and appreciative populace. But perhaps the most damning elements of the extensive survey are the questions asking which entities ought to have the biggest role in the future of Iraq. In almost every question, the percentage of people who indicated the U.S. should have the leading role ranged between 3% and 8%.
Asked which society, or political system, should be the role model for Iraq's reconstruction, only. 6.5% of Iraqis favored the U.S. Although the majority wants a democracy, with a strong emphasis on individual freedom, only a tiny minority feels the U.S. is any kind of a "beacon of hope and liberty" for them.
This is a deeply troubling poll, painting a picture of popular attitudes in Iraq far different than that portrayed by the Bush administration as well as by the major U.S. media. The popular conception that the average citizen in Iraq is happy with what's happened, and that only the hardened terrorists, remnants of Hussein's government or certain religious sects are not, is patently false.
It is now the task of the media, which after all commissioned this survey for its own use, to begin reporting more accurately on "man in the street" attitudes from inside Iraq.
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Backtracking On Date Of Iraqi Sovereignty: Let's Ask Halliburton & Carlyle Group For The Plan! |
| 03.18.04 (2:49 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt neo-con, neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] are[i] now backtracking [/i]on the date of handing over control [i]of the Iraqi people's country, Iraq, [/i]back to the Iraqi people [i]where it belongs [/i]... The vile Bushies promised that on the 30th June, Iraqi sovereignty would be respected ... Of course, like all of Dubya's cynical and useless promises:-- [i]this one will be broken as well[/i] ... The majority of the Iraqi people oppose Dubya's illegal and immoral U.S. Occupation http://www.hipakistan.com/en/... / http://www.fcnp.com/402/comm2... resulting in the massacre and misery of their people-- but the insane neo-orwellian Bushies [i]don't give a damn [/i]... [/b]
"We the People" should be asking Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. for[i] their real plans[/i] ([i]... as they are exploiting our US military as their private mercenaries/police units and the Iraqi people as their cannon-fodder-- all at US taxpayer expense ... Dubya's Welfare for Corporate Rapists!!! ...[/i])-- The rapacious and ruthless Global Corporate Empire are "[i]calling the shots[/i]" and the rest of us are supposed to [i]bow-down-and-genuflect [/i]before Dubya & his corporate cronies' miserable criminal embezzlement schemes, lies, murder and their "[i]mercy [sic]"??? [/i]... [b]Let us stand-up and say [i]no[/i] to Dubya's ruthless terrors and [i]impeach[/i] this traitorous cabal of neo-con thugs and goons ...[/b]
Consider "[i][b]Rumsfeld Hedges on June 30 Iraqi Sovereignty Date[/b][/i]" by [i]Will Dunham[/i], Reuters, on http://news.findlaw.com/news/... :
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday he could not be sure that a June 30 date would be met for ending the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq and handing sovereignty over to Iraq.
"Everybody, including the Iraqi Governing Council, has set that date as a target," he said in a radio interview with the [i]British Broadcasting Corporation [/i]at the Pentagon.
"And do I think it will happen? It has a chance of happening, yes. Will it happen for sure? Who knows? I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow," Rumsfeld added.
The United States, the United Nations and the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council set the date for restoring Iraqi self-governance, which ended with the U.S.-led invasion a year ago that toppled President Saddam Hussein.
"What we do know is that the Iraqis and the coalition have worked together, and the Iraqis have produced an interim constitution. They're pointed toward the date of June 30th. And why can't we just wait and see how well they do? They've done pretty darn well so far," Rumsfeld added.
Although the Iraqis have taken the important step of agreeing on an interim constitution until elections can be held at the end of this year or in 2005, they and U.S. authorities have not yet agreed on the form of the Iraqi body that would take power in Iraq on the return of sovereignty.
The Rumsfeld interview was one of a number by Pentagon leaders to mark this week's anniversary of the Iraq invasion.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was also asked about the June 30 date. "Well, I'm not in the business of predicting dates," he told [i]CNN[/i]. [[i]What [/i]is Wolfowitz in the business of doing? Wolfowitz has lied publicly, betrayed our nation and botched-up the Iraqi invasion resulting in the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent human beings!]
"We are very committed to having that handover take place on that date. And I think it's important because it will mean the end of the occupation. It will mean Iraqis being in charge of their own country. But it's not going to be a change from night to day," he said.
A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that "right now we are working toward a June 30 sovereignty transfer and that's our operating assumption."
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has emphasized the importance of June 30. After a U.N. team visited Iraq last month, he issued a report saying, "Virtually every Iraqi with whom the mission met stressed that the date of June 30, 2004, is a deadline that must be respected."
|
|
|
| |
| Irish Don't Want Bush: Protests Against Bush At Upcoming E.U. Summit |
| 03.18.04 (9:50 am) [edit] |
[b]Many memorable and wonderful days passed in Ireland taught me that it is a country enjoying a renaissance of education, prosperity and opportunity for its citizens, and is comprised of a population of smart, tenacious, witty and thoughtful people ... The majority of the Irish people [i]don't like [/i]and [i]don't respect [/i]Bush ... In fact, over 80% don't want the vile [i]Liar-N-Thief [/i]in their country http://www.indymedia.ie/newsw... ... Who can blame them? ... Neither do the vast majority of the world's population ... http://people-press.org/repor... [/b]
"We the People" should be ashamed that Bush is [i]stomping and trampling over there, like an obese, arrogant tyrannical despot [/i]with an over-bloated neo-imperial entourage of over 700 neo-con, neo-fascist thugs & goons--[i] at taxpayer expense [/i]-- where he will be greeted with protests from informed and well-educated people appalled and disgusted with his myriad [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]...
Consider "[i][b]Irish eyes won't smile when Bush pays visit[/b][/i]" by [i]Jimmy Breslin[/i], Newsday, on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
I am navigating my way across town with the atmosphere provided by a gloomy sky, and right away a woman I know for some time but could not for the dear life of me remember her name, stepped up to me and said, "You're coming over?"
"No, I've business."
"You're not going at all?"
I was sure that she meant some party yesterday where people could prove their heritage by drinking.
"I'm not going to do anything but skip through the parade and carry on," I said. "I've got somebody in the hospital."
And she said, "I mean in June in Dublin. Can you imagine? They're bringing Bush over. That's when we start stamping our feet something fierce in front of the world. He'll have the whole country up from the ground protesting."
Bush goes to Dublin to speak at a meeting of European nations. The size of Ireland makes any corner of the country easy to reach by protesters. The Bush government has been discussing places for safe meetings in the empty west of Ireland. The people around Bush feel any unfriendly crowd is a frontal assault that requires the 10th Mountain Division to defend. The Bush people think that the west of Ireland will be friendly. They are that out of touch with Ireland. The people will go anywhere to protest against Bush and his war. A corner of Mayo, or Grafton Street in Dublin, are equally good. The mails in my office and house have been filled with notices of war protest marches coming up in New York. The murmur of New York runs all over the world.
The [i]Irish Herald [/i]newspaper printed that Bush will have 700 people with him, and the American security people have asked for immunity for anybody who shoots and kills a protester. This could be a standard request, but it looks like hell to see it in print in Ireland.
Bush[i] revels in crowds from these low IQ states [/i]who have at best an eight-grade reading level. All through long dark years of poverty, Ireland never gave upon the most stringent, classic education. [i]And the country now might be the best read people on earth[/i]. This is [i]American ignorance at its highest[/i]: Bush and Kerry in a he said, he said confrontation about Kerry's statement that a foreign leader likes him more than Bush. Bush said, in a classic statement, that nobody running for president should make a claim if he can't back it up with facts. Bush said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and talked of mushroom clouds. If he can back it up, the world could end.
[b]The Irish can be expected to[i] rail against cheap lies [/i]and this could cause Bush to be embarrassed in front of the world.[/b]
I had to think of this when, in skipping across the avenue to get to the streets to get away speedily from this parade, I happened to see the cardinal of New York, Edward Egan, standing and smiling while talking with Ed Gillespie, the national chairman of the Republican Party. A picture or a report of this would make grand viewing in Ireland, where they don't like Bush and if they found he had the cardinal of New York, or any cardinal, or even a priest, wrapped around him, the hatred, which the Irish are better at than most people on earth, might be classic.
My friend Joyce O'Malley, who is writing a book in the middle of Mayo, says that she no longer permits her son, 11, to be part of any church services including a priest and altar boys unless there is a signed permission paper involved.
"I see it as [i]droit du seigneur[/i]," she says. "The definition of that is, the alleged right of a feudal lord to have sexual intercourse with a vassal's bride on her wedding night. That to me is the church."
Another old friend, Nell McCafferty, who is writing her book and may be the best of language, said last night, "There were a million against the war in London. Some of them could come over in June.You'll have a big time with your pad and pen. You'll have to get off now because I'm watching my show."
"What is it?"
"The last show of 'Sex and the City.' I'm having a bottle of champagne and watching it. Just leave me alone and call me back when you have the American price for my book. They're putting it up for sale next week."
I took a guess, a high guess, too, make her feel good. Into "six figures," as they say.
"Tell them don't even bother. I get one-fifty for British rights. America has to be way over that. Now let me watch my show and you call me back and let me know what I'm getting."
She is Irish, all right. And Bush might find out what that means when he comes to the place in June.
|
|
|
| |
| A MUST-SEE VIDEO:-- Rumsfeld 'Caught-on-Video' Lying, Lying and More Lying ... |
| 03.17.04 (5:45 pm) [edit] |
[b]A powerful [i]must-see [/i]clip shows Donald Rumsfeld [i]'caught-on-video' [/i]on [i]Face the Nation[/i], lying, lying and more lying ...[/b]
This video is about Don Rumsfeld ([i]and the larger issue of administration dishonesty[/i]) and is very powerful -- in large measure because it's so understated. All it does it replay a brief portion of Rumsfeld's appearance on [i]Face the Nation [/i]last Sunday. Give this one a look http://www.moveon.org/censure... .
What will it take before "We the People" finally say [i]Enough Is Enough[/i]???
[b]Sources:[/b]
MoveOn.org, http://www.moveon.org/censure...
Joshua Micah Marshall, TalkingPointsMemo, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
|
|
|
| |
| CENSURE BUSH: "A Failure of Integrity, Not Intelligence" -- Sign Petition NOW!!! |
| 03.17.04 (5:28 pm) [edit] |
[b]MoveOn.org is calling for the '[i]Censure[/i]' of Bush on behalf of "We the People" ...[/b]
[b]Please sign the "Censure Bush" petition on[/b] http://www.moveon.org/censure... .
[b]Censure Bush on[/b] http://www.moveon.org/censure...
President Bush told our nation that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Now that the chief weapons inspector has revealed that that simply is not true, President Bush seeks to avoid responsibility by creating an investigation that will focus on the CIA. That's why we believe:
"[i]Congress must censure President Bush for misleading the country about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction[/i]."
Listen to their radio advertisement on http://www.moveon.org/censure...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush is Losing at Everything: He is Hated All Over the World!!! ... |
| 03.17.04 (1:36 pm) [edit] |
[b]Bush is losing at [i]everything[/i]:--[/b]
... Bush has [i]foolishly & recklessly squandered the goodwill that the entire world felt towards the U.S.A. [/i]in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and is hated all over the world for his congenital stupidity, arrogance and willful disregard for human life and his appalling disdain for the rule of law ...
... Bush has [i]created an economic train-wreck here at home [/i]with over 9-15 million unemployed -- skyrocketing poverty with over 4 million homeless and over 25 million families living below an outdated poverty line -- over 45 million citizens without health care coverage resulting in over 18,000 unnecessary deaths per year -- Bush is slashing investment in education, jobs, our nation's infrastructure and the environment, etc. while redistributing our nation's wealth to his greedy corporate cronies ...
... Bush has [i]spent like a drunken AWOL deserter (which he is) on hyper-powerful neo-fascist corporations, gluttonous oligarchs, and greedy, rapacious & obscenely obese plutocrats[/i]-- while increasing the horrific back-breaking debt burden for working Americans who are facing higher taxes (via incresaed local and state taxes) to make-up for his ruthless [i]swindle, plunder & looting [/i]of working taxpayers, middle-income and low-income families ...
... Bush has criminally [i]committed malfeasance and mismanagement of our nation's foreign & domestic policies, for which he should be fired[/i], as he has callously and irresponsibly run-up the largest deficits and debts in our nation's history-- and has overseen the largest [i]disastrous gap [/i]between the[i] Hyper-Rich-Haves and the Impoverished-Slavish-Have -Nots [/i]in over 75 years ...
Bush is a[i] traitor [/i]to America ... Bush holds working people with contempt ([i]Ne'er-do-well Dubya has never done an honest day's work in his sordid & squalid life[/i]) for "We the People" and tramples on the U.S. Constitution-- Bush should be[i] impeached [/i]from office along with his corrupt cabal of neo-con, neo-fascist thugs & goons, for [i]they are all unfit to serve [/i]our nation ... March 20th in the anniversary of Bush's heinous illegal and immoral act of invading Iraq without just cause ... Please contact Congress http://www.congress and demand that Bush be[i] impeached [/i]from office ...
Consider also "[b]March 20: [i]The World Still Says No to War[/i][/b]" by [i]United for Peace & Justice [/i]on http://www.unitedforpeace.org... :
[b]Over 250 U.S. Events Planned ...
Protests in More Than 50 Countries ...
Over 500 Groups Endorse Call to Action ...[/b]
Momentum is building around the world for the Global Day of Action against War and Occupation on March 20, the one-year anniversary of the U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq.
On that day, people on every continent will take to the streets to say YES to peace and NO to pre-emptive war and occupation. Joining with growing numbers of military families and soldiers, we will call for an end to the occupation of Iraq and Bush’s militaristic foreign policies, and highlight the linkages between the occupations of Iraq and Palestine. March 20 will be the first time the world's "other superpower," as The New York Times described us, will take center stage since February 15, when more than 15 million people across the globe expressed their opposition to Bush's looming war on Iraq.
The March 20 Global Day of Action has been endorsed by the Global Assembly of the Anti-War Movement, the World Social Forum, and the 3rd Hemispheric Forum Against the FTAA. A vast and diverse array of organizations worldwide are hard at work mobilizing for the day.
In the United States, there will be a massive protest in New York City plus dozens of local and regional demonstrations across the country, including a major protest in Fayetteville, NC, the home of Fort Bragg.
Politically, the U.S. protests will also take on the domestic impact of Bush's foreign policies—what some people call "the war at home." We will express the growing opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act, which has authorized political arrests, indefinite detentions, domestic spying, and religious and racial profiling. We will call for an end to the mass detentions and deportations of innocent immigrants in the name of fighting terrorism. We will say no to massive military spending amidst vast cuts in vital domestic social and economic programs.
[b]HAVE YOUR GROUP ENDORSE MARCH 20[/b]
Click here http://unitedforpeace.org/mod... or call UFPJ (212-868-5545) to let us know your group is on board.
[b]BEGIN PLANNING LOCAL MARCH 20 ACTIONS[/b]
Bring together local groups to plan March 20 actions in your community. Be sure to list your plans on our calendar http://www.unitedforpeace.org... so we can help publicize your event to the media and to people in your community.
[b]Click here[/b] http://www.unitedforpeace.org... [b]to join the list of endorsers, to list your March 20 event or to receive mobilization updates ...[/b]
|
|
|
| |
| The Move to 'Censure' Dubya is 'Picking-Up Steam' ... But ... |
| 03.17.04 (1:09 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" should be ashamed of ourselves for not loudly insisting upon the [i]impeachment [/i]of Dubya and his corrupt cabal of neo-con thugs and goons ... [/b]The Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]has ruthlessly [i]lied, deceived and falsified[/i] information to mislead us into war: a [i]crime[/i] under the U.S. Constitution ... While the neo-fascist Bushies and their corporate cronies ([i]Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc., etc., etc[/i].) enrich themselves from unconscionable war-profits [i]swindled, plundered & looted [/i]out of the American working people for their illegal and immoral war-mongerings in Iraq-- the [i]carnage, misery and mayhem [/i]continues to unfold on a daily basis ... [Refer to "[i]Huge Explosion Destroys Hotel in Central Baghdad[/i]" on http://www.nytimes.com/aponli... ]
Dubya should be [i]impeached[/i] and tried for[i] Crimes Against Humanity[/i] ... Sadly, all that appears to be happening is an outcry for a move to censure the[i] Liar-N-Thief-Cum-War-Crim inal [/i]... [i]Too little, too late[/i]??? ... Please write to Congress http://www.congress.org and give your support for this very meagre admonition of Dubya's heinous criminal activities waged against America and the entire world community ...
[b]On War Anniversary, New Ads Urge "Censure" of President Bush - More than 500,000 Petition Signatures Will Be Hand Delivered to House Members Wednesday[/b]
WASHINGTON - March 15 - The drumbeat for censure of the President grows for his reckless refusal to tell the Congress and the American people the truth about his reasons for invading Iraq.
[i]Win Without War [/i] http://www.winwithoutwarus.or... and its member organizations, including [i]MoveOn.org[/i], [i]True Majority and Working Assets[/i], together have gathered more than 600,000 petitions and messages urging censure. Many of the participating organizations have seen explosive growth since the rev-up to the war began. [i]MoveOn.org [/i]alone has increased its membership from 400,000 to more than 2 million, largely on the strength of its opposition to the Bush war effort.
“[i]Win Without War [/i]organizations and their members are highly motivated and mobilized over the Iraq misadventure. In addition to the campaign to censure the president, they will be part of a continuing set of actions through 2004, and their numbers will continue to grow,” said Tom Andrews, National Director of [i]Win Without War[/i], which led a massive “Virtual March on Washington” and several thousand vigils last year to try to stop the attack on Iraq.
TV ads will run this week in Washington and New York, along with a full-page[i] New York Times[/i]. Additional ad buys around censure and other actions will follow.
These experts are available to discuss the war and provide alternative voices for your programming to the Bush Administration happy talk about the Iraq fiasco:
Tom Andrews -- Former Congressman (D-ME) and member of the House Armed Services Committee, National Director of [i]Win Without War[/i], a coalition of national organizations that has challenged the invasion from the beginning and continues to confront the recklessness of the Bush Doctrine of unilateral engagement. The coalition offers a mainstream, patriotic voice for engaging opinion makers, activating concerned citizens, and communicating to the media.
Peter Schurman – Executive Director of[i] MoveOn.org [/i]and coordinator of its growing effort to convince Congress to censure George W. Bush for misleading it and the country about weapons of mass destruction, misstating the truth about Iraq’s nuclear weapons capability and inventing ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Larry Johnson - Larry C. Johnson is a former Deputy Director of the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, who has spoken out for censure of Bush. Earlier, he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security and crisis and risk management. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international firm that helps multinational corporations and financial institutions identify strategic opportunities, manage risks, and counter threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. He is a Republican who supported and raised funds for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign.
Melvin A. Goodman - Melvin Goodman, also an advocate of censure, was division chief and senior analyst at the Office of Soviet Affairs, Central Intelligence Agency, and a senior analyst at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. He is the author of several books including [i]The End of Superpower Conflict in the Third World [/i]and [i]National Insecurity: US Intelligence Reform[/i]. He is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and has been an adjunct professor of government at American University since 1996.
[b]Source:[/b]
Win Without War, http://www.commondreams.org/n...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Dishonesty Takes Center Stage |
| 03.17.04 (9:27 am) [edit] |
[b]Is there [i]anything[/i] that Bush has told the truth about??? ... [/b]
"We the People" would be very foolish indeed, to keep this [i]traitorous neo-con liar, thief-n-crook and war criminal [/i]in office ...
Consider "[i][b]Bush Dishonesty Takes Center Stage[/b][/i]" on http://www.misleader.org/dail... :
President Bush attacked his opponents today, saying, "If you're going to make an accusation, you ought to back it up with facts."1 But on everything from the economy to national security, this high standard stands in sharp contrast to the president's own behavior.
On Iraq, President Bush said before the war that Iraq "recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"2 despite the CIA previously warning the White House not to make this factually inaccurate statement 3. He also said there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised"4 despite receiving repeated warnings that there was little hard evidence Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction after 19915. He even said that "we found the weapons of mass destruction" when none had been found6.
On economic policy, President Bush said that, with his tax plan, "by far the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder."7 In fact, according to Congress' bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, households making less than $40,000 - roughly the bottom half of the economic ladder - would receive only 10 percent of Bush's income tax cut.
On the budget, President Bush said, "This nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war."8 He said this two months after his own budget acknowledged that his economic policies and tax cuts for the wealthy - not the war - were what created the largest deficits in American history.9
[b]Sources:[/b]
1. Remarks by President Bush and Prime Minister Balkenende of the Netherlands in a Photo Opportunity, 03/16/2004.
2. State of the Union, 01/28/2003.
3. "Bush Aides Disclose Warnings From CIA", Washington Post, 07/23/2003.
4. President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, 03/17/2003.
5. "Doubts, dissent stripped from public Iraq assessment", Mercury News, 02/09/2004.
6. Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, 05/29/2003.
7. "Serial Exaggerators", Fair.Org.
8. President Discusses Plan for Economic Growth in Ohio, 04/24/2003.
9. "Secrets of S-3", GovExec.com, 02/12/2003.
|
|
|
| |
| Exposed: The Carlyle Group ... |
| 03.16.04 (6:47 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" [i]should [/i]be informed by our (corporate-owned) media and (right-wing, neo-fascist) press puppets & court-jesters who instead [i]bow and genuflect [/i]before the Mad King George and his corrupt cabal of criminal war-mongers, about the Carlyle Group and their long-standing involvement with the Bush Crime Family and the House of Saud, the Saudi Royal Family ... It is a putrid and squalid affair and the Carlyle Group has rapaciously amassed tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in war-profits from the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's [/i]insane, illegal & immoral war in Iraq ... The Bushies and their associates at the Carlyle Group are blood-thirsty war criminals who should be tried for their heinous [i] Crimes Against Humanity [/i]...[/b]
[b]Click here to [i]review clip [/i]on[/b] http://informationclearin ghou...
|
|
|
| |
| Over 25 Ways That Hypocritical Dubya Foolishly Flip-Flops ... |
| 03.16.04 (4:45 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime's neo-orwellian propaganda spin-meisters are [i]out in force [/i]to malign, slander and libel Senator John F. Kerry and others [i]who refuse to bow-down and genuflect [/i]before their ugly and vile Global Corporate Empire ...[/b]
"We the People" should be demanding the[i] impeachment [/i]of the [i]traitors-in-arms[/i]: Bush, Cheney and the rest of their neo-con, neo-fascist liars, thieves and war criminals ...
One of the traitorous Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]neo-orwellian lies told to the American people is that Kerry flip-flops ([i]not true[/i]) and that hypocritical Dubya doesn't ([i]not true[/i]) ... In fact, Dubya[i] foolishly flip-flops [/i]placing our nation in peril:--
... Bush opposed the McCain-Feingold bill in the 2000 GOP primary, tried to kill it in Congress, [i]and then signed it when it passed[/i].
... Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; [i]then he's for it[/i].
... Bush is against a 9/11 commission; [i]then he's for it[/i].
... Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; [i]then he's for it[/i].
... Bush is against nation building;[i] then he's for it[/i].
... Bush is against deficits; [i]then he's for them[/i].
... Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; [i]then he's against them again[/i].
... Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict;[i] then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State[/i].
... Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, [i]then he is for changing the constitution[/i].
... Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency),[i] then he doesn't[/i].
... Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... [i]then he cuts benefits[/i].
... Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"[i]I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care[/i]."
... Bush claims to be in favor of the environment [i]and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island[/i].
... Bush talks about helping education [i]and increases mandates while cutting funding[/i].
... Bush claims to be for women's rights [i]and then nominates judges who have tried to overturn Roe v. Wade[/i].
... Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. [i]Now he will[/i].
... Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then [i]say's he shouldn't have[/i].
... Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. [i]Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote[/i].
... Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors.[i] Bush later admits it was his advance team[/i].
... Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush [i]after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it[/i].
... Bush says he's in favor of adding carbon dioxide as a regulated greenhouse gas.[i] Then Bush said it would not be included[/i].
... Bush was against Nation Building.[i] ooops Iraq[/i].
... Bush-"I'm a uniter, not a divider." [i]Then divides[/i].
... Bush was against amnesty for illegal aliens. [i]Now he's for it[/i].
... Bush was against Presidents doing an end run around Congress to pack the courts. [i]Then he did it[/i].
... Bush said the war would cost $3 billion. [i]Then he asked for $87 billion. Now it's over $100 billion[/i].
... Bush: We need to go to war with Iraq because their WMDs pose a direct threat to the United States. Bush: [i]We needed to go to war with Iraq to free the Iraqi people. Later all these reasons prove false[/i].
... Bush implemented No Child Left Behind, [i]then underfunded it by $9 Billion[/i]?
... As governor of Texas, Bush opposed a strong patients' bill of rights that nevertheless passed over his veto. [i]On the 2000 campaign trail, he tried to take credit for the law and implied he would support comparable legislation on the national level[/i].
... Bush proposed a temporary tax cut conditioned on the idea that the government could afford it without spending the Social Security surplus; [i]then, when the surplus vanished, he supported a further tax cut. Now he wants his first cut made permanent[/i].
[b]Sources:[/b]
Bush's Flip-Flops, Part 1, Joshua Micah Marshall, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
Bush's Flip-Flops, Part 2, Joshua Micah Marshall, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's Failures -- Educational Rape of America's Children: Turn the Paige ... |
| 03.16.04 (1:50 pm) [edit] |
[b]Bush has miserably failed our children on education (... [i]as well as a lack of decent health care, the outlandish & reckless record-level deficits/debts that they must bear, etc. ... -- while the corrupt Bushies live lavish, obese and obscene life-styles [/i]...) ... Bush's irresponsible [i]'Leave No [Rich] Child Behind' [/i]fiasco is akin to his insane, illegal and immoral war-turned-bloody-guerril la quagmire in Iraq:-- [i]a neo-con con-job used to scam, swindle and loot America [/i]... This time, it is all the more horrific for it ruthlessly exploits [i]our children [/i]and rapes them of their futures ...[/b]
"We the People" should [i]remove our blinders [/i]and recognize that the neo-fascist Bushies [i]want to destroy education in America [/i]in order to create a neo-slave state comprised of ignorant neo-serfs intimidated and brain-washed with right-wing neo-orwellian propaganda -- too un-educated, fearful and stupid to ask any questions -- too weakened and scared to stand-up for themselves -- too willing to work for slave labour wages, with no workers' protections and rights -- and who are trained to be dumb-sheep to pay homage to their rapacious neo-imperial rulers, despots and tyrannical corporate-take-all robber-barons who live like Emperor Caligula, while the rest of the citizenry are relegated to struggle to survive ... [b]Let's put a stop to this ugly, arrogant neo-feudal Bush regime and oust them from office in November ...[/b]
Consider "[i][b]Turn the Paige[/b][/i]" by[i] Robert L. Borosage & Earl Hadley[/i], The Nation, on http://www.thenation.com/doc.... :
At a meeting with the nation's governors last month, Bush's Education Secretary, Rodney Paige, called the National Education Association (NEA) a "terrorist organization" because teachers have been decrying Bush's broken promises on his education reforms. When Paige later "apologized," he accused the teachers of "obstructionist scare tactics." In response, the Campaign for America's Future and MoveOn.org have joined together to launch a petition calling on the President to fire Paige. The petition can be joined at www.firepaige.org.
We launched the petition not simply because Paige's comments libel America's teachers but because they represent an Administration mindset that is threatening to America's children.
Bush's education reforms--the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)--imposed sweeping mandates on the schools, requiring mandatory testing and reporting, with schools that fail to show progress facing cut-offs in public funding. Bush gained bipartisan support for the reforms in part because the President promised a dramatic increase in funding to provide schools with the help they need to make the law work. By all accounts, the law has encouraged new attention to students that have been too often slighted in schools--minorities, slow learners, new immigrants.
But the promise of the law has been undermined by how it has been implemented. As Representative George Miller has detailed, the President has broken his promise on funding, falling more than $25 billion short to date on what he initially promised. At the same time, with the states facing their worst fiscal crisis in fifty years, the President insisted on his top-end tax cuts, opposing any protection for school budgets. The resulting cuts across the country have made implementing the new law even more difficult.
But when teachers began explaining what the effects were on students, Secretary Paige--and the Administration--ignored their comments and attacked their motivation. Turning conservative ideology on its head, the Administration now suggests that the bureaucrats around Paige are better informed than the teachers in the classroom. As Paige's insult exposed, the Administration treats teachers as an enemy that has to be defeated instead of enlisting them in a process to make the law work. This isn't just an affront to conservative dogma; it's a clear and present danger to children in public schools.
Now state legislatures are beginning to revolt against the lack of funding and the inept administration of the law. Republican strongholds in Virginia and Utah have passed resolutions challenging the law by overwhelming majorities. Paige hasn't yet labeled the Republican state legislators terrorists, but he hasn't listened to them either.
The President has sought to portray himself as an "education President," a reformer with results. But after passing NCLB, he's basically been AWOL. He chose tax cuts over help to schools, so the country has been laying off teachers while giving tax breaks to millionaires. He broke his promise on funding his own reforms, and then broke his promise on lifting the level of Pell Grants for deserving university students, even though tuition hikes are pricing more and more kids out of school. And he has left Secretary Paige in office, a man who seems to consider his job one of quashing criticism rather than listening to it.
Making certain every child succeeds is an enormous challenge. But this Administration has defaulted even on helping to provide the basics--insuring that every child has the nutrition, healthcare and preschool vital to coming to school ready to learn, providing small classes in the early grades, schools that aren't dangerous to children's health, teachers who are respected and engaged in lifetime learning, after-school programs vital to working parents, and the certain knowledge that all children can afford a college education if they deserve one.
America's Future strongly believes that standards and accountability are vital. Holding schools accountable for subgroups can force attention on students that too often have been shunted aside. But enforcing high-stakes tests without the resources to help schools succeed merely sentences them to failure.
Paige claims his libels and anger derive from his concern about minority children being left behind. Were that the case, he'd be picking his fight with Bush and not the NEA. And when the new Bush budget was published calling for cuts in education funding across the board for the next five years, Paige would have resigned in protest. But Paige isn't protecting children, he's protecting the President.
So it is time to turn the Paige. Paige's dismissal is a necessary first step to getting the Administration to fulfill its promises and begin listening to those whose job it is to make the reforms work in the classroom. We invite all who agree to sign the petition at www.firepaige.org. Join us--this is but an early round in what we anticipate will be a growing struggle to get this Administration and this country to meet the challenge of educating the next generation.
|
|
|
| |
| U.S. Tried to Plant WMDs, But Failed According to Whistleblower!!! ... |
| 03.16.04 (12:06 pm) [edit] |
[b]Truth or fiction??? ... We may [i]never[/i] know the real truth ... However, if a retired U.S. Navy Lt Commander is making this claim, [i]shouldn't it be investigated[/i]??? ...[/b]
"We the People" should be wary as the corrupt Bush regime has a history of rigging elections ... maligning, slandering and libelling their opponents ... and perpetrating heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods upon our nation and the entire world community ... The insane neo-con, neo-fascist Bushies will do [i]anything[/i] to "win" and it is dangerous, traitorous and destructive for the future survival of America ...
Consider "[b]US tried to plant WMDs, failed: [i]whistleblower[/i][/b]" by [i]Daily Times Monitor[/i], http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/... :
According to a stunning report posted by a retired Navy Lt Commander and 28-year veteran of the Defense Department (DoD), the Bush administration’s assurance about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was based on a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plan to “plant” WMDs inside the country. Nelda Rogers, the Pentagon whistleblower, claims the plan failed when the secret mission was mistakenly taken out by “friendly fire”, the[i] Environmentalists Against War [/i]report.
Nelda Rogers is a 28-year veteran debriefer for the DoD. She has become so concerned for her safety that she decided to tell the story about this latest CIA-military fiasco in Iraq. According to [i]Al Martin Raw.com[/i], “Ms Rogers is number two in the chain of command within this DoD special intelligence office. This is a ten-person debriefing unit within the central debriefing office for the Department of Defense.”
The information that is being leaked out is information “obtained while she was in Germany heading up the debriefing of returning service personnel, involved in intelligence work in Iraq for the DoD and/or the CIA. “According to Ms Rogers, there was a covert military operation that took place both preceding and during the hostilities in Iraq,” reports [i]Al Martin Raw.com[/i], an online subscriber-based news/analysis service which provides “Political, Economic and Financial Intelligence”.
Al Martin is a retired Lt Commander (US Navy), the author of a memoir called “[i]The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider[/i],” and is considered one of America’s foremost experts on corporate and government fraud. Ms Rogers reports that this particular covert operation team was manned by former military personnel and “the unit was paid through the Department of Agriculture in order to hide it, which is also very commonplace”.
According to [i]Al Martin Raw.com[/i], “the Agriculture Department has often been used as a paymaster on behalf of the CIA, DIA, NSA and others”. According to the [i]Al Martin Raw.com [/i]story, another aspect of Ms Rogers’ report concerns a covert operation which was to locate the assets of Saddam Hussein and his family, including cash, gold bullion, jewelry and assorted valuable antiquities. The problem became evident when “the operation in Iraq involved 100 people, all of whom apparently are now dead, having succumbed to so-called ‘friendly fire’. The scope of this operation included the penetration of the Central Bank of Iraq, other large commercial banks in Baghdad, the Iraqi National Museum and certain presidential palaces where monies and bullion were secreted.”
“They identified about $2 billion in cash, another $150 million in Euros, in physical banknotes, and about another $100 million in sundry foreign currencies ranging from Yen to British Pounds,” reports Al Martin.
“These people died, mostly in the same place in Baghdad, supposedly from a stray cruise missile or a combination of missiles and bombs that went astray,” Martin continues. “There were supposedly 76 who died there and the other 24 died through a variety of ‘friendly fire’, ‘mistaken identity’ and some of them—their whereabouts are simply unknown.” Ms Rogers’ story sounds like an updated 21st-century version of [i]Treasure Island meets Ali Baba and the Bush Cabal Thieves[/i], writes Martin.
“This was a contingent of CIA/ DoD operatives, but it was really the CIA that bungled it,” Ms Rogers said. “They were relying on the CIA’s ability to organise an effort to seize these assets and to be able to extract these assets because the CIA claimed it had resources on the ground within the Iraqi army and the Iraqi government who had been paid. That turned out to be completely bogus. As usual.”
“CIA people were supposed to be handling it,” Martin continues. “They had a special ‘black’ aircraft to fly it out. But none of that happened because the regular US Army showed up, stumbled onto it and everyone involved had to scramble. These new Iraqi “asset seizures” go directly to the[i] New US Ruling Junta[/i]. The US Viceroy in Iraq Paul Bremer is reportedly drinking Saddam’s $2000 a bottle Napoleon-era brandy, smoking his expensive Davidoff cigars and he has even furnished his office with Saddam’s Napoleon-era furniture.
|
|
|
| |
| Reporter Admits He Misquoted Kerry's "World Leader" Remark, But Bush Still Lying About It!!! ... |
| 03.16.04 (7:17 am) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime will do [i]anything, absolutely anything [/i]to "[i]win[/i]" ... Lie, Cheat, Steal, Murder, Rig Elections ... [i]anything[/i] to "[i]win-at-all-costs[/i]" ...
Senator John F. Kerry was misquoted by a reporter who corrects his "mistake", but the neo-fascist Bushies continue to spread their neo-orwellian lies[i] after they know they are lying [/i]... Hmmm ... Not unlike their heinous[i] modus operandi [/i]regarding myriad "Iraq-WMDs-posing-an-immi nent-threat" [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]... The insane neo-con Bushies should be tried for criminal treason and should be i[i]mpeached[/i] from office for which they are unfit ...[/b]
"We the People" deserve better than this criminal Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i], whom [i]the majority of Americans are starting to perceive[/i], have betrayed our nation and are misleading us in a disastrously wrong direction [Refer to "[i]Nation's Direction Prompts Voters' Concern, Poll Finds[/i]" on http://nytimes.com/2004/03/16... ] .
Consider "[i][b]Partisan Debate Only Escalates as Kerry Quotation Is Corrected[/b][/i]" by [i]Jodi Wilgoren[/i], NY Times, on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... :
The White House stepped up its attack on Monday over Senator John Kerry's http://www.nytimes.com/top/ne... recent claim to have international support for his presidential campaign, as Mr. Kerry deployed high-profile Democrats to defend him.
The escalating argument came amid revelations that the weeklong controversy was based on an inaccurate transcript provided by a reporter covering the Florida fund-raiser where Mr. Kerry made a similar remark. As Vice President Dick Cheney and Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, continued to criticize Mr. Kerry on the issue, the reporter — one of two allowed to attend the event on behalf of the press corps — said Monday that he had made a mistake when transcribing his recording of the session.
The inaccurate quotation was widely reported, including on several occasions in[i] The New York Times[/i].
Patrick Healy, the[i] Boston Globe [/i]reporter who covered the fund-raiser, had quoted Mr. Kerry as saying: "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but, boy, they look at you and say, `You have got to win this; you have got to beat this guy; we need a new policy.' Things like that."
Mr. Kerry said on Sunday that he had used the word "heard," not "met," prompting Mr. Healy to revisit the recording. On Monday, he sent out a corrected transcript, clarifying that the quotation actually began, "I've met more leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly."
The remark was part of Mr. Kerry's response to an observation by his Florida finance chairman that when traveling abroad, he had met people who "hate Bush, but they know we're going to get rid of him."
Stephanie Cutter, Mr. Kerry's spokeswoman, said the campaign did not raise questions about the accuracy of the quotation amid days of criticism because there was a problem with its tape recorder, making the word inaudible.
Mr. Healy also said it was difficult to hear the word on his recorder, particularly when he was transcribing between campaign events aboard a bus and an airplane. Over reporters' objections, campaigns frequently limit access to events, requiring the press corps to rely on one or two journalists' versions.
Senator Kerry never denied making the statement, but he refused repeated calls — including one from Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on [i]Fox News Sunday [/i]— to identify the foreign leaders.
On Monday, before Mr. Healy's mea culpa, Mr. McClellan said that if Mr. Kerry did not identify the leaders, "the only conclusion one can draw is that he is making it up to attack the president." Separately, at a fund-raiser in Arizona, Mr. Cheney said, "At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy."
Even after the quotation had been corrected, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Richard C. Holbrooke, President Bill Clinton's delegate to the United Nations, called reporters to offer their response.
"It's so obviously the truth what Kerry said, and the Republicans are just having fun with it — everybody knows it's true," Mr. Holbrooke said, adding that he called after speaking to Ms. Cutter. "In the last six or seven months, I've been in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Europe. I've met with leaders in all of those regions, and they have overwhelmingly — not unanimously but overwhelmingly — said that they hope that there's a change in leadership."
|
|
|
| |
| A Brief History of Bush Regime Intimidation, Threats & Defamation ... |
| 03.15.04 (7:05 pm) [edit] |
[b]Truth and integrity in government are fundamental characteristics of a free and democratic society that "We the People" have an obligation to insist upon and uphold ... [/b]
Intimidation, threats and defamation of people who try to tell the American people the truth should trigger outrage, anger and protest against the corrupt Bush regime ... Bush and his criminal cabal of neo-cons and neo-fascists have betrayed our trust ...
Consider "[b]White House Intimidation: [i]A Brief History of Threats and Defamation[/i][/b]" by the [i]Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
A look at the historical record shows that the Bush Administration has summarily fired, threatened, intimidated and defamed anyone who has had the courage to tell the truth about major policies facing America.
[b][u]MEDICARE ACTUARY THREATENED WITH FIRING IF HE TOLD TRUTH TO CONGRESS[/u][/b]: "The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan. Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told colleagues last June that he would be fired if he revealed numbers relating to the higher estimate to lawmakers." [[i]Source[/i]: Knight-Ridder, 3/11/04]
[b][u]FMR. TREASURY SECRETARY THREATENED WITH INVESTIGATION AFTER TELLING TRUTH[/u][/b]: Three days after Paul O'Neill criticized the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, the Administration "began an investigation into whether any laws or regulations had been violated by O'Neill." The probe came despite O'Neill having specifically "cleared all of the documents with the Treasury general counsel's office." The probe ended up fully absolving O'Neill. [[i]Source[/i]: AP, 1/13/04; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 1/14/04; CNN, 2/6/04]
[b][u]LINDSEY FIRED FOR TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT COSTS[/u][/b]: "Top White House adviser Larry Lindsey [was fired] when he told a newspaper that an Iraq war could cost $200 billion." [[i]Source[/i]: Christian Science Monitor, 12/17/02]
[b][u]ZINNI FIRED FOR TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY[/u][/b]: "General Anthony Zinni, a retired Marine general who was Bush's Middle East mediator, angered the White House when he told a foreign policy forum in October that Bush had far more pressing foreign policy priorities than Iraq and suggested there could be a prolonged, difficult aftermath to a war. He was not reappointed as Mideast envoy." [[i]Source[/i]: AP, 7/27/03]
[b][u]TROOPS THREATENED FOR TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT COMBAT IN IRAQ[/u][/b]: After soldiers in Iraq raised questions about the Bush Administration's deceptive WMD comments, Gen. John Abizaid said no soldiers "are free to say anything disparaging about the secretary of defense, or the president of the United States. Whatever action may be taken, whether it's a verbal reprimand or something more stringent, is up to the commanders on the scene." [[i]Source[/i]: ABC News, 7/16/03]
[b][u]REPORTER DEFAMED FOR TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT TROOPS[/u][/b]: "A White House operative alerted cyber-gossip Matt Drudge to the fact that [ABC News correspondent Jeffrey] Kofman is not only openly gay, he's Canadian. Drudge said he was unaware of the ABC story until 'someone from the White House communications shop tipped me to it'…White House press secretary Scott McClellan tried to be nonchalant, indicating that he wasn't planning an investigation of the incident." [[i]Source[/i]: Washington Post, 7/18/03 and 7/20/03]
[b][u]GENERAL DISPARAGED FOR TELLING TRUTH ABOUT TROOP LEVEL NEEDS[/u][/b]: Despite the fact that it appears he was probably accurate, "Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz criticized the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, after Shinseki told Congress in February that the occupation could require 'several hundred thousand troops.' Wolfowitz called Shinseki's estimate 'wildly off the mark.'" [[i]Source[/i]: USA Today, 6/3/03]
[b][u]CIA BLAMED FOR TELLING TRUTH ABOUT BOGUS IRAQ-NUCLEAR CLAIM[/u][/b]: Despite the CIA having made advance objections to the White House about the false Iraq/nuclear claim, "President Bush and his national security adviser yesterday placed full responsibility on the Central Intelligence Agency for the inclusion in this year's State of the Union address of questionable allegations that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was trying to buy nuclear weapons." [[i]Source[/i]: Washington Post, 7/12/03 and 7/14/03]
[u][b]CIA OPERATIVE EXPOSED BECAUSE HUSBAND TOLD TRUTH ABOUT IRAQ[/b][/u]: According to government sources, "Administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore from Africa. 'Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,' a senior official said of the alleged leak." [[i]Source[/i]: Washington Post, 9/28/03]
|
|
|
| |
| Terrorists Didn't Throw Spanish Election:-- Voters Simply Say No More To Insane Bush Doctrine!!! ... |
| 03.15.04 (3:43 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" may want to[i] pretend [/i]that the terrorists undermined the Spanish election ... But that would be to indulge in more of the corrupt Bush regime's neo-con neo-orwellian propanganda [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods[/i] ... Bush has placed the entire world in great danger and citizens across the planet will no longer support their puppet-governments who pander to the Mad King George and the insane neo-con doctrine of global hegemony & world domination ...[/b]
In reality, the Spanish people opposed the neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's [/i]illegal and immoral war-turned-bloody-guerril la-quagmire in Iraq ... Over 90% opposed the war from the outset, and opposed Spain's collaboration with the Bushies' neo-nazi aggression into Iraq ... Not everybody wants their fellow-citizens to die or be maimed for life, in order to enrich the Bush & Cheney Crime families, Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. ...
The horrific terrorist attack last week in Madrid simply ignited the anger already felt by over 90% of the Spanish people who aren't willing to become [i]cannon-fodder [/i]for Dubya ... Why should they? ... Al Qaida's recruitment efforts have increased following Bush's heinous invasion of Iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11, WMDs, or any of the other phony "reasons" (i.e. lies) we were ruthlessly misled about ... [i]Good for the Spaniards ... They ain't stupid!!! [/i]...
Consider "[i][b]Furious voters oust Spanish government[/b][/i]" by [i]Giles Tremlett in Madrid[/i], Guardian UK on http://www.guardian.co.uk/spa...,2763,1169404,00.html :
[i][b]Socialists gain power as Aznar is punished for bloodshed [/b][/i]
Spanish voters punished prime minister José María Aznar's People's party for the bloodshed of last week's Madrid terrorist attacks yesterday, throwing it out of government in an angry reaction to his handling of the aftermath.
In one of the most dramatic elections of the post-Franco era, voters turned on the ruling party, convinced that the multiple bomb attack on Madrid's packed commuter trains had been carried out by al-Qaida and with a growing sense that the People's party had tried to hide the truth.
With intelligence agencies around the globe trying to identify a man who, in a videotape found in Madrid, claimed responsibility for the attacks for al-Qaida and with three Moroccan suspects in police custody, most voters believed the Spanish capital had suffered its equivalent of the September 11 attacks in the United States.
Socialist leader José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero swept to a surprise victory that was a blow to the Bush administration. He has pledged to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq if the UN does not take control by June 30 when Washington plans to hand power back to Iraqis.
Mr Zapatero started his victory speech with a minute's silence for the victims of Thursday's attacks before vowing to fight all kinds of terrorism. "Together we will defeat it," he told supporters outside his party headquarters in Madrid.
Angry protests on the streets of large cities overnight had set a tone of brooding resentment and bitterness for a vote in which the deaths of 200 people and the injuries of more than 1,500 had inflamed some already sharp divisions in Spain.
Protesters accused the government of trying to hide the fact that violent Islamism was to blame and demanded explanations for Mr Aznar's backing of the Iraq war against the will of some 90% of Spaniards.
Those worries helped drive a huge turnout that had reached 62.9% of voters by mid-afternoon, 7% higher than at the same stage of the last election in 2000. They produced a reverse in the fortunes of a People's party which led in opinion polls by three to five points a week ago. With almost all ballots counted, Mr Zapatero's Socialists had won 42.6% of the vote, gaining 164 seats in the 350-seat parliament. The Popular Party took 37.7%, 148 seats. No other party won more than 5% or 10 seats.
It was also the first example of a single terrorist attack having a direct affect on the outcome of an election in a leading western country. [It ignited the already existing anger in Spain regarding sending troops to Iraq, a war they overwhelmingly opposed.]
Mr Zapatero, a 43-year-old lawyer, had pledged during campaigning to swap Mr Aznar's pact with Mr Bush for a return to a European alliance with France and Germany.
Although Mr Aznar had stuck to a pledge to stand down and not present himself for a third consecutive term, commentators said the vote was a direct criticism of him rather than of his hand-picked successor, Mariano Rajoy.
"The great defeat here is not of Mr Rajoy but of Mr Aznar," said political commentator José Oneto, who claimed Mr Aznar had done little to boost Mr Rajoy's standing during campaigning.
All predictions about who might win were blown away by the unknown terrorists who placed 10 bombs on four trains during Thursday's early-morning rush hour in Madrid.
"Spain has never voted in such a tragic situation. There's a feeling of anguish, sadness, horror," said Joaquin Leguina, a former president of Madrid's regional government.
The untried Mr Zapatero will now have to find backing from small regionalist parties in Catalonia or elsewhere.
A handful of young protesters had screamed "murderer" at Mr Rajoy as he cast his vote at a school outside Madrid. "We did not want to go to war," they shouted.
On Saturday night, crowds besieged the People's party headquarters, angry at the perceived lack of information they were receiving about the circumstances surrounding Thursday's blasts, especially from the state broadcaster RTVE.
Mr Rajoy, who admitted defeat last night with 95% of the vote counted, had declined to comment on the arrests or videotape. "These elections come at a time of great pain," he said.
The People's party had based much of its campaign on a"no negotiating" stance in the face of the armed Basque separatist group Eta and had criticised opponents it considered weak in their opposition to the group.
Separatist parties or regionalists demanding more powers also suffered from a campaign against them that backfired so badly it helped one party, the separatist Catalan Republican Left, increase its number of seats from one to eight, making it the fourth largest party.
Mr Aznar's final mistake was to spend the first two days after the Madrid bombings insisting that Eta was probably to blame, despite the fact that it would have been a dramatic change in the terrorist group's tactics.
A Basque-language daily yesterday published a statement by Eta which, for a second time, denied involvement in the attacks.
|
|
|
| |
| Spanish People Put In Place A Government Who Respects Their Will!!! ... |
| 03.15.04 (1:50 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" seem to accept a neo-fascist government[i] comprised of liars and criminals [/i]that treats [i]our U.S. Constitution and the [i]will[/i] of our own citizens [/i]with contempt ... [/b]An example is Universal Health Care supported by a majority (57%) of American citizens-- but which the corrupt neo-fascist Bush regime rejects on behalf of their corporate paymasters who are callous to the deaths (over 18,000/year) and misery of those (over 45 million) elderly, sick and ill citizens who cannot afford health care ([i]U.S. costs of health care are over-bloated to pay-off the gluttonous fat-cats and top-dogs in the Health Insurance Scam, Pharmaceutical, & Health Care Industries who are preying upon the American people like vultures[/i]) ...
The Spanish people decided overwhelmingly to reject their [i]own neo-fascist [/i]Aznar-style government (who played puppet to the American neo-fascist Bushies) in favor of an administration who instead will carry out their mandate.
The vast majority (90%) of Spaniards were opposed to the Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's [/i]illegal and immoral war in Iraq from the outset ... and they still [i]don't want their own citizens [/i]massacred in order to enrich the Bush Crime Family, the Cheney Crime Family, Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. ...
So the newly elected Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero will pull the Spanish troops out of Iraq, as per the [i]will [/i]of the Spanish people ... [i]Good for them [/i]...
Isn't it time for "We the People" to demand that [i]our[/i] troops be brought home-- and if "[i]someone[/i]" is still lusting for[i] warmongerings to gorge on war-profits[/i], and [i]is keen to go fight, die or be maimed for life[/i]:-- Let's send Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the neo-cons and their spoiled ne'er-do-well off-spring-- [b]Let them be[i] "patriotic" [/i]for a change ...[/b]
[b]In a democratic society, the government is supposed to be [i]Of the people - By the people - For the people [/i]... and NOT: [i]Of the corporate sluts - By the corporate pimps - and For the tyrants, robber-barons, neo-con-liars-traitors-cu m-thieves and corporate rapists [/i]...[/b]
[b]Source[/b]:
"[i][b]New Prime Minister Signals Spain Will Withdraw Troops in Iraq[/b][/i]" by [i]ELAINE SCIOLINO[/i], NY TIMES, on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
|
|
|
| |
| Restoring Integrity in Policy Making ... |
| 03.13.04 (12:29 pm) [edit] |
[image]WinstonSmith_98733 1682.gif[/image]
[b]In a wide-ranging and damning report signed by 60 leading scientists including 20 Nobel laureates[/b], the prestigious [u]Union of Concerned Scientists[/u] http://www.ucsusa.org/ charged the Bush administration with manipulating "the process through which science enters into its decisions." Among the offenses they cite:
• Placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees,
• Disbanding existing advisory committees,
• Censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists, and
• Simply not seeking independent scientific advice.
In the [i]Center for American Progress' [/i]reportage entitled "[b]Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making[/b]" http://www.americanprogress.o... there are various reports and statements made by the [u]Union of Concerned Scientists[/u] http://www.ucsusa.org/ that "We the People" should carefully consider on http://www.americanprogress.o... ... [b]The problem belongs to all of us to resolve by demanding integrity in government ... [/b] http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| Dragged Back to Hell ... |
| 03.13.04 (9:52 am) [edit] |
"[U.S.] Army is spread so thin around the globe that when it needs fresh combat troops for Iraq this fall it will have little choice but to call on the same soldiers who led the charge into Baghdad last spring," reports Associated Press (AP) on http://www.mlive.com/newsflas... ... So, the Bushies will "drag 'em back to hell" when these hypocritical neo-con arm-chair chicken-hawks [i]are unwilling to face any danger [/i]themselves ...
Our military is spread too thin by unnecessary [i]illegal and immoral aggressions[/i] in the Middle East ... Now the corrupt neo-con, neo-fascist Bush cabal is[i] beating the war drums [/i]in their [i]insane lust to invade [/i]Iran, Syria and Libya [i]too[/i], on direct orders from Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who apparently [i]directs our U.S. Foreign Policy [/i]now. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/h...
When the Saddam Hussein government collapsed, U.S. troops in Iraq figured the war was over, except for some mopping up. But as the acting secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee, acknowledged to Congress last week, "we simply were not prepared" for the insurgency that developed in early summer, prolonging the war and taking the lives of hundreds of American soldiers.
One 3rd Infantry soldier, Sgt. 1st Class Eric Wright, put it this way in Iraq last June: "[b]What was told to us was that we would fight and win and go home[/b]."
"We the People" should demand that the [i]blood-thirsty arm-chair chicken-hawks [/i]including Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Rove, Powell, Wolfowitz, Perle and the rest of this despicable gang of liars, crooks, traitors and thieves,[i] go fight and die themselves or send their own kids to fight wars they crave so wantonly[/i]!!! What's the matter??? [i]Ain't [/i]these neo-con war-mongers for neo-fascist war-profiteering really [i]patriotic[/i]??? Methinks [i]not[/i]!!!
|
|
|
| |
| Did the Saudis Buy a U.S. President? ... Bush Ties with the House of Saud ... |
| 03.12.04 (3:05 pm) [edit] |
[b]Benedict Arnold was a traitor despised by our revolutionary ancestors and distrusted by his British paymasters who used him but never liked him http://www.ushistory.org/vall... ... Most traitors are not admired or respected by those who choose to use them anyway (as they use double-agents and spies) ...[/b]
Today, [i]we have a traitor in our midst (Dubya) [/i]who has sold our nation out to the highest bidders ... Amongst them include global corporations, and also the House of Saud, Saudi Arabia's royal family who have been "[i]paying off[/i]" the corrupt Bush Crime family for years, in return for the [i]blood, sweat and tears and precious lives and treasure of our people [/i]... During the 2000 presidential election, Poppy Bush visited the House of Saud and we don't know what was promised, but he didn't pay the visit to Saudi Arabia in order to get a [i]sun-tan[/i] ... The Saudi Royal family has been funnelling monies to the Bush family for years via the secretive Carlyle Group, and this should[i] now [/i]be investigated because it represents treason ... In colonial times, the Bush family would have had to escape to a safe haven in another country or would have been hung for treason ... Our leaders are supposed to protect our nation and not secretly act on behalf of powerful monarchs or special interests abroad ... Our Founding Fathers would have been horrified -- so too should "We the People" be horrified, angered and outraged ...
Isn't it time for "We the People" to demand that Dubya and his squalid family [i]pay the price[/i] for their[i] High Crimes & Treason[/i] againt our nation, in violation of the U.S. Constitution? ... Please write to Congress http://www.congress.org and demand the[i] impeachment [/i]of Bush, Cheney and their neo-con criminals who are betraying our nation ...
Consider "[b]The great escape[/b]" by [i]Craig Unger[/i]. Salon, on http://www.salon.com/books/fe... :
Immediately after 9/11, dozens of Saudi royals and members of the bin Laden family fled the U.S. in a secret airlift authorized by the Bush White House. One passenger was an alleged al-Qaida go-between, who may have known about the terror attacks in advance. Our first excerpt from "[i]House of Bush, House of Saud[/i]."
[b]Editor's note:[/b] President Bush is campaigning for reelection as the Western world's leader in the war against terrorism. But the president's family has long been closely tied -- through a complex web of oil, money and power -- to the royal family of Saudi Arabia, which has maintained its despotic grip on the petroleum-rich kingdom through an alliance with the most militant strain of Islamic fundamentalism. Journalist Craig Unger has been covering the alliance between the Bush family and the House of Saud for years. His reporting raises crucial questions about the consequences of this personal, political and financial partnership for U.S. foreign policy, democracy and the future of the world. Salon is proud to present a series of excerpts from Unger's book "[i]House of Bush, House of Saud[/i]," to be published on March 16 by [i]Scribner[/i].
Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, had long been the most recognizable figure from his country in America. Widely known as the Arab Gatsby, with his trimmed goatee and tailored double-breasted suits, the 52-year-old Bandar was the very embodiment of the contradictions inherent in being a modern, jet-setting, Western-leaning member of the royal House of Saud.
Profane, flamboyant and cocksure, Bandar entertained lavishly at his spectacular estates all over the world. Whenever he was safely out of Saudi Arabia and beyond the reach of the puritanical form of Islam it espoused, he puckishly flouted Islamic tenets by sipping brandy and smoking Cohiba cigars. And when it came to embracing the culture of the infidel West, Bandar outdid even the most ardent admirers of Western civilization -- that was him patrolling the sidelines of Dallas Cowboys football games with his friend Jerry Jones, the team's owner. To militant Islamic fundamentalists who loathed pro-West multibillionaire Saudi royals, no one fit the bill better than Bandar.
And yet, his guise as Playboy of the Western World notwithstanding, deep in his bones, Prince Bandar was a key figure in the world of Islam. His father, Defense Minister Prince Sultan, was second in line to the Saudi crown. Bandar was the nephew of King Fahd, the aging Saudi monarch, and the grandson of the late king Abdul Aziz, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, who initiated his country's historic oil-for-security relationship with the United States when he met Franklin D. Roosevelt on the USS Quincy in the Suez Canal on Feb. 14, 1945. The enormous royal family in which Bandar played such an important role oversaw two of the most sacred places of Islamic worship, the holy mosques in Medina and Mecca.
As a wily international diplomat, Bandar also knew full well just how precarious his family's position was. For decades, the House of Saud had somehow maintained control of Saudi Arabia and the world's richest oil reserves by performing a seemingly untenable balancing act with two parties who had vowed to destroy each other.
On the one hand, the House of Saud was an Islamic theocracy whose power grew out of the royal family's alliance with Wahhabi fundamentalism, a strident and puritanical Islamic sect that provided a fertile breeding ground for a global network of terrorists urging a violent jihad against the United States.
On the other hand, the House of Saud's most important ally was the Great Satan itself, the United States. Even a cursory examination of the relationship revealed astonishing contradictions: America, the beacon of democracy, was to arm and protect a brutal theocratic monarchy. The United States, sworn defender of Israel, was also the guarantor of security to the guardians of Wahhabi Islam, the fundamentalist religious sect that was one of Israel's and America's mortal enemies.
Astoundingly, this fragile relationship had not only endured but in many ways had been spectacularly successful. In the nearly three decades since the oil embargo of 1973, the United States had bought hundreds of billions of dollars of oil at reasonable prices. During that same period, the Saudis had purchased hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons from the U.S. The Saudis had supported the U.S. on regional security matters in Iran and Iraq and refrained from playing an aggressive role against Israel. Members of the Saudi royal family, including Bandar, became billionaires many times over, in the process quietly turning into some of the most powerful players in the American market, investing hundreds of billions of dollars in equities in the United States. And the price of oil, the eternal bellwether of economic, political and cultural anxiety in America, had remained low enough that enormous gas-guzzling SUVs had become ubiquitous on U.S. highways. During the Reagan and Clinton eras the economy boomed.
The relationship was a coarse weave of money, power and trust. It had lasted because two foes, militant Islamic fundamentalists and the United States, turned a blind eye to each other. The U.S. military might have called the policy "Don't ask, don't tell." The Koran had its own version: "Ask not about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble."
But in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the ugly seams of the relationship had been laid bare. Because thousands of innocent people had been killed and most of the killers were said to be Saudi, it was up to Bandar, ever the master illusionist, to assure Americans that everything was just fine between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Bandar had always been a smooth operator, but now he and his unflappable demeanor would be tested as never before.
Bandar desperately hoped that early reports of the Saudi role had been exaggerated -- after all, al-Qaida terrorist operatives were known to use false passports. But at 10 P.M. on the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, about 36 hours after the attack, a high-ranking CIA official -- according to [i]Newsweek[/i], it was probably CIA director George Tenet -- phoned Bandar at his home and gave him the bad news: Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Afterward, Bandar said, "I felt as if the Twin Towers had just fallen on my head."
Public relations had never been more crucial for the Saudis. Bandar swiftly retained PR giant Burson-Marsteller to place newspaper ads all over the country condemning the attacks and dissociating Saudi Arabia from them. He went on [i]CNN[/i], the [i]BBC[/i] and the major TV networks and hammered home the same points again and again: The alliance with the United States was still strong. Saudi Arabia would support America in its fight against terrorism.
Prince Bandar also protested media reports that referred to those involved in terrorism as "Saudis." Asserting that no terrorists could ever be described as Saudi citizens, he urged the media and politicians to refrain from casting arbitrary accusations against Arabs and Muslims. "We in the kingdom, the government and the people of Saudi Arabia, refuse to have any person affiliated with terrorism to be connected to our country," Bandar said. That included Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the attacks, who had even been disowned by his family. He was not really a Saudi, Bandar asserted, for the government had taken away his passport because of his terrorist activities.
But Osama bin Laden was Saudi, of course, and he was not just any Saudi. The bin Ladens were one of a handful of extremely wealthy families that were so close to the House of Saud that they effectively acted as extensions of the royal family. Over five decades, they had built their multibillion-dollar construction empire thanks to their intimate relationship with the royal family. Bandar himself knew them well. "They're really lovely human beings," he told [i]CNN[/i]. "[Osama] is the only one ... I met him only once. The rest of them are well-educated, successful businessmen, involved in a lot of charities. It is -- it is tragic. I feel pain for them, because he's caused them a lot of pain."
Like Bandar, the bin Laden family epitomized the marriage between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Their huge construction company, the Saudi Binladin Group, banked with Citigroup and invested with Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch. Over time, the bin Ladens did business with such icons of Western culture as Disney, the Hard Rock Café, Snapple and Porsche. In the mid-1990s, they joined various members of the House of Saud in becoming business associates with former secretary of state James Baker and former president George H.W. Bush by investing in the Carlyle Group, a gigantic Washington, D.C.-based private equity firm. As Charles Freeman, the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, told the [i]Wall Street Journal[/i], "If there were ever any company closely connected to the U.S. and its presence in Saudi Arabia, it's the Saudi Binladin Group."
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Guts the Facts Again: Will the Media Let Him "Off-the-Hook"??? |
| 03.12.04 (1:28 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" can have a [i]good time [/i]this election season, so long as [i]we take our right and responsibility to vote seriously[/i], and [i]oust[/i] the corrupt Bush regime ...[/b]
Here at [i]Matt Miller Global Column Headquarters[/i], http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... we report, you decide.
[b]So here are the facts:[/b]
President Bush [i]attacked [/i]John Kerry this week for Kerry's alleged attempt to "[i]gut[/i]" [[i]sic[/i]] U.S. intelligence services via a 1995 proposal that would have cut roughly $300 million a year from a roughly $30 billion annual budget.
In other words, Kerry's proposal would have cut [i]1 percent[/i] of the intelligence budget.
Readers who are [i]in business [/i]may pause here to [i]laugh their heads [/i]off ...
Let's see how the[i] corporate-owned media [/i]"plays" this "kettle-of-fish"!!! ... Will they let Bush "off-the-hook" [i]again[/i]??? ...
|
|
|
| |
| RUNNING SCARED: Key Republicans Admit Anxiety Over Bush's Floundering Campaign ... |
| 03.12.04 (8:58 am) [edit] |
[b]It is [i]true[/i] that the corrupt Bush mad-dog propaganda machine has made a litany of idiotic mistakes:-- [i]from [/i]exploiting the carnage and misery of 9/11 that the majority of Americans deplore ... [i]to[/i] laughably asking Senator John F. Kerry for an apology for calling them liars ([i]which they are[/i]) ... [/b]
"We the People" must focus our attention, however, on the [i]important issues [/i]relating to the traitorous Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] illegal and immoral war in Iraq for which they deserve to be[i] impeached [/i]from office, as well as their reckless and irresponsible malfeasance & mis-management of the economy: [i]These[/i] are the issues [i]vital to the well-being [/i]of our nation that will ultimately [i]"sink"[/i] the criminal Bushies, and we shouldn't pay [i]too much [/i]attention over whether or not they are [i]clever[/i] with their mendacious neo-owellian campaign propaganda and tactics ... [i]That[/i] really [u]isn't[/u] [i]the point [/i]...
[i][b]Some say Bush's team has moved too slowly and has failed to address economic concerns ... Like father, like son??? ...[/b][/i]
Consider "[b]Running scared: [i]Key Republicans admit anxiety over Bush's floundering campaign[/i][/b]" by [i]Mark Z. Barabak and Janet Hook[/i], Los Angeles Times, on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
WASHINGTON — As President Bush steps up his reelection bid, key Republican officials and strategists are expressing concern about his campaign, saying the White House took too long to engage in the race and lacks a clear strategy for addressing voters' economic worries.
While most Republicans remain confident that Bush will win a second term, there is a growing sense within the party that the battle with Sen. John F. Kerry is likely to be closer and harder-fought that many thought just a few weeks ago.
"People are anxious," said David Carney, a Republican strategist in New Hampshire and White House political director for Bush's father. "There's a lot of fretting going on out there."
Much of the hand-wringing stems from recent polls that showed Bush trailing Kerry nationwide. Most Republicans see that as the inevitable result of steady pounding from Democrats who have been campaigning — and bashing the president — for well over a year.
On Thursday, the Bush campaign rolled out two new television ads in response, including a 30-second spot that criticized the presumed Democratic nominee by name for the first time. "John Kerry," the ad says. "Wrong on taxes, wrong on defense."
But not everyone blames Bush's problems solely on his political foes.
"No jobs are being created. They did not find weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, said Eddie Mahe Jr., a veteran GOP strategist. "That provided the constant stream of attacks a level of credibility and legitimacy they otherwise might not have."
But Ken Mehlman, manager of Bush's reelection effort, said the campaign was now shifting "from a diatribe to a dialogue."
"I am confident we have built the organization, husbanded the resources and know what we need to talk about now that we are publicly engaged," Mehlman said. He predicted that come November, "the results will be good results."
Republican Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio — a state increasingly seen by both camps as one of the keys to the election's outcome — conceded that "the Bush administration has had a couple of tough months." But he added: "We are at the bottom of the trough. The campaign itself is just starting to get underway."
Still, the nervousness is a notable shift from earlier Republican bravado, as is the criticism of a White House political team that, until recently, has been widely regarded as perhaps the best in the business.
"We've seen a lot of mistakes and, frankly, some degree of incompetence out of an operation that, up to now, was closing ranks and executing very well," said a GOP strategist who sometimes advises the White House. Like some others interviewed, he did not want to be identified.
But even some inside the campaign acknowledge Bush's reelection team has been less than sure-footed in responding to Kerry's daily attacks and to the anxiety in states where job losses remain a critical issue.
"I worry about Ohio," said one outside campaign advisor, who also requested anonymity. "We've got a real vulnerability on the jobs issue if we can't get that discussion going in a different direction."
Rep. Patrick J. Tiberi, an Ohio Republican who represents Columbus and its northeastern suburbs, agreed. "The president himself is going to have to take the offensive and be aggressive in talking about what he's done," he said.
Just a few months ago, the president seemed in a commanding position to win reelection. Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was in custody. Statistics out of Washington suggested an economy primed for strong job growth. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean seemed poised to win the Democratic nomination, setting up a November contest many Republicans relished.
But the post-Hussein euphoria wore off quickly. Job creation has been anemic. And Dean's campaign collapsed, clearing a path for Kerry, a veteran senator from Massachusetts, to emerge as the presumptive Democratic nominee more quickly and in better political shape than many expected.
"That's the thing nobody guessed," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, an aide in the Reagan White House. Republicans "expected more civil war."
But many say the White House compounded its problems in a series of missteps.
Bush's State of the Union address in January, a chance to frame the election-year debate, disappointed many Republicans, one of whom dubbed it "a laundry list" with no thematic core. The president, this GOP strategist added, is "at his strongest when he's focused on three, four things to the exclusion of all others…. He's all over the map now, sending a lot of confused messages to the voters."
Meantime, the Kerry campaign has taken credit for throwing the administration on the defensive twice this week alone.
On Monday, Kerry lambasted Bush for declining to meet for more than an hour with the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. A day later, a White House spokesman said Bush would answer all of the panel's questions.
On Wednesday, the administration postponed appointing a Nebraska manufacturing executive as the country's new manufacturing czar after the Kerry campaign alerted reporters that the nominee had set up a factory in China. The executive, Tony Raimundo, on Thursday removed himself from consideration for the job. Administration officials said the delay in the appointment was not related to the Kerry campaign's move.
Some headaches have come from inside the administration.
The White House was embarrassed when Education Secretary Rod Paige called the National Education Assn. a "terrorist organization." And administration officials cringed after Bush's top economic advisor, N. Gregory Mankiw, extolled the virtues of shipping jobs overseas.
Mankiw's comments resonated in several Midwestern states that have suffered some of the worst job losses over the last three years — and that promise to be key battlegrounds in the November race. Republican Rep. Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri said the comment made the administration "appear out of touch" — a perception that undermined his father's 1992 reelection campaign.
"I think it is important for [the president] to show the American people he shares their concern about the issue," Emerson said. "I have no doubt he is concerned. But I would like him to talk more about it."
Last week, the president was forced to defend the use of imagery from the Sept. 11 attacks in his campaign ads. Survivors of some victims and a firefighters union backing Kerry accused Bush of exploiting the tragedy.
The president has defended the commercial, saying he will "continue to speak about the effects of Sept. 11" on the country and his presidency. But many Republicans are troubled that the campaign has spent so much time on damage control.
"We need key states in the Midwest, where the whole outsourcing [of jobs] is a big problem, and we don't have an answer," said a GOP strategist on Capitol Hill who requested anonymity. "This White House that seemed to be so disciplined, so political, doing such a good job, looks awfully bumbling to me."
Lately, Bush has become more engaged in his reelection effort. He unveiled a more pointed campaign speech and started criticizing Kerry by name, part of an effort to define the Democrat in a negative light before he can effectively respond.
On Wednesday, Bush traveled to Cleveland and defended his economic policies, mixing swipes at Kerry with expressions of sympathy for the roughly 225,000 Ohio workers who have lost jobs since he took office.
Bush's direct engagement with his Democratic opponent comes far earlier than that of his recent predecessors, who waited until summertime or later before stepping into the fray. Campaign advisors said the move was partly in response to the speeded-up Democratic nominating process. Another reason, they said, was Bush's personality.
"Knowing this president, he's combative, he's competitive, and he probably got tired of what he was hearing and decided it was time to get in the game," said Tom Rath, a Republican National Committee member from New Hampshire. Even so, some nervous Republicans say the president waited too long.
"On the Democratic side, you saw pictures of their campaigns busy with guys out in their shirt-sleeves, yelling and screaming and working hard," said a prominent Republican in one swing state. "Our guys were Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney going to hotel dining rooms [to raise money]. It was kind of a disconnect."
But Rath, a Bush family loyalist, said presidents always faced tensions between the duties of office and the requirements of running for reelection. "If you have a full plate and [politic] too early — and this president certainly has a full plate — at best it's untoward and at worst it's bad policy and bad politics," he said. "That's the blessing and the burden of the office."
|
|
|
| |
| Squandering the Trauma of September 11th ... |
| 03.11.04 (7:52 pm) [edit] |
[b]September 11th was "[i]lucky[/i]" for Bush ... [/b]On September 10th 2001, Bush's popularity ratings were [i]rock-bottom[/i]-- the Enron scandal was about to [i]break-wide-open[/i]-- Congress was returning from the summer break very angry about the Energy Scam and Swindle by Cheney's corrupt cronies who stolen billions ([i]having staged a phony energy shortage[/i]) from American consumers-- and Bush was having problems rallying support for his insane tax cuts for the rich-- etc. ... [i]Up-up-and-away-and-the n-9/11 happens "changing everything" [/i]... and, suddenly Bush is [i]transformed[/i] in America's[i] imagination [/i]from a [i]ne'er-do-well-corporat e-puppet-cum-imbecile [/i]into a so-called "leader [[i]sic[/i]]" ... Of course, it[i] doesn't take any brains [/i]to arrive at Ground Zero 3 days after the disaster and climb atop of the heap of rubble with a fog-horn like an[i] over-the-hill-cheerleader [/i]and shout [i]dumb cliches[/i] ...
"We the People" were prepared to "[i]feel better[/i]" if [i]Bozo-the-Clown [/i]had played the role ... The true test of leadership came in the days thereafter, when instead of building [i]strong co-operation [/i]with the world community who was supportive of the United States of America, and building a [i]strong coalition [/i]here at home to work together towards a better life for all, Dubya recklessly squandered[i] it all [/i]because he is a [i]dangerously stupid and corrupt man and a wasteful spend-thrift [/i]who has placed our nation in great peril ... Dubya has[i] betrayed [/i]"We the People" ...
[i][b]Having failed to create consensus, Bush is left with a negative campaign ... [/b][/i]
Consider "[b]'Squandering the trauma of September 11'[/b]" by [i]Sidney Blumenthal[/i], The Guardian/UK, on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
"Lucky me, I hit the trifecta," said George Bush in the immediate aftermath of September 11, according to his budget director. War, recession and national emergency liberated him to soar in the political stratosphere. But after several faltering starts this year, he felt compelled to relaunch his campaign with $4.5m (£2.5m) of television advertising in 16 key states. In 60-second commercials he would lock the sequence of recent history into the American mind, his narrative of his presidency as he wished it to be understood. Images of September 11 cascaded across the screen, firemen carrying a flag-draped coffin at Ground Zero juxtaposed against another firefighter raising the flag. Bush's slogan: "Steady leadership in times of change".
"Where the hell did they get those guys?" responded the president of the International Association of Fire Fighters. It turned out that the firefighters in the ads were hired actors - "cheaper and quicker", as a Republican party spokesman explained. Enraged members of the 9/11 Widows and Victims' Families Association described them as "disgraceful" and "hypocritical". While he used the flag-draped 9/11 coffin, he refused to allow the press to photograph coffins of US soldiers returned from Iraq. What's more, he was "stonewalling" the official 9/11 commission, as Senator John Kerry put it, holding back documents, refusing to allow the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to testify in public, and limiting his own testimony to an hour.
A few weeks earlier, Bush had remarked: "I have no ambition whatsoever to use [the 9/11 attacks] as a political issue". Now an administration spokesman defended his ads as "tasteful". After Bush's ads ran, an Oklahoma Republican congressman, Tom Cole, stated the rank-and-file's political conventional wisdom: "I promise you this, if George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election. It's that simple."
But firefighters and victims' families are critics he cannot debate. And the judgment of public opinion has been a terrible, swift sword. Some 54% said his use of 9/11 imagery was inappropriate, and only 42% - his base - said it was appropriate, according to the [i]Washington Post-ABC News[/i] poll. Worse, Kerry has plunged ahead. Even worse, 57% want a "new direction".
The rejection of the central element of Bush's version of his story is an unexpected shock to him and the Republicans. "I am amazed they have been thrown on the defensive," James Pinkerton told me. Pinkerton was research director for George Bush senior's 1988 campaign and responsible for developing the attack lines against the Democratic opponent. "They weren't ready for any of it," he says of this Bush campaign. "They just assume it's all pro-them on 9/11. It didn't dawn on them it cuts different ways. If they aren't ready for this, what are they ready for?"
The trauma of September 11 has been squandered as a political factor. Just as Bush has misspent the goodwill of the world, he has wasted his opportunity to create any consensus at home. He had planned to run his campaign on the Bismarckian formula of the primacy of foreign policy and Kulturkampf. But his trifecta has been turned upside down: David Kay's confession that "we were all wrong" on WMD in Iraq; job stagnation; increased recriminations about 9/11 as the commission begins its work in earnest. Bush, moreover, is patently using 9/11 not for "changing times" but to advance his reactionary social agenda. Rather than appearing "steady", he is setting himself against change, including changing his own policies. What he has left is a negative campaign. If he cannot elevate himself on the presidential pedestal he must throw himself into the abattoir of the culture war.
For decades, the Republicans used Vietnam to cast the Democrats as soft on communism. But the war hero trumps the national guardsman who went absent without leave. Kerry's most fervent campaigner is former Senator Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam. Cleland was defeated in a race in 2002 when the Republicans ran a TV ad conflating his picture with Saddam Hussein's and Osama bin Laden's. Cleland is the personification of more than Kerry's war bona fides; he is the living witness to negative Republican tactics.
"They have been shown to trash anyone, anywhere, anytime," Cleland told me. "They seek to slander a noble veteran's record who was wounded and the only member of his division in the navy who won a silver star. Use 9/11? Have they no shame? Listen, John Kerry knows that the slime machine is targeting him and his family. We discussed this before the race. Somebody's got to fight. That's the way it's turning out, the band of brothers against the slime machine."
. [i]Sidney Blumenthal, author of The Clinton Wars, is Washington bureau chief of www.Salon.com[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| His Other Speech ... |
| 03.11.04 (3:38 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" have [i]good fortune [/i]that such a[i] great patriot [/i]as Senator Edward M. Kennedy has passionately fought for[i] the rights of working people, the vulnerable and disenfranchized, and the poorest among us [/i]with great distinction and an admirable legislative record, highly respected by conscientious Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike ...[/b]
Katrina vanden Heuvel, in her [i]Editor's Cut [/i]published by [i]The Nation[/i], cites Kennedy's[i] wisdom [/i]in his "other" speech on http://www.thenation.com/edcu...
Senator Edward Kennedy gave two magnificent speeches last week, but only one received the attention it deserved. While his blistering attack on the Bush Administration for manipulating and distorting intelligence to justify attacking Iraq was noted in the [i]Washington Post [/i]and other papers, the Senator's fiery progressive manifesto http://www.gc.cuny.edu/spotli... --delivered at a New York conference called [i]Re-Imagining the Welfare State[/i]--went virtually unreported.
In the large hall at CUNY Graduate Center in New York City on the afternoon of March 1, Kennedy came out swinging at an Administration that wants to roll back the hard-earned rights and liberties of the 20th century. "One by one," Kennedy boomed, "issue by issue, program by program, the Republican Right has methodically turned away from policies which brought about a century of progress for working Americans. They want to build the 21st century economy on 19th century economic values, as if the last 100 years had not occurred. For them the law of the jungle is the best economic policy for America--not equal opportunity, not fairness, not the American dream. Their ideas will inevitably result in a lesser America, and have already meant a growing gulf between rich and poor."
[b]Other highlights:[/b]
*** "Today's Republicans are very different from those who led their party in earlier years. The Republican Party is now controlled by ideological extremists who reject any meaningful role for government in expanding economic opportunity or preventing the abuses of private economic power. Some of them even openly proclaim that their goal is to 'starve the beast'--cut taxes so low that government will not have the resources to play a meaningful role in the economy. These latter day Social Darwinians clearly believe those who assemble great concentrations of wealth should be unfettered and permitted to dominate the nation's economic life, as much as they did in the late 19th century."
*** "Progressives cannot continue to play defense in the battle of ideas. The stakes are too high. Nor can we allow ourselves to be cast as mere defenders of the status quo. We must make the debate between our vision of the future versus theirs. In reality, it is the Republican Right which is wedded to the ideas of the distant past, 19th century ideas which America rejected in the early years of the last century. We should portray them for what they are, Neanderthal merchants of outmoded ideas recycled from long ago."
***"Republicans love to quote President Kennedy on cutting taxes, but as I remind them, the top tax bracket on his Inaugural Day was 91 percent."
*** Kennedy also came out in support of greater and wiser use of the trillions of dollars in pension funds---a stance that progressive economists in and out of the labor movement, as well as elected officials like California Treasurer Phil Angelides have pushed. "At least a small portion of the trillions could be invested in public projects for public investment. If just five percent of the nation's pension funds were invested, at competitive rates, directly in job-creating and economy-building activities, more than $300 billion in assets could be made available, in a manner consistent with both the security and growth of the pension funds."
[b]For more, click here[/b] http://www.gc.cuny.edu/spotli... and please pass the word about Kennedy's "other" speech. And watch the pages of[i] The Nation[/i] for more from the senior senator from Massachusetts. You can also click here http://www.gc.cuny.edu/calend... to see a schedule of the many other valuable events being staged at the CUNY Graduate Center this spring.
[b]To read Senator Kennedy's speech last week to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), click on[/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| Telling It Like It Is:-- Kerry Calls GOP Liars ... |
| 03.11.04 (11:52 am) [edit] |
[b]How [i]refreshing[/i] ... how[i] honest [/i]... how [i]funny [/i]... [/b]
[b]The laughable neo-orwellian hypocrites in the GOP are crying foul [/b]([i]when the idiot Dubya and his side-kick Veep-N-Creep Cheney call reporters who don't kneel in worship before them "assholes" when the microphone is still on and they are unwittingly overheard [/i])[b] over Kerry telling us the [i]blunt truth[/i] ...[/b] The corrupt neo-fascist Bush regime [i]also[/i] complained and punished Joseph C. Wilson IV for telling us the truth, and these neo-con criminals who have hijacked the White House actually committed a criminal felony by outing his under-cover CIA operative wife, in a petty, mean, ugly and illegal act of revenge ... Now, these vile traitors in the [i]corporate-bought-and-p aid-for [/i]GOP hilariously want an "[i]apology[/i]"??? ...
"We the People" should loudly applaude and cheer Kerry, and insist that he does [i]not [/i]apologize under any circumstances!!!
Refer to "[b]Telling it like it is: [i]Kerry calls GOP liars[/i][/b]" by [i]Jill Zuckman and Jeff Zeleny[/i], Chicago Tribune, on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
Seemingly unaware that his microphone was still on, Sen. John Kerry used uncharacteristically harsh language Wednesday to describe Republicans as "crooked" and "lying" during a quiet exchange with several workers at the Hill Mechanical Group in Chicago's Ravenswood neighborhood.
As one worker urged Kerry to "tell it like it is" and to "keep smiling," the presumptive Democratic nominee told the man not to worry. "We're going to keep pounding, let me tell you. We're just beginning to fight here," Kerry said. "[b]These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary[/b]."
The incident followed a videoconference call by Kerry to a meeting of AFL-CIO leaders in Florida before he left for Washington to meet with former rival Howard Dean to seek Dean's support. It also came on a day in which Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said he would "entertain" the possibility of serving as Kerry's running mate, only to issue a retraction a few hours later.
Republicans were quick to pounce on Kerry's blunt talk, in a sign that the general election contest is well under way with an intensity unusual so far in advance of the November election.
[b]More on [/b] http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
|
|
|
| |
| The Imminent Danger to Americans! |
| 03.11.04 (9:30 am) [edit] |
[b]The [i]real threat [/i]and [i]imminent danger [/i]to our national security is sitting in the Oval Office (... [i]when Dubya isn't out campaigning on the American taxpayers' 'tit'[/i] ...) ... [/b]Bush is a dangerously stupid man who has surrounded himself with a[i] criminal cabal of neo-con, neo-fascist thugs and goons [/i]who have no respect for the rule law-- The corrupt Bush regime has ruthlessly trampled upon our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, in its insane grab for imperial power and vast riches, wantonly swindled, plundered and looted from American working taxpayers and innocent civilians who are being massacred, maimed and scarred for life, in order to enrich these [i]blood-thirsty war-mongers-cum-war-profi teers[/i].
It is time for "We the People" to put an end to this most heinous[i] imminent danger [/i]facing America, and call upon Congress http://www.congress.org to impeach Bush & Cheney, and their brutish gang of liars, thieves and war criminals!
Read the following article by [i]Peace, Jesse - Editor[/i], TvNewsLies.org on http://tvnewslies.org/html/im... :
[b]THE [i]IMMINENT[/i] DANGER TO AMERICANS[/b]
[u][b]Why We Must Remove George W. Bush from Office in 2004[/b][/u]
[i][b]The real and imminent dangers to Americans are apparently unimportant to the Bush administration[/b][/i]
Without realizing it, George W. Bush and his [u]PNAC[/u] http://tvnewslies.org/html/pn... cronies actually were correct when they said that this nation was in imminent danger. In their attempt to deceive us about Saddam Hussein, they inadvertently made consistent and accurate claims that we were all facing immediate and real threats to our wellbeing. The problem is that they tried to convince us that the imminent danger we faced could be lessened if we invaded Iraq. Bush and company had their wires crossed.
[b]In fact, we the people of the United States face multiple[i] imminent dangers [/i]from within our own borders.[/b] These threats have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or hoarded weapons of mass destruction. These threats come directly from the policies of George W. Bush and his supporters in Congress!
The [i]imminent dangers [/i]to our well being are not being addressed because of the priorities of the Bush administration. The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and the action taking place in Afghanastan now are costing American taxpayers [i]6 BILLION DOLLARS per month[/i]! At the same time, [u]corporate influence on a GOP[/u] http://tvnewslies.org/html/ke... congress has resulted in legislation that consistently shows disdain for public health and safety. [b]The [i]imminent dangers [/i]to us all continue to [i]increase in direct proportion[/i] to the Bush Cartel goals of global domination.[/b]
[b]The real and [i]imminent dangers [/i]to Americans are apparently unimportant to the Bush administration.[/b] The huge deficit caused by the war and the tax cuts adequate funding cannot possibly provide adequate funding to decrease or eliminate any of these threats. Partisan legislation and preferential executive policy have allowed other dangers to increase exponentially. [i]Imminent dangers [/i]lurk all around us here at home!
[b]The[i] Imminent [/i]Dangers:[/b]
[b]1. Threats to our health:[/b] Thousands of American lives could be saved each year by medical research funded by a small fraction of the cost of the war. Stem cell research has been seriously undermined, and every day hand guns kill Americans with frightening regularity. Sadly, while the NRA remains a major contributor to the GOP, and while medical research remains grossly under funded, in the year 2000, in this country, there were:
... 28,663 deaths cause by [i]firearms[/i] (intentional and non-intentional).
... 710,760 deaths from heart disease.
... 533,091 deaths from cancer.
... 122,009 deaths from chronic low respiratory disease.
[b]2. Threats from an increasingly endangered environment:[/b] The Bush administration, in several strokes of the pen, has managed to http://tvnewslies.org/html/th... :
... Reduce restrictions of toxins in our water systems
... Lighten regulations on emissions by coal burning power plants
... Ordered the EPA [i]not to conduct any studies [/i]that may conflict with the Bush/PNAC administrations agenda to pander to corporations at the expense of the health and safety of the public.
... Doctor an EPA report to exclude its findings about the dangers of global warming
... Withdraw from the Kyoto Treaty and international efforts to reduce the greenhouse effect.
[b]3. Threats to our basic Constitutional freedoms:[/b] http://tvnewslies.org/html/th... Using 9/11 http://tvnewslies.org/html/9_... as a cover for the most virulent attack on our civil liberties in history, we now live with the following:
... The Patriot Act that has all but eliminated the protections provided to us by the US Constitution. (This act was actually in the planning long before 9/11.)
... The public no longer has the right to know what the government is doing! Secrecy protects Bush from divulging information about 9/11, the Cheney energy meetings, the Iraq intelligence fiasco, and the archives of the first Pres. Bush.
... Media consolidation threatens the public’s ability to access diverse and complete information and opinion.
... Misled and coerced by accusations of being un-American, the Congress abdicated its exclusive responsibility for declaring war. By voting war powers to George W. Bush, the Constitution, once again, has been rendered meaningless.
[b]4. Threats from an insane foreign policy:[/b] This administration has made this country feared and hated around the world. http://tvnewslies.org/html/sc... This is the result of:
... An illegal and immoral war and occupation that are fueling extremist violence and inciting global terror and more acts of terror on our own soil.
... Initiating a new nuclear arms race by showing that we do not invade countries with active nuclear programs.
... A policy that declares that the US and its chosen allies have the exclusive right to develop weapons of mass destruction. Consider that approximately 3,500 people died within the US as a direct result of terrorism (in Oklahoma City and on 9/11)..
... A doctrine that declares that the US has the right to launch pre-emptive, and if necessary, nuclear attacks on nations we suspect are hostile to us.
... Playing diplomatic games with N. Korea’s nuclear threat, while refusing diplomatic solutions in Iraq.
... An arrogant, self-righteous display of moral superiority that tells the world we can go it alone, without alliances and international agreements..
... The abandonment of the war on terror, http://tvnewslies.org/html/te... and the pursuit of domination of the Middle East and its oil.
... The undue and self-indulgent influence of neoconservatives on foreign policy http://tvnewslies.org/html/pn... .
... The intrusion of right wing religious doctrine as an integral part of American policy.
... The undermining of the United Nations as a vital peace-keeping organ.
... Insistence on American exemption from prosecution for war crimes http://tvnewslies.org/html/ir... in the World Court.
This is only a[i] starter [/i]list. It is not meant to minimize the threat of foreign terrorism, or to suggest that violent acts against Americans are not real possibilities. But preying on our fears must not be the manipulative device used to ignore the internal[i] imminent threats [/i]we face as Americans, and to which this administration is a major contributing factor.
Our national debt is skyrocketing as never before. Homeland security is a necessary and vital expense, but a projected stay of years in Iraq will destroy us as surely as another terrorist attack. Our [u]cities and states are bearing the brunt of the cuts in federal spending[/u] http://tvnewslies.org/html/as... needed to finance a war that should never have been. Every facet of American life has been negatively and painfully impacted. It has to stop.
Those who oppose the Bush administration and its irresponsible policies must begin to develop a mantra of our own that emphasizes the real threats we face as Americans. It is time to wonder why we are spending more time and money [b]guarding our front door when the [i]real enemies are already in our house[/i][/b].
The focus of the 2004 elections has to challenge the American people to eliminate the threat from within. We have to protect ourselves from the most [i]imminent danger[/i] we face: the continued menacing policies of George W. Bush.
[i]Peace, Jesse - Editor, TvNewsLies.org[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| NEW REPORT: Why Bush Supports Outsourcing ... |
| 03.10.04 (3:48 pm) [edit] |
[b]"Follow the Money" is [i]good advice [/i]for discovering the [i]real motives [/i]that lurk behind most decisions, transactions and plans-of-attack in this [i]'old world' [/i]...[/b]
"We the People" have been[i] ruthlessly betrayed [/i]by the corrupt neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime who has let [i]corporations wantonly hijack our nation and put in place their traitorous foreign and domestic policies[/i]-- and these[i] corporate-take-all [/i]robber-barons have unconscionably harmed our citizens in the process ...
Consider "[b]NEW REPORT: [i]Why Bush Supports Outsourcing[/i][/b]" on http://www.misleader.org/dail... :
On the eve of his trip to Ohio to "focus on jobs,"1 President Bush claimed yesterday that "we're creating jobs - good, high-paying jobs for the American citizen."2 His comments come despite the country having lost more than 2 million manufacturing jobs since he was elected. In Ohio, which lost 270,000 manufacturing jobs alone, the economic crisis has raised questions about why the president last month strongly endorsed the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to cheap overseas labor markets. A look at the president's donors offers an answer.3
[i]Misleader [/i]compared the companies that outsource the most U.S. jobs (referred to as "captive remote services companies" on page 11 of the trade association report noted below) with the president's campaign finance records.4 The analysis shows that the president's campaign has pocketed more than $440,000 and his party more than $3.6 million in just 4 years. These companies have a direct stake in the president publicly supporting outsourcing and doing everything he can to water down or oppose legislation to curb the practice.5
The breakdown of campaign contributions is as follows:
[u]TOP OUTSOURCER[/u]: [i]American Express[/i]
... Contributions directly to the President Bush: $39,000
... Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $422,405
[u]TOP OUTSOURCER[/u]: [i]Bechtel[/i]
... Contributions directly to President Bush: $10,300
... Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $465,150
[u]TOP OUTSOURCER[/u]: [i]Convergys[/i]
... Contributions directly to President Bush: $7,500
... Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $5000
[u]TOP OUTSOURCER[/u]: [i]Dell Computer [/i]
... Hard Money to Bush: $40,250
... Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $793,550
[u]TOP OUTSOURCER[/u]: [i]Delphi Automotive [/i]
... Contributions directly to President Bush: $10,950
[u]TOP OUTSOURCER[/u]: [i]Fidelity[/i]
... Contributions directly to President Bush: $164,908
... Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $574,270
[u]TOP OUTSOURCER[/u]: [i]Ford[/i]
... Contributions directly to President Bush: $76,200
... Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $268,257
[u]TOP OUTSOURCER[/u]: [i]General Electric [/i]
... Contributions directly to President Bush: $49,125
... Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $756,987
[u]TOP OUTSOURCER[/u]: [i]Hewlett Packard [/i]
... Contributions directly to President Bush: $6,200
... Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: 29,000
[u]TOP OUTSOURCER[/u]: [i]HSBC [/i]
... Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $4,240
[u]TOP OUTSOURCER[/u]: [i]McKinsey & Co [/i]
... Contributions directly to President Bush: $19,500
... Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $102,500
[u]TOP OUTSOURCER[/u]: [i]Sallie Mae [/i]
... Contributions directly to President Bush: $19,250
... Soft Money contributions to the Republican Party: $261,000
[b]Sources:[/b]
1. "Bush focusing on jobs in Ohio trip", MSNBC, 03/10/2004.
2. "President Commends Recipients of Malcolm Baldridge Awards", 03/09/2004.
3. "Jobs may be focal point in Ohio race", The Sacramento Bee, 03/10/2004.
4. NASSCOM FY02 Results.
5. "Senate pushes ahead with offshore outsourcing legislation", ComputerWorld, 03/05/2004.
|
|
|
| |
| Election Worker Fired For Refusing To Implement "Illegal Procedures"!!! ... |
| 03.10.04 (1:11 pm) [edit] |
[b]Lawmakers are suing in order to add paper trails to electronic ([i]computerized[/i]) voting machines ... It is imperative to make certain that the corrupt Bush regime is[i] stopped [/i]from rigging the 2004 presidential election ([i]as these neo-con, neo-fascist criminals did in their despicable banana republican coup d'etat of 2000[/i]) -- [/b]
Time is [i]running out [/i]... DemocracyNow reports "[i]Miscounts, Changed Votes, No Paper Trail: Is Electronic Voting a Threat to Democracy[/i]?" on http://www.democracynow.org/a... ...
"We the People" must contact Congress http://www.congress.org and insist upon [i]paper trails and proper reconciliation and audit systems [/i]being put in place in order that our U.S. Constitutional Right of having our votes counted properly is protected and safeguarded. Demand that Congress insist upon the right and proper changes being installed before November. (If they can "come-up" with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars for warfare to enrich their war-profiteers [i]aka[/i] Halliburton, as well as gluttonous tax cuts for corporations, wealthy oligarchs and their filthy rich plutocrats, [i]surely they can take the necessary steps [/i]to defend our democracy from illegal and fraudulent election rigging.)
[i][b]["Lawmaker sues to add paper trail to new voting machines"[/b][/i] on http://www.independent-media....%20Reported [b][i]][/i][/b]
Refer to "[b]Election Worker Fired For Refusing to Implement 'Illegal Procedures'?[/b]" by [i]Rick Dawson[/i], Independent Media TV, on http://www.independent-media....%20Reported :
Election officials in Johnson County are now demanding answers from a voting machine company at the heart of a recent I-Team investigation.
I-Team 8 has been asking "Will Your Vote Count?" Now with the primary just two months away, we’ve uncovered a new wrinkle as a respected election worker is abruptly dismissed.
Doug Orange had his contract with Election Systems and Software terminated last week. As the ES&S Project manager, Orange helped the county set up new touch-screen voting systems. County clerk Jill Jackson was very happy with his work.
So why was Orange fired? He says the company claimed insubordination, but he says he was just doing the right thing. “I was asked by Wil Wesley, as my immediate supervisor, to implement a procedure in Johnson County that I personally felt was attacking the integrity of the future election and the security of the future elections in Johnson County. Not to mention that I felt those procedures were illegal,” said Orange.
Bound by a non-disclosure statement, Orange won't elaborate further. But county election officials already had concerns about unapproved and illegal ES&S software inadvertently used in the last election.
“We are concerned that we have the election conducted in a first class way. And we've had some changes with ES&S that have brought some concern for the board,” said J. Bryan Nichol, Johnson County Election Board.
In a statement this afternoon, ES&S said it couldn't discuss personnel issues but says it's "confident that the county and election administrators will enjoy a seamless transition and continued election support services to help ensure a successful election."
“I was replaced as project manager eight weeks before a primary election, with a new clerk who's just been elected to office, with a new voting system that is under fire,” said Orange, who calls the task impossible. He added, "The unfortunate result of this is that I feel as though Johnson County and Johnson County's future elections are at risk."
Nicol says despite the changeover, he expects Johnson County's primary will run smoothly. I-Team 8 tried to contact the supervisor who terminated Doug Orange to ask him about these issues. We were referred to the same spokesperson who gave us the earlier statement. The spokesperson replied via email, "Because your question relates to a confidential personnel issue we are unable to discuss specifics." She also added: "We carry out our mission with the highest degree of integrity and professionalism. For anyone to assert otherwise is unfortunate."
|
|
|
| |
| GOP Learns Bush — GASP — Is The Problem!!! ... 57% Americans Say Bush is Out-of-Touch!!! ... |
| 03.10.04 (10:22 am) [edit] |
[b]57% of the American people say that Bush is[i] 'out-of-touch'[/i] and[i] does not understand their problems [/i]... [/b]As more Americans continue to lose their jobs at corporations run by traitorous top-dogs & fat-cats who prefer to [i]exploit slave labour abroad[/i], and profit from the[i] misery of human slavery and destitution that they are creating here at home[/i], "We the People" will ultimately revolt against the neo-fascist Bush regime whose [i]gluttonous greed and corruption [/i]are destroying our nation.
The neo-con, neo-fascist right-wing corporate robber-barons [i]take, take, take [/i]... They [i]treasonously [/i]take our freedoms ([i]via vile Patriot Acts[/i]) ... They [i]ruthlessly[/i] take our lives ([i]via insane, illegal & immoral war-mongerings for war-profits[/i]) ... They [i]wantonly & callously [/i]take our livelihoods ([i]via slave labour wages, exporting-jobs-to-create- unemployment's-slave-labo ur-classes, deregulation permitting rape of employees, consumers and investors, etc.[/i]) ... [b]The greedy GOP will learn that eventually [i]something or someone's gotta' GIVE [/i]...[/b]
Consider "[b]'GOP learns Bush — [i]gasp [/i]— is the problem'[/b]" by [i]Cragg Hines[/i], Houston Chronicle, on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
Like antsy dogs before an earthquake, some Republicans sensed trouble. They were barking about the deficit, chasing their tails over the immigration proposal. A number had even begun baying about Vice President Dick Cheney. But when the tremor struck Monday (on the evening news) and the strong aftershocks continued Tuesday (in the morning newspapers), the party seemed astonished at the real cause of their prescient unease: President Bush.
The White House and Republicans came face-to-face with a pair of new national surveys that not only show Democrat John Kerry leading the president in the horse-race question (For whom would you vote if the election were held today?) but also find Bush trailing even more distantly in other key measures of voters' underlying sentiments. Taken together, the surveys are much more dire news than the White House had been predicting and for which it has been struggling to steel the faithful.
Perhaps the worst news for Bush and the Republicans was a question in the [i]Washington Post-ABC [/i]survey (1,202 adults, Thursday-Sunday) that asked: "Which of these two statements comes closest to your own views: A. After four years of George W. Bush, we need to elect a president who can set the nation in a new direction. B. We need to keep the country moving in the direction Bush has taken us." Same direction got 41 percent, new direction 57 percent. Two percent, bless their indecisive hearts, expressed no opinion.
That is the type of Bush-specific finding that defies malinterpretation by the wiliest of White House spinmeisters. A clear majority of Americans say (at least at the moment) that they are looking for something different. It is one growing deficit the administration will kiss off at its peril. It is a finding that does not meld well with the overarching Bush campaign themes of steadiness and staying the course. What if the course is one on which Americans do not wish to stay?
The exact same split showed up when the [i]ABC-Washington Post [/i]respondents were asked: "Please tell me whether the following statement applies to George W. Bush or not: He understands the problems of people like you." Yes, 41 percent. No, 57 percent.
These inquiries paint an even worse picture for Bush and his campaign strategists than his precarious rating in the new[i] USA Today-CNN-Gallup [/i]poll (503 adults, Friday-Sunday), which found 49 percent approve and 48 percent disapprove of the way the president is handling his job (a record-tying low for Bush in that survey).
That same sort of narrow divide was reflected in response to a question in the [i]Washington Post-ABC [/i]poll: "Overall do you think George W. Bush has done more to unite the country, or has done more to divide the country?" Unite, 48 percent; divide 49 percent. Again, worrisome territory for an incumbent whose first campaign was based (fraudulently as it has turned out) on his stated desire to bring us together.
In policy terms, the findings of both surveys buttress Bush's decision to run as a war president. It's about all he's got. He can't run as the jobs president, the education president, the Social Security president, the health care president. Unfortunately for Bush, those issues -- and not the fight against terrorism or the war in Iraq -- are the ones on which most of the surveys' respondents say they will base their vote in November.
Thankfully, Bush's exploitive use of scenes from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in his campaign-opening television ads was seen as inappropriate by a majority (54 percent) of the[i] USA Today-CNN-Gallup [/i]respondents. Not that it will have any effect on Bush's refusal to drop the ads. While raising even more campaign funds in Texas on Monday, Bush again defended the use of the images by recalling how he had gone to Ground Zero. Fine. He can use pictures of himself standing on the rubble, not the flag-draped corpse of a fireman being carried from the wreckage.
Bush also used his trip back home to pounce on what he called Kerry's attempt "to gut" the budget of the nation's intelligence services. Kerry proposed in 1995 to cut $1.5 billion from the CIA's appropriation over five years. How kind of the president to point out a sensible proposal that would have helped to shut down what Kerry's campaign called "essentially a slush fund for defense contractors." Kerry's proposed cut would have amounted at the time to about 1 percent of the CIA's annual budget. Some gut.
The best news for Bush came in the [i]USA Today-CNN-Gallup [/i]poll. Fifty-two percent of respondents said they think that Bush will win the election. Bush would take that margin in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
| |
| The Unknown Soldier Speaks ... |
| 03.10.04 (9:40 am) [edit] |
[b]"I see young people on my medical table all the time, people who have lost their legs or arms or had other terrible injuries. No one back home sees any of that. I’ve been home for a month and I haven’t seen a casualty yet on television. I’m still waiting. Where are the casualties? It’s as if it doesn’t exist, as if it doesn’t happen." [/b]
A veteran of both Gulf Wars tells [i]Intervention Magazine[/i] http://www.interventionmag.co... that "he is deeply concerned that the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, which has resulted in the deaths of over 500 American soldiers and uncounted thousands of Iraqis, may now be edging toward disaster. He believes that the troops have done their job and should be brought home." He also believes most Americans have no idea of what's going on over there because of a lack of media attention paid to the war's true costs.
[b]More on [/b] http://www.interventionmag.co...
"We the People" surely must not [i]idly sit by [/i]and [i]collaborate[/i] with the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]neo-con war-turned-bloody-guerril la-quagmire in Iraq ([i]devised in order to enrich their gluttonous, neo-fascist war-profiteers: Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, etc[/i].) waged based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods ([i]phony WMDs that in reality posed no threat to our national security[/i]). Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Rove, Powell, Wolfowitz and the rest of their brutish gang of neo-con thugs & goons should be [i]impeached [/i]for [i]High Crimes[/i], and for betraying their oaths to our nation, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and subsequently sent to the Hague to be tried for their blood-thirsty [i] Crimes Against Humanity[/i] ...
|
|
|
| |
| The New Turkey ... |
| 03.09.04 (6:58 pm) [edit] |
[b]False, phony and fake ... [/b][i]That [/i]characterizes the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]... who callously manipulate "We the People" using mendacious neo-orwellian propaganda that is [i]"sexed-up" [/i]in order to persuade us that [i]war=peace[/i], [i]black=white[/i], and [i]2+2=5 [/i]... Not [i]all of us are fooled [/i]anymore, not even [i]some of the time[/i]!
Refer to "[b]The new turkey[/b]" by AlterNet NewsLog on http://www.alternet.org/elect... :
Remember when Bush 'surprised' uninjured soldiers with a turkey and a photo-op for Thanksgiving? The turkey turned out to be a fake. This week, the genuinely inauthentic Bush Team unveiled its latest fake. One of the controversial 9/11 ads using the heroism of the firefighters to prop up Bush's image, actually [i]used paid actors posing as fire fighters.[/i] http://msnbc.msn.com/id/44677...
In response to the ad, the president of the International Association of Fire Fighters ([i]which just happened to have endorsed John Kerry for president[/i]) said, 'Where the hell did they get those guys?' Others joked that the firemen's hats looked like they were 'from a birthday party.'
More importantly, Newsweek reports, "privately, some GOP strategists were disturbed by the backlash and suggested the ad team had misjudged how the imagery would play. 'It's quite shocking to a number of Republicans to watch them stumble out of the block like this,' said one veteran GOP consultant, who added that the big question in GOP circles is 'Do they [the Bush-Cheney campaign] know how to spend' their huge budget?"
In a poll published Monday, the 9/11 ads were deemed 'inappropriate' by 54% of respondents.
|
|
|
| |
| The Dead, The Bad and The Ugly ... |
| 03.09.04 (4:40 pm) [edit] |
"Be not dumb, obedient slaves in an army of destruction! Be heroes in an army of construction!" - Helen Keller
[b]"We the People" really should boycott the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i][u]ugly[/u] campaign waged against truth by the [u]bad[/u] Bushites who are callous to misery they spread ... [/b]The [u][b]dead[/b][/u] [i]deserve a more dignified remembrance [/i]than to be abused as fodder to [i]prop-up [/i]an insane neo-con buffoon like Dubya and his crooked neo-fascist side-kick Cheney ...
Reflect upon "[i][b]The Dead, the Bad and the Ugly:[/i] President's Ad Blitz Bombs 9/11[/b]" by [i]Pierre Tristam[/i], on http://www.commondreams.org/v... :
It was never a question of whether, but of how President Bush would use the graveyards of Sept. 11 to season his re-election campaign. The question was just answered: By eroticizing the dead of that fateful day and using the flag as their g-string.
The first television ads of the Bush campaign released last week don't yet linger on the dead. They only dig one back up for a cameo in the 30-second spot that sums up the "challenges" Bush had to face after taking office ("An economy in recession. A stock market in decline. A dot com boom gone bust. Then a day of tragedy.") The ads are a teaser of what's to come. They announce that the Republican National Convention in Manhattan, a few blocks from Ground Zero and a few days removed from the attacks' third anniversary, will be an orgy of Sept. 11 videos. Last week's ads are the previews.
That the administration is cashing in on the dead is not unusual. President Lincoln did it to great effect at Gettysburg. President Reagan did it movingly in Normandy, on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, when the 1984 presidential election was conveniently within sight. Most presidents do it badly, so most have the grace to leave the dead in peace once the speeches are over. President Bush has been doing it gracelessly and cravenly for two and a half years. The dead of Sept. 11 are his all-purpose security blanket. He's dug them up at every opportunity to call for another tax cut in the name of "economic security," another country to invade in the name of "national security," another reason to ignore the Bill of Rights in the name of "homeland security." The dead of Sept. 11 have been just as easy to dump like 3,000 used up lemon rinds every time the Bush administration has snubbed the 9/11 Commission investigating the attacks.
The dead are also a recruiting tool for the Republican machine. That corpse in the campaign ad wasn't dug up at random. Unlike the pathological randomness of policy in the Bush White House, nothing is random in the Bush campaign. Firefighters are shown ceremoniously carrying the remains of a victim atop the rubble of the World Trade Center. Judging from the size of the flag draping the stretcher and the uniforms of the many stretcher bearers, the victim is a firefighter. "Ordinary" victims at the site didn't receive nearly the same respect or solemnity as did firefighters. It's an important detail in the choreography of the ad.
There are 1.1 million firefighters in the United States. They generally vote Democrat. Beginning on September 14, 2001, while a few firefighters' bodies were still warm in the rubble -- if only from the still-raging fires -- the Bush campaign got busy profiting from the simmering tragedy to reclaim a fat voting block from the Democrats. It got a 69-year-old retired firefighter and avowed Republican by the name of Bob Beckwith, who'd strolled down to the site for a look-see, to stand on a charred fire truck. It got President Bush to stand next to him and put his arm around him, then to shout into a bullhorn something only the flies and the microphones around him could hear. "Can't hear you," was what Bush heard again and again from the crowd (and the dead) below. But hearing wasn't the point. The image, and winning the firefighting union's allegiance, was the point. (Beckwith 16 months later would refuse a Democratic Congresswoman's request to travel to Washington, D.C., and help convince the administration to release $90 million in health aid for the more than 1,000 workers at Ground Zero who developed respiratory problems and other illnesses. Beckwith's excuse: He didn't want to "embarrass" the president.)
The charred fire truck was President Bush's first Abraham Lincoln-like landing -- not to compare it to Lincoln at Gettysburg, but to Bush's telegenic landing on the aircraft carrier by that name, where he brandished the death of a few thousand Iraqis and 117 Americans as campaign fodder. Stay tuned for those ads. To be fair to the Bush campaign, it doesn't have much else to run on. When they're not hung up on political necrophilia, the campaign's ads are elegies to national and economic insecurity, Bush's towering twin legacies. That doesn't diminish the obscenity of the ads' imagery. The Federal Communications Commission is on a crusade to erase obscenity from the airwaves. But it's going after the likes of Bubba the Love Sponge and Howard Stern, whose g-string-inspired airs offend only those who specialize in being offended. There's a case to be made for denouncing the hoarier obscenities of our schlock jock in chief and his Sept. 11 grave-robbing, which pollutes national memory. Sept. 11 shouldn't so quickly have become yet another Superfund site.
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Is Hiding The Real Toll Of Death & Misery In Iraq ... |
| 03.09.04 (2:17 pm) [edit] |
[b]The neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]waged an illegal and immoral neo-con incursion into Iraq that has deteriorated into a bloody guerrilla quagmire, based upon myriad [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]about phony, non-existent WMDs that were supposed to pose an imminent threat to our national security ... [/b]Moreover, the dishonest Bushies played on our fears following 9/11 (... [i]Bush, Cheney & Rice still refuse to "come clean" about their advance warnings of the 9/11 attacks [/i]...) and mendaciously implied that a link existed between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden (... [i]when in fact, the two were enemies, because Hussein wanted a secular Iraq, and bin Laden wanted Islamic governments throughout the Middle-East [/i]...) ...
The [i]costs of the war in Iraq [/i]are enormous, as the financial burden is borne almost exclusively by the U.S. (... [i]over $166 Billion and no end in sight -- and no sacrifice demanded of corporations, wealthy oligarchs and hyper-rich plutocrats -- who were awarded immoral and traitorous tax cuts![/i] ...) due to the arrogance, corruption and ineptitude displayed by the reckless Bush regime who are incompetent to work constructively with other nations ...
However, the [i]human toll of death, misery and mayhem in Iraq[/i] defies our civilization's moral code, and must be condemned in[i] no uncertain terms[/i]:-- Over 550 U.S. Soldiers and over 10,000-15,000+ Innocent Iraqi Civilians have been ruthlessly slaughtered as well as the tens of thousands of innocent human beings maimed, injured and scarred for life, in order to enrich Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, the Bush Crime Family, the Cheney Crime Family, the Neo-Cons, the Ahmad Chalabi Crime Family, etc. ... The traitorous neo-fascist Bushies should be impeached and tried for [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]... It is [i]up to [/i]"We the People" to demand it!!!
Refer to "[i][b]Hiding War's Toll[/b][/i]" by [i]Nancy Lessin[/i], TomPaine, on http://www.tompaine.com/featu... :
[b]President Bush's rationale [/b]for taking us to war in Iraq has crumbled. The truth about supposed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is being told. At the same time, another truth remains hidden by the Bush administration: the 550 troops who have returned from Iraq in caskets and the thousands returning with severe physical and psychological damage.
The military planes carrying human remains fly into Dover Air Force Base in Delaware under cover of darkness. Unlike Vietnam, when Americans could see the consequences of war, the media are now banned from Dover Air Force Base by military order, reinforced for the Iraq war by an edict from Mr. Bush.
One does not need to be a historian to know that the image of dead Americans, returning day after day in body bags, helped turn America against the war in Vietnam. This administration has gone to great lengths to prevent a repeat by keeping images of lifeless and broken bodies away from the cameras and the consciousness of the American people. Mr. Bush has not yet attended a single funeral for anyone killed in Iraq—not a single one. Spain and Italy held state funerals for their countrymen who died in Iraq, but the Bush administration's policy for our own war dead is to hide them.
The media blackout extends to the legions of wounded who have returned from Iraq as well. Media stories on wounded troops often use Pentagon figures for those officially wounded in combat, numbering around 3,000. These numbers ignore the well over 7,000 troops who have been injured or made ill as a result of the war. According to the Disabled American Veterans, an additional 6,891 troops were medically evacuated between March 19, 2003 and Oct. 30, 2003, for everything from vehicle accidents to attempted suicides.
The Bush administration is trying to hide the reality described by an Army Nurse Corps captain stationed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in a recent message to the Bring Them Home NOW! campaign: "[It is] so sad to see young wives cry over their honey who was in Iraq less than one month before losing both legs and having several abdominal surgeries leaving his belly crisscrossed with staples, and now he is fighting for his life from the infection that the injuries caused." As hard as it may be, these are images the American people need to see, to make informed decisions about this war and its costs.
In their effort to keep this reality from the public, the Bush administration has gone so far as to restrict access of professionally trained and accredited representatives of Disabled American Veterans from military hospitals—access that the DAV has had for more than six decades to counsel and work with service members. The few visits that have been allowed are with pre-selected patients and are closely monitored.
An administration that was honest about the true cost of this war would have increased budget allocations to support the troops and their needs. Instead, in a continuing effort to deny the reality and consequences of the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush's priorities add insult to grave injury. Last year he proposed cutting $1.5 billion from military family housing while the troops were at war, and also tried to roll back increases for combat pay for soldiers serving in combat zones. This year's budget shortchanges veterans' health care so egregiously that the commander-in-chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars called it a "disgrace and a sham."
The president is trying to hide damaging revelations about pre-war intelligence by postponing reports until after election day. He will try to hide the human costs of this war—if the American people let him.
On March 14 and 15, as we approach the first anniversary of this war, military families, including those who have lost loved ones in Iraq, veterans, clergy and peace activists will gather at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to begin a memorial procession for mourning and truth. We will pull back the veil, honor and mourn the dead and acknowledge the wounded—both U.S. military personnel and the tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties. The memory of these individuals will then be brought to the White House, along with the plea: start telling the truth, stop hiding the toll and bring an end to this war.
. [i]Nancy Lessin is the co-founder of Military Families Speak Out, http://www.mfso.org/ an organization of families opposed to the U.S. invasion and now the occupation of Iraq, all of whom have loved ones in the military. Her son Joe is a Marine who was deployed in August 2002, and has since returned from Iraq. Gordon Clark is the coordinator for Iraq Pledge of Resistance http://www.peacepledge.org/re... [/i].
|
|
|
| |
| Mad Dog DeLay Calls World Dignitaries Who Support Kerry 'Rogue Leaders'!!! HA HA HA!!! |
| 03.09.04 (1:34 pm) [edit] |
[b]The neo-con, neo-fascists in the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]are getting quite desperate [i]now[/i] that the American people are turning against Bush http://www.tblog.com/template... ... [/b]
The neo-orwellian Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's [/i]vile propaganda[i] mad-dog machinery [/i]is spreading (... [i]like viruses [/i]...) hilarious [i]buffoonery [/i]and outright [i]lies[/i] perpetrated to slander, libel and mis-represent the Democratic Candidate, Senator John F. Kerry ... and laughable [i]idiocies[/i] and cynical [i]deceptions[/i] perpetrated to [i]prop-up Dubya [/i]and mis-lead us regarding the neo-fascist Bushies' illegal and immoral [i]neo-con warfare-for-Halliburton[/ i] in Iraq, as well as their [i]economic rape [/i]of the American economy on behalf of their gluttonous corporate cronies ... "We the People" should beware of their ugly and traitorous neo-fascist rhetoric ...
Consider "[b]DeLay: [i]Kerry is Right! Rogue Leader Supports Kerry's International Campaign[/i][/b]" on http://releases.usnewswire.co... :
Why do they let DeLay out in public without a handler - much less let him continue to spend thousands of taxpayer dollar each month on endless semi-rational to irrational press releases dumped into US Newswire? Delay's latest? He claims that the only "furriners" supporting Kerry must be "[i]rogue leaders[/i]." [i]What a hoot! [/i]Considering the fact that the foreign leaders that support Bush include Tony Blair, Ghadaffi, Musharraf and Ahmed Chalabi, that leaves quite a few "rogues," eh? The Bugman needs some rabies shots, quick! [b][What Next? [i]Neo-Con Pre-emptive War Waged Against Nations Who Don't Pay Homage To Emperor Bush[/i]? ... Jeez ...][/b]
[b]From mad-dog DeLay's office:--[/b]
[b]To:[/b] National Desk
[b]Contact:[/b] Stuart Roy or Jonathan Grella, 202-225-4000; both of the Office of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today could only agree with Democrat presidential hopeful John Kerry's assertion that foreign leaders support his campaign against President Bush.
Kerry is quoted today by the Reuters News Service as saying, "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that."
Kerry's ingenious international campaign for the White House picked up another endorsement just last week, according to the following evidence of growing support for Kerry in Kim Jong Il's regime in North Korea, as reported in the [i]Financial Times[/i]:
"Rather than dealing with President George W. Bush and hawkish officials in his administration, Pyongyang seems to hope victory for the Democratic candidate on Nov. 2 would lead to a softening in US policy towards the country's nuclear weapons programme."
DeLay remarked sullenly: "If he locks up Paris next, he's going to be tough to beat."
|
|
|
| |
| There Is Alot Right With John F. Kerry ... Read The Facts & Not The Neo-Orwellian GOP Propaganda |
| 03.08.04 (2:19 pm) [edit] |
[b]No candidate is [i]perfect[/i] ... no candidate is [i]without flaws [/i]... It is illusory to pretend that any candidate is a perfect man (or woman) ...[/b]
However, we have witnessed what occurs when a [i]dangerously stupid and corrupt corporate-owned slut [/i]like Dubya takes hold of office and allows his [i]corporate-owned pimps [/i]to hijack our government ... It is a disaster ...
Now is the time for "We the People" to insist upon an American regime change in order to [i]take our nation back[/i] ... It belongs to [i]us[/i], and[i] not [/i]to corporations, neo-con ideologues, or corrupt neo-fascist imperial demagogues ...
Consider "[i][b]What's Right With Kerry[/b][/i]" by[i] David Corn[/i], The Nation, on http://www.thenation.com/doc.... :
In the heat of battle, with his campaign crumbling, Howard Dean lashed out at John Kerry. First, he called the leader in the Democratic presidential race a "Republican." Then he said, "When Senator Kerry's record is examined by the public at a more leisurely time...he's going to turn out to be just like George Bush."
Just like George Bush? It is true that Kerry, another Yalie and Skull and Bones alum, has voted in favor of NAFTA and other corporate-friendly trade pacts, that he once raised questions about affirmative action (while still supporting it), that he has, like almost every Democratic senator, accepted contributions from special-interest lobbyists (while being one of the few to eschew political action committee donations), that he voted to grant Bush the authority to invade Iraq. But this hardly makes him Bush lite. There is, as evidence, his nineteen-year Senate record, during which he has voted consistently in favor of abortion rights and environmental policies, opposed Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, led the effort against drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, pushed for higher fuel economy standards, advocated boosting the minimum wage and pressed for global warming remedies. But what distinguishes Kerry's career are key moments when he displayed guts and took tough actions that few colleagues would imitate. One rap on Kerry is that he is overly cautious and conventional. He's no firebrand on the stump, nor does he come across as the most passionate and exciting force for change. But his history in Washington includes episodes in which he demonstrated a willingness to confront hard issues, to challenge power, to pursue values rather than political advantage, to take risks for the public interest.
Kerry arrived in the Senate in 1985. This Vietnam War hero turned antiwar leader had been lieutenant governor of Massachusetts. But he entered the body more as the prosecutor he had been in the late 1970s after graduating from Boston College law school. In early 1986 Kerry's office was contacted by a Vietnam vet who alleged that the support network for the CIA-backed Nicaraguan contras (who were fighting against the socialist Sandinistas in power) was linked to drug traffickers. Kerry doubted that the Reagan Administration, obsessed with supporting the[i] contras[/i], would investigate such charges. He pushed for a Senate inquiry and a year later, as chairman of a Foreign Relations subcommittee, obtained approval to conduct a probe.
It was not an easy ride. Reagan Justice Department officials sought to discredit and stymie his investigation. Republicans dismissed it. One anti-Kerry effort used falsified affidavits to make it seem his staff had bribed witnesses. The Democratic staff of the Senate Iran/[i]contra[/i] committee--which showed little interest in the [i]contra [/i]drug connection--often refused to cooperate. "They were fighting us tooth and nail," recalls Jack Blum, one of Kerry's investigators. "We had the White House and the CIA against us on one side and our colleagues in the Senate on the other. But Kerry told us, 'Keep going.' He didn't let this stuff faze him."
Kerry's inquiry widened to look at Cuba, Haiti, the Bahamas, Honduras and Panama. In 1989 he released a report that slammed the Reagan Administration for neglecting or undermining anti-drug efforts in order to pursue other foreign policy objectives. It noted that the government in the 1970s and '80s had "turned a blind eye" to the corruption and drug dealing of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, who had done various favors for Washington (including assisting the [i]contras[/i]). The report concluded that "individuals who provided support for the contras were involved in drug trafficking...and elements of the contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers." And, it added, US government agencies--meaning the CIA and the State Department--had known this.
This was a rather explosive finding, but the Kerry report did not provoke much uproar in the media, and the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill did little to support Kerry and keep the matter alive. His critics derided him as a conspiracy buff. Yet a decade later the CIA inspector general released a pair of reports that acknowledged that the agency had worked with suspected drug smugglers to support the [i]contras[/i]. Kerry had been right.
[b]For the [i]Full Report [/i]click on[/b] http://www.thenation.com/doc....
|
|
|
| |
| Talking About Outsourcing ... |
| 03.08.04 (11:26 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" must[i] reflect deeply [/i]upon the issues of outsourcing of jobs because it affects our very livelihoods ... [/b]The corrupt Bush regime's neo-fascist Global Corporate Empire has ruthlessly slashed America's jobs, in order to callously pay[i] immoral slave labour wages abroad (... reaping unconscionable, gluttonous profits off the backs of miserable slaves working in horrific conditions ...)[/i], thereby triggering[i] high unemployment in America[/i], to prompt a neo-Great Depression creating a[i] slave labour class here at home, too [/i]...
Trade is a [i]good thing[/i] (... [i]but not when we run-up record-level trade deficits as per Bush's corporate-take-all swindle[/i] ...), providing that the economic conditions are [i]fair and properly regulated [/i]in order to ensure that:--
1. Employees here at home and abroad are not[i] ruthlessly exploited as slave laborers [/i]in [i]unsafe working conditions [/i]with no protections;
2. Consumers are protected in order that we[i] are not poisoned or otherwise harmed [/i]by unsafe products and/or fraudulent services;
3. Investors are able to rely upon [i]accurate and properly managed accounting practices[/i], to avoid the Enron-style[i] fraud and malfeasance [/i]that enables dishonest corporate robber-barons, top-dogs & fat-cats to rape corporations of their assets, employee pension funds, job-stripping, etc. ...
The corrupt Bush regime are propagating myriad [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]regarding the dire state of unemployment, corporate malfeasance ([i]in which Bush, Cheney, et al. are participants[/i]) and the Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] destruction of government regulations that safe-guard our public interests.
Consider "[i][b]Toward a Progressive View on Outsourcing[/b][/i]" by The Nation on http://www.thenation.com/doc.... :
[i]When Gregory Mankiw, the head of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, remarked on February 9 that outsourcing "is probably a plus for the economy in the long run," he added heat to a debate that has been growing in ferocity as American job losses have mounted and as trade policy has developed into a key issue in the Democratic presidential primaries. In an effort to help develop a progressive position on outsourcing--one that reflects a concern about the well-being of American workers and those in the countries to which many US jobs have fled--we have solicited three views on the subject. We invite readers to respond. [/i]- The Nation Editors
[b]Sarah Andererson & John Cavanagh[/b]
"Don't worry; they'll get better jobs in the service sector." This used to be the mantra of free-trade supporters when confronted with the shift of auto or apparel jobs to Mexico or China. That line doesn't work anymore, since service jobs, including high-skill computer programming, financial analysis and X-ray reading, are going overseas as well.
Global outsourcing of service jobs is one of the most disturbing manifestations of the US government's corporate-friendly approach to globalization and requires a fundamental reorientation of policy that will aid workers at home and abroad.
Democrats have rightly seized on the issue. They are touting an array of anti-outsourcing proposals, mostly focusing on national measures, such as elimination of taxpayer subsidies. For example, John Kerry advocates banning foreign outsourcing of state and federal government contract work and would also eliminate tax breaks for firms that outsource, while giving tax credits to those that do not. Other US policies that encourage overseas investment could also be targeted. For example:
§ The relatively weak requirements for US firms, compared with European counterparts, to pay severance or negotiate with unions over plans to move jobs overseas.
§ Overseas Private Investment Corporation insurance for corporations investing abroad.
§ Treaties that protect US investors against host-government actions--including public interest laws--that diminish profits.
Changes in these and other areas could help chip away at the incentive to outsource. However, such domestic remedies do not address the main driving force: the extreme gap in wage levels. For example, the average wage gap between the United States and India, the top outsourcing destination in the developing world, is more than 12:1 for telephone operators and about 9:1 for medical transcribers, according to a University of California, Berkeley, study. The next biggest developing-country draw for service work is China (which has rock-bottom wages but lacks India's English-speaking advantage), followed by Mexico, where the wage ratio with the United States is about 8:1.
Overall, global pay gaps result in cost savings for outsourcers of at least 45-55 percent (after accounting for higher infrastructure and other costs), according to the management consulting firm McKinsey and Company. If this is true, figures in the Berkeley study suggest, companies could save around $300 billion a year if they outsourced all of the estimated 14 million US service jobs considered vulnerable to being shipped overseas. Given these vast potential savings, it will be difficult to reduce outsourcing incentives substantially--unless the pay gaps are narrowed.
[b]For the [i]Full Report[/i], click on[/b] http://www.thenation.com/doc....
|
|
|
| |
| Selling Death for Fun and Profit ... |
| 03.08.04 (9:25 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" should boycott Bush's sordid and squalid neo-orwellian campaign ads that shamelessly [i]pander to our fears [/i]and ruthlessly [i]exploit the carnage, misery and our nation's tragedy [/i]on 9/11 ... [/b](... Except for the Bushies, for whom [i]9/11 was advantageous, as Dubya said that he "hit the trifecta"[/i] so that he & his neo-con thugs & goons could (1) prop themselves up when, [i]at the time[/i], their [i]popularity ratings were "in the toilet"[/i], (2) wage illegal and immoral [i]neo-con warfare[/i], and (3) gluttonously[i] gorge-and-swill [/i]on ugly war-profits ...)
Methinks that we should all [i]switch channels [/i]every time one of Dubya's hilariously ludicrous, [i]jam-packed-with-lies[/ i], and imbecilic neo-fascist campaign ads appear ... You can easily [i]switch it back[/i], after a minute or so ...
The corrupt Bush regime's[i] rock-bottom hypocrisy and lack of morality [/i]is exposed by [i]William Rivers Pitt[/i] in his excellent article entitled "[i][b]'Selling death for fun and profit'[/b][/i]" published by TruthOut on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
"[i]For a salesman, there is no rock bottom to the life. He don't put a bolt to a nut, he don't tell you the law or give you medicine. He's a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back - that's an earthquake. And then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you're finished[/i]." -- Arthur Miller, 'Death of a Salesman'
Sooner or later, if you live in a world without consequences, you will say or do something so utterly reprehensible, so completely beyond the pale, that those who behold your pestiferous splendor will be left, simply, in awe. This world without consequences has been the realm of the Bush administration for three long years.
They enjoyed umbilical ties to Enron, one of the companies which participated in the gang-rape of our economy, and have suffered no consequences. They gave away the Federal Treasury to the wealthiest of their supporters, compounding the budgetary shock that came in the aftermath of Enron, and have suffered no consequences. They raided Social Security to make up the difference, after promising explicitly that they would not, and have suffered no consequences.
They made war on a nation that was no threat to the United States, in defiance of practically the entire world, and have suffered no consequences. They lied to the American people day after day after day about the nature of this nonexistent threat, painting pictures of a rain of poison gas from Iraq pelting down on the innocent so as to scare people into line, and have suffered no consequences. They destroyed the career of a deep-cover CIA agent in retaliation for the exposure of their lies, an agent running a network to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists, and have suffered no consequences. It is, as ever, the dead and maimed soldiers, along with their families, who have taken on the burden of suffering those consequences.
Pointedly, they stood steward over the most catastrophic attack in American history and have suffered no consequences. They blew past warnings of impending attacks from several allied nations, and likewise blew past warnings of impending attacks from trusted voices within their own ranks, and have suffered no consequences. They have stonewalled each and every step taken towards trying to find out why and how the attack took place, going so far as to attempt to give master secret-keeper Henry Kissinger control of the investigation, and have suffered no consequences. They have blithely slapped down pleas for clarity and truth from the family members of the victims of that dark day, and have suffered no consequences.
So it goes today with the new battery of political ads unleashed by the Bush for President brigade, and with the plans being laid by the GOP for their September convention. When you live in a world without consequences, this is what you are capable of.
"The entire format and actual physical setup could be radically different," said the GOP insider quoted in a March 3rd article in The Hill about the upcoming Republican National Convention in New York City. "They might not even have a podium, or maybe a rotating podium or even a stage that comes up from underground. It would be like a theater in the round, with off-site events that are part of the convention."
"Or," continued this insider, "and this is a real possibility, we could see President Bush giving his acceptance speech at Ground Zero. It's clearly a venue they're considering."
The new ads are wretched enough. Imagine Franklin Delano Roosevelt using images of the Pearl Harbor attacks to frighten people into supporting him, and you will apprehend the gall of these new commercials. A recent editorial cartoon captured the essence of the matter nicely. It showed a grave and headstone reading '9/11 Victims.' Pounded into the soil of that grave is a sign reading 'Vote Bush 2004.' To the side is George himself, hands folded, saying, "What? I thought the sign was tasteful."
From the mouths and hearts of those most affected by the attacks have come denunciations of these scabrous tactics.
"I'm disappointed but not surprised that the President would try to trade on the heroism of those fire fighters in the September 11 attacks," said Harold Schaitberger, General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters. The IAFF represents more than 263,000 full-time professional fire fighters and emergency medical personnel who protect 80 percent of the nation's population. More than 2,900 affiliates and their members protect nearly 6,000 communities in every state in the Unites States and every province in Canada.
"The use of 9/11 images are hypocrisy at its worst," said Schaitberger. "Here's a President that initially opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and now uses its first anniversary as cause to promote his re-election. Here is a President that proposed two budgets with no funding for FIRE Act grants and still plays on the image of America's bravest. His advertisements are disgraceful."
"Bush is calling on the biggest disaster in our country's history, and indeed in the history of the fire service, to win sympathy for his campaign," continued Schaitberger. "Since the attacks, Bush has been using images of himself putting his arm around a retired FDNY fire fighter on the pile of rubble at ground zero. But for two and a half years he has basically shortchanged fire fighters and the safety of our homeland by not providing fire fighters the resources needed to do the job that America deserves."
"It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place," said Firefighter Tommy Fee of Queens Rescue Squad 270. "The image of firefighters at ground zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics."
"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin towers. "It is unconscionable."
Combine that with an image of George W. Bush standing on the bones of our dead in that sacred graveyard to accept the nomination, surrounded by all his failures, bereft of consequences, and that sense of disgusted awe becomes complete.
There is a ray of light in all the muck. There is a ray of light coming from those who have suffered the consequences Bush and his people have managed to avoid. There is a ray of light, and it shines from the people. Bush is going to New York City to accept the nomination of his party. He will be met by hundreds and hundreds of thousands of everyday Americans, who will raise their voices in a solemn chorus with the firefighters, the police, the EMTs and the families of the victims. In that solemn chorus will be one theme.
How dare you, George? How dare you?
If you stand with the victims, with the soldiers, with the firefighters and police and EMTs, if you stand with outrage in your heart, perhaps the time has come to make some plans. Perhaps the time has come to book a plane, or a train, or a donkey, or whatever, to bring you to New York City this September. The city that never sleeps is as good a place as any to deliver a wake-up call. Actions will, at long last, have consequences.
. [i]William Rivers Pitt is the senior editor and lead writer for truthout. He is a New York Times and international bestselling author of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence[/i].'
|
|
|
| |
| Prosecuting the Cabal ... |
| 03.08.04 (9:25 am) [edit] |
[b]The neo-con Bush White House committed a traitorous ([i]Poppy Bush 41's term[/i]) felony in outing the under-cover identity of a secret agent who was involved in CIA operations to discover foreign terrorist's trade in weapons of mass destruction ... [/b]These under-cover agents are trying to [i]safe-guard our national security[/i], while the corrupt neo-fascist Bushies [i]undermine it [/i]([i]and in-so-doing, place our nation at risk[/i]) in a petty, mean and illegal act of revenge against a man [i]who told the truth [/i]to the American people ...
"We the People" should demand that this probe be made public and that the White House felons and criminals be [i]charged, tried and convicted, in accordance with the evidence[/i]-- and that Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rove be made [i]to testify under oath [/i]regarding their[i] own [/i]involvement in this sordid and treasonous crime ... This is perhaps [i]just another[/i] of their [i]many, many, many high crimes and misdemeanors [/i]in violation of the U.S. Constitution, for which these neo-con crooks should be [i]impeached[/i] ...
Consider "[i][b]'Prosecuting the cabal'[/b][/i]" by [i]Justin Raimondo[/i], Antiwar.com, on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
[i][b]Leak probe tightens net around the gang that 'outed' an undercover CIA agent[/b][/i]
Is Team Bush about to implode? It sure doesn't look that way from the outside. But beneath the calm unruffled exterior of an administration that never admits either error or doubt, there are some palpitating hearts that beat a little faster each time U.S. special counsel Patrick J. "Bulldog" Fitzgerald issues another subpoena in the Plame leak probe, and the sound of all that pitter-pattering grows progressively louder, as he has been especially busy of late.
Fitzgerald has subpoenaed records of telephone calls made from Air Force One in the week before Robert Novak's July 14 column was published, http://www.townhall.com/colum... in which he outed CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame on information provided by administration sources. The President was on a trip to Africa that week, culminating in the Leon Sullivan Summit in Abuja, Nigeria, and the Imperial retinue included a whole panoply of top officials, including Condoleezza Rice, Andrew Card, Colin Powell, and a large crew of lesser luminaries, any one of whom could be of interest to the leak probe. Also subpoenaed was the transcript of a White House media briefing, conducted in Abuja, which had mysteriously been erased from the White House website (it has since been restored). Yet another grand jury subpoena requests records of the White House Iraq Group, a heretofore little-known enclave of the national security bureaucracy, created in August 2002 to "educate the public" about the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein," according to the Washington Post [August 10, 2003]:
"[i]The escalation of nuclear rhetoric a year ago, including the introduction of the term 'mushroom cloud' into the debate, coincided with the formation of a White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a task force assigned to 'educate the public' about the threat from Hussein, as a participant put it[/i]."
You'll remember that it was National Security Advisor Rice who made some of the most hyperbolic statements about the destructive potential of Saddam's WMD in the run-up to war, harping on the possibility of the ultimate horror if we failed to act, giving voice to talking points no doubt developed by the White House Iraq Group:
"[i][b]The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud[/b][/i]." http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPT...
Uttered on the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, this is the kind of rhetoric that pushed us into the Iraqi quagmire: fear of nuclear terrorism was at an all-time high, the nation was on orange alert, and the neocons were on the march, beating the drums for war. The effort was coordinated by the WHIG, meeting weekly in the Situation Room: Rice's chief deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, was a regular participant, the Post informs us.
Mr Hadley, you'll recall, took the blame for somehow forgetting that George Tenet had called him and warned that the uranium allegation was questionable. Hadley also played a key role in promoting the alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent, which turned out to be just as bogus as the Niger uranium forgeries.
Also present at these weekly WHIG get-togethers were Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, James R. Wilkinson, legislative liaison Nicholas E Calio, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff – and the leading suspect in this case http://www.antiwar.com/justin... . All will have been hauled up before the grand jury and questioned before this is over, and investigators dig deeper into the multi-leveled propaganda operation that lied us into war.
This is now the concern of at least two federal grand juries, as well as various congressional committees, because, in their zeal to enlist the nation in their righteous cause, the War Party resorted to clearly illegal activities. These include not only outing the unfortunate Ms. Plame, but also aiding and abetting forgery, an act that, in context, could be considered an act of espionage.
A grand jury is now meeting in Washington, while Fitzgerald's team retraces the steps whereby a cache of crude forgeries – procured under very dubious circumstances – was absorbed into the American intelligence stream, passed off to the White House as fact, and immortalized as the famous "16 words" in the President's 2003 State of the Union speech. The Niger uranium forgeries, procured by Italian intelligence and handed over to an Italian journalist, purported to document efforts by Iraq to obtain uranium from the closely-guarded mines of Niger. While the editor of [i]Panorama[/i], who had first look at the documents, smelled fraud and declined them, certain top U.S. officials were not so fastidious.
But which ones? Surely the same ones who tried to discredit Ambassador Wilson, and strike at him through his wife, but it isn't that simple: Fitzgerald's team of prosecutors faces a task of daunting complexity. Given the sheer amount of evidence to examine, and the number of potential witnesses involved, it looks like these indictments, and the trial preparations – if there is a trial – will require enough time to push the court date to well after November.
Ah, but not so fast. Fortunately, a posse of journalists has already mapped out much of the terrain. Thanks to the researches of Seymour Hersh http://www.newyorker.com/fact... , Karen Kwiatkowski http://www.google.com/search?...+site:www.amconmag.com+kwiatkowski+%22office +of+special+plans%22+amer ican+conservative , Jim Lobe http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lo... , and others http://www.guardian.co.uk/Ira...,2763,999737,00.html , the route taken by bogus "intelligence" originating from Iraqi exiles, Washington thinktanks, and foreign intelligence agencies via the Office of Special Plans, http://www.cooperativeresearc... and stovepiped to the White House and the public, is well-known. The office of the Vice President, presided over by Libby, operated as the command center of a political operation designed to roll over any and all opposition to the war. This included former Ambassador Joe Wilson, http://www.disinfopedia.org/w... a prominent critic of the rush to invade Iraq, who, in debunking the "16 words," opened up a can of worms that they would much prefer to keep closed tight.
The idea was to discredit Wilson, a career diplomat with wide experience in the region, who had been sent to personally investigate the Niger uranium story, and dutifully reported that there was nothing to back up such claims. When the President uttered those 16 words, Wilson was flabbergasted – and went public with the story of his journey to Niger. In lying the nation into war, the neocons had bypassed the traditional vetting system whereby errors and outright disinformation are weeded out before they percolate up to a higher level: Wilson was the institutional voice of that system, which was now being blamed for bad pre-war intelligence. Therefore, he had to be slapped down, and in such a way that others would not likely emulate his whistle-blowing example.
The political hit squad assigned to go after Wilson http://www.newsday.com/news/n...,0,7284980.story?coll=ny-nationalnew s-headlines – meeting, perhaps, in the Situation Room – decided to hit back at him through his wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA undercover agent working on nuclear nonproliferation issues. They told Novak, and apparently a good number of other journalists, that he wasn't really qualified, Wilson's wife had gotten him the (non-paying) job to go to Niger through her CIA connections, a bit of information dropped casually amid familiar complaints of partisan bias and ulterior motives. Plame's career in the CIA was effectively ended.
It is, of course, a crime to willingly and knowingly divulge the identity of an undercover intelligence agent. In the case of Ms. Plame, who was engaged in such a highly sensitive field as nuclear non-proliferation – stopping the very "mushroom cloud" that Condi Rice gabbled on about from ever blossoming over an American city – the gravity of the offense seems to bear down all the harder on whoever is eventually indicted.
An interesting footnote: On the list of subpoenaed materials are included administration contacts with more than two dozen journalists. Included right up there with superstars such as Walter Pincus and Dana Priest, of the [i]Washington Post[/i], Evan Thomas ([i]Newsweek[/i]), Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Nicholas D. Kristof, and Judith Miller, we have one Jeff Gannon, of something called "Talon News." So, what's up with that?
My regular readers might recall a column I wrote on Plame-gate a couple of months ago, wherein I mentioned that the Talon News Agency, an arm of something called "GOP U.S.A," did an interview with Ambassador Wilson, during which the interviewer challenged Wilson with an internal U.S. government document purporting to be the minutes of a meeting at which Plame played a key role in getting her husband the Niger assignment. There was just one problem with these documents: as in the Niger uranium forgeries, which listed ministers who hadn't served in years and got key facts wrong, these minutes of a purported meeting of CIA agents placed personnel in locations they couldn't possibly have been. Another forgery! Counterfeiting official documents is also a crime, particularly when it is done with the cooperation or complicity of government officials involved in a conspiracy.
I advise Mr. Gannon to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, if he knows what's good for him.
This case is about much more than the outing of a CIA agent: It's about a cabal of ruthless liars who stopped at nothing – not even treason – to achieve their goals, and kept lying (and committing forgery) even after they were caught. It's about a bogus war fought on account of faked "evidence." It's about the hijacking of American foreign policy http://www.antiwar.com/justin... on behalf of interests that are neither American nor morally defensible.
As Joshua Marshall, among the few media mavens who has been following this story, points out http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... , the Bush administration has explicitly not forbidden its minions, during the course of these legal proceedings, from invoking the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution against self-incrimination. So much for George W. Bush's expressed desire to get to the bottom of this case. We don't know what's going on behind the closed doors of a grand jury investigation, but if the President's men are already taking the Fifth, doesn't the public have a right to know?
|
|
|
| |
| "No President Who Misleads The Country On The Need For War Deserves To Be Re-Elected" ... |
| 03.07.04 (2:24 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" deserve a president who puts the [i]best interest of the nation [/i]before his own private lusts for power and wealth ... [/b]The corrupt Bush regime has [i]betrayed our country [/i]by ruthlessly and wantonly [i]lying [/i]to our nation and[i] misleading [/i]us into an insane, illegal & immoral neo-con war in Iraq in order to enrich himself and his neo-fascist corporate pimps: Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.
The following speech was made on Friday, 5th March 2004, by Senator Edward M. Kennedy to the Council on Foreign Relations:--
[i][b]"No President who misleads the country on the need for war deserves to be reelected" ...[/b][/i]
[b]SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY SPEECH TO THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS [/b]
The nation is engaged in a major ongoing debate about why America went to war in Iraq, when Iraq was not an imminent threat, had no nuclear weapons, no persuasive links to Al Qaeda, no connection to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
Over two centuries ago, John Adams spoke eloquently about the need to let facts and evidence guide actions and policies. He said, "[i]Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence[/i]." Listen to those words again, and you can hear John Adams speaking to us now about Iraq. "[i]Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence[/i]."
Tragically, in making the decision to go to war in Iraq, the Bush Administration allowed its wishes, its inclinations and its passions to alter the state of facts and the evidence of the threat we faced from Iraq.
A month ago, in an address at Georgetown University, CIA Director George Tenet discussed the strengths and flaws in the intelligence on Iraq. Tenet testified to several Senate and House committees on these issues, and next Tuesday, he will come before our Senate Armed Services Committee. He will have an opportunity to explain why he waited until last month to publicly state the facts and evidence on these fundamental questions, and why he was so silent when it mattered most – in the days and months leading up to the war.
If he feels that the White House altered the facts, or misused the intelligence, or ignored it and relied on dubious sources in the Iraqi exile community, Tenet should say so, and say it plainly.
It is not sufficient for Tenet to say only, as he did last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee, that we must be patient. When he was appointed Director of Central Intelligence in 1997, Tenet said to President Clinton. "… I have believed that you…and the Vice President must be provided with … complete and objective intelligence...We must always be straight and tell you the facts as we know them." The American people and our men and women serving in Iraq deserve the facts and they deserve answers now.
The rushed decision to invade Iraq cannot all be blamed on flawed intelligence. If we view these events simply as an intelligence failure – rather than a larger failure of decision-making and leadership – we will learn the wrong lessons.
The more we find out, the clearer it becomes that any failure in the intelligence itself is dwarfed by the Administration's manipulation of the intelligence in making the case for war. Specific warnings from the intelligence community were consistently ignored as the Administration rushed toward war.
We now know that from the moment President Bush took office, Iraq was given high priority as unfinished business from the first Bush Administration.
According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's account in Ron Suskind's book, [i]The Price of Loyalty[/i], Iraq was on the agenda at the very first meeting of the National Security Council, just ten days after President Bush's inauguration in 2001. At that meeting, the President quickly – and wrongly – concluded that the U.S. could not do much about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said we should "pull out of that situation," and then turned to a discussion of "how Iraq is destabilizing the region."
Secretary O'Neill remembers: "Getting Hussein was now the Administration's focus. From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country. And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"
By the end of February 2001, the talk on Iraq was mostly about how – and how quickly – to get rid of Saddam Hussein. President Bush was clearly frustrated with what the intelligence community was providing. According to Secretary O'Neill, on May 16, 2001, he and the other principals of the National Security Council met with the President to discuss the Middle East. Tenet presented his intelligence report, and told the President that it was still only speculation whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, or was even starting a program to build such weapons.
Secretary O'Neill says: "Everything Tenet sent up to Bush and Cheney about Iraq was very judicious and precisely qualified. The President was clearly very interested in weapons or weapons programs – and frustrated about our weak intelligence capability – but Tenet was clearly being careful to say, here's the little that we know and the great deal that we don't. That wouldn't change, and I read those CIA reports for two years," said O'Neill.
Then came 9/11. In the months that followed, the war in Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden had obvious priority. Al Qaeda was clearly the most imminent threat to our national security. In fact, in his testimony to Congress in February 2001, one month after President Bush's inauguration and seven months before 9/11, Tenet had said: "Osama bin Laden and his global network of lieutenants and associates remain the most immediate and serious threat." That testimony emphasized the clear danger of bin Laden in light of the specific attacks in previous years on American citizens and American institutions.
In February 2002, five months after 9/11, Tenet testified: "Last year, I told you that Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network were the most immediate and serious threat this country faced. This remains true despite the progress we have made in Afghanistan and in disrupting the network elsewhere."
Even during the buildup to the war in Iraq, in February 2003, Tenet again testified, "the threat from Al Qaeda remains ... We place no limitations on our expectations on what Al Qaeda might do to survive … Al Qaeda is living in the expectation of resuming the offensive."
In his testimony last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tenet repeated his earlier warnings. He said again that Al Qaeda is not defeated and that "We are still at war…This is a learning organization that remains committed to attacking the United States, its friends and allies."
Tenet never used that kind of strong language to describe the threat from Iraq. Yet despite all the clear and consistent warnings about Al Qaeda, by the summer of 2002, President Bush was ready for war with Iraq. The war in Afghanistan was no longer in the headlines or at the center of attention. Bin Laden was hard to find, the economy was in trouble, and so was the President's approval rating in the polls.
Karl Rove had tipped his hand earlier by stating that the war on terrorism could bring political benefits as well. The President's undeniable goal was to convince the American people that war was necessary – and necessary soon, because soon-to-be-acquired nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein could easily be handed off to terrorists.
This conclusion was not supported by the facts, but the intelligence could be retrofitted to support it. Greg Thielmann, former Director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, put it bluntly last July. He said, "Some of the fault lies with the performance of the intelligence community, but most of it lies with the way senior officials misused the information they were provided." He said, "They surveyed the data, and picked out what they liked. The whole thing was bizarre. The Secretary of Defense had this huge Defense Intelligence Agency, and he went around it." Thielmann also said, "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude, its top-down use of intelligence: we know the answers; give us the intelligence to support those answers…Going down the list of administration deficiencies, or distortions, one has to talk about, first and foremost, the nuclear threat being hyped," he said.
David Albright, the former weapons inspector with the International Atomic Energy Agency, put it this way: "Leaders will use worst case assessments that point to nuclear weapons to generate political support because they know people fear nuclear weapons so much."
Even though they make semantic denials, there is no doubt that senior Administration officials were suggesting the threat from Iraq was imminent.
At a roundtable discussion with European journalists last month, Secretary Rumsfeld insisted: "I never said imminent threat."
In fact, Secretary Rumsfeld had told the House Armed Services Committee on September 18, 2002, "…Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent – that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain."
In February 2003, with war only weeks away, then Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked why NATO allies should support Turkey's request for military assistance against Iraq. His clear response was, "This is about an imminent threat." In May 2003, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether we went to war "because we said WMD were a direct and imminent threat to the United States." Fleischer responded, "Absolutely."
What else could National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice have been suggesting, other than an imminent threat – an extremely imminent threat – when she said on September 8, 2002, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
President Bush himself may not have used the word "imminent", but he carefully chose strong and loaded words about the nature of the threat – words that the intelligence community never used – to persuade and prepare the nation to go to war against Iraq.
In the Rose Garden on October 2, 2002, as Congress was preparing to vote on authorizing the war, the President said the Iraqi regime "is a threat of unique urgency."
In a speech in Cincinnati on October 7, President Bush echoed Condoleezza Rice's image of nuclear devastation: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof – the smoking gun – that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
At a political appearance in New Mexico on October 28, 2002, after Congress had voted to authorize war, and a week before the election, President Bush said Iraq is a "real and dangerous threat."
At a NATO summit on November 20, 2002, President Bush said Iraq posed a "unique and urgent threat."
In Fort Hood, Texas on January 3, 2003, President Bush called the Iraqi regime a "grave threat."
Nuclear weapons. Mushroom cloud. Unique and urgent threat. Real and dangerous threat. Grave threat. This was the Administration's rallying cry for war. But those were not the words of the intelligence community. The community recognized that Saddam was a threat, but it never suggested the threat was imminent, or immediate, or urgent.
In his speech last month at Georgetown, CIA Director Tenet stated that, despite attempts to acquire a nuclear capability, Saddam was many years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Tenet's precise words were: "We said Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon, and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009."
The acquisition of enough nuclear material is an extremely difficult task for a country seeking nuclear weapons. Tenet bluntly stated that the intelligence community had "detected no such acquisition" by Saddam. The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also outlined the disagreement in the intelligence community over whether the notorious aluminum tubes were intended for nuclear weapons or not. Tenet clearly distanced himself from the Administration's statements about the urgency of the threat from Iraq in his speech at Georgetown. But he stopped short of saying the Administration distorted the intelligence or relied on other sources to make the case for war. He said he only gave the President the CIA's daily assessment of the intelligence, and the rest he did not know.
Tenet needs to explain to Congress and the country why he waited until last month – nearly a year after the war started – to set the record straight. Intelligence analysts had long been frustrated about the way intelligence was being misused to justify war. In February 2003, an official described the feelings of some analysts in the intelligence agencies to the[i] New York Times[/i], saying "I think there is also a sense of disappointment with the community's leadership that they are not standing up for them at a time when the intelligence is obviously being politicized."
Why wasn't CIA Director Tenet correcting the President and the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense a year ago, when it could have made a difference, when it could have prevented a needless war, when it could have saved so many lives?
It was Vice President Cheney who first laid out the trumped up argument for war with Iraq to an unsuspecting public. In a speech on August 26, 2002, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he asserted: "…We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons…Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon." As we now know, the intelligence community was far from certain. Yet the Vice President had been convinced.
On September 8, 2002, Cheney was even more emphatic about Saddam. He said, "[We] do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon." The intelligence community was deeply divided about the aluminum tubes, but Cheney was absolutely certain.
Where was the CIA Director when the Vice President was going nuclear about Saddam going nuclear? Did Tenet fail to convince the policy makers to cool their overheated rhetoric? Did he even try to convince them?
One month later, on the eve of the watershed vote by Congress to authorize the war, President Bush said it even more vividly. He said, "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes…which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed…Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists."
In fact, as we now know, the intelligence community was far from unified on Iraq's nuclear threat. The Administration attempted to conceal that fact by classifying the information and the dissents within the intelligence community until after the war, even while making dramatic and excessive public statements about the immediacy of the danger.
In a February 2004 article in the Atlantic Monthly, Ken Pollack, a former CIA analyst who supported the war, said, "…Time after time senior Administration officials discussed only the worst case and least likely scenario, and failed to mention the intelligence community's most likely scenario." In a January interview, Pollack added, "Only the Administration has access to all the information available to various agencies of the U.S. government – and withholding or downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility."
In October 2002, the intelligence agencies jointly issued a National Intelligence Estimate stating that "most agencies" believed that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program after inspectors left in 1998, and that, if left unchecked, Iraq "probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
The State Department's intelligence bureau, however, said the "available evidence" was inadequate to support that judgment. It refused to predict when "Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon."
The National Intelligence Estimate cited a foreign government report that, as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of nuclear material to Iraq. The Estimate also said, "reports indicate that Iraq has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo." The State Department's intelligence bureau, however, responded that claims of Iraq seeking to purchase nuclear material from Africa were "highly dubious." The CIA sent two memos to the White House stressing strong doubts about those claims.
But the following January, the President included the claims about Africa in his State of the Union Address, and conspicuously cited the British government as the source of that intelligence.
Information about nuclear weapons was not the only intelligence distorted by the Administration. On the question of whether Iraq was pursuing a chemical weapons program, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded in September 2002 that "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has – or will – establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."
That same month, however, Secretary Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Saddam has chemical-weapons stockpiles.
He said that "we do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction," that Saddam "has amassed large clandestine stocks of chemical weapons," that "he has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons," and that Iraq has "active chemical, biological and nuclear programs." He was wrong on all counts.
Yet the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate actually quantified the size of the stockpiles, finding that "although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons and possibly as much as 500 metric tons of CW agents – much of it added in the last year." In his speech at the United Nations on February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Powell went further, calling the 100-500 metric ton stockpile a "conservative estimate."
Secretary Rumsfeld made an even more explicit assertion in his March 30, 2003, interview on "[i]This Week with George Stephanopoulos[/i]." When asked about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, he said, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
The second major claim in the Administration's case for war was the linkage between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
Significantly here as well, the Intelligence Estimate did not find a cooperative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. On the contrary, it stated only that such a relationship might happen if Saddam were "sufficiently desperate" – in other words, if America went to war. But the estimate placed "low confidence" that, even in desperation, Saddam would give weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda.
A year before the war began, senior Al Qaeda leaders themselves had rejected a link with Saddam. [i]The New York Times [/i]reported last June that a top Al Qaeda planner and recruiter captured in March 2002 told his questioners last year that "the idea of working with Mr. Hussein's government had been discussed among Al Qaeda leaders, but Osama bin Laden had rejected such proposals." According to the [i]Times[/i], an Al Qaeda chief of operations had also told interrogators that the group did not work with Saddam.
Mel Goodman, a CIA analyst for 20 years, put it bluntly: "Saddam Hussein and bin Laden were enemies. Bin Laden considered and said that Saddam was the socialist infidel. These were very different kinds of individuals competing for power in their own way and Saddam Hussein made very sure that Al Qaeda couldn't function in Iraq."
In February 2003, investigators at the FBI told the [i]New York Times [/i]they were baffled by the Administration's insistence on a solid link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. One investigator said: "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there."
But President Bush was not deterred. He was relentless in using America's fears after the devastating 9/11 tragedy. He drew a clear link – and drew it repeatedly – between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
In a September 25, 2002, statement at the White House, President Bush flatly declared: "You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."
In his State of the Union Address in January 2003, President Bush said, "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda," and that he could provide "lethal viruses" to a "shadowy terrorist network."
Two weeks later, in his radio address to the nation, a month before the war began, President Bush described the ties in detail, saying, "Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks …"
He said: "Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document-forgery experts to work with Al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. An Al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."
In fact, there was no operational link and no clear and persuasive pattern of ties between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. That fact should have been abundantly clear to the President. Iraq and Al Qaeda had diametrically opposing views of the world.
In the march to war, the President exaggerated the threat anyway. It was not subtle. It was not nuanced. It was pure, unadulterated fear-mongering, based on a devious strategy to convince the American people that Saddam's ability to provide nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda justified immediate war.
Why would the Administration go to such lengths to go to war? Was it trying to change the subject from its failed economic policy, the corporate scandals, and its failed effort to capture Osama bin Laden? The only imminent threat was the November Congressional election. The politics of the election trumped the stubborn facts.
Early in the Bush Administration, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill had raised concerns about politics pervading the process in the White House.
Comparing the Bush Administration and previous Republican Administrations, he said, referring to Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Karen Hughes: "The biggest difference … is that our group was mostly about evidence and analysis – and Karl, Dick, Karen and the gang seemed to be mostly about politics."
In the late winter and early spring of 2002, in the aftermath of the Enron and other corporate scandals, as Ron Suskind, the author of the O'Neill book wrote, "…Rove told numerous administration officials that the poll data was definitive: the scandals were hurting the President, a cloud in an otherwise blue sky for the soaring, post-Afghanistan Bush."
The evidence so far leads to only one conclusion. What happened was not merely a failure of intelligence, but the result of manipulation and distortion of the intelligence and selective use of unreliable intelligence to justify a decision to go to war. The Administration had made up its mind, and would not let stubborn facts stand in the way.
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, a recently retired Air Force intelligence officer who served in the Pentagon during the buildup to the war, said: "It wasn't intelligence -- it was propaganda…they'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, usually by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together."
As it now appears, the Iraqi expatriates who had close ties to the Pentagon and were so eager for the war may well have been the source of the hyped intelligence. As Walter Pincus reported today in the [i]Washington Post[/i], "The Bush Administration's prewar assertion that Saddam Hussein had a fleet of mobile labs that could produce bioweapons rested largely on information from an Iraqi defector working with another government who was never interviewed by U.S. intelligence officers."
The Iraqi exiles have even begun to brag about it.
The Pentagon's favorite Iraqi dissident, Ahmed Chalabi, is actually proud of what happened. "We are heroes in error," Chalabi recently said. "As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush Administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords, if he wants."
Our men and women in uniform are still paying with their lives for this misguided war in Iraq. CIA Director Tenet could perform no greater service to the armed forces, to the American people, and to our country, than to set the record straight, and state unequivocally what is so clearly the truth: the Bush Administration misrepresented the facts to justify the war.
America went to war in Iraq because President Bush insisted that nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein and his ties to Al Qaeda were too dangerous to ignore. Congress never would have voted to authorize the war if we had known the facts.
The Bush Administration is obviously digging in its heels against any further serious investigation of the reasons we went to war.
The Administration's highest priority is to prevent any more additional stubborn facts about this fateful issue from coming to light before the election in November.
This debate will go on anyway in Congress and in communities across the country. The most important decision any President makes is the decision on war or peace. No President who misleads the country on the need for war deserves to be reelected. A President who does so must be held accountable. The last thing our nation needs is a sign on the desk in the Oval Office in the White House that says, "[i][b]The buck doesn't stop here any more[/b][/i]." Thank you very much.
|
|
|
| |
| When Hypocrisy Outruns Mockery ... |
| 03.07.04 (8:18 am) [edit] |
[b][i]The Games Have Begun [/i]...[/b]
[b]Hilariously unbelievable attacks [/b]are being waged by the neo-orwellian Bush/Cheney GOP [i]mad-dog attack machine [/i]upon John F. Kerry for daring to question whether or not he [i]"wanted" [/i]to be sent to Vietnam (... [i]uh-huh, like all soldiers can hardly wait and are tickled-pink to go into battle to be killed, maimed, injured or scarred for life ... yeah, right ... jeez [/i]...)-- The point, of course, is that Kerry [i]actually went [/i]to Vietnam and fought in battle-- unlike cowardly and spoiled ne'er-do-well Bush who is a [i]drunkardly AWOL deserter [/i]who ran-away and shirked doing his duty during Vietnam ...
"We the People" must prepare ourselves for these [i]laughably hysterical neo-orwellian tactics [/i]exploited by the right-wing neo-con, neo-fascist liars, thieves and war-mongers, for whom[i] truth, justice and our U.S. Constitution [/i]don't matter at [i]whit [/i]and are being trampled upon ... The [i]only thing that matters [/i]to the Bushies is "[i]winning at all costs[/i]", even if they have to destroy our country in the process of [i]maligning, slandering and libelling [/i]those who oppose their traitorous[i] lies, deceptions & falsehoods[/i], treason and war crimes ...
For an interesting take on the Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] [i]Blame-Kerry-For-Bush's -Crimes-When-Kerry-Actual ly-Did-The-Right-Thing-An d-Bush-Committed-The-Crim es [/i][u]tactic[/u]:-- click on http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
[b][i]And ... [/i]another heinous example of Bush's sordid & squalid [i]hypocrisy outrunning mockery [/i]is:--[/b]
[b]Discussing it with the people ...[/b]
... "I will continue to speak about the effects of 9/11 on our country and my presidency ... How this administration handled that day as well as the war on terror is worthy of discussion and I look forward to discussing that with the American people."
- [i]George W. Bush[/i], March 6th, 2004, http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...§ion=news
... The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks won't accept strict conditions set by the White House for the panel's interviews with President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, commission members said Tuesday.
The White House wants the interviews to be limited to one hour, with the questioners limited to the panel's chairman and vice chairman.
- [i]Detroit Free Press[/i], March 3rd, 2004
[b]When[i] hypocrisy outruns mockery [/i]...[/b]
|
|
|
| |
| "Why I’m Quitting the Republican Party" ... |
| 03.07.04 (8:18 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" have witnessed the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] cynically exploit Gay Marriage as a [i]wedge issue [/i]to [i]divert our attention away [/i]from the treasonous Bush regime's insane, illegal & immoral neo-con warmongerings for gluttonous war-profits in Iraq ... and to [i]divert our attention away [/i]from their reckless, irresponsible mis-management and malfeasance of the U.S. economy in favor of neo-fascist corporations, wealthy oligarchs and filthy rich plutocrats ...[/b]
The Bushies are quite [i]willing[/i] to foster hatred and divisiveness in order to play the [i]"divide-and-conquer" game [/i]to achieve their criminal [i]"bait-and-switch"[/i] neo-con [i]con-n-scam [/i]of raping us economically while they are terrorizing our nation ...
First his home state passed one of the nation’s most restrictive laws outlawing same-sex marriage and many domestic-partner benefits. Then the president announced his support for writing discrimination into the U.S. Constitution. This Ohio gay activist has had enough and this week relinquished his duties as a longtime member of the Republican Party of Cuyahoga County.
[b]Read This Letter By [i]John Farina [/i]on[/b] http://www.advocate.com/html/... :--
[b]It’s finally come to this: [i]I can’t be a Republican anymore[/i].[/b]
This was an extremely difficult decision for me to reach. I’ve been a Republican all my life. But February 24 at 10:45 a.m. Eastern time, the president changed things for me.
For the past 20 years, even before I was registered to vote, I have worked within the Republican Party. I’ve been a candidate, held leadership positions in the party, and given generously of my time and money. I have had many arguments with my gay friends defending the GOP and certain elected Republicans. I have had many friends and mentors who have all been valuable parts of my life. It’s tough to walk away from something that I have been so much a part of. But knowing my president wants to officially sanction discrimination against me, I cannot in good conscience remain a Republican.
It was bad enough that my Republican friends in the Ohio legislature, people who know me (and know better) and whom I’ve vigorously supported, voted for a divisive, unnecessary, and discriminatory so-called defense of marriage bill—despite my best lobbying efforts. I now have the president, the leader of the party and the free world, telling me we must sanction this type of discrimination in the Constitution of the United States of America. Quite frankly, I’m sick over it. It is an insult to me as a lifelong Republican and it does nothing to strengthen marriage. It is an obviously political move that will do nothing but divide the nation even further. So much for Mr. Bush being a uniter. I can think of no other time in our country’s history when the president has sought to so directly limit the rights of a group of Americans. This is not a true conservative value; it is that of the radical right.
I realize that many Americans may not support or even understand same-sex marriage, and that’s fine with me. But amending the Constitution for this purpose is morally wrong. I think most Americans will find this disturbing as well, and it will ultimately cost Bush votes. I know I’ll do my part to work against the president and any elected official who ultimately supports this attack on civil rights.
The party has been overtaken, both nationally and in Ohio, by hard-right social conservatives that seem hell-bent on moving the country in reverse on civil rights, seemingly at the expense of more important issues such as fiscal responsibility. At one time in history, the Republican Party was a leader in civil rights—that Republican Party no longer exists. I always felt it was important to remain active and fight such blatant attempts at discrimination, but that effort is obviously futile.
I will still count many Republican as friends, and the response I have received from many of them shows they understand this very difficult, personal decision. In fact, one elected Republican official told me the GOP has left me. On Tuesday, March 2, I will pick up a Democratic ballot in the Ohio primary (and vote for John Edwards) and begin a new chapter of political activism in my life.
|
|
|
| |
| To Preserve, Protect ... Or Abandon??? ... |
| 03.06.04 (11:11 am) [edit] |
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
[b]"We the People" are[i] foolishly enthralled [/i]with the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] who represent a dire threat to the existence of our Republic ... [/b]We still do not know [i]what information[/i] Bush & Co. were given & warned about, [i]in advance of the 9/11 attacks upon America[/i], and the White House continues to [i]stonewall[/i] the 9/11 investigative committee ... Subsequent to [i]the 9/11 attacks upon America[/i], the neo-con Bush regime [i]ruthlessly lied and deceived us and fabricated falsehoods [/i]regarding their obscene [i]casus belli [/i]for waging war upon Iraq (... [i]Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but the Bushies cynically, maliciously and dishonestly exploited our fears, misleading us into imagining that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and would attack us [/i]...)-- War is one of the most terrible and consequential decisions that a president can make, and on that basis we must demand that Congress http://www.congress.org impeach Bush, Cheney and their [i]neo-fascist war-mongers[/i], all of whom are amassing [i]pornographic fortunes-from-war-profits [/i]while US Soldiers and innocent Iraqi Civilians continue to be slaughtered [i]day in and day out [/i]with no end in sight ...
"I hope that mankind will at length, as they call themselves reasonable creatures, have reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats; for in my opinion there never was a good war, or a bad peace." - Benjamin Franklin
Please refer to "[i][b]'To preserve, protect ... or abandon'[/b][/i]" by [i]Charles Cutter[/i], Magic City Morning Star, on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
Retired General Tommy Franks, who led the U.S. invasion of Iraq, doesn't have much faith in the American people. He believes that, should terrorists strike us again, inflicting large casualties, [i]we'd abandon our Constitution in favor of a military government[/i].
The evidence thus far is that General Franks [i]is right[/i].
While constitutional rights have fallen victim to wars in the past, the sweeping executive actions and congressional legislation since September 11, 2001 are damning evidence of our willingness to forego freedom for the illusion of increased security. Yes, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus rights during the Civil War, permitting U.S. citizens to be held indefinitely without charges. Yes, during World War II President Roosevelt engineered the wholesale internment of Japanese-Americans in detention camps; he also allowed military courts to try accused Nazi spies captured in the U.S.
But both wars were finite in their intention, primarily involving uniformed militaries battling one another. Nations fought nations (accepting that the Confederate States constituted a "nation"). Had the present war been against Afghanistan (its ruling party, not its people) we could have focused on the parameters of victory - and, perhaps, not have been sidetracked with an incursion into Iraq. With such a focus, the possibility of killing or capturing Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and a much larger number of al Queda combatants would have been dramatically increased. Instead, Mr. Bush has waged an undeclared war on "terror." Such a war simply cannot be won. You cannot defeat "terror."
Thus, while previous abridgements of constitutional liberties were limited both in scope and to the span of a definable conflict, the present attack on our rights is broad, growing - and with no end in sight.
The cynically named Patriot Act sailed through both houses of Congress virtually uncontested and virtually unread. This freedom-shredding legislation has numerous provisions clearly prohibited by the Constitution. It makes every American a potential terrorist, because the FBI is relieved of such problems as "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." Judicial oversight is, at best, a technicality. Even more than in the Nixon era, dissenting citizens are now threatened with surveillance, seizure of assets, and arrest. If that's not enough, Patriot Act II is already in the works.
More than 700 men (mostly Muslim) have been secretly arrested on immigration charges. They are denied access to legal counsel; the government won't even release their names. For all intents and purposes, these people have simply vanished. They were, reportedly, in this country illegally - but there are methods in place for dealing with the situation. Deport them? Fine. Charge them with violation of immigration laws? No problem. You say they're terrorists? Okay, but where's the proof?
This administration asks us to blindly accept their conclusions. We're expected to believe that the same intelligence network that "knew" how many tons of WMDs were in Iraq is flawless at identifying terrorists. Without due process, for all we know their methods could include phrenology.
Most frightening is the case of Jose Padilla. Born in Brooklyn, arrested in Chicago, Mr. Padilla is a United States citizen. He has been held without charges for almost two years. He's been denied access to family members. After twenty-two months of incarceration, he was finally permitted to see his attorneys - but the meeting was recorded by the government, and a member of the military was present throughout. Notes taken by the attorneys were photocopied by the military. By any standard, Mr. Padilla has been steadfastly denied his Constitutional rights.
Jose Padilla may, in fact, pose a threat to his fellow Americans. He may have planned to explode a "dirty bomb" in this country. And, if these allegations are true, he should be locked up - through due process.
In this country, the government has the right to incarcerate on suspicion (all charges, pending conviction, are merely suspicions). The government has the right to deny bail. But the government also has the responsibility to prove, in a timely fashion, that its allegations are true, while allowing the accused reasonable means to defend himself against the charges brought forth.
Tolerance bred of fear has allowed us - the legislators, the courts, the citizenry - to accept this dramatic undermining of our fundamental principles. In a country founded on the rule of law, it is vital that any citizen - any citizen - be allowed access to a legal defense when their freedom is denied. To accept less is to live in a totalitarian state. If it can happen to Jose Padilla, it can happen to any American. You don't have to be guilty of a crime, for the state faces no burden of proof whatsoever.
When our soldiers fight and die, they do so - in theory, at least - for something more noble than mere survival. They risk their lives to defend what General Franks calls "this grand experiment that we call democracy."
When we honor our soldiers with medals and monuments, aren't we really honoring them not just for protecting our lives, but for preserving our democracy? And if they're willing to make this sacrifice in a foreign land, shouldn't we be willing to take the same risk at home?
This is the question we now have to confront: [i]Isn't defending our freedom more important than defending our lives[/i]?
[b]General Franks thinks he knows how we'll answer those questions[/b]. [b][i]It would be gratifying if we could surprise him[/i][/b].
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Prevented Pentagon From Taking Out Terrorist Zarqawi in 2002!!! |
| 03.06.04 (11:11 am) [edit] |
[b]Why do [i]you[/i] think that the corrupt Bush regime is hiding information about[i] what they knew, and when they knew it[/i], regarding the 9/11 terrorist attacks upon America ... And moreover, why do[i] you [/i]think that the Bushies are refusing to [i]testify under oath [/i]before the 9/11 investigative committee??? ... [/b]
Because, if the [i]truth-be-told[/i], "We the People" would find out that indeed [i]warnings were provided [/i]to Bush, Cheney, Rice and the rest of their criminal neo-con cabal of thugs & goons, that attacks were imminent in the weeks and days leading-up to [i]the 9/11 attacks upon America [/i]... The traitorous Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] did absolutely nothing to stop those attacks ... [i][b]either[/b][/i] out of [i]sheer-and-utter incompetence [/i]or because they wanted an excuse to illegally & immorally invade Iraq (... [i]who had nothing to do with 9/11, but the neo-fascist Bushies cynically figured that they could pin-the-tail on whatever "donkey" or "bogey-man", and Americans would blindly follow[/i] ...) ...
Now, we find that [i]even in the aftermath of 9/11[/i], the ruthless criminals and incompetents in the Bush regime are unable to [i]take action [/i]to prevent real terrorists (... [i]as opposed to bogey-men they fabricate to terrify and intimidate us [/i]...) from creating more havoc ... [b]Why hasn't anyone in the corrupt Bush regime been [i]fired[/i]??? [/b]...
Consider "[i][b]Bush prevented Pentagon from taking out terrorist Zarqawi in 2002[/b][/i]" by[i] Jim Miklaszewski[/i], MSNBC, on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
With Tuesday's attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.
But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself -- but never pulled the trigger.
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
"Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn't do it," said Michael O'Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.
The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.
"People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president's policy of preemption against terrorists," according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.
In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.
The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late -- Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. "Here's a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we're suffering as a result inside Iraq," Cressey added.
And despite the Bush administration's tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi's killing streak continues today.
|
|
|
| |
| The Corrupt Bush Regime's Real Record on the U.S. Economy ... |
| 03.05.04 (4:17 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime should be [i]ashamed[/i] of their [i]irresponsible mis-management [/i]and [i]reckless malfeasance [/i]of the U.S. economy ... It is a fiasco-- a [i]train-wreck in the making [/i]over the next few years ...[/b]
* [i]Record-level deficit spending on corporations, wealthy oligarchs & filthy rich plutocrats [/i]who Bush & Co. have allowed to [i]define [/i]our U.S. foreign & economic policies, resulting in the swindle, plundering and looting of the U.S. Treasury (our taxpayer dollars) ...
* [i]Highest job losses since the Great Depression [/i]... Contrast Bush's loss of nearly 3.3 million jobs in this nightmarish deficit-spending fiasco with Clinton's creation of 22 million jobs in his surplus-economy ...
* [i]Skyrocketing poverty [/i]with over 4 million citizens homeless, 25 million families living below an outdated poverty line, and over 45 million citizens without health care causing 18,000 of our fellow Americans to die each year because they cannot get help if they fall ill ...
"We the People",[i] in good conscience[/i], cannot permit our nation to continue this horrendous[i] slide towards a 3rd world slave state and military junta [/i]that the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. machine is [i]thrusting upon us[/i] in their nightmarish plans for infinite power and riches on behalf of their Global Corporate Empire ...
Refer to "[i][b]Administration's Real Record on Economy[/b][/i]" by [i]The Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
President Bush wants the nation to believe that he inherited a rough economy and did the best he could with a difficult situation. But the administration's economic priorities over the last three years belie this convenient picture. As the nation continues to experience difficult economic times, the president argues that things are improving and that his supply-side policies have worked wonders in turning around the economy. With millions out of work and economic pressures rising on middle class families, the president's real record paints a different picture.
[b]1. The economic record: 2.3 million jobs lost; stagnant wages; rising health care and education costs; and the largest budget deficits in U.S. history. The facts are clear.[/b] The recession officially started on President Bush's watch. The administration's fiscal policies did not create adequate job growth or address rising pressures on middle class families. The administration's tax policies were not fiscally sound and are now responsible for a projected $5 trillion budget deficit over the next decade.
[b]2. President Bush chose massive tax cuts for the wealthy at every turn.[/b] The president had every opportunity to pursue fiscally responsible policies to help the struggling middle class, but for three consecutive years chose massive supply-side tax cuts for the most fortunate Americans.
[b]3. The president did not inherit economic problems; he created them.[/b] After inheriting record budget surpluses, the administration did nothing to help the jobless, failed to address the 43 million uninsured Americans, and jeopardized Social Security by pushing privatization schemes and threatening future cuts. His tax cut agenda produced a gigantic hole in the federal budget which will only lead to more painful cuts in services or higher taxes in the future. The administration's reckless economic policies only exacerbated problems by pushing short-term pay outs to the wealthy rather than sound proposals to help all Americans.
|
|
|
| |
| Sometimes, Bad is Bad:-- Bush Regime's Redefinition of Problems Reaches Comic | |
