Just Observing

Name: B.Abell Jurus
Location: San Diego, California, United States

Co-author of Men In Green Faces, founder of Southern California Writers Conference, former owner of Writers Bookstore & Haven, etc.

Thursday, June 30, 2005

A couple of books coming...

From Publishers Lunch:

Foreign Service officer Judith Heimann's THE AIRMEN AND THE HEADHUNTERS, about a group of American soldiers shot down over Japanese-occupied Borneo during World War II, rescued in the jungle by blowpipe-carrying Dayak tribesmen, who risked torture and death to take the airmen under their protection, eventually helped them return home, and formed their own tribal army that played a pivotal role in liberating one of the Japanese Army's last strongholds, to Andrea Schulz at Harcourt, for publication in spring 2007, in a pre-empt, by Eric Simonoff of Janklow & Nesbit (world).

Hal Vaughan's FDR'S TWELVE APOSTLES: The Vanguard of Gentlemen Spies for the Invasion of North Africa, recounting the secret mission of a dozen Ivy League bluebloods who served in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia and navigated a web of espionage and treachery through the casbahs and souks to pave the way for Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa, to Rob Kirkpatrick at Lyons Press, in a nice deal by Ed Knappman of New England Publishing Associates (world). ed@nepa.com

Journalist Daniel Kalder's LOST COSMONAUT, in which this self-proclaimed anti-tourist travels to countries where no one else wants to go, weaving a narrative full of history, peculiar places, and even stranger people, to Brant Rumble at Scribner, by Emma Parry at Fletcher & Parry.

Professor of marine biology at the University of Liverpool and author (dubbed "Bill Bryson underwater") Trevor Norton's UNDERWATER TO GET OUT OF THE RAIN, an account of a lifetime love affair with the sea, mixing eccentric salty characters, the mythic lore of sea creatures, and humorous misadventures with marine science, to Merloyd Lawrence at Merloyd Lawrence Books/Da Capo, for publication in spring 2006, by Century/Random UK (US).lissa.warren@perseusbooks.com

Young polymathic scientist Adrian Woolfson's IMMORTALITY AND THE ART OF LIVING WELL. about our hunger for immortality and the disastrous consequences of its achievement, drawing on science, philosophy and history to describe humanity's deepest fantasy: that death might somehow be deniable, to Toby Mundy at Atlantic Books, for publication in early 2007, by David Godwin at David Godwin Associates (world).louisebrice@groveatlantic.co.uk
Wrap...

| 11 comments

Time mag obeys the Court...

June 30, 2005
Time Inc. Statement on Handing Over Documents

Following is a statement from Norman Pearlstine, Editor in Chief of Time Inc., regarding the decision to hand over documents in the investigation of the leak of a C.I.A. operative's name.

"The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, including the right to gather information of interest to the public and, where necessary, to protect the confidentiality of sources.

Time Inc. believes in that guarantee. That is why we have supported from the outset the efforts of Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in resisting the Special Counsel's attempts to obtain information regarding Mr. Cooper's confidential sources. Time Inc. and Mr. Cooper have fought this case all the way from the district court to the Supreme Court of the United States.
In this particular case, where national security and the role of a grand jury have been at issue, the Supreme Court chose to let stand the district court's order requiring Time Inc. and Mr. Cooper to comply with the Special Counsel's subpoenas. It did so after the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed that order.

In declining to review the important issues presented by this case, we believe that the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society. It may also encourage excesses by overzealous prosecutors.

It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court has left uncertain what protections the First Amendment and the federal common law provide journalists and their confidential sources.
It is also worth noting that many foreign governments, including China, Venezuela, and Cameroon, to name a few, refer to U.S. contempt rulings when seeking to justify their own restrictive press laws.

Despite these concerns, Time Inc. shall deliver the subpoenaed records to the Special Counsel in accordance with its duties under the law. The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity. The innumerable Supreme Court decisions in which even Presidents have followed orders with which they strongly disagreed evidences that our nation lives by the rule of law and that none of us is above it.

We believe that our decision to provide the Special Prosecutor with the subpoenaed records obviates the need for Matt Cooper to testify and certainly removes any justification for incarceration.

Time Inc.'s decision doesn't represent a change in our philosophy, nor does it reflect a departure from our belief in the need for confidential sources. It does reflect a response to a profound departure from the practice of federal prosecutors when this case is compared with other landmark cases involving confidentiality over the past 30 years. Since the days of Attorney General John Mitchell, the Justice Department has sought confidential sources from reporters as a last resort, not as an easy option. Neither Archibald Cox, the Watergate Special Prosecutor, nor Judge John Sirica sought to force the Washington Post or its reporters to reveal the identity of "Deep Throat," the prized confidential source.
**************************
This was truly a tough decision to make, but when the Supreme Court rules against you, that settles it, regardless.
Wrap.

| 2 comments

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Combat vet on Bush's speech..

From www.optruth.org ... and being combat vets, they know what they're talking about...and they did not appreciate Bush's speech last night:

The President's Speech, or The Live Bait Approach to National Security
Re: the speech last night.

His speech says basically "we were attacked on 9/11 and so we went to war." And then he goes on to "we're fighting terrorists in Iraq." But it's like, woah. Wait a second. They weren't there before we fucked it up. That's an important point that needs to be addressed. And he loses credibility by not doing so.

It's like assaulting a building because you're convinced WMD-wielding terrorists are there and want to kill you, discovering there's nothing there but a big warehouse full of newspapers, accidentally lighting the newspapers on fire, and then when people ask what the fuck you're doing in the building in the first place answering, "putting out the fire."

That shit may be convincing if you just arrived on the scene, but we saw the whole thing go down up close and in person.

And I've just never been a big fan of the "live bait" theory of national security. That being that it's better to send volunteer Americans to a target range in the middle east so they can be killed there rather so that non-volunteer Americans don't get killed on our own soil. If we're going to be sending Americans to a war that WE start, it had better have a pretty damn good, well-thought-out strategic objective from start to finish, and I don't think that standard was met. I'm furious every time I hear some asshole say "it's better for Americans to die overseas than here at home." To paraphrase someone much more famous than me, the point of combat is not to die for your country, it's to make the other poor bastard die for HIS country.

That being said, the President is obviously right. We ARE being attacked by terrorists in Iraq now, thanks to our own piss-poor planning. And we do have to defeat the terrorists and it is, to some extent, nice to have them all in one central location so we can kill them there. But that assumes that the guys that are showing up in Iraq are terrorists who have been diverted from operations elsewhere (like our own CIA and other spooky operatives) rather than new recruits who were recruited on the basis of the invasion itself. Unfortunately, the available evidence seems to indicate that our presence in the region is manufacturing plenty of local (though not necessarily Iraqi) insurgent recruits so that operatives elsewhere can continue work as usual, and THAT is not a strategic objective that is worth our effort, in my opinion.
Wrap...

| 2 comments

Former FBI is gonna run!

FBI Whistle-Blower to Run for Congress
By Frederic J. Frommer
The Associated Press
Tuesday 28 June 2005

Washington - Former FBI whistle-blower Coleen Rowley will run for Congress as a Democrat in Minnesota's 2nd Congressional District, where she hopes to knock off GOP Rep. John Kline.

"I'm concerned about the direction of the country," Rowley said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "We have done things that have made us less safe, among them the Iraq invasion and the loss of our allies and the moral high ground in international affairs."

Rowley, 50, was named one of Time magazine's Persons of the Year for 2002 after writing a critical memo on FBI intelligence failures.

She had sought a seat this year on the new Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, designed to ensure that government actions in the war on terror do not infringe on people's rights. But when President Bush appointed members of the board earlier this month, Rowley's name was not on the list. She said that was a factor in deciding to run for Congress.

Rowley will face an uphill campaign in a conservative district that Kline won by 16 percentage points last year. Also, Kline's opponent in that race, Teresa Daly, might run again. Daly did not return phone messages Tuesday, but her 2004 campaign manager, Darin Broton, said, "If I was betting, I'd say she will run."

Rowley said the district's conservatism would play to some of her strengths.
"I'm also quite conservative in many respects," she said. "I'm fiscally conservative, and conservative on law-enforcement-type issues."

Rowley, who retired from the FBI last year, said Kline has voted too much in lockstep with the Bush administration. "A congressman should be independent-minded," she said.

Kline spokeswoman Angelyn Shapiro declined to comment on Rowley, saying the congressman was focused on his work.
**********************************
I appreciate someone who will speak up when bad things are being done. Hope she runs and wins!
Wrap...

| 0 comments

As California goes...

Poll: Majority of Californians Do Not Want Schwarzenegger Re-elected
Last Updated:06-29-05 at 7:57AM

A majority of California voters do not want to see Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger re-elected, according to the latest poll showing the Republican's political appeal sliding.The nonpartisan Field Poll of registered voters found that just 39 percent said they were inclined to give Schwarzenegger a second term, while 57 percent were not. As recently as February, the numbers were almost reversed, with 56 percent saying they were inclined to re-elect Schwarzenegger and just 42 percent were not.

A series of polls released by Field researchers indicates Schwarzenegger has lost considerable ground among voters in recent months. The drop in the governor's popularity has coincided with his push for a fall special election for voters to consider several ballot measures aimed at curbing the power of Democrats and public employee unions in state government.Earlier installments of the poll have shown that Schwarzenegger's job approval ratings have tumbled amid voters expressing skepticism about the special election and tepid support for his ballot measures.

Schwarzenegger has repeatedly said he would favor negotiating an agreement with legislators over the ballot measures that could avert a contentious showdown in the fall. Still, the findings released Wednesday show that Schwarzenegger has fallen out of favor with almost every major demographic group. The governor still enjoys considerable support among Republican voters, with 71 percent saying they were inclined to re-elect him.

But the poll found that 83 percent of Democrats, who form the majority of the state's registered voters, would oppose a second term, as would 61 percent of independent voters. Solid majorities of Hispanic voters and women also say they do not want to see the governor re-elected."

This is a definite turn away from the governor," Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo said. "It's fallen so far, so fast and in a very broad-based way." Todd Harris, a Schwarzenegger political adviser who is working on the special election campaign, said the poll results on a distant would-be election didn't concern him."It's June of '05 and they're talking about November '06," Harris said. "I'm not exactly losing sleep over a poll that asks voters about a hypothetical ballot matchup that is 17 months away."

Schwarzenegger has not yet announced whether he plans to seek a second term.The poll found that the governor's sagging political fortunes have bolstered the status of two Democrats who have announced they are running for governor. In hypothetical one-on-one matchups, the poll found that voters would chose state Treasurer Phil Angelides or Controller Steve Westly over Schwarzenegger.

However, the poll found voters would favor the former action movie star over two other well-known Hollywood faces, director Rob Reiner and actor Warren Beatty. Both are active in Californina politics but have not signaled any intention to run for governor.The poll of 711 registered voters was conducted from June 13 to June 19 and had a sampling error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Eminent Domain...take Justice Souter's house!

Whoa! Well, you know what they say.."What's good for the gander, is good for the goose." Read on:

Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB)

Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
# # #
Logan Darrow ClementsFreestar Media, LLC
Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Molly has her say...

...and I do delight in what she has to say about the San Diego Union Tribune...a Copley paper...run by Repubs who will swallow anything BushCo shoves in their mouths:


Molly Ivins:
Beware of Bush's efforts to boost public support for Iraq war
By Molly Ivins
Published 2:15 am PDT Tuesday, June 28, 2005
AUSTIN, Texas --

The first thing I ever learned about politics was never to let anyone else define what you believe, or what you are for or against. I think for myself.
I am not "you liberals" or "you people on the left who always ..." My name is Molly Ivins, and I can speak for myself, thank you. I don't need Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove to tell me what I believe.

Setting up a straw man, calling it liberal and then knocking it down has become a favorite form of "argument" for those on the right. Make some ridiculous claim about what "liberals" think, and then demonstrate how silly it is. Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and many other right-wing ravers never seem to get tired of this old game. If I had a nickel for every idiotic thing I've ever heard those on the right claim "liberals" believe, I'd be richer than Bill Gates.

The latest and most idiotic statement yet comes from Karl Rove, who is not, actually, an objective observer. He is George Bush's hatchet man. Last week, Rove, in an address to the Conservative Party of New York, made the following claim: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

This seemed to the editorial writers at the San Diego Union-Tribune such a reasonable summary of the liberal position they couldn't figure out why Democrats were "hyperventilating" and getting "bent out of shape."
"What is harder to understand is how Democrats can think they can have it both ways," they wrote. "Even as they beat their chests and profess support for military action, they can't help but criticize the military and do everything they can to undermine the war effort."

What a deep mystery. Let's see if we can help the San Diego thinkers solve it.

On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress approved a resolution authorizing the president to take military action. The vote in the Senate was 98 to zero; the vote in the House was 420 to one. The lone dissenter was Democrat Barbara Lee of California, who expressed qualms about an open-ended war without a clear target.

Find me the offer for therapy and understanding in that vote. Anyone remember what actually happened after 9-11? Unprecedented unity, support across the board, joint statements by Democratic and Republican political leaders. The whole world was with us. The most important newspaper in France headlined, "We Are All Americans Now," and all our allies sent troops and money to help. That is what George Bush has pissed away with his war in Iraq.

The vote on invading Iraq was 77 to 23 in the Senate and 296 to 133 in the House. By that time, some liberals did question the wisdom of invasion because: A) Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and B) it looked increasingly unlikely that Iraq actually had great stores of weapons of mass destruction, since the United Nations inspectors, who were on the ground, couldn't find any sign of them -- even though Donald Rumsfeld claimed we knew exactly where they were.

Since my name is Molly Ivins and I speak for myself, I'll tell you exactly why I opposed invading Iraq: because I thought it would be bad for this country, our country, my country. I opposed the invasion out of patriotism, and that is the reason I continue to oppose it today -- I think it is bad for us. I think it has done nothing but harm to the United States of America. I think we have created more terrorists than we faced to start with and that our good name has been sullied all over the world. I think we have alienated our allies and have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did.

I did not oppose the war because I like Saddam Hussein. I have been active in human rights work for 30 years, and I told you he was a miserable s.o.b. back in the '80s, when our government was sending him arms.

I did not oppose the war because I am soft on terrorists or didn't want to get Osama bin Laden. To the contrary, I thought it would be much more useful to get bin Laden than to invade Iraq -- which, once again, had nothing to do with 9-11. I believe the case now stands proved that this administration used 9-11 as a handy excuse to invade Iraq, which it already wanted to do for other reasons.

It is one thing for a political knife-fighter like Karl Rove to impugn the patriotism of people who disagree with him: We have seen this same crappy tactic before, just as we have seen administration officials use 9-11 for political purposes again and again. But how many times are the media going to let them get away with it?

The first furious assault on the patriotism of Democrats came right after the 9-11 commission learned President Bush had received a clear warning in August 2001 that Osama bin Laden was planning a hijacking.

Batten down the hatches: This is the beginning of an administration push to jack up public support for the war in Iraq by attacking anyone with enough sense to raise questions about how it's going.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

The real Christians stand up!

An excerpt...to read the rest, click on the "Christian Alliance for Progress" link below:

A new, well-organized religious group has emerged. And guess what: It actually supports Christian values.
By Rob GarverWeb Exclusive: 06.24.05

Deep in the heart of the reddest county in a red state, a new grass-roots movement is taking shape that means to break the religious right’s hold on the rhetoric of Christianity by developing a network of activists on the “Christian left” that can be mobilized to support progressive causes.

Founded by Jacksonville, Florida, businessman Patrick Mrotek, the Christian Alliance for Progress (CAP) says its purpose is the “reclaim” the Christian faith from the extreme religious right.

The Reverend Timothy F. Simpson, a Presbyterian minister and the group’s director of religious affairs, said in an interview Wednesday that the Christian left has for too long allowed the Christian right to be the public face of his religion in America. “The language of our faith has been placed in the service of policy ends that don’t reflect the Gospel, and we have become deeply troubled over that,” he said.

The Christian right, he says, in the persons of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson, has come to stand for bigotry, intolerance, and division. Simpson says that his organization will try to repair the damage done by the right’s insistence that the United States is a “Christian nation” that ought to be governed according to their narrow interpretation of Scripture.
“I understand that the truth can be spoken by Muslims, and the truth can be spoken by Jews. The truth can be spoken by atheists,” said Simpson. “And listen: An atheist who stands for the interests of the neighbor, an atheist who stands for the interests of poor people at the margins, for the oppressed, is worth more than a hundred Christians who have made their bed with the fat cats, because that atheist is actually articulating the ends of the kingdom of God.”
***********************************
That's tellin' 'em!
Wrap...

| 0 comments

An honorable man...

...from Eugene, OR:

June 26, 2005
Guest Viewpoint: The party's over for betrayed Republican
By James Chaney

As of today, after 25 years, I am no longer a Republican.
I take this step with deep regret, and with a deep sense of betrayal.
I still believe in the vast power of markets to inspire ideas, motivate solutions and eliminate waste. I still believe in international vigilance and a strong defense, because this world will always be home to people who will avidly seek to take or destroy what we have built as a nation. I still believe in the protection of individuals and businesses from the influence and expense of an over-involved government. I still believe in the hand-in-hand concepts of separation of church and state and absolute freedom to worship, in the rights of the states to govern themselves without undo federal interference, and in the host of other things that defined me as a Republican.
My problem is this: I believe in principles and ideals which my party has systematically discarded in the last 10 years.
My Republican Party was the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, and George H.W. Bush. It was a party of honesty and accountability. It was a party of tolerance, and practicality and honor. It was a party that faced facts and dealt with reality, and that crafted common-sense solutions to problems based on the facts as they were, not as we wished them to be, or even worse, as we made them up. It was a party that told the truth, even when the truth came hard. And now, it is none of those things.
Fifty years from now, the Republican Party of this era will be judged by how we provided for the nation's future on three core issues: how we led the world on the environment, how we minded the business of running our country in such a way that we didn't go bankrupt, and whether we gracefully accepted our place on the world's stage as its only superpower. Sadly, we have built the foundation for dismal failure on all three counts. And we've done it in such a way that we shouldn't be surprised if neither the American people nor the world ever trusts us again.
My party has repeatedly ignored, discarded and even invented science to suit its needs, most spectacularly as to global warming. We have an opportunity and the responsibility to lead the world on this issue, but instead we've chosen greed, shortsightedness and deliberate ignorance.
We have mortgaged the country's fiscal future in a way that no Democratic Congress or administration ever did, and to justify the tax cuts that brought us here, we've simply changed the rules. I matured as a Republican believing that uncontrolled deficit spending is harmful and irresponsible; I still do. But the party has yet to explain to me why it's a good thing now, other than to say "... because we say so."
Our greatest failure, though, has been in our role as superpower. This world needs justice, democracy and compassion, and as the keystone of those things, it needs one thing above all else: truth.
Republican decisions made in 2002 and 2003 have killed almost 2,000 of the most capable patriots our country has to offer - volunteers, every one. Support for those decisions was gathered through what appeared at the time to be spin and marketing, but which now turns out to have been deliberate planning and falsehood. The Blair government's internal documentation only confirms what has been suspected for years: Americans are dying every day for Republican lies first crafted in 2002, expanded and embellished upon in 2003, and which continue to this day. This calculated deception is now burned into the legacy of the party, every bit as much as Reagan's triumph in the Cold War, or Nixon's disgrace over Watergate.
I could go on and on - about how we have compromised our international integrity by sanctioning torture, about how we are systematically dismantling the civil liberties that it took us two centuries to define and preserve, and about how we have substituted bullying, brinksmanship and "staying on message" for real political discourse - but those three issues are enough.
We're poisoning our planet through gluttony and ignorance.
We're teetering on the brink of self-inflicted insolvency.
We're selfishly and needlessly sacrificing the best of a generation.
And we're lying about it.
While it has compiled this record of failure and deception, the party which I'm leaving today has spent its time, energy and political capital trying to save Terri Schiavo, battling the threat of single-sex unions, fighting medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide, manufacturing political crises over presidential nominees, and selling privatized Social Security to an America that isn't buying. We fiddle while Rome burns.
Enough is enough. I quit.
James Chaney is a Eugene attorney who has been in private practice for more than 20 years, and who has been a registered Republican since 1980.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

The one and only Driftglass!

...can be found at http://driftglass.blogspot.com He, like Mark Garrity, has a few stringent things to say to the young Republicans. Here's a sample. Go to link above for the rest:

We notice tens.

So when I noticed that the most conservative estimate of number of soldiers wounded in Iraq had topped 13,000 it caught my attention in different way than that tragic number had in the past. Because as understandably hard as it is to get a definitive number for the troops deployed in Iraq, and as tricky as it is to pin down exactly what we’re calling a casualty this week and how we’re tallying it, the fact is, we’ve got 130,000 troops in Iraq – give or take – and we’ve got 13,000 wounded – give or take.Which means we’re at ten percent, or will be very soon.

Ten percent. A nice, easy-to-remember number, ten-percent. Sorta just rooooolls of the tongue, doesn’t it? Something for our petit Chickenhawk Republicans Reagan Youth to think about at their next kegger, while they’re doing beer bongs and lines of coke off each others pasty asses.

And “wounded” doesn’t mean nicked yourself shaving, or sliced a thumb doing watermelon shooters. If you serve in Iraq, it means you stand a one-in-ten chance of losing an eye, or a leg, or having your chest smashed open by shrapnel. At the next Junior GOP bash, look around the room at a hundred of your closest friends slobbing all over each other and braying about the Ascendant Glory that is the brave, brave Republican Party that sends the Underclasses off to die so that the Uberclasses can party like flappers and bootleggers in the upholstered comfort of Mommy’s well-appointed basement.

Because in Iraq, ten of them would be bleeding out from a belly wound all over that nice genuine Hopi rug and the fake Italian leather couch. In Iraq, ten of them would be reeling in numb shock, wondering where their arm went. In Iraq, ten of them would be on a chopper, trying to breathe with scalded lungs. In Iraq, ten of them would be screaming for their mothers and shitting themselves in terror. And with over 1,700 soldiers KIA, in Iraq, two of them would be dead. So why the Coleridge poem? Because it’s you who killed the albatross, Young Republicans motherfuckers, and it is around your necks this stinking war now hangs.

It’s your turn to go face the wraith that you turned loose. In other words…“It is an Insurgent Warrior, And he woundeth one of ten. To face his long beard and glittering eye, Now it’s your turn, Barbie and Ken!”

This is the war you wanted, Young Republicans. This is the war you begged for and celebrate. This is the war you didn’t care was sold with lies, as long as you got to conquer by proxy and kill by remote control. But now your war isn’t going so good, Young Republicans, and the President you overwhelmingly supported so that he could continue to prosecute your optional war exactly as you wanted it done needs you to serve.

Talking-time is over, Young Republicans. The War God you elected is still hungry. He demands a sacrifice of flesh: without it, your dreams of PNAC Global Empire will be lost forever. So step up, join up and go to Iraq, Young Republicans. Do it now, because we will never, ever let you forget it if you don’t. Do it now, Young Republicans, do it now. Because if you don't, you will be invited, forever and always, to…
01100111 0110111100100000 01100110 01110101 0110001101101011 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110011 01100101 01101100 01110110 01100101 01110011
Wrap...

| 0 comments

I want to know...

1. What happened to Cheney and where the hell is he?

2. Why are flags at government buildings flying at half mast?

Wrap.

| 0 comments

Get drunk on Bush...

If I could bear to see him or listen to him, I'd watch...but since I'm not about to look at or hear him, I'll leave it to those honest souls among us to report on just how many lies, spins, variations on the truth, exaggerations, etc he comes up with:

The Bush Speech Drinking Game
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t Perspective
Tuesday 28 June 2005

"But we know that nothing of value is ever earned without sacrifice." -- Condoleezza Rice, addressing US soldiers, 19 March 2005

"We," eh? "We"? That's interesting. I'm not seeing a lot of "we" in the 1,743 dead American soldiers from Iraq, the ones who bore the sacrifice Rice used as a talking point back in March. I'm not seeing a lot of "we" in the story of Pfc. Diane Cardile, the 23-year-old troop who is sitting in a German hospital with extensive burns.

Cardile got those burns last Thursday, when a suicide bomber outside Fallujah drove up next to the truck carrying her and several other Marines, smiled, and blew himself up. 13 Marines were injured in the blast, 11 of them women. Five Marines died in the explosion, two of them women. None of them were named Condi, so her "we" is, shall we say, misplaced.

The Bush administration will be using soldiers as props for political theater once again tonight. George himself will stand up tonight, surrounded by a mob of troops, to tell us that everything is great in Iraq, that there is a "clear path to victory" in that conflict. Probably someone should have gotten this memo to Don Rumsfeld before he went on television this weekend to say that the "clear path" might take twelve years to complete.

I doubt Rumsfeld would have read it, however. After all, he is the fellow who told us in February of 2003 that the war "could last six days, six weeks, I doubt six months." That February also saw Rumsfeld telling us Americans would be welcomed in Iraq by people "playing music, cheering, flying kites."

Oh, by the way, Bush's message will also state that nobody miscalculated in this invasion and occupation, and for sure nobody lied. Those aren't vultures in the skies above Baghdad and Fallujah, waiting to feast on the unburied dead. Those are kites. What you hear isn't screaming, but cheering, and nobody in the Bush administration made mistakes regarding Iraq. George said it himself in April 2004, when asked during a press conference if he had made any errors during his first term. "Gosh, I don't know," he said in response. "I'm sure something will pop into my head here."

What has been popping into Bush's head lately are numbers, bad numbers, low numbers, scary numbers. Gallup, whose poll numbers have been unswervingly slanted towards Bush since the 2000 election campaign, reports that only 32% of independent voters support the Iraq invasion, and a clear majority of all Americans think the whole thing is a disaster. Bush's overall approval ratings are sliding towards the freezing point with each passing day. What we will see in tonight's speech is nothing more or less than an attempt to stop the bleeding. The political bleeding, I mean, not the actual bleeding. Truth and fact won't play a part in the show.

You have to wonder, though, how many people are going to buy what George will be peddling. After all, this is the guy who told us in May of 2003 that, "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

We did, eh? Here we go with "we" again. I guess "we" doesn't include Hans Blix, who found nothing of the sort in Iraq. "We" doesn't include Bush's own hand-picked inspector, David Kay, who likewise found nothing of the sort. For sure and certain, "we" doesn't include the authors of the Duelfer Report, which describes the meticulous, extensive two-year search for these weapons, a search that did not find anything.

So, to recap: Everything is fine in Iraq. No one made any mistakes. No one lied, or even exaggerated ("We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." - Bush in October 2002) about the threat posed by Iraq or the reasons to go to war there.

Tonight should be interesting. If I were still in college, I'd propose creating a drinking game based on this speech. Drink a beer after every lie. Drink a beer every time Bush says "freedom," or talks about September 11 as if those attacks had anything to do with Iraq. Drink two beers after every wildly unrealistic assessment that has no basis in fact. Drink a beer and a shot every time he says "Nukular." Two beers, a shot and a kick to the head every time he thanks the troops around him for the sacrifices "we" know must be made. Anyone still standing after ten minutes wins a Kewpie doll.
Wrap.
It's probably a good thing I graduated.

| 0 comments

DARPA's latest...

Go to www.forgetmenotpanties.com and there you will find:

forget-me-not panties will help protect the women in your life!These panties will monitor the location of your daughter, wife or girlfriend 24 hours a day, and can even monitor their heart rate and body temperature.Based on pioneering research developed by the U.S. military at DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), we have brought this revolutionary technology, previously only available to the military, to you! These "panties" can trace the exact location of your woman and send the information, via satellite, to your cell phone, PDA, and PC simultaneously! Use our patented mapping system, pantyMap®, to find the exact location of your loved one 24 hours a day. The technology is embedded into a piece of fabric so seamlessly she will never know it's there!
***********************************
Hint: Look for a small white-petaled daisy-type flower! Gawd!
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Monday, June 27, 2005

John Kerry in tomorrow's NY Times...

June 28, 2005
The Speech the President Should Give
By JOHN F. KERRY
Boston

TONIGHT President Bush will discuss the situation in Iraq. It's long past time to get it right in Iraq. The Bush administration is courting disaster with its current course - a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success.
The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing. The administration has put itself - and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day - in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won't be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort.

Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.

So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.

The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.

He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.

He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them. The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.

The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress. The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments. If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.

Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one - something that our generals now say could take two more years - it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction. Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.

The administration must work with the Iraqi government to establish a multinational force to help protect its borders. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India.

The deployment of capable security forces is critical, but it alone will not end the insurgency, as the administration would have us believe. Hamstrung by its earlier lack of planning and overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq, the administration has failed to devote equal attention to working with the Iraqi government on the economic and political fronts. Consequently, reconstruction is lagging even in the relatively secure Shiite south and Kurdish north. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being disenfranchised, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, roads and sewers being rebuilt and a democratic government being formed, the allure of the insurgency will decrease.

Iraq's Sunni neighbors, who complain they are left out, could do more to help. Even short-term improvements, like providing electricity and supplying diesel fuel - an offer that the Saudis have made but have yet to fulfill - will go a long way. But we need to give these nations a strategic plan for regional security, acknowledging their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process.

The next months are critical to Iraq's future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face.

Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.

John F. Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts.
*******************************
It will be very interesting to see if Bush says any of these things. More likely he will stress "staying the course"...whatever that course is. If he even talks about Iraq, who can believe him? And if he really does say that he's against torture anywhere in the world....his reputation proceeds him.
Wrap..

| 0 comments

Tsunamis, then pirates..

June 27, 2005
latimes.com :
Business
GLOBAL REPORT
After a Lull, Pirates Are Back in Strait of Malacca
An upsurge in attacks on shipping along the vital waterway has raised concerns among insurers and area governments.
By Arlen Harris and Stephen Fidler, Financial Times

Eight pirates armed with automatic weapons and knives fired warning shots at a Thai-flagged tanker in the Strait of Malacca early this month. Once on board, they kidnapped the master and boatswain and demanded a ransom.It was the fifth kidnapping for ransom in the strait since Feb. 28, said the International Maritime Bureau Piracy Reporting Center in Kuala Lumpur.

Piracy has long been rife in the seaway but the incident off Pangkor Island is part of a trend of increasingly violent and well-planned attacks that is worrying insurers and the region's governments. Some shipowners have even called in private security to protect their vessels.

After the December tsunami there was a lull in attacks in the strait, which sees half the world's oil and a quarter of all cargoes pass through it. Now incidents of piracy are rising again and security specialists say they are more likely to include kidnapping.The trend poses a threat to all shipping in the seaway, which has 55,000 ship movements a year. Kidnappers sometimes take senior officers and lock up the crew, leaving no one in charge of a moving vessel.Many pirates are rebels from Indonesia's Aceh province, says David Fairnie, a marine security specialist with Hart Security in Britain. The separatist Free Aceh Movement has denied involvement in piracy.

Fairnie says debriefing of freed captives suggests the hostage-takers are well organized, sometimes moving their hostages through several vessels before they are taken to Aceh.Last year about $1 million in ransom was paid by shipowners in the region. The average paid per kidnapping is estimated at $50,000. During the period 40 sailors were kidnapped in about 20 incidents in the strait and surrounding waters. Four were killed.

Protection and indemnity clubs — the mutual associations that cover 90% of merchant shipping tonnage — are reviewing coverage, say experts. An insurer's circular given to the Financial Times suggests that owners of ships sailing through the strait should take out a "comprehensive war policy" to insure hull and cargoes, and a kidnapping and ransom policy.The document, dated April 29, from the London-run Shipowners' Mutual Protection and Indemnity Assn., advised that its coverage "does not extend to include the payment of ransom demands and/or any loss or damage to the vessel or loss of earnings etc during a piracy attack." The association insures mostly smaller and specialist ships, the type most vulnerable to attack.

Charles Hume, chief executive officer designate, said the circular was a first draft and had not been sent. "The club is naturally sympathetic to any member facing a kidnap situation and will always try and assist in any way it can on a case-by-case basis," he said. "However, the club's rules which set out its written cover do not include cover for ransom payments."

The region's governments, with stretched resources, find it difficult to police the sea lanes, but are meeting more regularly to discuss the problem. Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia have talked about the possibility of mounting a "hot pursuit" of pirates into neighbors' waters.

Singapore has in the past asked for U.S. help.This month, in a change of tack, Malaysia's defense minister said that he would welcome foreign security assistance.

Some shipowners have turned to private security companies for armed protection. A handful of such companies, including Hart, Glenn Defense Marine and Background Asia Risk Solutions, is offering services to shipowners in the region. Alex Duperouzel, Background Asia's founder and managing director, said: "Our whole strategy is based around the idea of deterrence. We are trying to tell people that we are armed and serious and that there are easier targets elsewhere."

But the presence of armed private security forces in their waters worries the region's governments, particularly Malaysia."These people may not be well-trained or they could be trigger-happy," said Najib Razak, Malaysia's deputy prime minister. "So we have to monitor this very, very carefully."
Wrap.

| 0 comments

SHOCK!!!

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

BILLIONAIRE WAL-MART HEIR JOHN WALTON DIES IN SMALL AIRCRAFT CRASH

http://abcnews.go.com?CMP=EMC-1396

| 0 comments

Military says to Rove:

Here's a clip from one letter to Rove, who is really getting a royal chewing out from these people.
Take a look at http://takeittorove.blogspost.com

Mr. Rove,

As a member of the Army Reserve who will be leaving to support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and a lifelong liberal, how dare you challenge my patriotism, sir? As I have, to date, not seen you patrol in Bahgdad, nor have I seen you risk convoying supplies to the troops who need them throughout Iraq, where is your courage? I guess you really have none. I have never supported this war, nor the policies that have managed it. Despite that, I will be leaving to serve for my first tour in the country soon. Why, you may ask? Because it is my duty as a soldier, and as a citizen of this nation. Service to a cause greater than yourself is something a coward like you will never understand. The next time you wish to question either my patriotism, or courage, I suggest you dare to take up arms first. Cowards like you, who expect other men and womens children to fight their wars, deserve to be dragged out in the streets and beaten like the craven dogs you are. May whatever greater power you believe in spare you, because I wouldn't. I will leave you with two quotes that I sincerely hope you might learn something of true patriotism and courage. "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

Goodbye sir. May you rot in Hell with all of the worlds yellow, craven, morally bankrupt cowards. "Sic vis pacem, para bellum."
****************************************
Rove certainly has it coming, and they're not hesitating to give it to him.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Plutonium...for secret missions?

Hoo-boy! Always something:

US Has Plans to Again Make Own Plutonium
By William J. Broad
The New York Times
Monday 27 June 2005

The Bush administration is planning the government's first production of plutonium 238 since the cold war, stirring debate over the risks and benefits of the deadly material. The substance, valued as a power source, is so radioactive that a speck can cause cancer.
Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site outside Idaho Falls some 100 miles to the west and upwind of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. Officials say the program could cost $1.5 billion and generate more than 50,000 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste.
Project managers say that most if not all of the new plutonium is intended for secret missions and they declined to divulge any details. But in the past, it has powered espionage devices.
"The real reason we're starting production is for national security," Timothy A. Frazier, head of radioisotope power systems at the Energy Department, said in a recent interview.
He vigorously denied that any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space.
The laboratory is a source of pride and employment for many residents in the Idaho Falls area. But the secrecy is adding to unease in Wyoming, where environmentalists are scrutinizing the production plan - made public late Friday - and considering whether to fight it.
They say the production effort is a potential threat to nearby ecosystems, including Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park and the area around Jackson Hole, famous for its billionaires, celebrities and weekend cowboys, including Vice President Dick Cheney.
"It's completely wrapped in the flag," said Mary Woollen-Mitchell, executive director of Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free, a group based in Jackson Hole. "They absolutely won't let on" about the missions.
"People are starting to pay attention," she said of the production plan. "On the street, just picking up my kids at school, they're getting keyed up that something is in the works."
Plutonium 238 has no central role in nuclear arms. Instead, it is valued for its steady heat, which can be turned into electricity. Nuclear batteries made of it are best known for powering spacecraft that go where sunlight is too dim to energize solar cells. For instance, they now power the Cassini probe exploring Saturn and its moons.
Federal and private experts unconnected to the project said the new plutonium would probably power devices for conducting espionage on land and under the sea. Even if no formal plans now exist to use the plutonium in space for military purposes, these experts said that the material could be used by the military to power compact spy satellites that would be hard for adversaries to track, evade or destroy.
"It's going to be a tough world in the next one or two decades, and this may be needed," said a senior federal scientist who helps the military plan space missions and spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the possibility that he would contradict federal policies. "Technologically, it makes sense."
Early in the nuclear era, the government became fascinated by plutonium 238 and used it regularly to make nuclear batteries that worked for years or decades. Scores of them powered satellites, planetary probes and spy devices, at times with disastrous results.
In 1964, a rocket failure led to the destruction of a navigation satellite powered by plutonium 238, spreading radioactivity around the globe and starting a debate over the event's health effects.
In 1965, high in the Himalayas, an intelligence team caught in a blizzard lost a plutonium-powered device meant to spy on China. And in 1968, an errant weather satellite crashed into the Pacific, but federal teams managed to recover its plutonium battery intact from the Santa Barbara Channel, off California.
Such accidents cooled enthusiasm for the batteries. But federal agencies continued to use them for a more limited range of missions, including those involving deep-space probes and top-secret devices for tapping undersea cables.
In 1997, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration prepared to launch its Cassini probe of Saturn, hundreds of protesters converged on its Florida spaceport, arguing that an accident could rupture the craft's nuclear batteries and condemn thousands of people to death by cancer.
Plutonium 238 is hundreds of times more radioactive than the kind of plutonium used in nuclear arms, plutonium 239. Medical experts agree that inhaling even a speck poses a serious risk of lung cancer.
But federal experts say that the newest versions of the nuclear batteries are made to withstand rupture into tiny particles and that the risk of human exposure is extraordinarily low.
Today, the United States makes no plutonium 238 and instead relies on aging stockpiles or imports from Russia. By agreement with the Russians, it cannot use the imported material - some 35 pounds since the end of the cold war - for military purposes.
With its domestic stockpile running low, Washington now wants to resume production. Though it last made plutonium 238 in the 1980's at the government's Savannah River plant in South Carolina, it now wants to move such work to the Idaho National Laboratory and consolidate all the nation's plutonium 238 activities there, including efforts now at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.
By centralizing everything in Idaho, the Energy Department hopes to increase security and reduce the risks involved in transporting the radioactive material over highways.
Late Friday, the department posted a 500-page draft environmental impact statement on the plan at www.consolidationeis.doe.gov. The public has 60 days to respond.
Mr. Frazier said the department planned to weigh public reaction and complete the regulatory process by late this year, and to finish the plan early in 2006. The president would then submit it to Congress for approval, he said. The work requires no international assent.
The Idaho National Laboratory, founded in 1949 for atomic research, stretches across 890 square miles of southeastern Idaho. The Big Lost River wanders its length. The site is dotted with 450 buildings and 52 reactors - more than at any other place - most of them shut down. It has long wrestled with polluted areas and recently sought to set new standards in environmental restoration.
New plutonium facilities there would take five years to build and cost about $250 million, Mr. Frazier said. The operations budget would run to some $40 million annually over 30 years, he said, for a total cost of nearly $1.5 billion.
An existing reactor there would make the plutonium. Mr. Frazier said the goal was to start production by 2012 and have the first plutonium available by 2013. When possible, Mr. Frazier said, the plutonium would be used not only for national security but also for deep-space missions, reducing dependence on Russian supplies.
Since late last year, the Energy Department has tried to reassure citizens living around the proposed manufacturing site of the plan's necessity and safety.
But political activists in Wyoming have expressed frustration at what they call bureaucratic evasiveness regarding serious matters. "It's the nastiest of the nasty," Ms. Woollen-Mitchell said of plutonium 238.
Early this year, she succeeded in learning some preliminary details of the plan from the Energy Department. Mr. Frazier provided her with a document that showed that production over 30 years would produce 51,590 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste.
He also referred to the continuing drain on the government's national security stockpile, saying the known missions by the end of this decade would require 55 pounds of plutonium for 10 to 15 power systems. Those uses, he said, would leave virtually no plutonium for future classified missions.
Ms. Woollen-Mitchell was unswayed. In January she told the Energy Department that so much information about the plan remained hidden that it had "given us serious pause."
The Energy Department is courting Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free because it has flexed its political muscle before. Starting in late 1999, financed by wealthy Jackson Hole residents like Harrison Ford, it fought to stop the Idaho lab from burning plutonium-contaminated waste in an incinerator and forced the lab to investigate alternatives.
In the recent interview, Mr. Frazier said he planned to talk to the group on Tuesday and expressed hope of winning people over.
"I don't know that I'll be able to make them perfectly comfortable," he said, "but they know that the department is willing to listen and talk and take their comments into consideration."
"We have a good case," Mr. Frazier added, saying the department could show that the Idaho plan "can be done safely with very minimal environmental impacts."
***********************************
More to this than meets the eye. There always is.
Wrap.

| 0 comments

"boffins"? What are boffins?

This is truly one strange piece of science:

Boffins create zombie dogs
By Nick Buchan of NEWS.com.au
June 27, 2005

Eerie ... boffins have brought dead dogs back to life, in the name of science.

SCIENTISTS have created eerie zombie dogs, reanimating the canines after several hours of clinical death in attempts to develop suspended animation for humans. US scientists have succeeded in reviving the dogs after three hours of clinical death, paving the way for trials on humans within years.

Pittsburgh's Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research has developed a technique in which subject's veins are drained of blood and filled with an ice-cold salt solution.
The animals are considered scientifically dead, as they stop breathing and have no heartbeat or brain activity.
But three hours later, their blood is replaced and the zombie dogs are brought back to life with an electric shock.

Plans to test the technique on humans should be realised within a year, according to the Safar Centre.

However rather than sending people to sleep for years, then bringing them back to life to benefit from medical advances, the boffins would be happy to keep people in this state for just a few hours.

But even this should be enough to save lives such as battlefield casualties and victims of stabbings or gunshot wounds, who have suffered huge blood loss.

Duing the procedure blood is replaced with saline solution at a few degrees above zero. The dogs' body temperature drops to only 7C, compared with the usual 37C, inducing a state of hypothermia before death.

Although the animals are clinically dead, their tissues and organs are perfectly preserved.
Damaged blood vessels and tissues can then be repaired via surgery. The dogs are brought back to life by returning the blood to their bodies, giving them 100 per cent oxygen and applying electric shocks to restart their hearts.

Tests show they are perfectly normal, with no brain damage.

"The results are stunning. I think in 10 years we will be able to prevent death in a certain segment of those using this technology," said one US battlefield doctor.
********************************
I still want to know what "boffins" are. Beyond that, Whoa!!!
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Sunday, June 26, 2005

Say one thing, do another..

I find this just unbelievable, coming from an individual who discounts the Geneva Convention. Who does he think he's kidding? He has more nerve than a.....

June 26, 2005
Bush Says U.S. Seeks to Eliminate Torture Worldwide
By REUTERS
Filed at 3:14 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush, whose administration has been hit by accusations of prisoner abuse, said on Sunday that the United States was committed to the elimination of torture worldwide.

In a statement to mark United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, Bush said: ``Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right, and we are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law.''
Accusations of prisoner abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan and at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have brought into question the policies of the Bush administration in treating foreign prisoners.

The United States has also been accused of sending some prisoners to countries with poor human rights records where they might be tortured. An Italian judge last week ordered the arrest of 13 people linked to the CIA for kidnapping an Egyptian terrorism suspect in Milan and flying him to Egypt, where he said he was tortured.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in March said the United States would never send terrorism suspects to countries where they would be tortured. But he acknowledged that once the prisoners were in the other country's custody, the United States had little control over their treatment.

"America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies,'' Bush said in the statement.
"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you,'' he said.
*********************************
He is so full of bullshit!
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Excellent Info Source...

This is definitely one to bookmark for reference:

June 27, 2005
Web Site Makes Gov't. Reports Available
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:17 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) --

A new Web site aims to make widely available to the public certain government reports about topics from terrorism to Social Security that congressional researchers prepare and distribute now only to lawmakers.
The site -- www.opencrs.com -- links more than a half-dozen existing collections of nearly 8,000 reports from the Congressional Research Service and centrally indexes them so visitors can find reports containing specific terms or phrases.
It also encourages visitors to ask their lawmakers to send them any reports not yet publicly available -- and gives detailed instructions to do this -- so these can be added to the collection. None of the reports is classified or otherwise restricted.
The site, being announced Monday, is operated by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based civil liberties group. The project is a response to years of rumbling and wrangling by open-government advocates over a lack of direct accessibility to reports from the policy research arm of Congress.
''This initiative ought to embarrass the Congress into changing its policy and making these documents universally available,'' said Steven Aftergood, director of the project on government secrecy for the Washington-based Federation of American Scientists. Aftergood has collected hundreds of CRS reports and distributes them from his group's own Web site.
The research service, with a staff of more than 700 and a nearly $100 million budget, does not object to public distribution of its reports, said Jill Brett, a spokeswoman for the Library of Congress, the service's parent organization.
''It's up to Congress when they're made public and how they're made public,'' Brett said. ''The law says we only make them available to Congress.''
Lawmakers often cite the reports during congressional debates, but the research is generally not available to the public. Congress does allow lawmakers to publish reports on their individual Web sites and send them to constituents who request them.

On the Net:
Congressional Research Service: www.loc.gov/crsinfo
Federation of American Scientists: www.fas.org
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Hah!

Left the migf.blogspot.com where I wrote the last post and ended up here on the aggravated.blogspot.com blog! So it seems that I can post on either one and whatever I post will come straight here. Cie la Vie!!!
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Just checking...

...on where this post is gonna end up. Though it says "Just Observing" above, this location is http://migf.blogspot.com . Last dated post here was Dec 2004! That's when I began the blog at http://aggravated.blogspot.com where I still am. This one had a fit one day and that's why I had to start a new one. Could not figure out how to fix it. Talk about mad...

In any case, I'm gonna sign off now and see what happens. Love it!
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Meanwhile, out at sea...

...it seems the pirates are raising particular hell. Yeah. Real pirates...and plenty of them. Bet they could sail right into our ports too. What they'd sail in with, I don't want to think about. I've noticed that we don't hear a hell of a lot about pirates. Is anyone paying any real attention? So here are some of the things going on:

For the recent Congressional Research Service report: "Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress," updated May 10, 2005: go to http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31733.pdf


Maritime Terrorism and Piracy Hot Spots

Maritime Terror Risk Reduced But Not Eliminated

US Urged to Boost Maritime Security Cooperation with Indonesia

Singapore Backed as Centre against Piracy

Alert Crewman Foils Tanker Pirates in Malacca Strait

Inside Job Feared in Piratess’ Tanker Raid

Duo Nabbed Over Ship Hijack

Tsunami ‘Causes Rise in Piracy’

Two New Kidnapping Cases: Malacca Strait and Somalia

Pirates Attack Tanker

Nigeria: Pirates Release Held Tanker

Oil Tanker Boarded by Pirates off Basra

Pirates Raid Supertanker at Iraq's Basra


Maritime Forces and Operations

3 ASEAN Countries Reject Foreign Forces in Malacca Strait

U.S. Wants New Iraq Navy Afloat by Year’s End
**************************
The USS Cole comes to mind....
Wrap...

| 0 comments

This IS "old news"...

Had it pointed out to me that the date on this story was 2003!!! So why is it just now being discussed? Sheesh!

But have they shown remorse? GENEVA (AFP) - Washington has for the first time acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said. (via)

Wrap.

| 0 comments

No, it's NOT "old news"...

How the Leaked Documents Questioning War Emerged from 'Britain's Deep Throat'
By Michael Smith
The Sunday Times UK
Sunday 26 June 2005

It started with a phone call and has now swept across America: Michael Smith tells the tale of his 'Downing Street memo' scoop.

It began with a phone call from a friend nearly 10 months ago - somebody well-placed who had given me a few stories before. But he wasn't really a journalistic source, though he has now been dubbed "the British Deep Throat" by some of the US press.

He was just a friend. So I had no great expectations of the meeting we arranged in a quiet West End bar. I was just expecting a convivial drink, with the usual exchange of gossip, the catching-up on how our lives were going.

Almost immediately it was clear that this time it would be something more. The place was empty, but my friend chose the most secluded spot he could find. He was clearly nervous.

He wasn't sure if I'd be interested in what he had, he said. It was about the run-up to the war. "All the Butler stuff," he said, referring to Lord Butler, who had reported on the failures of intelligence over Iraq.

He thrust two sheets of paper into my hand. It was a "Secret - Strictly Personal" letter from Jack Straw to the prime minister written in March 2002, a year before the invasion.

In the letter the foreign secretary said there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any weapons of mass destruction worth talking about and that, in part as a result of a lack of US preparation, post-war Iraq was likely to become a very nasty place.

It was, in short, remarkably prescient and would make a pretty good story, I said, with some understatement. Well, I've got five others just like it from the same period, said my source. "Most say stuff just like that, or worse."

The documents covered the period running up to a summit between George W Bush and Tony Blair at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in early April 2002. At that time the swift victory against the Taliban in Afghanistan had left hawks in the US administration openly briefing that Iraq was next.

Most of the leaked documents were designed to brief ministers or Blair on whether backing the US plans to get rid of Saddam would be sensible and legal. They set out the merits and dangers of taking part. Their gist was that there weren't many merits. The documents made it pretty clear that it wasn't sensible, it wasn't legal and it was very risky.

The document that seemed to encapsulate the problems was another "Secret - Strictly Personal" letter to Blair. It was written by his foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning.

"I think there is a real risk that the (US) administration underestimates the difficulties," Manning wrote. "They may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean that they will avoid it."

When I reported these documents I was surprised to find that there was no real interest in them in America. The story swiftly died away.

Then eight months later, in the run-up to Britain's general election, with the focus on the attorney-general's advice to Blair on the legality of war, somebody else gave me further, even more startling documents. They concerned a meeting in Downing Street on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion, when Blair was insisting to the public that all options on Iraq were still open.

One leaked document was a Cabinet Office briefing paper for a crucial Downing Street meeting held on the day in question. It said the prime minister had promised Bush at the Crawford summit that he would "back military action to bring about regime change". It added that ministers had no choice but to "create the conditions" that would make military action legal.

The other document was the minutes of the actual meeting, chaired by Blair and attended by Straw; Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general; Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6; John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee; and Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff.

Dearlove, who had just returned from Washington, said "military action was now seen as inevitable . . . the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action".

Straw agreed with Dearlove. He said Bush had "made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin".

After reporting these secret memos, which revealed the dubious manoeuvrings of government, I expected the US press to react. Surely there would be a storm of anger over the way in which the American public had been deceived into going to war? But still there was no interest. Then slowly something astonishing happened. People power took over.

The Sunday Times website was inundated with ordinary US citizens wanting to read the minutes of the July meeting. Bloggers set to work passing the word.

Six ordinary, patriotic citizens with no political axe to grind were so outraged to discover the truth about the path to war that they set up their own website, naming it after the minutes, which had become known as the Downing Street memo.

The focus turned to what may ultimately be the most important part of the memo: the point where Hoon said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime".

Ministry of Defence figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that virtually none were used in March and April; but between May and August an average of 10 tons were dropped each month, with the RAF taking just as big a role in the "spikes of activity" as their US colleagues. Then in September the figure shot up again, with allied aircraft dropping 54.6 tons.

If this was a covert air war, both Bush and Blair may face searching questions. In America only Congress can declare war, and it did not give the US president permission to take military action against Iraq until October 11, 2002. Blair's legal justification is said to come from UN Resolution 1441, which was not passed until November 8, 2002.

Last week one US blogger, Larisa Alexandrovna of RawStory.com, unearthed more unsettling evidence. It was an overlooked interview with Lieutenant-General T Michael Moseley, the allied air commander in Iraq, in which he appears to admit that the "spikes of activity" were part of a covert air war.

From June 2002 until March 20, when the ground war began, the allies flew 21,736 sorties over southern Iraq, attacking 349 carefully selected targets. The attacks, Moseley said, "laid the foundations" for the invasion, allowing allied commanders to begin the ground war.

The bloggers may have found their own smoking gun.
********************************
It is way past time for the House Judiciary Committee to start hearings about impeaching Bush and all his cohorts.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Cheney...

From Arianna Huffington, who was in Vail when this event occured:

Cheney Checks Into Vail Hospital...
Huffington Post

Vice President Dick Cheney was taken to the cardiac unit of the Vail Valley Medical Center Friday. Contrary to Associated Press reports that he went to see orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Steadman, at the Steadman Hawkins clinic for a knee injury, Vice President Cheney passed through the Steadman Hawkins clinic and the Colorado Mountain Medical Center to get to the cardiac unit to see Dr. Jack Eck and his team. The Vice President checked into the hospital under the name of Dr. Hoffman.
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Exercising power...

They insist on messing with the votes in the House of Reps in DC. How many "Nays" do you hear on this clip another writer emailed to me? And man, is she mad! Go listen to:

... that clip I've been trying to get you to listen to re the House vote abomination. When you get to the home page, go down to mid-page to Show Sound. It's the first one.

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php

Wrap.

| 0 comments

Bush gets his oil...

Tell me again why BushCo started this war:

Iraq:
The carve-up begins
om Burgis
Thursday 23 June 2005

As the costs of the Iraq occupation spiral, British and American oil companies meet in secret next week to carve up the country's oil reserves for themselves.

The Iraq war has so far cost America and Britain £105 billion. But the financial clawback is gathering pace as British and American oil giants work out how to get their hands on the estimated £3trillion worth of oil.

Executives from BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil and Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old firm, are expected to congregate at the Paddington Hilton for a two-day chinwag with top-level officials from Iraq's oil ministry. The gathering, sponsored by the British Government, is being described as the "premier event" for those with designs on Iraqi oil, and will go ahead despite opposition from Iraqi oil workers, who fear their livelihoods are being flogged to foreigners. The Met will be on hand to secure the venue ahead of the conference.

"This is a networking opportunity for UK businesses involved in Iraqi oil," explained Dr Hussain Rabia, managing director of the consultancy Entrac Petroleum Ltd. "We have the moral support of the UK government. They're bringing the guys over from Iraq, offering them visas. We expect all the big oil companies to be there," he said.

Delegate numbers are described as "confidential". Shell spokesman Simon Buerk would not confirm that a representative of the company would be attending, but said he "wouldn't be at all surprised if they were".

"We aspire to establish a long-term presence in Iraq," he said. "We have been helping the Iraqi Ministry of Oil and engineers with training."

Those who have purchased their £1,200 tickets can expect access to executives from Iraq's oil ministry, including Salem Razoky, the director general of exploration.

But Iraqi oil workers are furious about the conference. "The second phase of the war will be started by this conference carving up the industry," said an outraged Hasan Juma'a, head of the Iraqi General Union of Oil Employees. "It is about giving shares of Iraq to the countries who invaded it - they get a piece of the action as a reward. The British government will back this action in order to pay its debt in Iraq."

Hasan, who represents 23,000 skilled oil workers, fears that deals struck at the conference will see profits from Iraq's massive oil reserves - the second richest in the world - lining the pockets of multinational corporations at the expense of the Iraqi people.

Previous form suggests his concerns are well founded. Under the initial wage table drawn up by Paul Bremer's provisional Baghdad government in September 2003, oil workers were to receive a minimum monthly pay packet of £25. After a threatened union strike, it was raised to £38. And, Hasan insists, "Iraqi oil workers are good enough to rebuild without any need of help. "

Greg Muttitt, a researcher with Platform, an independent environmental think thank, agrees. "The decisions on how to carve up Iraq are being made behind closed doors in Washington, London and Baghdad.
"This conference is a key part of the plan to help multinational companies get stuck in once those arrangements are in place. It's a corporate feeding frenzy - they're not writing the recipes, they're tucking in their napkins."

Yahia Said, an Iraqi research fellow in global governance at the London School of Economics, commented:
"Iraq's oil is very cheap to extract. In the lack of transparency and with Iraq under occupation, people suspect oil companies are up to foul play. But those companies wouldn't yet dare sign a contract under the present government because it lacks legitimacy. But the oil companies are eyeing each other - this conference is like a dating game."

As such, a spokesperson for British governmental body UK Trade & Investment insisted that "no contracts will be awarded" at the conference. "Although we believe that British and other companies can play a key role, it will be up to the Iraqis, through their elected representatives to decide whether there is a role for them or not."

But the British government's position is in line with that of conference organisers, who point to Iraq's current oil output, which is stalled at 1.8million barrels per day, less than a third of what it could be.
"We all want to reconstruct Iraq," argued Rabia. "You can have all the demos you want, but 70 per cent of people in my country don't have sanitation. It's 45 degrees there now. I've listened to a lot of people and there's no way you can reconstruct without people from the UK and the US, and their money."
************************************
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Hold your breath...

When the Supreme Court speaks...we all listen:

High Court to End Term With Big Decisions
Jun 25, 4:33 PM (ET)
By GINA HOLLAND

WASHINGTON (AP)

The Supreme Court ends its work Monday with the highest of drama: an anticipated retirement, a ruling on the constitutionality of government Ten Commandments displays and decisions in other major cases.

Traditionally there is an air of suspense as the justices meet for the final time before breaking for three months. Justices usually wait until then to resolve blockbuster cases.

Added to that is the expectation that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is presiding over the court for the last time. Rehnquist has thyroid cancer and many court experts believe his retirement is imminent.

"There's enormous drama and anticipation. Is he going to announce his resignation? Are we going to spend this summer in a confirmation fight?" said Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke law professor.

Long lines have formed several hours before the court's recent sessions so people could get a seat in the packed courtroom. On Monday, the crowd will include supporters and opponents of Ten Commandments monuments. Supporters usually gather outside the court praying and singing hymns.

"It's a big day. History being made, that's a lot of what it's about," said Maureen Mahoney, a Washington lawyer and former Rehnquist law clerk.

Also expected are nine women in judicial robes who call themselves "Roe Rangers," to bring attention to uncertainty about the court's makeup and abortion rights.

Justices have a few cases left to resolve, including two of the most-watched of the term: the Ten Commandments appeals from Texas and Kentucky and a case that will determine the liability of Internet file-sharing services for clients' illegal swapping of songs and movies.

Also Monday, justices are expected to announce whether they will hear appeals from two journalists who may face jail time for refusing to reveal sources in the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

Lawyers for Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller have asked the court to clarify protections reporters have in keeping sources confidential. The cases could not be heard until December.

The Supreme Court term already has covered cases involving the execution of teenage killers, state bans on Internet orders from out-of-state wineries and federal sentencing rules.
Overshadowing it all, however, has been Rehnquist's health and questions about the future of the court, which has not had a vacancy for 11 years, a modern record.

"More people are paying attention to the court than they have in years even though the docket has not been earthshaking," said Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings and a former Supreme Court clerk. "It changes the importance of this year in Supreme Court history."

In addition to Rehnquist, 80, older members of the court include Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 75, and Justice John Paul Stevens, 85.

Rehnquist was absent from the bench for five months after disclosing in October that he had cancer. He has refused to say whether he has the most serious type of thyroid cancer. He speaks with difficulty because of a trachea tube inserted to help him breathe.

"One or two justices may announce their retirement on Monday. Or none may," said Suzanna Sherry, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who specializes in the Supreme Court. "In the past there has not been this kind of anticipation."

Rehnquist could announce his decision at the Monday morning session. He could wait until later in the day after justices hold their last private meeting of the term. He could wait until later in the week, after the crowds have left the court.

The final rulings of the term often come down to 5-4 votes. Sometimes, justices who dissent read objections from the bench.

"It's a zoo," veteran Supreme Court lawyer Carter Phillips said of final ruling days.
The Ten Commandments issue has gotten the most attention, in part because it has been 25 years since the court last dealt with it.

Justices ruled then that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in public schools. Now they will decide if a granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol and framed copies of commandments in two Kentucky courthouses are allowed.

Rulings are also awaited in a Tennessee death penalty case, an appeal that will decide police departments' liability for not enforcing restraining orders, and a challenge to the tight control cable companies hold over high-speed Internet service.
---
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Bush? Gonzales? Proud of yourselves?

Bush okayed it. Gonzales okayed it. Only fitting if they suffered it too. Shame on them all:

AFX News Limited
US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo;
in Iraq, Afghanistan -
UN 06.24.2005, 11:37 AM
GENEVA (AFX) -

Washington has, for the first time, acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.

The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity. 'They are no longer trying to duck this and have respected their obligation to inform the UN,' the Committee member said. 'They they will have to explain themselves (to the Committee). Nothing should be kept in the dark,' he said.

UN sources said this is the first time the world body has received such a frank statement on torture from US authorities. The Committee, which monitors respect for the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is gathering information from the US ahead of hearings in May 2006.

Signatories of the convention are expected to submit to scrutiny of their implementation of the 1984 convention and to provide information to the Committee. The document from Washington will not be formally made public until the hearings.

newsdesk@afxnews.com /jag/bar/jwf/pac/ns/ims COPYRIGHT Copyright AFX News Limited 2005. All rights reserved.

Wrap.

| 0 comments

I don't like them either!

June 25, 2005, 10:34AM
Young Republicans 'get party started' at D.C. convention
Rallying college students, DeLay warns them about a 'disturbing liberal psychology'
By SAMANTHA LEVINE
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau


WASHINGTON - They may be done cramming for exams, but the hundreds of College Republicans who gathered in Washington this weekend are hardly done with their assignments.

At a hotel just a few miles from the White House, the College Republican National Committee kicked off its biennial convention with a roster of high-powered GOP speakers meant to rally the fresh-faced troops in advance of the 2006 midterm elections.

After all, the College Republicans are viewed as a critical part of the GOP's grass-roots stampede and, as always, the source for the next generation of Republican leaders.
The CRNC, which many call the Crank, has nearly 200,000 members nationwide and has raised $20.1 million since 2001.

In the 2003-04 election cycle, the group raised $12.8 million, ranking it 12th in the nation among so-called 527 groups, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks money in elections.
Drawing scrutinyThe group's fund raising has generated some scrutiny, with reports showing that a portion of the money was received from elderly donors who were pursued with misleading appeals.

Regardless of such troubles, the convention began Friday with a fiery speech from House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Sugar Land, who arrived at the podium to a standing ovation.
In front of a banner reading, "We get the party started!", DeLay, like other speakers at the Friday event, rallied the young Republicans with harsh words about the Democrats.

"The trend isn't just about liberal rhetoric, it's about a disturbing liberal psychology," DeLay said. "A bizarre, knee-jerk reflex to assume the world's worst problems are America's fault."
DeLay also defended White House adviser Karl Rove, who came under fire for a New York speech he made Wednesday in which he accused "liberals" of wanting to "offer therapy and understanding for our attackers" after the Sept. 11, 2001, strikes.

DeLay said: "That is not slander, that is the truth."

Also speaking Friday to the College Republicans were former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

But there was some levity at the convention.
The hordes of students mingling in the hallways during the speeches could buy T-shirts with pictures of Uncle Sam saying, "Only you can prevent political correctness!" and buttons saying, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" or "I only sleep with Republicans."

The conference helped Jordan Brown, a 21-year-old Houstonian entering his senior year at Texas A&M University, decide whether to join the College Republicans when he gets back to school after finishing his summer internship in Washington.
He said: "I definitely am."

samantha.levine@chron.com

**************************************
I am not amused. Especially after reading, "...portion of money received from elderly donors who were pursued with misleading appeals." Now that shows ethics and character. Right?

Wrap.

| 2 comments

Intel jobs...

Do believe I'd prefer to stick close to home, given my druthers, when it comes to these kinds of special jobs for special people:

There are over 100 new intelligence jobs listed on the Faucon International site and dozens of new jobs in security. This time there are even jobs relating to outer space as well as those a bit closer to home.

http://www.fauconinternational.com/sec.html

http://www.fauconinternational.com/sec.html

Terrorism videos at http://www.fauconinternational.com/videos.htm are also now populated.

| 0 comments

Fundraising with lapel pins..

There are fundraising ideas and then there are fundraising ideas with "rewards". New Jersey Mark notes a problem or two or three in his letter below to Tom Edsall at the Washington Post:

Dear Mr. Edsall,
I read your fine article about the College Republicans. Do you know one of their fundraising letters included a lapel pin that they asked recipients to pray over and then send back with a check?

The "come on" was they'd then give the blessed lapel pin to the president to wear when he made his nomination acceptance speech at the convention last September. Now it would be one thing if this was a single letter sent to Richard Scaife or a deep pocket donor like him but this was sent to thousands of people. I saw no mention that it was a contest that could be won by the highest bidder or most fervent beseecher of our Lord.

So imagine if you will President Bush covered head to toe with tiny American flag lapel pins! If you'll pardon the expression this shit is so good ya can't make it up! The fact that they raised $9 million dollars off blown brain crap like this, of which over $8 million went to the direct mail outfit they outsourced the mailings to, speaks volumes about the intelligence of these kids AND their leaders. Andthey want to run the country some day.

When that kind of idiotic fundraising actually works with their base, when they're so business savvy they get screwed by the icky contractors who get their hands dirty putting together their mailings for them you can see where that's headed. I'm sure if given the chance someday Davidson or Gourley will do just as good a job of balancing the budget as George W. Bush or their patron saint Ronald Reagan.

But all snark aside I write to you today with more urgent news about the CRNC. A fella who calls himself Jesus' General JC Christian has organized an attempt to get young Repubs to enlist in the US Army he calls OperationYellow Elephants. I'd particularly like to point you to a post he calls, "Seriously". You can read more about it at his blog at: http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/

The CRNC has a well produced website at: http://www.crnc.org/ I've looked it over carefully. I checked out the list of speakers at their convention and their extensive list of jobs and internships available at rightwing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the AEI. At their convention there isn't one member from the military scheduled to speak let alone any recruiters. On their website there isn't one link to GoArmy.com or any other recruiting site. Not one. We're at war. The US Army fell short of it's enlistment goals in May by 25 percent. They had hoped to recruit 6,700 new members but missed the mark by 1,661 recruits. Even after lowering their quota from over 8000 they still missed their goals. This makes the fourth month in a row that the active duty Army hasn't been able to round up enough able bodied, drug free, non felon patriots to fill the ranks.

Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly the head of the Army Reserve sent Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff a memo last December that said "his command is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force." The recruiting crisis is so bad Army Recruiting Command had to hold a stand-downday last month to remind their recruiters that kidnapping, threats and lying to potential enlistees are not only not approved US Army recruiting techniques but are in fact illegal. These are known facts reported in your newspaper.

I took the liberty myself of calling several recruiters near Arlington VA. I spoke yesterday with a Sgt. Nauta and today with a Sgt. Kraft at 703-682-6399. They both seemed interested when I informed of the CRNC convention going on now at the Crystal Gateway Marriott. As well they should seeing as they're about as popular in the malls these days as Typhoid Mary. I sincerely hope they went over there and signed a few kids up. And I sincerely hope you will write an article about the efforts to get them to do so. Thanks for your time.
TrueBlue Patriotically Yours,
Mark Garrity
**************************************
Wonder if the College Republicans even allowed the recruiters anywhere near their young Republican members?
Wrap...

| 2 comments

Friday, June 24, 2005

They dare not object...

...and the "prez" will be protected from the citizenry. More the audience will be required to attend and to show respect, regardless of their feelings. BushCo will be able to wear his military Commander In Chief jacket and he can strut and talk tough to his heart's content. Damned coward:

Bush to address Americans from Fort Bragg
Fri Jun 24,11:19 AM ET

President Bush will deliver a major address to U.S. troops and the nation about Iraq on Tuesday night from the U.S. military base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the White House said.
"This is a critical moment in Iraq," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Friday in announcing the speech. "This is a real time of testing."

McClellan said the speech would be delivered at 8 p.m., and that the White House has asked U.S. television networks to air the address live.

Bush is expected to use the prime time speech to outline his strategy in Iraq amid increasing public doubts about the war.

McClellan said Bush will be "very specific about the way forward in Iraq."

McClellan said Americans have been "seeing disturbing images" of bloodshed in Iraq, but that the president was "confident that the American people understand the importance of succeeding in Iraq."
Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited.
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Ah...Secrets....

Scientists aren't all that fond of secrecy. They like to share what they've discovered:

HOMELAND SECURITY SECRECY

While values of openness and accountability are tentatively taking root in some improbable corners of the world, they are steadily being eroded in the United States."About $8 billion in homeland security funds has been doled out to states since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks,but the public has little chance of knowing how all of that money is being spent," according to Congressional Quarterly.

See "Billions in States' Homeland Purchases Kept in the Dark"by Eileen Sullivan, CQ Homeland Security, June 22: http://www.cq.com/public/20050622A_homeland.html

While one can imagine various details of homeland security-related expenditures that might properly be kept confidential, the tide of secrecy has swept away far more than such details. Records of environmental pollution due to animal waste are exempt from public disclosure in Delaware, for example, as the result of a 2000 amendment to that state's freedom of information laws, along with many other categories of official records, a recent news story reports. See "Citizens often kept from public data" by Jeff Montgomeryand Molly Murray, Delaware News Journal, June 19 (thanks toJC): http://tinyurl.com/88tbc

GPO POLICY ON WITHDRAWING PUBLIC INFORMATION
The Government Printing Office (GPO) has updated its policy for responding to government agency requests to withdraw previously disclosed records from public access."The GPO takes very seriously any Federal agency's request to restrict access to Government information that has been made public. However, the GPO cooperates with Federal agencies in the appropriate distribution of the official information they publish," the policy states. Potential justifications for withdrawing records from public access include the presence of classified information or sensitive but unclassified information. See "Withdrawal of Federal Information Products from GPO's Information Dissemination Programs," Government PrintingOffice Information Dissemination Policy 72, June 21, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/id72.pdf

SELECTED CRS REPORTS
Recent reports of the Congressional Research Service obtained by Secrecy News include the following:"'Bunker Busters': Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues, FY2005 and FY 2006," updated June 23, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32347.pdf"

Homeland Security Department: FY2006 Appropriations," updated June 13, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32863.pdf"

Federal Protection for Human Research Subjects: An Analysis of the Common Rule and Its Interactions with FDA Regulations and the HIPAA Privacy Rule," updated June 2, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32909.pdf"

Parliament and Congress: A Brief Comparison of the BritishHouse of Commons and the U.S. House of Representatives,"updated May 19, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32206.pdf

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by theFederation of American Scientists.
*********************************
Good thing somebody is paying attention to at least a few of the secrets this admin prefers to continue to hide.
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Kerry's letter...

Raw Story has procured a copy of the letter Sen Kerry has sent to Roberts and Rockefeller, heads of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Letter is signed by nine other Senators. The question is whether R&R will pay any attention whatsoever to Kerry's request...or will they just give some lame excuse and go on stonewalling any further investigation. Here's the letter with intro by Raw Story:


DOWNING STREET UPDATE
Larisa Alexandrovna - Raw Story Staff
Senator Kerry (D - MA) sends letter to Senate Intelligence Committee pressing for answers on the Downing Street Memo and other Downing documents. The letter leaked to Raw Story, is also signed by Senators Johnson, Corzine, Reid, Lautenberg, Boxer, Kennedy, Harkin, Bingaman, and Durbin. The text of the letter is below.

June 22, 2005
The Honorable Pat Roberts, Chairman
The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV, Vice Chairman
United States Senate Select Committee on IntelligenceSH-211
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller:
We write concerning your committee's vital examination of pre-war Iraq intelligence failures. In particular, we urge you to accelerate to completion the work of the so-called "Phase II" effort to assess how policy makers used the intelligence they received. Last year your committee completed the first phase of a two-phased effort to review the pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Phase I-begun in the summer of 2003 and completed in the summer of 2004-examined the performance of the American intelligence community in the collection and analysis of intelligence prior to the war, including an examination of the quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence on ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and terrorist groups. At the conclusion of Phase I, your committee issued an unclassified report that made an important contribution to the American public's understanding of the issues involved.

In February 2004-well over a year ago-the committee agreed to expand the scope of inquiry to include a second phase which would examine the use of intelligence by policy makers, the comparison of pre-war assessments and post-war findings, the activities of the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the Office of Special Plans in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the use of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress.

The committee's efforts have taken on renewed urgency given recent revelations in the United Kingdom regarding the apparent minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior national security advisors. These minutes-known as the "Downing Street Memo"-raise troubling questions about the use of intelligence by American policy makers-questions that your committee is uniquely situated to address.The memo indicates that in the summer of 2002, at a time the White House was promising Congress and the American people that war would be their last resort, that they believed military action against Iraq was "inevitable."

The minutes reveal that President "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The American people took the warnings that the administration sounded seriously-warnings that were echoed at the United Nations and here in Congress as we voted to give the president the authority to go to war. For the sake of our democracy and our future national security, the public must know whether such warnings were driven by facts and responsible intelligence, or by political calculation.

These issues need to be addressed with urgency. This remains a dangerous world, with merican forces engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other challenges looming in Iran and North Korea. In this environment, the American public should have the highest confidence that policy makers are using intelligence objectively-never manipulating it to justify war, but always to protect the United States. The contents of the Downing Street Memo undermine this faith and only rigorous Congressional oversight can determine the truth.We urge the committee to complete the second phase of its investigation with the maximum speed and transparency possible, producing, as it did at the end of Phase I, a comprehensive, unclassified report from which the American people can benefit directly.
************************************
So there it is. And what will Sen Kerry and the other signers do if R&R do nothing?
Wrap.

| 2 comments

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Gotta know when to fold 'em..

...and apparently Japan has decided the time is now:

Japan Suspends Mission in Iraq
23 June 2005 17:36
FOCUS News Agency
Tokyo.

Government of Japan has decided to suspend the mission of the Japanese contingent in Iraq, announced the Secretary General of Japan’s Government Hiryuki Hosoda, cited by ITAR-TASS. The decision was taken after the latest attack in Iraq, when a vehicle of the Japanese forces was damaged. No Japanese soldiers were wounded in the attack.
Wrap.

| 0 comments

SCOTUS votes 5 to 4...

...and the Repub 5 won. So now nobody REALLY owns property if the powers
that be decide they want it for some damned developer who is gonna make some
money for them. This is outrageous! Read on:

US Supreme Court Rules on Property Seizures
By Jim Malone Washington23 June 2005

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a major ruling Thursday on the power of the
government to seize private property for economic development projects.
A sharply divided high court ruled by a vote of five to four that local governments
do have the right to seize private property against the will of the owner if it leads
to economic development that benefits the community.

The decision is expected to give local governments around the country more
power to seize homes and businesses for economic growth projects such as
shopping malls and hotels that would spur economic development and generate
greater tax revenues.

The case stemmed from a dispute in New London, Connecticut, where some
local homeowners had filed suit to block the city from seizing their property
to build a riverfront hotel and other businesses.

Wesley Horton is an attorney for the city of New London. He says the Supreme
Court ruling will be a boon to spurring economic development in cities around
the country.

"Otherwise, all you can do is go into blighted areas, which means you are picking
on the poor people, the minority people and this means that economic
development can go where it is best to go," he said.

Bill Von Winkle is one of the New London homeowners fighting to block seizure
of his property. He says he will not give up and will refuse to leave his home.
"This is bad for the country. Any home, any business can be taken," he said.

Writing for the court majority, Justice John Paul Stevens supported the right
of the city to seize property and said local officials know best about which
economic development projects will benefit their community.

Writing for the minority side, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor countered that cities
should not have unlimited power to uproot families and that the main
beneficiaries of the ruling will be wealthy developers and corporations who back
the development projects.

The decision takes into account the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment,
which allows local governments to seize land for public use.

A public interest law firm representing the homeowners said that more than
10,000 properties have been threatened with government seizure over the
past few years.
Wrap...

| 2 comments

Media competition in San Diego..

Some years ago, the Copleys decided to shut down San Diego's 2nd newspaper, the Evening Tribune, thereby losing one top investigative reporter, Roy Schneider. So San Diego was left with just one conservative paper, the San Diego Union-Tribune. Then, the U-T decided to rid themselves of three of their top columnists: James O Goldsborough, Neil Morgan, and Michael Grant. Major mistake. Major mistake because doing so caused the creation of the new online newspaper, VoiceofSanDiego.org Result? San Diego now has their columnists back. This is good. These guys don't mince words:

Corruption
By JAMES O. GOLDSBOROUGH
Voice Guest ColumnistThursday
June 23, 2005

From Washington to San Diego, Americans' trust in government is in steep decline. There's hardly a week that goes by without some new story about elected officials at all levels of government putting personal interest ahead of the public good, using public office to feather their nests and reward friends, family, party and campaign contributors. It has become a national disease.

American government has long had an undercurrent of corruption, and any high school history student recognizes names like Credit Mobilier, Boss Tweed, Mark Hanna, Tammany Hall, Teapot Dome and Watergate. But we flatter ourselves that the situation has improved with time, and that government reforms plus the vigilance of a watchdog media has contributed to greater honesty in government. Maybe we can't stop them, but we can catch them.

The fact is, however, that public trust in government is slipping. Going through polls to see what Americans thought about recent media stories involving CBS News, Newsweek and the use of anonymous sources, I was surprised to see that trust in government has slipped drastically relative to trust in the media over the past two decades. The media's use of anonymous sources, according to a recent ABC-Washington Post poll, is approved by two-thirds of Americans precisely because they feel it helps shine daylight on government shenanigans.

I was reminded of this in reading Neil Morgan's Voice column last week that mentions the Union-Tribune editor kept him, as a U-T columnist, from using anonymous sources to report on corruption in local government.

Sometimes anonymous sources are the only sources. Without Watergate's Deep Throat, who has just come forward, we wouldn't have known of the Nixon administration's crimes. Without anonymous sources, we wouldn't know of Enron's crimes, which did so much damage to California. The public's waning trust in government showed in The New York Times-CBS poll published last week on President Bush and the Congress. Bush's 51 percent approval rating in November -- low for an incumbent but enough to get him re-elected -- has slipped to 42 percent. Americans don't like his Iraq war and don't like his plans for Social Security -- both items, these disapproving Americans must know, that were strong planks in his re-election platform. As for the Republican Congress, riding hell-bent to destroy the checks and balance system that does what it can to keep government honest, public approval of Congress is at 33 percent.

Where were these disapproving voices in November? Were they not paying attention, did they not vote, did they believe it was more important to support a party than principled government? Did they put pet issues like creationism, stem cells, inheritance taxes and Mount Soledad crosses ahead of honesty, probity, balance and transparency in government?

In San Diego, we can no longer point only at Washington when we talk of bad government. Our mayor, incompetent, is resigning. City council members are charged with taking bribes from what used to be called the mob. A jury will decide if they are guilty or innocent of the charges, but they are at least guilty of criminal stupidity. Our city attorney has proved to be such a loose cannon that he cannot even keep his own department functioning. And then there is Randy Cunningham, the Rancho Santa Fe congressman who likes to be known as "Duke," because he thinks he's John Wayne.

Give Marcus Stern credit. The U-T Washington reporter somehow got his story on Cunningham's flimflam past a Union-Tribune management that for years has regarded its primary role as protecting Republicans in office. How did he do it?

My guess is that there are people at the Union-Tribune who are fed up. They've seen the silencing of voices at the newspaper that did their jobs and they've seen the effect that silencing has had on the newspaper's reputation. When I quit the newspaper in December over a column killed by owner David Copley, I said I hoped some good would come from my resignation. Maybe it has.

A word about the Union-Tribune management: Neil Morgan doesn't talk about this so I'll do it for him. Without Morgan, there would have been no Helen and David Copley. It was Morgan who encouraged the 30-year-old Helen Kinney, who'd come here from Iowa with her two-year-old son David and whom he'd met downtown in 1953, to apply for a job at the Union-Tribune as secretary. She got the job and later married the boss, Jim Copley, who adopted her son.

When David Copley allowed his accountant, who runs the company, to fire Morgan last year, he was taking vengeance against the man who made him into the wealthy Republican socialite-publisher with fast cars and several houses in La Jolla that he is. Had Morgan lost his stuff, one would not complain. There comes a time for all of us. But Morgan was not fired because he couldn't do the job, but because he did it too well -- as he shows in the Voice week after week. The accountant didn't like that.

Cunningham is as inadequate a congressional representative as a community can have, and like his colleague, Duncan Hunter, hides his inadequacies behind the reputation of "being a friend of the military." For years, no matter what incompetence that phrase hid, it was enough to win Union-Tribune support and get elected in San Diego. Older San Diegans remember how Jim Copley and the Union-Tribune passionately opposed construction of the Coronado Bridge in the 1960s because one, the Navy said it was a risk to national security, and two, it was the brainchild of Gov. Pat Brown, a Democrat.

We'll find out next November -- if Cunningham has the bad taste to stand again -- whether San Diego is still willing to elect just anyone because he is a Republican. The people of Rancho Santa Fe and Del Mar will have to decide: Cunningham may be a knave, but he's a Republican knave.

James O. Goldsborough has written on foreign affairs for four decades, both from the United States and abroad, where he worked as a foreign correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune, International Herald Tribune, and Newsweek magazine for 14 years, reporting from more than 40 countries. Most recently, he was a columnist for The San Diego Union-Tribune.
***********************************
Hah! And in spite of electing these Republican incompetents, San Diego is not a Republican city. Many more Dems are registered here than are Repubs, but they've previously gotten their news from the conservatives via the U-T alone. No more. Not with the Voice of San Diego up and running!
Wrap.

| 0 comments

There's a limit, dammit!

And it seems that this GOP candidate has reached hers:

Republican candidate calls Bush Admin 'Nazis,' quits party
Raw Story

The following is excerpted from the Lincoln Tribune. Their servers went down when we linked to it directly. The North Carolina Supreme Court Justice candidate's personal website is available here.

Cary, NC - A candidate for North Carolina Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court has announced on her campaign's blog that she is leaving the Republican Party and denounced the Bush administration's policy on troop withdrawal from Iraq. Rachel Lea Hunter, a Republican and a candidate for Chief Justice, likens Bush’s administration to the “Nazis” and says that all who disagree with the administration are being branded as “traitors”.

Hunter is an attorney in Durham, NC with the firm of Browne, Flebotte, Wilson, Horn & Webb. Hunter’s web page says she offers pre-paid legal services. Hunter ran unsuccessfully in 2004 for the North Carolina Appeals Court. She recently announced her intent to run for the Supreme Court.

In her statement, Hunter expresses anger at former Charlotte Mayor Richard Vinroot for unsubscribing to her campaign’s email list. Hunter, who is a former volunteer for Vinroot’s gubernatorial campaign, was angry that Vinroot asked to unsubscribe to her campaign’s email list after an announcement that she was recovering from a recent surgery.

Hunter continues her assault on other elected Republicans as well as party leaders. The letter launches criticisms at NCGOP Chairman, Ferrell Blount, for a lawsuit that was brought against the NC Republican party for an illegal contribution it received from a national group. The NC party agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and return the money. The GOP however never spent the money donated because of questions as to whether it was legal.

On her blog, she declared:
"Republican dirty tricks are not confined to just me any more. I also saw that Congressman Jones made the news by calling for a withdrawal of our troops. Whatever one may think about the war, one should ask when the mission will be over and when the troops can come home. Are we going to stay indefinitely? While it is nice that we are building Iraq, what about America? And what about the cost? Why do the Americans have to foot the bill when we can ill afford it? These are all legitimate questions to ask. Congressman Jones did nothing more than make a proposal to start pulling out.

"But it seems that the administration in Washington will brook no criticism of its policies. So it has sent out its dutiful attack dogs to shoot the messenger. What have we heard? That Walter Jones is a member of the lunatic fringe. That Walter Jones should resign. Its the same stuff that COPAM pulled on me, only this time its orchestrated by those in Washington instead of those in Raleigh.

"What I find disturbing is that we are criticized for nothing more than the exercise of our Constitutional rights. Those who disagree with any aspect of the administration are branded as traitors and must be silenced. I thought the previous administration was bad because of the amorality. This is far worse.

"There is a famous poem about the Nazis of Germany - first they came for one group, then another, but the writer did not speak up. And then they came for the writer and there was no one left to speak up. The administration is acting like the Nazis. I will not be quiet. I agree with Congressman Jones that we should ask the administration the tough questions and that we should begin to withdraw."
**********************************
Good for her, I say. Seems to me that BushCo is getting better and better at cutting their own throats.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Weisman & the CIA...

So many times, new writers of fiction ask published writers where they get their ideas. Well, it depends on just who that writer is, the contacts he/she has, the people he/she knows who trust the writer enough to talk honestly to them. Weisman is such a writer, and here he talks about how he came to write his latest novel, Direct Action. Why? is the question. The answer is, as I've said before...writers can tell more truth in fiction than in nonfiction. So, Weisman writes:

John Weisman: Direct Action

John Weisman is one of the select company of writers to have had books on both the New York Times fiction and nonfiction bestseller lists. His acclaimed short stories have twice been selected for Best American Mystery Stories. A former journalist, Weisman has worked in more than three dozen countries.

About two-and-a-half years ago, a retired CIA contact of mine -- I'll give him the pseudonym Edward C. STIGGINS -- told me that in the mid-1990s he'd had a part in writing the internal damage assessment Langley had conducted in the wake of the Aldrich Ames debacle. Aldrich Hazen Ames, for those of you who may have forgotten, is the traitorous turncoat CIA officer who betrayed dozens of CIA's precious Soviet human assets and turned over untold quantities of information concerning America's intelligence operations, sources, and methods to the Russians for cash.

One ambitious way to solve the hemorrhage caused by Ames, STIGGINS said, would have been to create a new and wholly clandestine directorate of operations within the existing directorate of operations. "Completely sterile. New people, new compartments, new everything."

STIGGINS paused. "Of course Deutch would never have gone for it -- it was far too risky a concept for Deutch and his people." Deutch was John M. Deutch, Bill Clinton's director of central intelligence. And Deutch's people were deputy DCI George Tenet and executive director "Tora-Tora" Nora Slatkin, neither of whom had any background in running or overseeing real-world intelligence operations or personnel before they'd been appointed to their jobs. Neither, for that matter, did Deutch, a tall, bumbling, angular, bookish MIT professor of chemistry and Pentagon bureaucrat who'd had no experience at all in the smoke-and-mirrors world of intelligence and espionage prior to his selection as the chief of America's spy apparatus.

STIGGINS put his wine glass down. "It was a good idea -- a small, nimble, aggressive covert DO inside the big, sluggish, bureaucratic overt DO." He looked at me slyly. "And wouldn't that make one hell of a book."

In December of 2003 I was sitting in Les Gourmets des Ternes, a restaurant on the boulevard de Courcelles in Paris, just off the Place des Ternes. I was lunching with an Iranian contact I will call Shahram Shahristani. Shahristani is a former one-star general in the Iranian Army. Under the shah, he ran one of Iran's top-line military intelligence units. "I will tell you something CIA doesn't know," Shahram said between bites of sole meunière. "Imad Mugniyah visited Gaza in the past year. He went there on behalf of the Seppah-e Pasdaran -- Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps."

I hadn't heard a whisper and told him so. "Still, it is true," he said. "He was there to coordinate the creation of Hezbollah cells in Gaza and the West Bank. Hezbollah terrorists will work alongside Fatah's al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad."

That caught my attention. After Usama bin Laden, Imad Mugniyah is the most wanted terrorist in the world. "From whom did you hear this, Shahram?"

"There is a man," he said. "Said is his name. An Iranian officer. For years he was liaison between Arafat and the Revolutionary Guard Corps. He worked with Imad Mugniyah. Lately, he has become disenchanted. I heard about Mugniyah from him." Shahristani put his fork down. "But to your CIA I am persona non grata." Shahristani poured himself some Evian water and sipped. "CIA," he said, "is rotten clear through. All they do at Paris station is sit around writing emails to each other. The place should be burned to the ground and razed. And the fact that that Imad Mugniyah and Usama bin Laden cooperate-that Iran and al-Qa'ida have a relationship? They want to know nothing. " He put his Evian down and stared at me, his eyes intense. "You should write a book about it."

Soon after I got back from Paris I went to a cocktail party in Northern Virginia. I fell into conversation with a CIA annuitant I know casually. I'll call him Walter S. MORRIS. In 2002, MORRIS returned to Langley on a contract basis to help train non official cover intelligence officers, commonly referred to as NOCs. Unlike the case officers who work under official cover, NOCs work without a net. "How's it going?" I asked MORRIS. "You still at Langley?"

"Nah," he said. "You have no idea how bad things are these days. I bailed."

That was an opening wide enough to drive a six-by through. "Like, how bad is it?"

"It took us some time, but we were able to identify a sizeable number of potentially ideal NOC candidates," MORRIS said. "They were exactly the sort of people we need the most these days. They were all foreign born and so they had native-speaker language capability. They all held dual citizenship, and best of all, they all had current passports for their former countries. They could -- and they did -- come and go. They were exactly the sort of covert intelligence officers the 9/11 Commission had recommended in its report."

"Sounds terrific."

"It was terrific. All we needed was money -- a supplementary funding package for their training."

That made sense. Dual nationals must be kept under ultra deep-cover. Ideally, you don't send dual-national NOCs to the Farm, which is the commonly used sobriquet d'espionage for Camp Peary, CIA's massive clandestine training facility near Williamsburg, Virginia. Basic Common-sense OPSEC dictates that dual national NOCs be treated specially: trained in secret, one by one, in safe houses and in total isolation. They should never go near Langley. They should never mix with anyone from the clandestine service except for their handlers.


I looked at MORRIS. "They must have been ecstatic."

MORRIS shook his head, "I was told there'd be no supplemental unless we took every one of these people to Langley and blue-badged them first. I was told they'd never be trusted unless they were formally brought in and sworn."

"Whose decision was that?"

MORRIS drained his gin on the rocks and rolled his eyes skyward. "My guess? Seventh floor. But who knows for sure. And then I heard they wanted to train the NOCs as a group -- send them all down to the Farm." He shook his head. "The place is completely dysfunctional." He looked at me. "You should write a book."

There are still some good people at CIA. Hardworking, talented, and dedicated. Unfortunately, for most of the past couple of decades, they have been led by bunglers, bureaucrats, incompetents, naifs, amateurs and dilettantes. CIA's downward spiral began in earnest with Jimmy Carter's director of central intelligence, Admiral Stansfield Turner. Turner, a technocrat who mistrusted human-sourced intelligence, took office in March of 1977. Four months later he announced his intention to reduce the directorate of operations by 800 people. Turner kept his word -- and decimated the DO. At the same time, Congress established detailed ground rules laying out how and when CIA had to inform the intelligence oversight committees about covert action. Once that procedure was in place, a steady stream of leaks about CIA's covert and clandestine programs and activities began to flow off Capitol Hill and into the media.

There was a brief respite during the tenure of William J. Casey, but after Casey's death the decline continued precipitously under William H. Webster and Robert M. Gates. The cautious Judge Webster was known in-house as "the stealth DCI." Gates, a career analyst who was well-known within CIA circles to detest the directorate of operations, instituted a DO personnel policy he called "cross-fertilization," under which analysts, reports officers and even secretaries were brought into the DO as case officers.

R. James Woolsey, President Bill Clinton's first DCI, may not have been an incompetent, but he couldn't get an appointment at the White House. In fact, after a deranged individual named Frank Eugene Corder stole a small airplane and crashed it into the southwest corner of the Executive Mansion directly below the president's bedroom in 1994, wags at Langley joked that the pilot had in fact been Woolsey, making one last desperate attempt to see Clinton.

In 1995, in the wake of the Ames scandal, Clinton replaced Woolsey with John Deutch, the MIT chemistry professor. And Deutch named as his deputy George Tenet, a former congressional staffer. And with them came le déluge. So by the time Tenet politicked his way into the CIA directorship in July of 1997, the directorate of operations was already a shambles. But Tenet burnt it to the ground.

Here's a partial -- and I emphasize the word -- list of SNAFUs, TARFUs, and FUBARs that occurred on Tenet's watch, either as director or as deputy director.

So as not to offend a politically correct Congress, Langley jettisoned scores of productive agents because they had committed alleged human rights violations or had criminal records. Valuable networks -- including the sorts of agents capable of penetrating terrorist cells, totalitarian governments, and narco-organizations -- were lost.

Rationalizing that with the Cold War over and it was time to save money, CIA either closed down many of its Sub-Saharan African stations or staffed them with annuitants. Langley also shut down many of CIA's bases in Western European cities. The result? CIA became increasingly deaf, dumb, and blind at the same time al Qa'ida was expanding its operational turf to include Western Europe and Africa.

Language skills languished. There were few Arab speakers, and virtually no one who could speak Pashto, Farsi, or Dari. Islamist cells in Western Europe went unnoticed because there were no case officers in Germany or London with any Arabic. Hence no penetration or access agents could be recruited. CIA was essentially blind, but didn't know it.

The DO, larded through as it was with scores of Gates's "crossfertilization" personnel, became less and less capable of performing its core mission -- spotting, assessing, developing, and recruiting spies on behalf of the United States. But Tenet did little to remedy the situation, with the result that CIA became hugely dependent on its liaison relationships with other intelligence agencies for handouts of human-sourced intelligence. And how did all those missteps play out on the world stage?

The Indians tested a nuclear weapon, but CIA knew nothing about it.
CIA mistakenly bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
North Korea started reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods but CIA was in the dark until the North Koreans themselves announced what they'd done.
Al-Qa'ida was able to launch well-planned simultaneous attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and against the USS Cole in Yemen.
On September 11, 2001, thousands of Americans were murdered in a brutal, well-planned, well-executed act of war against the United States about which CIA had been essentially blind. And yet incredibly Tenet later told a the 9/11 commission that what took place on September 11, 2001 was not an intelligence failure. "Failure," Tenet claimed, "means no focus, no attention, no discipline -- and those were not present in what either we or the FBI did here and around the world."

Tenet's CIA fumbled the WMD intelligence issue prior to the invasion of Iraq. Despite this, according to Washington uber-reporter Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack," Tenet told President George W. Bush that the proof Saddam had WMD was "a slam dunk." Now George Tenet doesn't bear sole responsibility. The United States Congress deserves a huge share of the blame for the sorry condition of our intelligence community, or IC. After all, for all those years of decay, rot, political correctness, and risk aversion under Turner, and Webster, and Gates, and Woolsey, and Deutch, and Tenet, the two congressional oversight committees responsible for making sure the IC was functional and the DO was efficient had their collective heads stuck in the legislative sand, and essentially did nothing to remedy the situation.

One year before 9/11, HPSCI, the House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence, barely mentioned terrorism in its FY 2001 report. The committee was more worried about the security of State Department laptops than it was about Usama bin Laden. The Senate was no better. Just a few months before 9/11, Sen. Richard Shelby, who headed the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, abbreviated SSCI and pronounced, appropriately, "Sissy," returned from a tour of CIA's Middle East stations. He told the Washington Post that from what he'd gleaned from our intelligence people on the ground, he believed Bin Laden was "on the run."

Just as bad, by not taking a tough love approach to oversight and demanding results, Congress for decades looked on from the sidelines as CIA failed in its mission. Indeed, by its own unconscionable dereliction of duty, it could be argued Congress tacitly encouraged CIA leadership to create the current IC culture, which rewards failure with promotions and cash incentives, while stifling creativity, out of the box thinking, and audacity.

And the more I thought about the mess we're in, the more I realized that STIGGINS, MORRIS, Shahram, and others who'd told me horror stories were right: I should write a book about the current state of CIA. Which is how DIRECT ACTION (published on June 14 2005 by William Morrow; $24.95; and available at bookstores everywhere and on Amazon) came to be written.

DIRECT ACTION is about an American intelligence community that is so operationally dysfunctional that it even has to outsource its core mission, the collecting of human intelligence. Indeed, HUMINT-gathering by private firms and CIA subcontractors is something that is actually taking place as you are reading this article. And even though DIRECT ACTION is a work of fiction, the book is built on the real-world stories told to me by people like STIGGINS, MORRIS, Shahristani, and dozens of other world class operators.

I'm talking about true American heroes. Covert warriors who have spent the best parts of their lives in the worst places on earth. Case officers who, despite the never-ending torrent of "thou-shalt-not" memos pouring out of Langley, still panned for intelligence gold. Case officers who put their careers on the line simply by doing what they'd been hired to do: spotting, assessing, developing, recruiting, and running unilateral agents and networks that might, just might, provide the United States with a hint of our adversaries' intentions and capabilities.

It is unfortunate that many of these shadow warriors came to understand during the last few decades that the toughest battles they'd face would not be against Usama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Taliban, or even Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Iraqi terrorist combatants. The bloodiest combat -- and the most casualties -- would occur during the constant, grinding, take-no-prisoners bureaucratic war against audacity, creativity, and daring that was being waged day-in, day-out in the corridors of CIA headquarters by the very people who were supposed to lead, inspire, and protect them.

© Copyright 2005 John Weisman. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.
************************************************
So there you have it...how this particular novel came to exist.
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Aha!

Author, TJ Waters, emailed to tell me two things...it's been really tough getting contractors down in Florida after the hurricanes and all to get his house built, but it's finally done. Second thing is that his nonfiction, Class 11, has a pub date of March, 2006. Class 11 is the story of the first CIA class formed after 9/11. Waters was in it, so he knows whereof he writes. I may perish before I get hands on Class 11 in March, 2006! The wait seems endless, but I'm damned if I won't get hold of that book one way or the other. Meanwhile, Waters is working on a novel. Just remember this truism: You can tell more truth in fiction than you can in nonfiction...and every writer knows it.

Woo-hoo!!! Now here is another novel just found in the latest Publishers Lunch list concerning those new US works that have sold to foreign publishers that I'm about to order up:

ForeignRights to Raymond Khoury's first novel, LAST TEMPLAR, a thriller about the hunt to find four horsemen dressed as Knights Templar, who storm the opening night of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and steal artifacts, including an arcane medieval decoder, to Rowohlt in Germany; Presses de la Cite in France; House of Books in Holland; Cicero in Denmark; Damm in Norway; Prisma in Sweden; Tammi in Finland; Ediouro in Brazil; Urano in Spain; Sonia Draga in Poland; Ucila in Slovenia; Livani in Greece; with auctions underway elsewhere, by the William Morris Agency.

Ziji publishes in the UK in July 2005, and Dutton has US rights.
TFisher@wma.com
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Penguin/Klein disgust...

...every decent person, but not the indecent. The publication of this book tells what the standards of both publisher and author are...and they're lower than a snake's belly. How these people can hold their heads up is beyond me. Read on:

Anatomy of a Right-Wing Smear Campaign

Penguin -- the same company that publishes The Canterbury Tales, Treasure Island and Leaves of Grass -- has lended its imprimatur to a book of right-wing smears against Sen. Hillary Clinton. In an effort to make a few quick bucks, Penguin has published a book by Edward Klein called "The Truth About Hillary" which, despite its title, is filled with false, defamatory and easily discredited allegations against the former First Lady. Predictably, Klein's sloppy attempt at character assassination has been championed by pillars of the right-wing media like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Robert Novak. Write Penguin and tell them their involvement in this kind of smear campaign is unacceptable.

BOOK LACKS BASIC FACT-CHECKING: On Page 94 of the book Klein, "introduces Nancy Pietrafesa, whose name he misspells throughout, as someone 'rumored to be Hillary's lesbian lover.'" (It's just one of many instances of "gay-baiting innuendo" that litter the book. In an interview about the book Klein asks rhetorically, "What kind of woman is purposefully surrounding herself as a public figure with women known to be lesbians?") Ms. Pietrafesa, who has been married 35 years and is the mother of three sons, calls the allegations "totally false and unsubstantiated." Moreover, Klein "did not even bother to contact her before repeating a false rumor as if it might be true." That the allegation made it into print anyway "suggests a serious lack of due diligence on the part of Mr. Klein" and Penguin. Now, even Klein won't stand behind the allegations he printed. In an interview, Klein said, "If she had had lesbian affairs, don't you think the right-wingers would have uncovered at least one lover?" It is not an isolated incident. Throughout the book, "the author repeats rumors and then footnotes them to a prior author who referenced the rumors."

KLEIN REPEATS LIES DISCREDITED BY KEN STARR: In an interview with the National Review, Klein claimed that "Like Nixon, Hillary has used FBI files against her enemies." This allegation has been rejected by the Office of the Independent Counsel, which was led for many months by Ken Starr. In a 7/28/00 release, the OIC concluded "no senior White House official, or Mrs. Clinton, was involved in obtaining FBI background reports." But Klein, like Nixon, has little respect for the truth.

RIGHT-WING MEDIA PARROTS KLEIN'S LIES: No need to check the facts, the right-wing media knows what it wants to hear. Rush Limbaugh on his June 7 show said, "I've got some interesting, juicy details on this book on Hillary by Ed Klein, but I'm not going to be the first to mention them. I'm not going there. It will come out eventually. It has to do with sexual orientation, and I'm not going to be the one." Matt Drudge used the Klein's book as a source to claim that Bill Clinton raped Hillary to conceive Chelsea. (Klein now claims that Drudge took information in his book "out of context." Which makes one wonder: what is the appropriate context for a false rape allegation?) As noted by Media Matters, Sean Hannity has booked Klein for a spot on his show. And Robert Novak, the nationally-syndicated columnist, said on CNN that Klein's work "looks to me like a well-attributed book; it doesn't look like gossip to me." Meanwhile, several prominent conservative bloggers say the book doesn't meet their ethical standards.

KLEIN PROUD OF SWIFT BOAT COMPARISON: Last summer, John O'Neill - the leader of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - printed a thinly-sourced, widely-discredited book full of unfounded allegations about John Kerry's military service. Klein welcomes the comparison. He told the National Review, "I intended my book to take a good hard look at Hillary's true character, and if the book is being compared to the Swift Boat Vets' book on that account, then I am proud of the comparison .
*****************************************
You know, a writer can say almost anything about a public person, and because they are public, get away with it, because that public person is public and can't sue. But there are limits. You'd think there would be limits to greed too, but looking at this publisher and author, it seems they don't have any. Given that the book is selling like crazy to the hard right citizens across the nation, both Penguin and Klein's pocketbooks are fattening. Given what writing and publishing such a book says about them, one hopes they're pleased with the cash they're getting. Of course if one has no character, has no ethics, no honesty, no decency, money is all that counts.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

In your dreams, buddy...

When it comes to Downing Street and impeaching Bush, there's not a hell of a lot I can add to what Mark Morford wrote this morning, so here's what he had to say:

Downing Street Is For Liars
Why aren't the media screaming about the latest proofs of Bush's war scams? Don't you know?
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, June 22, 2005

This is the white-hot question right now gushing forth from many on the Left, from progressive blogs and liberal patriots and blue staters and angry anti-Bushers alike, and it is like a plea, a rallying call, an indignant stomp of deep frustration. It is this:
Why are major American media not swarming all over the Downing Street Memos thing? Why is the entire nation not just appalled and disgusted and aghast at finding seemingly irrefutable proofs about what we all already knew, which is that BushCo planned to invade Iraq long before 9/11 and needed to find a way to justify it?

And, we now know, he was even willing to go so far as to rig the intelligence and "fix the facts" and screw the U.S. economy and screw any sort of exit strategy and screw the potential for lost lives and let's just blindly stomp on in there and bomb the living crap outta Saddam despite the undeniable pre-Iraq evidence that Saddam had zero WMDs and that his nuclear program was "effectively frozen," and despite how BushCo and the CIA and FBI and DOD and the Clinton administration and your grandma all knew it?

This is what the infamous Downing Street Memos allegedly contain, more undeniable proofs in the form of meeting notes with higher-ups in Britain and the U.S., talking about the supposedly "dire" threat of WMDs and nailing Iraq well before Bush was handed the tragic and morose political gift of 9/11 to leverage and whore and turn into his own personal Jesus.
And to be sure, the outcry from the Left is healthy and good and appropriate and only now are a handful of newspapers and magazines (you go, Newsweek) taking up the Downing Street Memo debacle, asking slightly more inflamed questions of BushCo.

So then, why aren't U.S. media roaring more angrily about this? Why aren't the major players up in arms and trumpeting banner headlines and screaming for Bush to answer for his obvious and plentiful crimes against the nation and the Earth and peace?

Answer: Because it's not really news. Not anymore.

Because, to be honest, what the memos actually reveal is not quite as much as the Left wishes they did, and while they certainly do reveal that Bush is a noted liar and distorter of fact and that we can easily deduce that his snarling war hawks torqued the Brits into complicity and mangled the U.N. laws and misled the American people into war perhaps more deviously and violently than any administration in recent American history, well, there is not a single thing in the words you just read that most of us did not already know.

It's true. There is, unfortunately, nothing here that not already been trumpeted to death by the Left, and therefore to try to trumpet it all again as some sort of irrefutable revelation that should change the face and temperament of the nation is sort of like beating a dead horse we all knew was already dead but that is only now taking on a new dimension of stink.

Look at it this way: The majority of the nation knows Bush lied like a dog to drive us into an unwinnable (but, for his cronies, incredibly profitable) war. The rest either refuse to believe it, or they claim, with equal parts ignorance and blind jingoism, that the ends (ousting a pip-squeak dictator who was no real threat to anyone and who had been successfully contained for 20 years) justify the means ($200 billion, 1,700 dead Americans, over 10,000 wounded and disabled U.S. soldiers, countless tens of thousands of dead innocent Iraqis, staggering economic debt, the open disrespect -- if not outright contempt -- of the entire international community).
Here is the American cynic's view: It is almost too late to care about the lies. It is almost pointless to scream and rant and point fingers of blame. We all know who is to blame, and it ain't Saddam, and it ain't Osama, and it ain't "terror," and it ain't our "freedoms." Bush has driven us so deep into the Iraq hellhole it serves almost no purpose to whine about the obvious deceptions and blatant whorelike pre-9/11 machinations that got us here.

We are now, instead, focused on endurance. On gritting teeth and getting through and getting the hell out of this new Vietnam Bush has imbecilically driven us into, all while surviving 3.5 more years of one of the most abusive, secretive cadres of warmongering leadership in American history.

Oh, and rest assured, Iraq is indeed a new Vietnam. The parallels are undeniable and mounting -- all the elements are in place: staggering civilian death tolls, inmate abuse and torture, international embarrassment, economic pillaging, executive impudence, a vicious drive toward empire and power, a false sense of "victory" and the overpowering sense we are so deeply entrenched in this violent, chaotic quagmire, it will take many more years and many thousands of more U.S. dead and countless more billions before we are anywhere near stabilization.
But oh, you might cry (and this column might regularly wail), shouldn't Bush be held accountable? Shouldn't he be made to answer for these lies, these obvious abuses of power?
Answer: You're goddamn right he should. He should also be strapped to an incredibly uncomfortable chair and made to look at the smoking bones of ten thousand dead Iraqi children. But that's just me.

The lies that led us into this war are indeed staggering, appalling, make Clinton's lies about his stupid little affair sound like, well, a stupid little affair. As Dubya's tanking poll ratings prove, even many moderate Republicans are backing away from calling Iraq a success, or even a necessary action. And Dems have recently begun demanding that BushCo develop some kind of exit strategy to begin pulling out U.S. troops within a year.

BushCo's answer? No way in hell, bucko. Impossible. And why? Because we are in way too deep. The violence is escalating, not dying down. Every major U.S. general, strategist, policy wonk says we are far too screwed to leave anytime soon. And "Mission accomplished" has become perhaps the most tragic punch line to one of the most bitter jokes ever told in your lifetime.

Let's just say it outright: Of course Bush deserves to be impeached. But of course Bush will not be impeached, because impeachment requires a massive federal investigation and an act of Congress and the support of countless senators and representatives, and right now the GOP controls Congress with a little iron penis, and therefore any sort of uprising or scandal or suggestion of punishment gets immediately slammed down or scoffed away or buried under an avalanche of shrugs and yawns and neoconservative smugness. Isn't that right, Mr. Gannon? Mr. DeLay? Abu Ghraib? Gitmo? Saddam? Et al.

BushCo survived the illegal sanctioning of inhumane torture. They survived a gay male prostitute acting as a journalist. They survived Enron and Diebold and the rigging of the first election and they will survive Downing Street simply because all the people who should be on the attack about these atrocities all work for the guys who committed them.

So then, the question is not merely when will the stack of lies, of abuses become so high, so unstable, so inexcusable that the entire nation finally takes notice and the whole house of cards comes crashing to the ground in a big nasty soul-jarring spirit-cleansing patriotism-redefining whoomp and smothers the whole lot of them, but rather, can it be soon enough?

And to that question, we all know the answer.

Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.
Subscribe to this column here
Mark's column archives are here
The RSS feed for Mark's column is here
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Molly Ivins on Downing Street Memos.

Molly, in the Sacremento Bee, online, has some stringent thoughts about the Downing Street Memos (plural) and the major media reaction to them...


Molly Ivins: We can't ignore the Downing Street Memos

By Molly Ivins
Published 2:15 am PDT Tuesday, June 21, 2005
AUSTIN, Texas

I hope this is not too Inside Baseball, but I am genuinely astonished by what the bloggers call "Mainstream Media." (In my youth, it was quaintly called "the Establishment press.")
The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times have all gone way out of their way to deny that the Downing Street Memos (it's now plural) are news. Like many of you, during the entire lead-up to the war with Iraq, I thought the whole thing was a set-up.

I raise this point not to prove how smart we are, but to emphasize that I followed the debate closely and probably unconsciously searched for evidence that reinforced what I already thought. Most people do that. I read some of the European press and most of the liberal publications in this country. I read the Times, the Post, the Wall Street Journal and several Texas papers every day. It's my job.

But when I read the first Downing Street Memo, my eyes bugged out and my jaw fell open. I could not believe what I was reading. It was news to me, and as I have tried to indicate, I'm no slouch at keeping up. Yes, it has long seemed to me the administration had been planning the war for months before it began its pubic relations campaign to scare a skeptical public.
That was no easy task. Public opinion was still evenly divided at the time we invaded. The administration actually said it could invade another country without even consulting Congress or the United Nations. Pretty much everything that followed was a charade.

It was always weird that the White House kept saying it knew Saddam Hussein had WMD, but it would never tell the U.N. inspectors where. Yes, I suspected all that, but I was not the head of British intelligence in the summer of 2002, for pity's sake.

Here are some aggravating factors. Tom Friedman, columnist for The New York Times, recently wrote that "liberals" no longer want to talk about the war because we were against it to start with and probably hope it ends in disaster. Good Lord, who does he think we are? Does this man actually think we are out here cheering every time another American is killed?

Mr. Friedman, real, actual, honest-to-God American liberals are out here in the heartland, and we know the kids who are dying in Iraq. They are from our hometowns. We know their parents. That's why we hate this war. That's why we tried to tell everybody else it was a ghastly idea.
We are not sitting here gloating because it is the horrible mess we said it would be. We're in agony. There is nothing pleasurable about being a Cassandra. I have said from the beginning that if this thing worked out the way Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney all said it would, I would be perfectly happy to get down on my knees and kiss George Bush's feet.

The second aggravation is that the very prestigious papers that are now dismissing the Downing Street Memos have already themselves admitted that their pre-war coverage was -- I don't know, you pick the adjective. Slack? Inadequate? Less than rigorous? Wrong? And now they're saying, oh hell, this isn't news, we knew it all along.

Michael Kinsley out at the Los Angeles Times, which has certainly done some commendable reporting on this war and taken the heat for it, too, also dismisses the memos. I don't get it. You suddenly get evidence -- I don't know if it proves or just strongly suggests -- that this administration lied to all of us about war, and your reaction is not to go after the administration, but to dismiss the evidence? And to put down the people who are calling you screaming about why you haven't bothered to mention it? What is wrong with this picture?

Also aggravating, the Republicans in Congress refuse to allow hearings. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan held "Democratic hearings," without the Rs, in a room described as a large closet, because they were not allowed to use an actual hearing room. Under these difficult circumstances, 30 Democratic representatives persisted in asking the important question, "Were Americans deliberately misled in the lead-up to this war?" When did we come to the point where the minority has no place?

I don't know if these memos represent an impeachable offense -- although I must say, I don't want to bring up the Clinton comparison again. But they strike me as a hell of lot worse than anything Richard Nixon ever contemplated. He used the government for petty political vindictiveness. Heck, I'd settle for that again, over what we're looking at now.

The irony of Deep Throat surfacing after all these years in the midst of this memo mess is almost too precious. Does The Washington Post have any hungry young reporters on Metro anymore? I'd say, start with: Who did Dearlove meet with besides George Tenet?
****************************
I do believe that the only way the Dems will get real hearings on the DSMs is to do as BushCo does: CATAPULT THE PROPOGANDA!!!
Wrap.

| 0 comments

& finally, Hilary bashing...

But tell you what...when PW (Publishers Weekly) reviews a book and bashes it, both publisher and writer cringe. That's a normal reaction. However, Repubs who are Hilary haters have no concern with what's true and what isn't...just like their leaders, BushCo.

Does the Truth About Hillary Book Stand Up to the Press?

After the fan-flaming pre-publication press from both sides of the spectrum regarding Ed Klein's THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY, at least two reports based on the book itself are discernibly cooler. Today's Washington Post remarks: "The 305-page book relies so heavily on previously reported information about Clinton -- sometimes the author repeats rumors and then footnotes them to a prior author who referenced the rumors -- that new, corroborated news seems slight.

One of Klein's major contentions is that Hillary Clinton knew about Monica Lewinsky's relationship with her husband more than two years before their relationship became public, but Klein doesn't have the goods. Instead, he relies on one anonymous Democratic National Committee staffer, who herself doesn't seem to have firsthand or even secondhand information."

A PW review expresses similar conclusions: "It will not, as has been hoped or feared, do for any Clinton presidential campaign what Unfit For Command did for the Kerry one. This clip+paste job by a former editor of the New York Times magazine is unlikely to change a single mind, let alone vote.... Those who like her won't find their minds changed by any of the ersatz revelations in this ultimately uninteresting book.... Klein seems intent on rehashing the rehash in this too-boring-to-even-be-execrable title."
PostPW

*******************************
"...execrable..."?!!! Whoa!
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Harry Potter & a stick of wood!

This just in from BioGems:

WIN THE LATEST FOREST FRIENDLY HARRY POTTER! In July, Raincoast Books will show its support for the Canadian boreal and other endangered forests with the publication of the forest friendly Canadian edition of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, the sixth book in J.K. Rowling's bestselling series. Enter our random drawing to win one of 10 copies of this enchanting tale, printed on paper made from 100 percent post-consumer recycled content and processed without chlorine (click on "Redeem Your Credits" after logging in). The first five winners will also receive a Quidditch stick of wood from a Forest Stewardship Council-certified, well managed forest!
*****************************
If you've supported this outfit, why not try for one of the most popular of books!
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Baseball, Abuse, & War!

Here are three most interesting books!


License to Deal - Jerry Crasnick

During Major League Baseball's evolution from national pastime to $3.6 billion business, agents have played a pivotal role in driving and (some might say) ruining the sport. In License to Deal, ESPN's Jerry Crasnick pierces the myths by focusing on Matt Sosnick, a born dealmaker who left his job as CEO of a San Francisco high-tech company in 1997 to pursue his dream of representing ballplayers for a living. Listen to Crasnick's Written Voices interview on the inside world of sports agents.
Play the interview...
Live chat - Marci Hamilton

Child abuse by clergymen, gay marriage and even faith healing pit the word of God against the word of the court. God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law challenges the pervasive assumption that all religious conduct deserves constitutional protection. Join author and constitutional law expert, Marci Hamilton for a live chat on Court TV.com June 22nd at 3pm EST to discuss religion and the law in the US.
More info...
Website Feature - Conduct Under Fire

In Conduct Under Fire, John A. Glusman chronicles The fierce, bloody battles of Bataan and Corregidor through the eyes of his father, Murray, and three fellow navy doctors captured on Corregidor in May 1942. In addition to information on the book, his sharply designed and haunting new website includes a historical gallery of photos and documents in tribute to this period of WWII history.
Visit the Website...

*******************************
Very cool to find books such as these available...especially with interviews and such. Enjoy!
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Another bullheaded Bush:

From the Miami Herald, online:

Posted on Tue, Jun. 21, 2005

Conduct unbecoming Florida's governor
OUR OPINION: INVOLVEMENT IN SCHIAVO CASE INTRUSIVE, UNNECESSARY

Shame on Gov. Jeb Bush for reopening an investigation into the death of Terri Schiavo. The governor's request is intrusive and unnecessary. His continued personal involvement in this case is stunningly arrogant. It is a waste of state resources in a fully settled case that, thanks to the governor and like-minded politicians in Tallahassee and Washington, makes a mockery of state law and continues political intrusion into a private family matter.

Timeline discrepancies
The case has been reviewed repeatedly in Florida courts, argued in the state Legislature, debated in Congress and rejected six times by the U.S. Supreme Court. Last week, the Pinellas County medical examiner issued what should have been the concluding report on the case: Ms. Schiavo died of severe brain damage. She could not eat and was blind.

Gov. Bush said he talked with the medical examiner prior to release of the autopsy and was concerned about discrepancies in the timeline of Ms. Schiavo's case. In a memo to Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe, Mr. Bush outlined his concerns. He said that the autopsy wasn't clear about the cause of Ms. Schiavo's original injuries, that there was little evidence of an eating disorder and that Michael Schiavo -- Ms. Schiavo's husband -- had given contradictory statements about the time of his wife's collapse on Feb. 25, 1990.

The implication of the governor's inquiry is that Mr. Schiavo somehow may be responsible for his wife's collapse and death, or at least culpable for not handling the situation properly.
But with an autopsy report that concludes definitively that Ms. Schiavo died of brain damage with no indications of other injuries, what does the governor hope to find? Intentional homicide, otherwise known as first-degree murder, is the only potential offense for which the statute of limitations hasn't already expired and for which Mr. Schiavo could be prosecuted. Is this where Gov. Bush is headed with his renewed investigation? We asked the governor's spokespersons Monday, but have received no answers.

No new complaints
Absent any point to the investigation, it is easy to conclude that the governor is motivated by other -- political -- concerns. Recall that after the courts ordered Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube removed, the governor attempted to use the Department of Children & Families to reinsert the tube. As with the current review, Gov. Bush said then that new abuse complaints needed to be investigated. But reports showed that there weren't any new abuse complaints.

Gov. Bush's inability to accept the judgment of the courts and the findings of the medical examiner represent unwarranted meddling. There is no reason for his shameful interference. He should withdraw.
************************************
Yeah, he should be ashamed, but like his brother, George, he doesn't know the meaning of the word. What a pair!
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Email to Bush/Cheney:

Mark Garrity, in New Jersey, has been emailing the College Republicans. Has sent four emails, and rec'd no reply. Nor action on his suggestion. Therefore, he now emails Bush/Cheney.

Dear Sirs,

I write to you today about the very serious problems we have maintaining the US Army's fighting capabilities. In case it hasn't been stovepiped up to you the Army RecruitingCommand failed to meet it's enlistment quotas for the past four months in a row. Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly the head ofthe Army Reserve sent Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff a memo last December that said "his command is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force." This is a very real crisis. We are losing our young officers and noncoms, the backbone of our volunteer Army.

Secretary of State Rice said the other day, "The administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq". This is news to me but if we're going to be involved militarily for a generation in Iraq then we'd better get crackin on the the Army retention and recruitment pronto. We can't stay the course in Iraq for another few years let alone a generation with a hollow Army. Sure if we outlaw abortion there will be plenty of unwanted babies growing up in poverty who'll be prime pickin's but that won't be for another...youguessed it...generation!

There is already mounting pressure for reinstituting the draft and while I don't agree with a lot of your policies I do agree with you that a new draft is out of the question. You don't want to be besieged in the White House while hundreds of thousands of hippies shout bad names at you like Nixon do you? So how do we solve this problem? Do we throw money at it as we have recently, proposing to up enlistment bonuses and provide mortgage assistance enticements? I think we can do it better and cheaper.

As your election team proved last year you're very adept at targeting specific audiences with specific messages.There's no need to waste money on targeting young Democrats to join. After all Democrats nominated a war hero last year, a man who earned a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and threePurple Hearts in Vietnam. Your administration and it's surrogates savaged his war record and questioned his patriotism and in doing so the patriotism of all Democrats.

Before your convention I heard Laura Bush, former President George HW Bush, and Karl Rove all insinuate Kerry's postwar activities were anti American and unpatriotic. TheSwiftboat Veterans claimed he never even earned his medals. As patriotic as they are Democratic kids aren't going to be an easy sell when they've been labelled blame America firsters. Especially when we're going to be fighting in Iraq for another whole generation with unclear goals.

Why do I say unclear goals? The stated benchmarks for withdrawal appear to have been met. Disarming Iraq of WMD, removing Saddam from power, allowing for free elections in Iraq have all been accomplished. Your administration says we've trained 169,000 Iraqis to protect their fledgling democracy against an enemy that I've never seen estimated at higher than about 20,000 deadenders. If, as you say VicePresident Cheney, the insurgrency is in it's last throes then you're not going to find many Democrats willing to go for mop up duty that's best left to Iraqis. Especially when their contribution will just be ridiculed. Let's not waste taxpayer dollars trying. Here's where you can get the recruits we need to fill the ranks.

The College Republican National Committee claims to have 120,000 members, all are of fighting age and potential Army recruits. They have a well produced website I've visited over the last week. On that website they have many job opportunites at such think tanks as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Apparently business is booming in Republican political circles. But there isn't one link, one mention of any military recruiting site on their website at all.

And believe me I've looked. I've written them 4 emails since last Thursday asking them to correct this omission and have had no response. Maybe you could send them a note. Even better they have their bienniel convention coming up this weekend at the Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington VA. As of yet I don't see any military speakers scheduled to speak on the agenda. The biggest name is Tom DeLay and while I'm sure he'll give a rousing speech he's not qualified to talk about serving our country in combat. Maybe you could see to it that Army Recruiting Command can get in to set up some tables and hand out enlistment forms. These are your most likely candidates to support the long slog in Iraq.

But there's another good reason. I think it's very important that the next generation of Republican political leaders serve in the military and if need be see combat. So many of you in the current generation haven't and it shows. Maybe if they serve and see what war is really like they won't repeat silly mistakes like declaring "mission accomplished" at the beginning of a quagmire.

Another idea is Jenna and Barbara. I know you don't want to hear this Mr. President but hear me out. They've been out of Yale now for a year. As far as I know neither has landed a job. It would do wonders for Army recruiting if they were to sign up. They could pull safe duty in the Green Zone. It would show their true commitment to your policies. They'd be the biggest thing to hit the Army since Elvis and would do wonders for recruiting. What redblooded American boy wouldn't like to dive into a muddy trench when the mortars start falling with one of the twins?

I hear you're going to mount a new PR blitz soon explaining the need to stay the course in Iraq. Please use my suggestions as otherwise we run the risk of a true "Vietnamization" of Iraq. And we all know how well that worked last time.

TrueBlue Patriotically yours,
Mark Garrity
Wrap....

| 0 comments

Monday, June 20, 2005

Do NOT want this!

The US war with Iran has already begun
By Scott Ritter

The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9199.htm

Wrap.

| 0 comments

Pres Clinton on Gitmo..

From the Financial Times:

Clinton adds voice to criticism of Guantánamo
By Lionel Barber and Paul Taylor in New York
Published: June 19 2005 23:53
Last updated: June 20 2005 00:17

Bill Clinton has become the most prominent figure so far to add his voice to criticisms of the US prison camp at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. In an interview with the Financial Times, the former president called for the camp, set up to hold suspected terrorists, to “be closed down or cleaned up”.

Mr Clinton joined critics at home and abroad who have singled out the indefinite detention of prisoners without trial and widespread reports of human rights violations at Guantánamo. “It is time that there are no more stories coming out of there about people being abused,” he said.
Mr Clinton said the test for judging whether harsh treatment of terrorist suspects was justified was whether it challenged the “fundamental nature” of American society. If the answer is Yes, you have already given the terrorists a profound victory.”

The Bush administration has been rocked by criticism of prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay, which holds more than 500 prisoners, most of them captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr Bush has said that he might be willing to explore alternatives to the detention centre

The Guantánamo detainees have been classified as “unlawful enemy combatants” rather than prisoners of war and are therefore not subject to the Geneva Convention or to US law. The US military has admitted to using coercive interrogation techniques on prisoners but denied that these amount to torture.

Mr Clinton said uniformed US military personnel had been “very outspoken” about abuses at Guantánamo and elsewhere.

Aside from moral issues, there were two practical objections to the US military abusing prisoners, he said. “If we get a reputation for abusing people it puts our own soldiers much more at risk and second, if you rough up somebody bad enough, they'll eventually tell you whatever you want to hear to get you to stop doing it.” Mr Clinton was careful to avoid criticising the administration on the issue of indefinite detention. In three or four cases, his own administration had resorted to a US law that allows suspected terrorists to be held beyond the normal length of time without trial, if bringing an indictment or trial would compromise intelligence sources.

“It sounds so reasonable but you're the guy that is in prison and you are not guilty, you could be held there three, four, five years and there has to be some limit to that,” he said.
Bill Clinton

(The following is a transcript of an interview conducted by Lionel Barber and Paul Taylor of the Financial Times on June 17 with former US president Bill Clinton at his home in Chappaqua, New York. Go there )

Amnesty International stoked controversy over Guantánamo Bay by calling it “the gulag of our time”, however it was criticised for drawing a comparison between US military prison and Soviet-era labour camps.

Last week, Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat, got into similar hot water for comparing American interrogation techniques to those employed by Hitler and Stalin's regimes. He later issued a clarification.

During the interview Mr Clinton also discussed his role as special United Nations representative on tsunami relief and the Clinton Global Initiative, his plan to bring together politicians and business people to discuss solutions to some of the world's most intractable problems.

Wrap...

| 0 comments

Who leaked Plame info?

Supreme Court To Decide This Week On Hearing Plame Case
The New York Times
Judith Miller
By Joe Strupp Published: June 20, 2005 11:20 AM ET
NEW YORK

Journalists Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller may find out as soon as this week whether the U.S. Supreme Court will hear their appeal of a contempt ruling for refusing to disclose who leaked the identity of a CIA agent to them -- a decision that could send them to jail before the end of the month.The high court is set to consider the reporters' requests for certiorari on Thursday, along with hundreds of other appeal cases, according to Attorney Floyd Abrams, who is representing Miller. He said the justices will discuss the case at their Thursday conference, which essentially ends the court's current session, and likely make their decision known next Monday."The usual practice would be that they decide at the Thursday conference, unless they decide to put it off and decide in the fall," Abrams said today. "These decisions are usually announced on the following Monday." But, given the interest in this case, a decision could be announced any time after it is made, Abrams said."The overwhelming amount of cert (requests for appeal) are routinely denied," Abrams said. "There are sometimes a few that are granted; we hope to be in that few." If not, they could be sent to jail within days.

He also reiterated his belief that it is harder to get a case heard before the court, than to actually win once you get there. "They generally reverse two out of three cases," Abrams said. "They rarely take cases that they think are properly decided. But sometimes they have not decided themselves."

Cooper, a Time magazine reporter, and Miller, who works for The New York Times, each face jail time for refusing to divulge sources in the Plame case. Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. District Court held them in contempt last fall for refusing to reveal the source who leaked to them the identity of former CIA agent Plame, whose identity was revealed in 2003 by columnist Robert Novak.Miller and Cooper appealed the contempt order in February to a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied the request. The case then was appealed to the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to hear the case in April.

Cooper, who had also been represented by Abrams, switched attorneys in late April. He is now represented by Ted Olson, a former Reagan and Bush administration official. Olson could not be reached for comment Monday.With separate attorneys, Miller and Cooper are effectively making their appeals to the high court as two separate cases.The original petitions for the high court to consider the cases were filed May 8, with the government's arguments filed May 27. The justices received all of the petitions and briefs June 7, Abrams said.

Among the most powerful elements of support for the reporters was an amicus curie signed by the attorneys general of 34 states and the District of Columbia, Abrams says."It is so counter-intuitive for state attorneys general -- the very people one might think would be upset at losing the benefit of evidence -- to have together said that there is another value so important it outweighs the interest in getting this information. It is a powerful blow in our favor."Abrams said having the case petitioned in two separate arguments may not make much difference, although he added, "it may help some in giving the court two articulations of why they should hear the case."

When asked if the reporters would be helped by the court deciding to put off its decision until a new session in October, Abrams admitted it would be good for Cooper and Miller to know they would remain free for several more months. But, he said the case would likely not turn out differently.

If the case is put off until the new term, there's a chance a new justice would be appointed by then. Chief Justice William Rehnquist is expected to retire at the end of this term, something Abrams noted would not hurt his client."The chief justice has not been a big supporter of the notion of any special sort of protection for the press," he said. "He is not someone that we're counting on as a likely vote if the court does take the case. I have no reason to think someone new would be any worse from our perspective."

In the event that the court decides during the current session not to take the case, Cooper and Miller would not be hauled off to jail that same day. Abram said at least one more hearing would likely be held before Judge Hogan, who offered the initial contempt ruling, prior to any jailing. He said that could be done within days of the high court's decision."Judge Hogan would likely adhere to his prior ruling and we would talk about what should be imposed and what type of facility they would be in, or if they should be at home," Abrams said. "But the order will have been affirmed. They would not be in jail on Monday, it would be a matter of days or weeks."
Joe Strupp (jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is a senior editor at E&P.
************************
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Next Chief Justice of the US..

From www.scotusblog.com .... The clerks to the Supremes are talking about this matter on a "sister blog". Click on the "apost" link below to read Tom Goldstein's thinking:


Sunday, June 19, 2005
Today's Washington Post
09:04 PM
Tom Goldstein

Comments (0) TrackBack (0)

On the S. Ct. Nomination Blog, I have a post about today's story on possible replacements for the Chief Justice.
**********************
I consider this something to keep an eye on. Don't forget that the Supremes are Justices for life.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Impeachment required!

Mark A Goldman, commentor on http://politicsofdissent.blogspot.com had this to say:

"1. It is highly probable that Bush was never legally elected to the office he holds. It is likely that he has not held office legally at any point in his Presidency.

2. Bush fraudulently got us into war on false pretenses, lies, and deceptions and is directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people.

3. The manner in which Bush has conducted the war has been criminal and/or criminally negligent by both national and international standards.

4. Bush fraudulently converted our national treasury into the hands of a powerful and greedy few in order to gain control of, solidify, and maintain his power.

5. Bush has undermined the Constitution by flagrantly countermanding, weakening or destroying any number of its basic principles and tenets.

6. Those who are empowered to remove him from office but refuse, are traitors, along with him. By allowing an illegitimate criminal to stay in power, they have relinquished control of our Republic and are now complicit in the overthrow of--We the People--the Government.

7. It is our failing culture that has allowed critical information to be withheld from us. Those who we trusted to provide accurate information have failed us, and we have not been responsible about taking the time and initiative to acquire what we need to know to govern ourselves effectively.

8. Now it appears that it is mainly our own ignorance that holds us together. We still believe in a dream, and are living in that dream, even after the reality is nearly gone.

9. If we ordinary citizens are now unwilling to exercise our legitimate authority to restore and align our Republic to the principles on which it was founded, it is inaccurate that we call ourselves free or claim that we live in a legitimate Democracy that we call America. Rather it is more accurate to say that our country is dying and the Experiment is failing. Evidence of its failure is that We the People have forgotten who we are. Additional evidence are the graves, the horror, and the missing limbs.

10. Wake up, for if we wait until later, it will be... a rude awakening for sure. You cannot deny basic rights and freedoms to some, and expect them to be preserved for you. Life just doesn't work that way.
Mark A. Goldman
http://www.gpln.com/citizen.htm

“Liberty lies in the hearts and minds of men and women;
when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it;
no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it…—Judge Learned Hand
6/18/2005 12:42 PM"
Wrap..

| 0 comments

Lobotomys for believers?

There's no way to easily reconcile opposites, yet that's what BushCo constantly requires of us...when we see the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan going badly and he says all is going along just fine. Now either we can't believe what we see and read or we can't believe him. Take your choice. Apparently there are enough people out there who can't trust their own eyes and brains that BushCo can get away with this bullshit. However, it seems also that less and less people are buying what he says on many fronts. Morialefaka lays out the problem perfectly when he writes:

Another example (of BushCo caused cognitive dissonance) might well be the reaction of the MSM and Republicans to the Downing Street Memos. Now they are saying something like, "well, what's new about that? We all knew he was lying in the first place." Try to make sense of that. The implication is that because we were all aware he was lying in the first place we shouldn't be concerned about it. NOT CONCERNED ABOUT IT! Our President deliberately lied to bring about an illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and unnecessary "war" in which many of our children and thousands of others perished and we are not concerned about it? What kind of warped illogic is in the minds of these people? They seem to believe that if they just ignore it, it will go away like all the rest of their scandals. After all, if we all knew he was lying before the release of the memos, why should we trouble ourselves about it now? Are you required to undergo a lobotomy when you register as a Republican?

*********************************
That's all that's required to be said about that.

In other matters, I've just finished reading the thriller, "One Shot" by Lee Child. There's just no way to anticipate what comes next with that guy. Just excellent work.
Wrap.

A right-on! bite out of http://morialefaka.blogspot.com 's blog today.

| 0 comments

Saturday, June 18, 2005

Subject: Outrage limits..

The wonderful http://morialefaka.blogspot.com has posted such a good recap of current events that I'm putting it right up here:

Friday, June 17, 2005

How much more outrage can we take?
It turns out that at the very moment Cheney insists that Guantanamo is absolutely necessary for the war on terror his company, Halliburton, has been awarded a huge multimillion dollar contract to expand the facilities there. One hundred and thirty million I believe the figure is. No conflict of interest here because we all know Cheney has assured us he no longer has any interest in the company - even though they continue to pay him in the hundreds of thousands annually. Is this not outrageous?

Tomlinson, the head of the organization to separate Public Broadcasting from any political influence, is now blatantly violating that charge and insisting that PBS become merely another arm of the Bush/Cheney administration. There is just too much liberal bias, according to Tomlinson, that needs to be countered by having more conservative programs. The Republicans have long wanted to get rid of Public Broadcasting and, while having tried and failed in the past, now think they can at least cut its funding by half - that, of course, would go a long way toward getting rid of it entirely. To do this Tomlinson has engaged in no end of illegal maneuvers to bring it about. Nothing outrageous about this I guess.

It seems that the Bush/Cheney bunch actually lied to their almost only ally (Britain) in the "war" against Iraq. They claimed they did not illegally use napalm (or a new version of that obscene weapon) in Iraq. But it turns out they did. They may have used it in Falluja as well as elsewhere. Nothing outrageous about lying to your only real ally.

When Congressman Conyers wanted to hold a session devoted to the Downing Street memo scandal the Republicans would only allow them a very small space in the basement somewhere. A room that was terribly overcrowded and designed to minimize whatever impact such a meeting might have. Not only that, they also scheduled eleven votes on important pieces of legislation for precisely the time the Conyers meeting was to take place. Again, nothing outrageous here, just good clean Republican fun. It had never occurred to me until now that Republicans would control even the assignment of rooms. I would have thought there must be an office in charge of such things. You know, like a bipartisan arrangement so that both Democrats and Repubicans could ask for space, etc. Republican paranoia and fear seems to know no bounds.

Oh, yes, the Schiavo travesty. We now know that the poor woman's brain had shrunk to half the size it should have been and in addition to that she was blind. You would think that Frist, DeLay, and others might actually apologize for their outrageous claims that she was sentient and trying to communicate, etc. But no, even her parents refuse to accept reality. Outrageous? Not for Republicans. After all, medical science is no more useful than prayer when it comes to such things.At least we now have the beginnings of a Resolution of Inquiry, the first step toward possible impeachment. Whatever comes of this, John Conyers should go down in history as the first hero of the 21st century. And what should come of this is clearly impeachment, long overdue, perfectly obvious, and merely the first step in the very long and difficult road ahead to restore American credibility and honor in the world (if, indeed, by now that will even be possible). The enormity of the crimes is such that Americans seem unable to comprehend the situation. It is so bad that outright denial seems to be the only defense. No one wants to, or even can accept, what Bush/Cheney and their gang of international thugs has wrought. I am reminded of a great book title which is certainly appropriate here - PAST ALL DISHONOR.
posted by morialekafa at 7:51 PM
Wrap...

| 0 comments

All the President's....

Robert Redford comments on BushCo in the Salt Lake Tribune. www.sltrib.com Here's an excerpt:

Key lessons not learned, Redford says
Talk of the Morning: Repeat of History?
Watergate Revisited
By Sean P. MeansThe Salt Lake Tribune

Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman star in the 1976 Watergate movie ''All the President's Men.'' Redford now says he used to speculate who the mysterious ''Deep Throat'' source in the government was.

Robert Redford used to speculate on who Deep Throat was: "I had pieced together it probably had to do with the FBI." Now, the actor who played Bob Woodward in "All the President's Men" wonders whether Deep Throat would make a difference in today's political climate. "I don't know if you'd be able to get a hearing now," Redford said in an interview Thursday. "If President Nixon had had control of both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court, and the bully pulpit, I don't know if that stuff would have ever come out."

Redford said the revelation that former Deputy FBI Director Mark Felt was Deep Throat, the secret informant who guided Washington Post reporters Woodward and Carl Bernstein through their probe into the Nixon White House, has him "waiting to see if anybody is going to connect where we were then and where we are now, because the same elements are absolutely in place, only they're worse. . . ." "

You can go right down the line in the Bush administration, there's about 15 issues as strong or as big as the Watergate break-in was that have come and died out," Redford said, citing the fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the recently uncovered "Downing Street memo" suggesting Bush's officials tweaked intelligence to support their invasion plans. "

The Bush administration is successful at denying, and if they get caught, they just deny and move on, or they bait-and-switch and create some other crisis," Redford said. "There are guys out there digging and digging. There are stories appearing every single day. . . . But is it getting any traction with the public?"
*************************
It's not that Rep John Conyers isn't trying...but the major media really weren't. Today, the AP has it up and running.
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Trust BushCo? NO.

It's one hell of a situation when the USA is "led" by a pathological liar, but that's the way it is. When it comes down to it, I can't recall anything but a series of lies from Bush, starting with his first appearance on the national scene to run for prez...and his motto was: "I'm a uniter, not a divider". All he's managed to unite so far is the rest of the world against us. Now that's a fine record. But that was only the beginning of lies, and until he's gone, lies will continue. Read on:

- The Carpetbagger Report - http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com -
Lies and the lying liars who tell them
Posted By Carpetbagger On 18th June 2005 @ 10:39
Guest Post by Morbo

When I heard President George W. Bush announce recently that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted," I could only sigh.
I started to play a little game in my head that I often play these days: How many days would lapse before this administration claim would be exposed as a lie of titanic proportions? I figured five, maybe seven.

Exactly three days later The Washington Post ran the first of a two-part series headlined, "U.S. Campaign Produces Few Convictions on Terrorism Charges."
Calling the Bush numbers "misleading at best," The Post reported, "An analysis of the Justice Department's own list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people — not 200, as officials have implied — were convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security."

So where did the 400 and 200 figures come from? The administration pretty much made them up out of thin air by lumping in convictions against anyone initially suspected of terrorism who was later convicted of any offense, even if that offense had nothing to do with terrorism.
The administration also engaged in some racial profiling. Men of Arab nationality were fair game to be lumped in with the terrorists, even if what they did had nothing to do with terrorism. The Post tells a story about two Arab grocers in Newark caught stealing huge amounts of cereal more than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks. After the attacks, the men and an accomplice were questioned after someone told the FBI one of them had tried to buy a grenade launcher. The tip never panned out and the three were never charged with any terrorism-related offense; however, they were charged and pled guilty to stealing cereal. To this day, they are listed as successful terrorism prosecutions when the only entity they terrorized was General Mills.

The Post analysis filled me with great sadness, and not just because it demonstrates the Bush administration's complete and utter failure at protecting our nation from terrorists. Rather, it underscores once again what a bunch of liars they are. That fills me with shame and disgust at my government.

It has come to this: When I hear any statistic coming out of this administration, whether it's related to the economy, jobs, the deficit, health care, etc., I just assume it's a lie. It's no secret I'm no fan of the Bush regime, but if its track record for honesty weren't so horrible, I'd cut it some slack on occasion. Bush and Co. have proven to be so untrustworthy that no slack is given. Their first inclination, under all circumstances, is to reach for a lie. I sometimes think it has become a reflexive action. They would go to the lie even if the truth weren't so bad.

I'm not so naive as to think Democratic administrations always tell the truth. It's natural to spin bad news your way. All politicians do it. With Bush, there are two major differences that put his lies in a league of their own:

1. The astounding scope of the lies. Bush doesn't just lie a little bit; he tells enormous whoppers that would make Pinocchio blush. Saying your administration has wrapped up 50 terrorism convictions when in fact the number is 39 is fudging of the facts, a little white lie that can probably be forgiven or written off to over exuberance. Saying the number is 200 when it's only 39 is a big, sloppy, honking, bald-faced, stinking lie and an insult to the American people.

2. The potential damage of the lies. Some lies are worse than others. Yes, Bill Clinton lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. That was unfortunate, but it didn't put anyone's life at risk. Leading the American people to believe that your administration has been hugely successful in fighting terrorism when in reality you have achieved very little creates a false sense of security that does a disservice to the people you pledged to protect.

What's especially infuriating about this is that this administration, after five steady years of lies, lies, lies and more lies (as well as some lies) has the nerve to pose as the party of moral values and portray the Democrats as a bunch of liars. Remember what GOP leaders said about Al Gore in 2000 — that Gore lied about having created the Internet, that Gore lied about he and Tipper being the inspiration for "Love Story" and that Gore lied about his mother singing union songs to him when he was little? As it turns out, Gore hadn't even said any of that stuff, but even if he had, so what? Tall tales like that aren't going to get anyone killed or harmed by luring them into a false sense of security.

People often remark that the Richard Nixon White House set a new low for unethical behavior and rampant lying. Nixon at least had an excuse for his devious behavior. He had done something bad and didn't want to get caught, so he lied. Bush, as far as I can tell, just lies out of force of habit and because "win at any cost" has become the standard operating principle of his party.

Consider this as well: Even though he was a liar, Nixon had some decent ideas. He toyed with introducing a national health care plan, and, get this, a guaranteed minimum income plan. With Bush, we just get lie after lie without any good policy initiatives.

You know we've come to quite a pass when you can honestly say that Dick Nixon is looking better by the day.

Article printed from The Carpetbagger Report: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com
URL to article: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4476.html
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Friday, June 17, 2005

Wash Post Millbank's dirty trick:

The following letter was carbon-copied to Raw Story.com
#
June 17, 2005
Mr. Michael Abramowitz, National Editor; Mr. Michael Getler, Ombudsman; Mr. Dana Milbank; The Washington Post, 1150 15th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20071

Dear Sirs:
I write to express my profound disappointment with Dana Milbank's June 17 report, "Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War," which purports to describe a Democratic hearing I chaired in the Capitol yesterday. In sum, the piece cherry-picks some facts, manufactures others out of whole cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of Congress who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the American people were deliberately misled in the lead up to war. The fact that this was the Post's only coverage of this event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this piece even more egregious.

In an inaccurate piece of reporting that typifies the article, Milbank implies that one of the obstacles the Members in the meeting have is that "only one" member has mentioned the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of either the House or Senate. This is not only incorrect but misleading. In fact, just yesterday, the Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid, mentioned it on the Senate floor. Senator Boxer talked at some length about it at the recent confirmation hearing for the Ambassador to Iraq. The House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi, recently signed on to my letter, along with 121 other Democrats asking for answers about the memo. This information is not difficult to find either. For example, the Reid speech was the subject of an AP wire service report posted on the Washington Post website with the headline "Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight". Other similar mistakes, mischaracterizations and cheap shots are littered throughout the article.

The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone, claiming that House Democrats "pretended" a small conference was the Judiciary Committee hearing room and deriding the decor of the room. Milbank fails to share with his readers one essential fact: the reason the hearing was held in that room, an important piece of context. Despite the fact that a number of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them. Milbank could have written about the perseverance of many of my colleagues in the face of such adverse circumstances, but declined to do so. Milbank also ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Republican Leadership scheduled an almost unprecedented number of 11 consecutive floor votes, making it next to impossible for most Members to participate in the first hour and one half of the hearing.
In what can only be described as a deliberate effort to discredit the entire hearing, Milbank quotes one of the witnesses as making an anti-semitic assertion and further describes anti-semitic literature that was being handed out in the overflow room for the event. First, let me be clear: I consider myself to be friend and supporter of Israel and there were a number of other staunchly pro-Israel members who were in attendance at the hearing. I do not agree with, support, or condone any comments asserting Israeli control over U.S. policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is trying to dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11 tragedy disgusting and offensive.

That said, to give such emphasis to 100 seconds of a 3 hour and five minute hearing that included the powerful and sad testimony (hardly mentioned by Milbank) of a woman who lost her son in the Iraq war and now feels lied to as a result of the Downing Street Minutes, is incredibly misleading. Many, many different pamphlets were being passed out at the overflow room, including pamphlets about getting out of the Iraq war and anti-Central American Free Trade Agreement, and it is puzzling why Milbank saw fit to only mention the one he did.
In a typically derisive and uninformed passage, Milbank makes much of other lawmakers calling me "Mr. Chairman" and says I liked it so much that I used "chairmanly phrases." Milbank may not know that I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994. By protocol and tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you are always referred to as such. Thus, there was nothing unusual about my being referred to as Mr. Chairman.

To administer his coup-de-grace, Milbank literally makes up another cheap shot that I "was having so much fun that I ignored aides' entreaties to end the session." This did not occur. None of my aides offered entreaties to end the session and I have no idea where Milbank gets that information. The hearing certainly ran longer than expected, but that was because so many Members of Congress persevered under very difficult circumstances to attend, and I thought - given that - the least I could do was allow them to say their piece. That is called courtesy, not "fun."

By the way, the "Downing Street Memo" is actually the minutes of a British cabinet meeting. In the meeting, British officials - having just met with their American counterparts - describe their discussions with such counterparts. I mention this because that basic piece of context, a simple description of the memo, is found nowhere in Milbank's article.

The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a hearing into a room the size of a large closet to hold a hearing on an important issue shouldn't make us the object of ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed in two places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts to do so; and second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, who do not feel the need to give serious coverage on a serious hearing about a serious matter-whether more than 1700 Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some coverage of that viewpoint.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

BushCo's people...

Received this and damned near up-chucked. I'm for shipping almost all of the individuals below straight to Abu Ghraib. Ugh.

If you go to the site http://www.reandev.com/taliban/ there are picturesof these folks to go with the quotes;

THE AMERICAN TALIBAN

Ann Coulter "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them toChristianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing onlyHitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." "Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." "Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets ofChristianity, as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'"

Bailey Smith "With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty doesnot hear the prayer of a Jew."

Beverly LaHaye (Concerned Women for America) "Yes, religion and politics do mix. America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office."

Bob Dornan (Rep. R-CA) "Don't use the word 'gay' unless it's an acronym for 'Got Aids Yet'"

David Barton (Wallbuilders) "There should be absolutely no 'Separation of Church and State' in America."

David Trosch "Sodomy is a graver sin than murder. Unless there is life there can be no murder."

Fob James (Governor of Alabama) "Behind this judicial wall of separation there is a tyranny of lies that will fall... I say to you, my friends, let it fall!" "A good butt-whipping and then a prayer is a wonderful remedy."

Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church) "If you got to castrate your miserable self with a piece of rusty barbwire, do it." "Hear the word of the LORD, America, fag-enablers are worse than the fags themselves, and will be punished in the everlasting lake of fire!" "You telling these miserable, Hell-bound, bath house-wallowing, anal-copulating fags that God loves them!? You have bats in the belfry!" "American Veterans are to blame for the fag takeover of this nation. They have the power in their political lobby to influence the zeitgeist, get the fags out of the military, and back in the closet where they belong!" "Not only is homosexuality a sin, but anyone who supports fags is just as guilty as they are. You are both worthy of death."

Gary Bauer (American Values) "We are engaged in a social, political, and cultural war. There's a lot of talk in America about pluralism. But the bottom line is somebody's values will prevail. And the winner gets the right to teach our children what to believe."

Gary North (Institute for Christian Economics) "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant' baptism and holy communion must be denied citizenship." "This is God's world, not Satan's. Christians are the lawful heirs, not non-Christians."

Gary Potter (Catholics for Christian Political Action) "When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil."

George Bush Sr. (President of the United States) "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

George W. Bush (President of the United States) "I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision."* "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

*Comment about Wiccans in the military Henry Morris (Institute for Creation Research) "When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data."

J. B. Stoner (White Supremacist) "We had lost the fight for the preservation of the white race until God himself intervened in earthly affairs with AIDS to rescue and preserve the white race that he had created.... I praise God all the time for AIDS." "AIDS is a racial disease of Jews and Niggers, and fortunately it is wiping out the queers. I guess God hates queers for several reasons. There is one big reason to be against queers and that is because every time some white boy is seduced by a queer into becoming a queer, means his white bloodline has run out."

James Dobson (Focus on the Family) "Those who control the access to the minds of children will set the agenda for the future of the nation and the future of the western world." "State Universities are breeding grounds, quite literally, for sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV), homosexual behavior, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, alcoholism, and drug abuse." "Today's children... They're damned. They're gone."

James Kennedy (Center for Reclaiming America) "The Christian community has a golden opportunity to train an army of dedicated teachers who can invade the public school classrooms and use them to influence the nation for Christ."

James Watt (Secretary of the Interior) "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand."*

*Secretary of the Interior in the Reagan Admin. Responsible for National Policy regarding the Environment Jay Grimstead (Coalition on Revival) "We are to make Bible-obeying disciples of anybody that gets in our way."

Jerry Falwell "We're fighting against humanism, we're fighting against liberalism...we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today...our battle is with Satan himself." "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharoah's chariotters." "The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc." "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." "If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."

Jesse Helms (Sen. R-NC) "The New York Times and Washington Post are both infested with homosexuals themselves. Just about every person down there is a homosexual or lesbian." "All Latins are volatile people. Hence, I was not surprised at the volatile reaction." "Your tax dollars are being used to pay for grade-school classes that teach our children that cannibalism, wife-swapping and murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior." "Homosexuals are weak, morally sick wretches."

Jimmy Swaggart (Jimmy Swaggart Ministries) "The Media is ruled by Satan. But yet I wonder if many Christians fully understand that. Also, will they believe what the Media says, considering that its aim is to steal, kill, and destroy?" "Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest." "Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact.Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it...Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory."

John Ashcroft (Attorney General) "Civilized people Muslims, Christians, and Jews all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator."

John Whitehead (Rutherford Institute) "The [Supreme] Court, by seeking to equate Christianity with other religions, merely assaults the one faith. The Court in essence is assailing the true God by democratizing the Christian religion."

Joseph McCarthy (Sen. R-WI) "Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between Communistic Atheism and Christianity."

Joseph Morecraft (Chalcedon Presbyterian Church) "Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol."

Joseph Scheidler (Pro-Life Action League) "I would like to outlaw contraception...contraception is disgusting people using each other for pleasure."* *I get the distinct impression that Mr. Scheidler's poor wife isn't guilty of feeling any pleasure.

Kay O'Connor (Kansas Senate Republican) "I'm an old-fashioned woman. Men should take care of women, and if men were taking care of women today, we wouldn't have to vote."

Keith A. Fournier (Catholic Way) "We need a legal strategy which protects the rights of those of us who hold Christian convictions which will afford us the opportunity to contend once again for the mind of this culture."

Laura Schlessinger "I want to coin a phrase here, and I don't mind help. What would be the communication version of "ethnic cleansing?" Because that's what in particular the homosexual activists try to do."

Lester Roloff (Texas Homes for Wayward Youth) "Better a pink bottom than a black soul."* *Roloff opened a chain of homes for "wayward" youth in the state of Texas; he was later jailed in 1973 and again in 1975 for child abuse due to the punitive punishment techniques used in his homes. He would have been finished had he not been specifically given permision to re-open his homes by, you guessed it, Governor George W Bush.

Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin 'George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States, he was appointed by God.'

Pat Buchanan (Presidential Candidate) "Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free." "There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The"negroes" of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, moviehouses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours." "Rail as they will about 'discrimination,' women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism."

Pat Robertson (Christian Coalition) "The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would the people in America want to embrace the religion of slavers." "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different...More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." "When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals. The two things seem to go together." "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and thePresbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense, I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist." "I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." "[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers." "[Planned Parenthood] is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism. Everything that the Bible condemns."

Patrick Mahoney (Christian Defense Coalition) "It is deeply troubling to have an appointed, unelected commission remove an elected official from office [Roy Moore]. The Court of Judiciary has overturned an election and crushed the democratic process through their actions."* *Interesting perspective coming from someone who's President was appointed by a group of "unelected judges", thus overturning a democratic election.

Paul Cameron "I think that actually AIDS is a guardian. That is I think it was sent, if you would, about forty years ago, to destroy Western civilization unless we change our sexual ways. So it's really a Godsend." "Homosexuality is a crime against humanity." "Causes of homosexuality include: 'sex with animals'"* "Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals *Paul Cameron was discharged from the American Psychological Association,the Nebraska Psychological Association, and the American Sociological Association due to his unethical practices and biased research regardingHomosexuals. His "research" has since been discredited by the scientific community; however his work is still referenced by many fundamentalist organizations as credible.

Randall Terry (Operation Rescue) "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." "Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the ten Commandments. No apologies." "I don't think Christians should use birth control. You consummate your marriage as often as you like and if you have babies, you have babies." "When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed."* "There is going to be war, and Christians may be called to take up the sword to overthrow the tyrannical regime that oppresses them." *It is interesting to note that Randell Terry's son is Gay

Jerry Vines (Southern Baptist Convention) "They would have us believe that Islam is just as good as Christianity. Christianity was founded by the virgin-born son of God, Jesus Christ. Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, the last one of which was a nine-year-old girl."

Rick Santorum* (Sen. R-PA) "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual--Gay-- sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything!"

Robert Simonds (Citizens for Excellence in Education) "As the church watches from the sidelines, the ungodly elect atheists and homosexuals to school boards and legislatures to enact policies and laws that destroy our Christian children and discriminate against Christian families." "Atheistic secular humanists should be removed from office and Christians should be elected...Government and true Christianity are inseparable." "We'll take away their power and their money. Money comes from students. We'll break their backs by taking 24 million kids out of the public schools."

Robert T. Lee (Society for the Practical Establishment of the Ten Commandments) "Raising your children under Americanism or any other principles other than true Christianity is child abuse." "You do not have the right to be wrong, regardless of what any man-made or demonic charter says." "Democracy originated in the mind of a rational being who has the deepest hatred for God." "Do you realize that the only thing that gives democracy existence is sin? The absence of democracy is perfect obedience to god." "The best way to insure the earth is never over populated is for sensible and righteous governments to clear all forms of atheism and heresy."

Ronald Reagan (President of the United States) "For the first time ever, everything is in place for the Battle ofArmageddon and the Second Coming of Christ."

Roy Moore (Former Alabama Judge) "If they want to get the Commandments, they're going to have to get me first."* "Worship With Your Vote." *Interesting observation of the Radical Right, Judge Roy Moore commits peaceful civil disobedience by refusing to remove the Ten Commandments Monument from the Court. He is considered a Hero. Mayor Gavin Newsom commits peaceful civil disobedience by issuing same-sex marriage licenses. He is considered an Anarchist.

Rush Limbaugh "Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." "If you commit a crime, you're guilty."* "There is only one way to get rid of nuclear weapons... use them." *Seems logical enough, doesn't it Rush?

Star Parker (Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education) "Anybody that believes in separation of church and state needs to leave right now."

Tony Evans (Promise Keepers) "The demise of our community and culture is the fault of sissified men who have been overly influenced by women."

William Rehnquist (Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) "The 'wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."

Michael Savage (Savage Nation) "Oh, you're one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig.You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it."* *Statement made on live national television
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Letters to Yellow Elephants..

Mark Garrity has a few words of encouragement for the Yellow Elephants. He writes:

Jesus General JC Christian at http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/ is organizing a US Army enlistment drive among college Republicans. I've done my part by writing the College Republican Nat'l. Committee at http://www.crnc.org/default1.asp Pass it on.

6/16/05
Dear CRNC,
You guys do good work. I particularly like your stuff on Social Security. I'm sure with help from people like you, the President will be able to privatize the whole system before he leaves office. 'm writing today to ask a favor.

As you probably know our occupation of Iraq isn't going as well as it could. Some of the less gungho members of the military like this General Casey are calling our military efforts in Iraq "thePillsbury Doughboy idea" -- pressing the insurgency in one area only causes it to rise elsewhere. Well there's a reason for this apparently defeatist attitude: we don't have enough soldiers in our volunteer military to stay the course. We need to kill or capture and yes, if need be "rough up" insurgents for the vital intelligence we need to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis and prove we'll be there for the long haul to protect them.

But the Army has missed its recruiting goals for 4 months running. The Marines, thank God, have only missed their goals one month out of the last 10 years. The Navy and Air Force are doing fine recruiting-wise but very few of them are sent to Iraq. Don't even ask about the Reserves and the Guard. That's a sucker's bet anyway. Join the Guard and you'll get sent to Iraq for less pay and benes with older equipment than the regular Army. Who needs that?

Anyway, my point is the volunteer Army needs soldiers if we are to complete the mission in Iraq. And where better to find them but among college Republicans? You're the best and brightest and our country needs you now. Won't you please ask your members to get down to their local recruiting office and sign up today? A big blurb on your website with a link to http://www.goarmy.com/ would help alot!

The alternative I'm afraid is a draft. A lot of DC military types are openly talking about it. Even that creep Biden broached the subject on one of those Sunday morning talk shows this weekend. If there's a draft it's bound to scoop up a bunch of lefties that have no interest in President Bush's success or a successful outcome in Iraq. They and their hippy parents may well start massive demonstrations that could force us to bring our troops home before the mission is accomplished, just like Vietnam. But even if they don't, do we want those kind of people taking credit for President Bush's victory? We don't need to be making anymore John Kerrys if you know what I mean. If we hadn't had the Swiftboat veterans exposing his record last year, he might very well be President today! Think about that.

And then think about what a stint in Iraq with the US army will do for YOUR record and your cred. Imagine not only the big cash enlistment bonus and educational opportunities you'll receive but the way phrases like, "take it from me, I was there" or "when I fought in Iraq" will sagely roll off your tongue and stop all arguments right in their tracks as admirers (especially the ladies) turn to hear your words of wisdom in years to come.

This is your chance to make the money and earn the respect you and your family so richly deserve by becoming a US Army combat veteran. Now I'm sure your parents are going to be concerned about your safety. Remind them that Vice PresidentCheney says the insurgency is in it's last throes. By the time you get out of basic training - and I'm not going to sugarcoat it - and get sent to Iraq, the fighting should be all but over. But in the event the Vice President's prediction proves to be premature, you and your parents can rest easy knowing you'll be fighting with the finest military the world has ever seen against an assortment of poorly trained jihadis and cranky Sunni Arabs who don't even know how to properly clean a weapon let alone fire one. Yes it'll be hot, uncomfortable and you'll stand a small but real chance of getting killed or maimed, most likely by an IED, but if you look at it, your chances of dying are really not that much greater than getting run over on campus by a drugged-out war protester who can't see out the front window of his car because of all the pot smoke.

And btw do you really want to spend the next several years futilely debating with potsmoking clowns and socialist professors, or wouldn't you really rather do something that would really help the President, the Republican party and yourselves? We need you to grab for the glory today! Won't you please help?
* * *
6/17/05
I'm disappointed in you. I know it's not Festivus time but my airing of grievances can't wait til the holidays. After writing you yesterday, I thought surely by now there'd be a link on your main page to at least one US Army recruiter. But even when I click there, on the link for jobs and internships on your front page I see nothing, nada, doodly squat about anything related at all to the military! This simply will not do.

Let me explain something kids. We're at war. The US Army fell short of its enlistment goals in May by 25 percent.They had hoped to recruit 6,700 new members but missed the mark by 1,661 recruits. Even after lowering their quota from over 8000 they still missed their goals. This makes the fourth month in a row that the active duty Army hasn't been able to round up enough able bodied, drug free, nonfelon patriots like yourselves to fill the ranks. Wars don't win themselves ya know. We need you and those like you in basic training getting ready to go to Iraq yesterday!

Now there you did it. Do you see that? Well of course you don't, but take my word for it, you just made me cry. Now maybe some of you have other priorities. I can certainly understand that. It would have been a tragedy of monumental proportions for instance if Vice PresidentCheney or President Bush had perished in a steaming jungle in Vietnam, impaled through the heart with blood spurting out as they writhed in agony on a pungee stick full of icky Viet Cong poison in a trap set by dirty guerillas who didn't fight fairly. But look, some of you are never going to grow up to hold high office. You know who you are and for you the risks are tolerable. Even if you do see yourself as POTUS, SCOTUS or SECDEF material you must have friends--ok maybe not friends, but acquaintances--who don't. What's the harm in talking up an Army career to them?

You claim to have more than 120,000 members in your organization. If just a tiny percentage of your group signed up today, Army Recruiting Command wouldn't have to have nationwide stand-down days like they did in May to remind their people that kidnapping, threats, and lying to potential recruits is verboten. It's so tough these days for recruiters to find the right kind of men they've had to resort to shanghaiing them! That's just not right. If you all signed up, all120,000 of you, imagine how fast we could clean up the world. We'd have enough boots to put on the ground to take Syria, Iran and North Korea or any other place PresidentBush chose to liberate. And probably in a whole lot less than 3 weeks!

You are the hope of the world, the cream of the crop, so I hope you'll help me dry my tears and at the very least correct this oversight by putting up a link to GoArmy.com on your front page. They'll probably even pay you a few sheckels if you do. Whaddya say?
Yours Truly,
Mark Garrity

Wrap...

| 0 comments

Put up or shut up!

This challenge from http://patriotboy.blogspot.com :

Blue Team Special Op
OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT
-- Special Op "First Strike"Task: Ask the College Republican leadership to pass the following resolution at their convention:

WHEREAS, the College Republican membership has always fully supported the war in Iraq;

WHEREAS, we have encouraged the notion that the degree of one's patriotism is directly proportional to their support for the war;
WHEREAS, by word, by deed and by support of Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, and Michelle Malkin we have decreed that dissent against the war is the equivalent of treason;
WHEREAS, the military continually falls far short of meeting its recruitment needs resulting in a manpower crisis;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:The College Republicans organization is officially disbanded until the end of the war;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:The College Republicans membership immediately volunteer for military service as infantrymen.

Delivery: Mail to the following people:
Corinne SchwarzCo-Chairman, College Republican National Committee c/o Crystal Gateway Marriott1700 Jefferson Davis HighwayArlington, Virginia 22202

Manny EspinozaFirst Vice Chairman, College Republican National Committee(same address as above)

Kris HartSecond Vice Chairman, College Republican National Committee(same address as above)

Secretary Chuck EfstrationSecond Vice Chairman, College Republican National Committee(same address as above)

Paul GourleyTreasurer, College Republican National Committee(same address as above)

Timing: Estimate delivery time to arrive June 24-26, 2005.
Alternatives: white feathers, recruitment brochures.
posted by Gen. JC Christian, Patriot
Reports to the General (29)
The French Respond

***************************
Well? Wanna take bets on whether the College Republicans or the Young Republicans swell the military's ranks? Or will they remain Yellow Elephants?
Wrap...

| 0 comments

What's needed to impeach..

Patrick Dougherty lays out the necessaries in his article in www.tompaine.com this morn. A very good set of guidelines to get the job done. Read on:

Now the criticism. My big beef with the hearings is that it smacked more of a teach-in than a dignified presentation of evidence to a panel of elected United States representatives in the Capitol Building.

The Downing Street Memo reveals, for the first time, that the highest British officials, including the prime minister, were aware that the Bush administration was planning to "fix the facts" around the policy, i.e., to deceive the Congress and people of the United States into war. Deceiving the Congress is a felony, and it is the president who, in the March 19 Congressional Record , submitted to Congress his case for war. If that case is knowingly false, the president has commited a felony that is an impeachable offense.

This hearing needed to make that case. While the president's polls are sagging, the Republican control of Congress ensures that it will take a bombshell to establish official hearings. Not to mention that the distance between poor job performance and a belief that the president committed a felony is enormous.

This hearing did not make that case—but not because that case cannot be made. It certainly can.

To do that you need credible witnesses to attest to very specific "facts." First, you need to authenticate the memo. Then you need to establish the credibility of MI-6 Director Richard Dearlove's statement. Next, you need to establish that the president's submission to Congress on March 19, 2002, was factually inaccurate. After that, you have to undermine the Robb-Silberman Commission report that blamed the intelligence community "group-think" for the faulty intelligence. Then you must show evidence that supports the conclusion of "facts were fixed." Then, finally, you need to establish that making such a false statement to Congress is an impeachable offense.

Apparently, the witnesses and the chair were not aiming at that goal. Rep. Conyers did not lay out the larger framework. Joe Wilson and Ray McGovern described three episodes that illustrate that the administration fixed the facts. Cindy Sheehan spoke of the tragic human consequences, but did not materially support the case. John Bonifaz did lay out the constitutional arguments, but too much of the other pieces of the case were missing to allow his arguments to resonate.

Ultimately, this effort will not be successful unless it produces U.S. documents that attest to the manipulation of intelligence. That will happen in one of two ways. Either someone will leak them or someone will subpoena them. The best way to move forward now is to create a credible series of hearings that even more people can take seriously. That will allow the next Mark Felt to feel confident that his or her risk will be worth it.
--Patrick Doherty Friday 12:34 PM
**************************************************
And we REALLY need that next Mark Felt to feel he/she can take that risk.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

1999: Bush wanted war!

Tom Dispatch never hesitates to put two and two together. Neither do others. Check this out!

Long before our bookstores were packed with copies of What's the Matter with Kansas?, Thomas Frank's provocative look at how the right-wing wages its political wars against a fantasy "liberal power elite" and wins elections, over a year before George Bush was reelected by slipping the war and terror cards out from under the American deck, in a period when those color-coded alerts were just beginning to pour out, Arlie Hochschild wrote a prescient piece for Tomdispatch, posted on October 2, 2003, entitled "Let Them Eat War." She suggested then that the President, strutting the flight deck of American politics while flexing his G.I. Joe-style muscles, could win the blue-collar vote, and so the election of 2004, simply by feeding the heart of American darkness and a complex set of white, male, blue-collar fears.

I wrote by way of introduction at the time:
Here's one of the great unspoken questions of 2000, not to say 2003. Why do people support George Bush? Why, in particular, do significant numbers of working people support him when it seems so self-evident that he doesn't represent their economic interests? The strange thing -- to me at least -- is that, while questions like these are bound to be on the minds of all those who oppose the Bush administration, its policies, and its president, they are not questions often raised in public, no less publicly explored. So -- call it a conversation starter -- today's Tomgram considers the question of blue-collar support for Bush.

Hochschild's then novel piece touched a nerve. Letters poured in -- anxious, supportive, outraged -- not least from blue-collar guys. Of course, we know more now than we knew then about the way the Bush campaign fed American fears. Right now, we have, for instance, the British "smoking gun memo" (and the assorted supporting memos that have tumbled out after it) which convincingly showed that, before July of 2002, the Bush administration, amid a smokescreen of lies, had already irrevocably decided upon an invasion of Iraq and was only casting around for how to present that war and then use it for its own purposes at home and abroad.

An even more recent British bombshell indicates that British Prime Minister Tony Blair met George Bush at his Crawford ranch in April 2003 and agreed at that time to support an invasion of Iraq. In that same! period, we know, for instance, that Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (and, undoubtedly, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who would soon be putting imaginary Iraqi mushroom clouds over American cities in her public pronouncements, surely Vice President Dick Cheney, and probably the President himself) didn't take the Iraqi weapons-of-mass-destruction explanation especially seriously. It was, as Wolfowitz admitted at the time, simply the lowest bureaucratic common denominator -- "…we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." -- for explaining a desperately desired war. We know as well that within a day of the September 11 attacks, Donald Rumsfeld was already calling on his aide! s to round-up the usual suspects in considering where to strike back.

And now we know, as Russ Baker reports, that George Bush had been considering playing the Iraqi War card not just in April or July 2002, or even right after September 11th, 2001, but way back in 1999. It was then that Mickey Herskowitz, a ghost writer signed on to do George's official autobiography (the two were to split the profits), met privately about 20 times with the then-governor of Texas to discuss his thoughts.

"'He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,' said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. ‘It was on his mind. He said to me: "One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief." And he said, "My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it." He said, "If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency"... According to Herskowitz, who has authored more than 30 books, many of them jointly written autobiographies of famous Americans in politics, sports and media (including that of Reagan adviser Michael Deaver), Bush and his advisers were sold on the idea that it was difficult for a president to accomplish an electoral agenda without the record-high approval numbers that accompany successful if modest wars."

"A successful if modest war": Keep that phrase – or perhaps "Let them eat a successful if modest war" -- in mind as our position in Iraq goes from terrible to worse.
Click here to read more of this dispatch.

Wrap...

| 0 comments

It's just that simple!!!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 8, 20059:54 AM
CONTACT: AfterDowningStreet.org

Statement by Constitutional Attorney John Bonifaz on Behalf of AfterDowningStreet.org on Today's Joint Press Conference with President Bush and British Prime Minister Blair

President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair continued today to try to hide from the explosive revelations in the Downing Street Minutes.

Neither President Bush nor Prime Minister Blair denied today that the Downing Street Minutes are, in fact, the official minutes of the secret meeting that Prime Minister Blair held in London on July 23, 2002, with his top national security officials to receive a briefing from Richard Dearlove, then director of Britain’s CIA equivalent, MI-6.

Neither President Bush nor Prime Minister Blair denied today that Mr. Dearlove, in reporting on his meetings with high U.S. Government officials in Washington, stated at that meeting: “Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD--weapons of mass destruction. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

The Prime Minister asserted that “the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all.”

The President claimed that “there’s nothing farther from the truth” with respect to Mr. Dearlove’s statement that the President had decided, by July 2002, to invade Iraq, months before submitting his resolution on Iraq to the United States Congress and months before he and the Prime Minister asked the United Nations to resume its inspections for alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The American people deserve to know the truth. Mr. Dearlove’s report in July 2002 directly contradicts what the President and the Prime Minister said today. Only a full congressional investigation, with subpoena power, will reveal the truth.

AfterDowningStreet.org, a broad coalition of veterans groups, peace groups, and public interest organizations across this country, renews its call today for Members of Congress to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the House Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation into whether the President of the United States has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war. This inquiry must now answer the question: Has the President engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq?

If the President has committed a High Crime, he must be held accountable under the United States Constitution.

************************
I'd say that Bush has committed many High Crimes, and if he's to be held accountable, then there must be first, a Resolution of Inquiry, then Impeachment. No more, no less.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

There were others, but...

...sometimes just a couple jump out and grab my interest. Of these two, I have BANK'S BANDITS. Damned near collapsed laughing while I read it. The 82nd Airborne ate chicken dinners every Sunday...right up until the hungry Green Berets stole the live chickens.

From: www.thebookinsider.com

Bank's Bandits
Edward F. Fitzgerald
BANK'S BANDITS relates the birth of the Green Berets and the coming of age in the army of James Fitzpatrick. It moves from 1950s Boston to Indiantown Gap, through Jump School and on into Special Forces. With James and his A-team we discover the fearful thrills of night jumps, the rigors of survival problems and of unconventional warfare, of stealing "aggressor" rations, of hitting "targets of opportunity," of running one half step ahead of the angry 82nd, and the hilarious complexities of raising a local army in the Georgia mountains. The authentic, never-before-told story of Aaron Bank's "originals" in action. Read Author Interview.
*************
This novel, I haven't read, but I'm gonna. The premise fascinates me. What do you do if you're getting younger rather than older...and just how young are you gonna get? Back to your own birth? Then what? Hah!

The Boswell Gene
Parke Sellard
A book about a man’s incredible second chance and the terrible price he paid. He’s middle-aged, in a loveless marriage, and in a dead-end job. Harry Boswell has no future, literally. That’s because one day his body starts to age—backwards. His genes have suddenly gone into reverse, and he’s growing younger every day. Is this a second chance for a lonely man’s life? Or, is it the ultimate nightmare come true? Read author interview
Wrap....

| 0 comments

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Impeach, and jail the rest..

Palast for Conyers: The OTHER ' Memos' from Downing Street and Pennsylvania Avenue

Greg Palast, unable to attend hearings in Washington Thursday, has submitted the following testimony:Chairman Conyers,It's official: The Downing Street memos, a snooty New York Times "News Analysis" informs us, "are not the Dead Sea Scrolls." You are warned, Congressman, to ignore the clear evidence of official mendacity and bald-faced fibbing by our two nations' leaders because the cry for investigation came from the dark and dangerous world of "blogs" and "opponents" of Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush.
On May 5, "blog" site Buzzflash.com carried my story, IMPEACHMENT TIME: "FACTS WERE FIXED," bringing the London Times report of the Downing Street memo to US media which seemed to be suffering at the time from an attack of NADD -- "news attention deficit disorder."
The memo, which contains the ill-making admission that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed" to match the Iraq-crazed fantasies of our President, is sufficient basis for a hearing toward impeachment of the Chief Executive.
But to that we must add the other evidence and secret memos and documents still hidden from the American public. Other foreign-based journalists could doubtless add more, including the disclosure that the key inspector of Iraq's biological weapons, the late Dr. David Kelly, found the Bush-Blair analysis of his intelligence was indeed "fixed," as the Downing Street memo puts it, around the war-hawk policy.
Here is a small timeline of confidential skullduggery dug up and broadcast by my own team for BBC Television and Harper's on the secret plans to seize Iraq's assets and oil.
February 2001 - Only one month after the first Bush-Cheney inauguration, the State Department's Pam Quanrud organizes a secret confab in California to make plans for the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam. US oil industry advisor Falah Aljibury and others are asked to interview would-be replacements for a new US-installed dictator. On BBC Television's Newsnight, Aljibury himself explained,"It is an invasion, but it will act like a coup. The original plan was to liberate Iraq from the Saddamists and from the regime."
March 2001 - Vice-President Dick Cheney meets with oil company executives and reviews oil field maps of Iraq. Cheney refuses to release the names of those attending or their purpose. Harper's has since learned their plan and purpose -- see below.
October/November 2001 - An easy military victory in Afghanistan emboldens then-Dep. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to convince the Administration to junk the State Department "coup" plan in favor of an invasion and occupation that could remake the economy of Iraq. And elaborate plan, ultimately summarized in a 101-page document, scopes out the "sale of all state enterprises" -- that is, most of the nation's assets, ". especially in the oil and supporting industries."
2002 - Grover Norquist and other corporate lobbyists meet secretly with Defense, State and Treasury officials to ensure the invasion plans for Iraq include plans for protecting "property rights." The result was a pre-invasion scheme to sell off Iraq's oil fields, banks, electric systems, and even change the country's copyright laws to the benefit of the lobbyists' clients. Occupation chief Paul Bremer would later order these giveaways into Iraq law.
Fall 2002 - Philip Carroll, former CEO of Shell Oil USA, is brought in by the Pentagon to plan the management of Iraq's oil fields. He works directly with Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. "There were plans," says Carroll, "maybe even too many plans" -- but none disclosed to the public nor even the US Congress.
January 2003 - Robert Ebel, former CIA oil analyst, is sent, BBC learns, to London to meet with Fadhil Chalabi to plan terms for taking over Iraq's oil.
March 2003 - What White House spokesman Ari Fleisher calls "Operations Iraqi Liberation" (OIL) begins. (Invasion is re-christened "OIF" -- Operation Iraqi Freedom.)
March 2003 - Defense Department is told in confidence by US Energy Information Administrator Guy Caruso that Iraq's fields are incapable of a massive increase in output. Despite this intelligence, Dep. Secretary Wolfowitz testifies to Congress that invasion will be a free ride. He swears, "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. .We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon," a deliberate fabrication promoted by the Administration, an insider told BBC, as "part of the sales pitch" for war.
May 2003 - General Jay Garner, appointed by Bush as viceroy over Iraq, is fired by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The general revealed in an interview for BBC that he resisted White House plans to sell off Iraq's oil and national assets."That's just one fight you don't want to take on," Garner told me. But apparently, the White House wanted that fight.The general also disclosed that these invade-and-grab plans were developed long before the US asserted that Saddam still held WDM: "All I can tell you is the plans were pretty elaborate; they didn't start them in 2002, they were started in 2001."
November/December 2003 - Secrecy and misinformation continues even after the invasion. The oil industry objects to the State Department plans for Iraq's oil fields and drafts for the Administration a 323-page plan, "Options for [the] Iraqi Oil Industry." Per the industry plan, the US forces Iraq to create an OPEC-friendly state oil company that supports the OPEC cartel's extortionate price for petroleum. The Stone WallHarper's and BBC obtained the plans despite official denial of their existence, then footdragging when confronted with the evidence of the reports' existence.
Still today, the State and Defense Departments and White House continue to stonewall our demands for the notes of the meetings between lobbyists, oil industry consultants and key Administration officials that would reveal the hidden economic motives for the war.
What are the secret interests behind this occupation? Who benefits? Who met with whom? Why won't this Administration release these documents of the economic blueprint for the war? To date, the State and Defense Department responses to our reports are risible, and their answers to our requests for documents run from evasive to downright misleading. Maybe Congress, with it's power of subpoena, can do better.
Blogs, the Media and DemocracyLet me conclude with a comment about those pesky "blogs" that so bother the New York Times. We should stand and offer a moment of quiet gratitude to the electronic swarm of gadfly commentators who make it so much harder for the US media to ignore news not officially blessed. Yes, Judith Miller's breathless reports for The Times that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction may have maintained "access" for the mainstream press to its diet of White House propaganda, but the blogs insure that, whatever nonsense the US press is biting on, the public need not swallow.
********
This week Greg Palast's investigative team was named winner of a 2004-5 Project Censored award from the California State University at Sonoma Journalism School for their exposé of the secret US plans to seize Iraq's oil assets. Special thanks to the chief investigator on Iraq, Leni von Eckardt, as well as additional support from Matt Pascarella. The investigation was conducted for Harper's Magazine, BBC Television Newsnight and "blog" outlet TomPaine.com.View the BBC television reports and the Harper's and related reports at www.GregPalast.com
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Unmasking Secrets...

Be sure to skim down and read the article on how to identify and turn in your suspicious co-workers...or bosses....or neighbors just like the Nazis used to do.

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2005, Issue No. 56
June 16, 2005

** A GAGGLE OF CRS REPORTS
** COUNTERINTELLIGENCE REPORTING IN THE WORK PLACE
A GAGGLE OF CRS REPORTS

The Congressional Research Service, at the direction of the current congressional leadership, does not make its products directly available to the public. In an effort to counter this anachronistic policy, Secrecy News provides direct access to selected CRS reports such as the following:"

*State and Local Homeland Security: Unresolved Issues for the109th Congress," June 9, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32941.pdf"
*Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy -- Background, Issues,and Options for Congress," updated May 25, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31404.pdf"
*Military Base Closure: Socioeconomic Impacts," May 18, 2005: http://www.blogger.com/'http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22147.pdf
*Fast Track' Congressional Consideration of Recommendations ofthe Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission," May 12,2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22144.pdf"
*Unmanned Vehicles for U.S. Naval Forces: Background and Issuesfor Congress," updated May 12, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS21294.pdf"
*Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versusHose-and-Drogue," May 11, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32910.pdf"
*Navy Ship Acquisition: Options for Lower-Cost Ship Designs --Issues for Congress," May 11, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32914.pdf"
*Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances," updated May10, 2005: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL31139.pdf"
*China's Exchange Rate Peg: Economic Issues and Options for U.S.Trade Policy,

| 0 comments

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Good reads a'comin'...

From Publishers Lunch...always on Thursdays:

Sci-Fi/Fantasy:
Michael Scott's THE ALCHEMYST, in which a bookstore worker and his sister discover that his boss, Nick Fleming, is actually Nicholas Flamel - the Alchemyst who lived 600 years ago - and a book stolen from the store is the Book of Abraham - the book that holds the secret to eternal life, which they set off to retrieve, crossing boundaries of time and space, to Krista Marino at Delacorte Press, by Frank Weimann at The Literary Group (world).kristamarino@randomhouse.com

[Here, I'm compelled to admit that I know and am very fond of Frank Weimann. The man is a fine agent, an honest agent, and a great guy. His writers are lucky to have him. He, of course would see it the other way round.]

History/Politics/Current Affairs:
Fox News war correspondent Patrick O'Donnell's GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN: The Marines who Captured Fallujah, a first-hand account of the fierce battle for Fallujah in November 2004, a story of brotherhood and sacrifice within a small Marine platoon, to Robert Pigeon at Da Capo, for publication in fall 2006, by Andrew Zack at The Zack Company (world English).
Professor of Political Science and political writer/talk radio host Thomas F. Schaller's

WHISTLING PAST DIXIE: The Democrats' Path to a Non-Southern Majority, arguing that the Democrats should forget the South in the near-term and begin building a national majority in parts of the country where demographics and political attitudes favor their message, while isolating the Republicans as a regional party that owns the South but little else, to Alice Mayhew at Simon & Schuster, by Will Lippincott at Lippincott Massie McQuilkin (NA).kate@limqlit.com

Hans Halberstadt's SNIPERS AT WAR, an anthology of first-person war stories from Marines and other soldiers on sniping, along with other information about this deadly art, to Marc Resnick at St. Martin's, by Scott Miller at Trident Media Group (NA).

[Note: St. Martin's was my publisher, so I feel I can say something about them. They are terrific. I'm told St Martin's publishes more first-time authors than any other publisher. Their editors are not only good, they care. And if a writer is fortunate enough to be awarded Joe Renaldi as their publicist, that writer should bow down to the ground and be thankful and joyous. There is no better. He will do everything he possibly can to ease your way with author signings at bookstores. He will advise. You can trust Joe totally.]

Memoir:
Dr. Renee Richards' NO WAY RENEE, how she has spent the last 31 years -- since her sex change operation and transformation from Richard Raskind, given national prominence when she fought a legal battle to be allowed to compete on the women's tennis circuit -- finding out what it means to be a woman and providing some surprising insights and honest appraisals of the choices she made along the way, to Sydney Miner at Simon & Schuster, by Jane Dystel at Dystel & Goderich Literary Management (world).

[Note: Been a very long time since Dr. Renee Richards has been heard of. She's in safe hands with Jane Dystel, with whom I once shared a cabin while at a writers' conference in W VA. Even there, she was on the phone working for her clients. Another very fine agent.]

Steve Ostrow's SATURDAY NIGHT AT THE BATHS, from the founder of the Continental Baths in the Ansonia Hotel, who helped repeal New York's laws against homosexuality and turned a gay bathhouse into one of the hot nightspots of the 70s, and was "instrumental in discovering Bette Midler, Barry Manilow, and a host of others," to Jessica Callahan at Chamberlain Bros., by Jim McCarthy at Dystel & Goderich Literary Management (world).jmccarthy@dystel.com

UKBritish circus entrepreneur Gerry Cottle with Helen Batten's CONFESSIONS OF A SHOWMAN: MY LIFE IN THE CIRCUS, a warts-and-all autobiography of an outlandish entrepreneur whose rise to success has been unparalleled since Philip Astley gave circus to the world in London in 1768, including introducing the West to the Moscow and Chinese state circuses, to Charlotte Cole at Vision Paperbacks, in a nice deal, by Peter Tallack at Conville & Walsh (world).charlottecole@visionpaperbacks.co.ukpeter@convilleandwalsh.com
Wrap...

| 0 comments

A Resolution of Inquiry. Yes!!!

Go to Original
Damning Evidence Can't Be Ignored
By David Swanson and Jonathan Schwarz
The Baltimore Sun
Wednesday 15 June 2005

Since its publication May 1 by The Sunday Times of London, the so-called Downing Street memo has dominated the media in Britain and on the Internet in the United States. The memo is the official minutes from a secret meeting about Iraq held by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his inner circle July 23, 2002.
The significance of the memo - and additional leaked British documents now surfacing in public view - can hardly be overstated. They conceivably could lead to impeachment proceedings against President Bush.
The Bush administration consistently has made two claims regarding its decision to invade Iraq:
Mr. Bush chose war only as a last resort.
Mr. Bush dealt honestly with intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and alleged Iraqi ties to al-Qaida.
The Downing Street memo contradicts these claims.
Here are some of the key words in the memo, written three months before Mr. Bush received congressional authorization for war, four months before U.N. Resolution 1441 held Iraq in "material breach" of disarmament obligations and eight months before the invasion in March 2003:
"[British intelligence chief Richard Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. ... Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam [Hussein], through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. ... It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
Other internal British memos from March 2002 and July 2002 reveal British officials discussing Mr. Blair's agreement with Mr. Bush to support an invasion of Iraq and Mr. Blair's insistence that Mr. Bush make a public show of going to the United Nations in order to - as the British ambassador to Washington, Christopher Meyer, put it - "wrongfoot Saddam on inspectors" to create a pretext for war.
The British privately scoffed at the frightening claims made by the Bush administration. In a memo to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in March 2002, Peter Ricketts, the political director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said: "US scrambling to establish a link" between Iraq and al-Qaida "is so far frankly unconvincing."
Anyone who follows the news will not be surprised. A long list of whistleblowers, including former Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill and former National Security Council official Richard Clarke, have reported that the Bush administration was obsessed with regime change in Iraq from Day One and regarded 9/11 as an opportunity to put its plans into action. Removing Mr. Hussein was in the 2000 Republican Party platform. Bush administration misuse of intelligence has been well documented.
But the Downing Street minutes and other recently leaked documents illustrate that the intelligence was wrong by design. The documents show officials at the apex of the government of our closest ally confirming among themselves what were the darkest suspicions about the Iraq war among ordinary Americans.
The evidence suggests that Mr. Bush has lied to Congress and to the American people about the justifications for war. It includes a formal letter and report that he submitted to Congress within 48 hours of launching the invasion in which he explained the need for the war in terms that appear to have been intentionally falsified, not mistaken.
Lying to Congress is a felony. Either lying to Congress about the need to go to war is a high crime, or nothing is.
AfterDowningStreet.org, a coalition of veterans groups, peace groups and other activist organizations, is urging Congress to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry that would require the House Judiciary Committee to hold formal investigations with the power of subpoena. The result would be a determination as to whether the president has committed impeachable offenses.
Democratic Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey of New York, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, said Monday, "I think a Resolution of Inquiry is completely appropriate at this stage. It's something that should be done."
Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, has not expressed support for a Resolution of Inquiry. But he has asked Mr. Bush in a letter to respond to questions raised by the Downing Street memo. At least 90 members of Congress and about 500,000 U.S. citizens have signed the letter. Mr. Conyers plans to deliver it to the White House tomorrow.
He also plans to hold hearings about the memo tomorrow and participate in a rally in front of the White House.
-----------
David Swanson is co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, and Jonathan Schwarz is a consultant for the group.
******************************
Hearings are one thing...Resolutions of Inquiry are, you'd best believe, something else again. Dead serious. Watergate stuff. Exactly what is needed. Right quick.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Front page: LA Times...

June 15, 2005
latimes.com :
THE WORLD
New Memos Detail Early Plans for Invading Iraq
British officials believed the U.S. favored military force a year before the war, documents show.
By John Daniszewski, Times Staff Writer

LONDON — In March 2002, the Bush administration had just begun to publicly raise the possibility of confronting Iraq. But behind the scenes, officials already were deeply engaged in seeking ways to justify an invasion, newly revealed British memos indicate.Foreshadowing developments in the year before the war started, British officials emphasized the importance of U.N. diplomacy, which they said might force Saddam Hussein into a misstep. They also suggested that confronting the Iraqi leader be cast as an effort to prevent him from using weapons of mass destruction or giving them to terrorists.

The documents help flesh out the background to the formerly top-secret "Downing Street memo" published in the Sunday Times of London last month, which said that top British officials were told eight months before the war began that military action was "seen as inevitable." President Bush and his main ally in the war, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have long maintained that they had not made up their minds to go to war at that stage."Nothing could be farther from the truth," Bush said last week, responding to a question about the July 23, 2002, memo. "Both of us didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Publication of the Downing Street memo at the height of Britain's election campaign at first garnered little notice in U.S. media or other British newspapers. But in the weeks that followed, anger has grown among war critics, who contend that the document proves the Bush administration had already decided on military action, even while U.S. officials were saying that war was a last resort.

The new documents indicate that top British officials believed that by March 2002, Washington was already leaning heavily toward toppling Hussein by military force. Condoleezza Rice, the current secretary of State who was then Bush's national security advisor, was described as enthusiastic about "regime change."Although British officials said in the documents that they did not think Iraq's weapons programs posed an immediate threat and that they were dubious of any claimed links between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda, they indicated that they were willing to join in a campaign to topple Hussein as long as the plan would succeed and was handled with political and legal care.

The documents contain little discussion about whether to mount a military campaign. The focus instead is on how the campaign should be presented to win the widest support and the importance for Britain of working through the United Nations so an invasion could be seen as legal under international law.

Michael Smith, the defense writer for the Times of London who revealed the Downing Street minutes in a story May 1, provided a full text of the six new documents to the Los Angeles Times. Portions of the new documents, all labeled "secret" or "confidential," have appeared previously in two British newspapers, the Times of London and the Telegraph. Blair's government has not challenged their authenticity.They cover a period when reports had begun appearing that the Bush administration was forming plans to go after Hussein in the next phase of its "war on terrorism."

A Feb. 10, 2002, article in the Los Angeles Times, for instance, said that the U.S. was considering action against Hussein that might require a massive number of U.S. troops.

Published accounts, including those by the Washington Post's Bob Woodward and former U.S. counter-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke, said that Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld began focusing on Iraq soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon.In his Jan. 29, 2002, State of the Union address, Bush described Iraq, Iran and North Korea as part of an "axis of evil."

The documents present a picture of a U.S. government fed up with the policy of containing Iraq, skeptical of the U.N. and focused on ousting Hussein.Blair's advisors were weighing how Britain could participate in a war. The need to establish a policy on Iraq led to a flurry of meetings between senior U.S. and British officials and internal British government memos in advance of a Bush-Blair summit in April 2002 at the president's ranch near Crawford, Texas. (According to one of the subsequent documents that has been leaked, a British Cabinet briefing paper written in July 2002, Blair gave Bush a conditional commitment at the Texas summit to support military action to remove Hussein.)

In one memorandum, dated March 14, 2002, and labeled "secret — strictly personal," Blair's chief foreign policy advisor, David Manning, described to the prime minister a dinner he had had with Rice."We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq," wrote Manning, now the British ambassador to the U.S. "It is clear that Bush is grateful for your [Blair's] support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was different from anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option."

The memo went on to say:"Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks…. From what she said, Bush has yet to find answers to the big questions:

• How to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified;
• What value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition;
• How to coordinate a US/allied military campaign with internal opposition (assuming there is any);
• What happens the morning after?"

Manning told Blair that given Bush's eagerness for British backing, the prime minister would have "real influence" on the public relations strategy, on the issue of encouraging the United States to go first to the United Nations and on any U.S. military planning.Manning said it could prove helpful if Hussein refused to allow renewed U.N. weapons inspections."The issue of weapons inspectors must be handled in a way that would persuade Europe and wider opinion that the U.S. was conscious of the international framework, and the insistence of many countries on the need for a legal basis. Renewed refusal by Saddam to accept unfettered inspections would be a powerful argument," Manning wrote Blair.

Four days after the Manning memo, Christopher Meyer, then the British ambassador in Washington, wrote to Manning about a lunch he had with Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the U.S. deputy secretary of Defense and a leading proponent in the administration of confronting Hussein. Meyer said in the memo that he had told Wolfowitz that U.N. pressure and weapons inspections could be used to trip up Hussein."We backed regime change," he wrote, "but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically, and probably tougher elsewhere in Europe."Meyer wrote that he had argued that Washington could go it alone if it wanted to. "But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam.

I then went through the need to wrong-foot Saddam on the inspectors and the [U.N. Security Council resolutions] and the critical importance of the [Middle East peace process] as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy. If all this could be accomplished skillfully, we were fairly confident that a number of countries would come on board."

Another memo, from British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on March 22, 2002, bluntly stated that the case against Hussein was weak because the Iraqi leader was not accelerating his weapons programs and there was scant proof of links to Al Qaeda."What has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," Ricketts wrote. "Attempts to claim otherwise publicly will increase skepticism about our case…."U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is so far frankly unconvincing," he said.Ricketts said that other countries such as Iran appeared closer to getting nuclear weapons, and that arguing for regime change in Iraq alone "does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam." That was why the issue of weapons of mass destruction was vital, he said."Much better, as you [Straw] have suggested, to make the objective ending the threat to the international community from Iraqi WMD before Saddam uses it or gives it to terrorists," he said. A U.N. Security Council resolution demanding renewal of weapons inspections, he says, would be a "win/win.""Either [Hussein] against all the odds allows Inspectors to operate freely, in which case we can further hobble his WMD programs, or he blocks/hinders, and we are on stronger grounds for switching to other methods," he wrote.

The arguments that Iraq had illegal, hidden weapons of mass destruction, programs to develop more of them, and that it might give them to terrorists were to become some of the Bush administration's chief reasons for the war. When no weapons were found, the administration blamed faulty intelligence and said the war still was justified because it ended Hussein's brutal dictatorship and allowed an emerging democratic government.

In November 2002, the U.S. and Britain managed to get a toughly worded resolution through the Security Council that reintroduced arms inspectors into Iraq for the first time since 1998. However, it fell short of authorizing the use of force against Hussein's government.Straw, writing to Blair on March 25, 2002, expressed concern about a lack of support among members of Parliament from the governing Labor Party."Colleagues know that Saddam and the Iraqi regime are bad," he wrote. "But we have a long way to go to convince them as to: The scale of the threat from Iraq, and why this has got worse recently; what distinguishes the Iraqi threat from that of e.g. Iran and North Korea so as to justify military action; the justification for any military action in terms of international law; and whether the consequences really would be a compliant, law-abiding replacement government."Regime change per se is no justification for military action; it could form part of the method of any strategy, but not a goal," he said. "Elimination of Iraq's WMD capacity has to be the goal."

The new documents also include an earlier 10-page options paper, dated March 8, 2002, from the overseas and defense secretariat of the Cabinet Office, sketching out options for dealing with Iraq. The thrust of the memo was that the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War were likely to fail, and that, in any case, the U.S. had already given up on them."

The U.S. has lost confidence in containment," the document said. "Some in government want Saddam removed. The success of Operation Enduring Freedom [the military code name for the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan], distrust of U.N. sanctions and inspection regimes, and unfinished business from 1991 are all factors."Washington believes the legal basis for an attack already exists. Nor will it necessarily be governed by wider political factors. The U.S. may be willing to work with a smaller coalition than we think desirable," it said.

The paper said the British view was that any invasion for the purpose of regime change "has no basis under international law."The best way to justify military action, it said, would be to convince the Security Council that Iraq was in breach of its post-Gulf War obligations to eliminate its store of weapons of mass destruction.The document appeared to rule out any action in Iraq short of an invasion."

In sum, despite the considerable difficulties, the use of overriding force in a ground campaign is the only option that we can be confident will remove Saddam and bring Iraq back into the international community," it said.
************************
When first they practiced to deceive....
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Lookin' at it!

VIDEO SPECIAL The Smoking Gun - an excerpt from the documentary film "Hijacking Tragedy". http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm

Oh, they're good, those BushCo liars....
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Bush elected prez in 2008, 2009,,,,

Talk about pushing the envelope...these s.o.b.s have actually gone and done this! Very very quietly. But if they think for one damned moment that 38 States are gonna ratify, they have another think coming. And they know it. If you've forgotten, the 22nd Amendment limits a president to two terms ONLY. I'd like to know just what their purpose is. Their REAL reason, that is. Maybe their way of pushing back against those who want hearings on the Downing Street Minutes? Those of us who want BushCo in its entirety impeached? Read on:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
(Introduced in House)HJ 24 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st SessionH. J. RES. 24
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 17, 2005
Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:`Article --

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.
***************************
No way does anybody want to hear what I said when I saw that.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

ABC askin' for it...

From this morn's ABC, The Note:

3. The New York Times' Todd Purdum, explaining in news analysisese the politics and substance of the pre-war Blair government memos. LINK

(The Left is unappeasable on this one, wethinks. Send protest-y e-mails, along with (PLEASE) original points only, to politicalunit@abcnews.com)

Wrap...

| 0 comments

Bills of Impeachment...

From: www.independentclearinghouse.info/article9136.htm

The National Campaign to Impeach President George W. Bush
by Professor Francis A. Boyle
06/14/05 "ICH" - -

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's installation of George W. Bush as President in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a government in the United States of America that demonstrates little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or withholding the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of foreign affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policies represent a gross deviation from those basic rules of international deportment and civilized behavior that the United States government had traditionally played the pioneer role in promoting for the entire world community.

Even more seriously, in many instances specific components of the Bush Jr. administration's foreign policies constitute ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, and in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles. Depending upon the substantive issues involved, those international crimes typically include but are not limited to the Nuremberg offenses of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as well as grave breaches of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare, torture, disappearances, and assassinations.

In addition, various members of the Bush Jr. administration committed numerous inchoate crimes incidental to these substantive offenses that under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles were international crimes in their own right: viz., planning, preparation, solicitation, incitement, conspiracy, complicity, attempt, aiding and abetting, etc. Of course the great irony of today's situation is that six decades ago at Nuremberg, representatives of the U.S. government participated in the prosecution, punishment and execution of Nazi government officials for committing some of the same types of heinous international crimes that members of the Bush Jr. administration currently inflict upon people all around the world.

To be sure, I personally oppose the imposition of capital punishment upon any person for any reason no matter how monstrous their crimes: Bush Jr., Tony Blair, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Vladimir Putin, Ariel Sharon, my former client John Wayne Gacy, etc.

Furthermore, according to basic principles of international criminal law, all high-level civilian officials and military officers in the U.S. government who either knew or should have known that soldiers or civilians under their control committed or were about to commit international crimes, and failed to take the measures necessary to stop them, or to punish them, or both, are likewise personally responsible for the commission of international crimes. This category of officialdom who actually knew or at least should have known of the commission of such substantive or inchoate international crimes under their jurisdiction and failed to do anything about it typically includes the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Director of Central Intelligence, the National Security Adviser, the Attorney General, the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional CINCs, and presumably the President and Vice President. These U.S. government officials and their immediate subordinates, among others, were personally responsible for the commission or at least complicity in the commission of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as specified by the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles - at a minimum.

In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law. Consequently, on Tuesday 11 March 2003, with the Bush Jr. administration's war of aggression against Iraq staring the American People, Congress and Republic in their face, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee (which has jurisdiction over Bills of Impeachment), convened an emergency meeting of forty or more of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and debate immediately putting into the U.S. House of Representatives Bills of Impeachment against President Bush Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and then Attorney General John Ashcroft in order to head off the impending war.

Congressman Conyers kindly requested that Ramsey Clark and I come to the meeting in order to argue the case for impeachment. This impeachment debate lasted for two hours. It was presided over by Congressman Conyers, who quite correctly did not tip his hand one way or the other on the merits of impeachment. He simply moderated the debate between Clark and I, on the one side, favoring immediately filing Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr. et al. to stop the threatened war, and almost everyone else there who were against impeachment for partisan political reasons.

Obviously no point would be served here by attempting to digest a two-hour-long vigorous debate among a group of well-trained lawyers on such a controversial matter at this critical moment in American history. But at the time I was struck by the fact that this momentous debate was conducted at a private office right down the street from the White House on the eve of war. Suffice it to say that most of the "experts" there opposed impeachment not on the basis of enforcing the Constitution and the Rule of Law, whether international or domestic, but on the political grounds that it might hurt the Democratic Party effort to get their presidential candidate elected in the year 2004.

As a political independent, I did not argue that point. Rather, I argued the merits of impeaching Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft under the United States Constitution, U.S. federal laws, U.S. treaties and other international agreements to which the United States is a party, etc. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution also applies to international executive agreements concluded under the auspices of the U.S. President such as the 1945 Nuremberg Charter.

Congressman Conyers was so kind as to allow me the closing argument in the debate. Briefly put, the concluding point I chose to make was historical: The Athenians lost their democracy. The Romans lost their Republic. And if we Americans did not act now we could lose our Republic! The United States of America is not immune to the laws of history!

After two hours of most vigorous debate among those in attendance, the meeting adjourned with second revised draft Bills of Impeachment sitting on the table. Certainly, if the U.S. House of Representatives can impeach President Clinton for sex and lying about sex, then a fortiori the House can, should, and must impeach President Bush Jr. for war, lying about war, and threatening more wars. All that is needed is for one Member of Congress with courage, integrity, principles and a safe seat to file these currently amended draft Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and now Attorney General Albert Gonzales, who bears personal criminal responsibility for the Bush Jr. administration torture scandal.

Failing this, the alternative is likely to be an American Empire abroad, a U.S. police state at home, and continuing wars of aggression to sustain both-along the lines of George Orwell's classic novel 1984. Despite all of the serious flaws demonstrated by successive United States governments that this author has amply documented elsewhere during the past quarter century as a Professor of Law, the truth of the matter is that America is still the oldest Republic in the world today. "We the People of the United States" must fight to keep it that way!

Francis A. Boyle is a Professor of International Law and a human rights attorney. He is the author of "Destroying World Order" (2004, Clarity Press). He can be reached at: FBOYLE@LAW.UIUC.EDU

Wrap.

| 0 comments

Kerry makes his move...

RawStory.com
Steve Bagley

Two confidants of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) told RAW STORY Tuesday that he is privately seeking other senators to cosign a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on the Downing Street minutes. “Kerry has been enlisting other senators to sign onto a letter to the intelligence committee seeking answers to the Downing Street memo,” said one, “so Americans can trust that security decisions are driven by facts and responsible intelligence, not by political calculation.”

This statement comes after nearly two weeks of silence from the senator, who previously promised to “raise the issue” of the Downing Street minutes in the Senate chamber.

Two days after RAW STORY reported on Kerry’s initial promise to react, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) delivered his own statement, saying, “The Administration’s dishonesty, lack of candor, and lack of planning have brought us to where we are today, with American soldiers dying, Iraqi civilians living in constant fear, and with no clearer picture of our strategy for victory in Iraq than when we started.”

The reactions from the Massachusetts senators come after action in the House. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) penned a response to the Downing Street minutes five days after it leaked to the British Sunday Times, demanding that President Bush answer new questions about the contents of the secret document. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who signed Conyers letter, told RAW STORY the missive is part of a plan to “keep agitating the public” and to convince more Republicans and Democrats in Congress to act in response to the Downing Street minutes.

Ninety-four House members have since signed the letter. Conyers also put up a copy of the same memo open for the public to sign, and has since received nearly half a million signatures from across the country. Conyers is expected to deliver it to the President in a Democratic hearing Thursday.
LINK TO ORIGINAL

Wrap...

| 0 comments

Throw the Dems out!

Well, well, well.... Now we see yet another example of the Repubs who can hand it out, but who can't take it. Pretty desperate to gag the Dems. Don't want the public to hear any part of any investigation of the Downing Street Minutes. No, no. Wonder why? :)) They'll get their asses handed to 'em is why. Don't want any of the evidence against them...impeachable evidence, by the way...out there in the public. Too late, damned liars. We know. Now it has to be presented formally, and if Conyers can do it, you bet he will:

Judiciary GOP pulls the plug on Conyers 'forums'
By Albert Eisele and Jeff Dufour

If the Financial Services Committee is the best in the House when it comes to bipartisan comity, then the Judiciary Committee may well be the worst.

In December, ranking Democrat John Conyers (Mich.) began holding “forums” — gatherings with all the trappings of official hearings — after Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) refused to hold hearings on topics Conyers requested. The forums have been held in smaller committee rooms, often with C-SPAN coverage and formal witness lists.

In a sign of how far relationships on the committee have soured, majority staff recently announced a new policy to deny any request from a committee Democrat for the use of a committee hearing room.Majority spokesman Jeff Lungren said the Republicans have given Democrats three opportunities to make clear that the forums are not official committee business. Nevertheless, Lungren said, in at least one case, members were addressing Conyers as “Mr. Chairman.”

“They were unwilling or unable to make those changes,” Lungren said. “At this point, if they want to hold these forums, they’ll have to find some other place to do it.”

Sean McLaughlin, deputy chief of staff for Sensenbrenner, recently wrote to a minority staffer in more pointed language.“I’m sitting here watching your ‘forum’ on C-SPAN,” McLaughlin wrote. “Just to let you know, it was your last. Don’t bother asking [for a room] again.”

A committee source said committee Democrats are still planning to hold the forums when they find other available space.
*****************************
Find it fast, and do it!!!
Wrap..

| 0 comments

Monday, June 13, 2005

Milbloggers' New Rules...

It pays to keep an eye on www.defensetech.org He manages to find things out. Check this:

Milbloggers' Rules

American generals in Iraq have handed down their rules for military bloggers. They seem surprisingly fair.

It wasn't that long ago that Spc. Colby Buzell was banned from patrols and confined to base for what he wrote on his blog. Today, that might not happen.

"Personal web sites and web logs produced in a personal capacity and not in connection with official duties need not be cleared in advance," the new rules read. "However, it is the responsbility of MNC-I [Multi-National Corps Iraq] personnel to ensure that any personal web sites and web logs do not contain prohibited information" -- classified and for-official-use-only material, basically.

Commanders are supposed to review the blogs on a quarterly basis. "Risk of release of the information must be weighed against the benefits of publishing," the chiefs warn. What's more, "servicemembers in violation of this policy may be subject to adverse administrative action and punishment under the UCMJ [Universal Code of Military Justice]."

Phil Carter, who passed on the rules to me (and others) thinks "this policy strikes a pretty good balance, especially to the extent that it refrains from 'prior restraint' [pre-publication review]. However, a lot continues to depend on the willingness of commanders to allow these blogs, and the extent to which they exercise their lawful authority… to quash them."
(Big ups: Argghhh!)

THERE'S MORE: Milblogger CDR Salamander ain't too happy, however.
Having your Chain of Command have complete knowledge and access to your webpage/blog and/or postings on other internet based publishing media will put a damper on primary source reporting, opinion, and information flow we are used to in the quick, honest, unvarnished manner we have become accustomed...

Let me tell you what this means to me: If/when I go to the MNC-I AOR [Area of Responsibility], CDR Salamander will go cold iron. That is the only way I can keep CDR Salamander anon and brash as it is and not violate a lawful order. No other option.
On a macro scale, simple Freakonomics will tell you that this burden will result in fewer blogs and diluted content.
Wrap.

| 0 comments

A Secular Nation. Yes!!!

Now consider this:

Sunday, June 12, 2005
A secular nation
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.
James Madisonoriginal draft for what became the First Amendment to the Constitution (6/8/1789)
I do wish they had continued to include Madison's "rights of conscience," which would have made it much more clear that the intent was both to keep the practice of religion free from government interference, and to allow every person to follow his own conscience in respect to religion, including the right not to practice any religion at all.Ed Fitzgerald 6/12/2005 11:30:00 PM write me
postCount('111863377306584303');
Comment (1)

postCountTB('111863377306584303');
Trackback (0)
HOME
*******************************************
Ed's wish is my wish. Now if the Supreme Court could just take this into consideration...sure as hell BushCo never will.
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Get some damned answers!

http://morialefeka.blogspot.com has questions that need answers on Guckert/Gannon:

"How is it that a gay prostitute with no press credentials or experience was given repeated passes to the White House Press Conference over a period of more than a year? And how is it that he was also given passes to enter the White House on more than thirty occasions when there wasn't even a Press Conference? Like, where was he? What was he doing? Who was he seeing? Who arranged for these occasions? And why?

Why did this potential scandal totally disappear from the MSM? Imagine what would have happened if this had occurred while Clinton was President. If you can't imagine it you are too stupid to exist. If it had occurred on Clinton's watch we would still be hearing about it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on every major news program there is. If you don't think so you are in abject denial (which seems to pretty much characterize all Bush/Cheney supporters).
*****************************
Click the link above to read the rest. I admit I'd forgotten about Guckert/Gannon once the Downing Street Minutes blew wide open.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Air America's Ed Schultz!!!

Go, Ed, Go!!!!

Radio vets purchase Ed Schultz; Liberal talk gains business cred;


By John Byrne
Two radio executives who made Clear Channel and Rush Limbaugh household are to announce today they have purchased The Ed Schultz show, America’s fastest-growing talk show in the country, Raw Story has learned.

Veteran radio execs Randy Michaels and Stu Krane purchased the show from Democracy Radio, a non-profit which helps seed progressive talk radio hosts. Michaels’ and Krane’s new company, P1 will now carry the show. The protracted sale has been in the works since March.
***********************
Hah!
Wrap...

| 0 comments

The best General evaluates:

Monday, June 13, 2005

At Manchester Democratic fundraiser Clark says Bush ruining military

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Sunday that the Bush administration's foreign policy is undermining the nation's support for its military.

Clark, who was a candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, said the president's use of the armed forces has hurt recruitment efforts and eroded public support for the military."We have to make our legislators and president understand we believe in a volunteer force, and we expect him to have the leadership to guide our country in the right way in foreign affairs without wrecking the military institutions that keep us safe," Clark said while attending a fundraiser for Manchester Democrats.

He also accused the administration of committing soldiers in Iraq without proper planning and support."(Bush) used fear, the fear of the American people to take us into a war that was purely elective," Clark said.

Clark also voiced strong support for Democratic National Committee head Howard Dean, who has been criticized for comments attacking Republicans."We've got to protect our freedom and our liberty," Clark said. "I'm proud of Howard Dean. I'm proud of the Democratic party. And we're going to stand together as a party."

Clark has not said whether he will make another run for the White House in 2008, but he has said he has not ruled it out.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Anybody surprised?

Not hardly:


The Sunday Times - World
June 12, 2005
Jackson jurors offered $1m for book of the trial
John Harlow, Los Angeles

JURORS in the Michael Jackson child abuse trial are being offered book and film deals that could be worth as much as $1m (£550,000) each.
After debating the complex case for 28 hours over six days they have gone home for the weekend and it could be days or even weeks before their verdicts are announced. Literary agents are already in contact with the jurors through their relatives.

A 79-year-old grandmother, so far known only as Juror Five, spoke of a desire to write about her experiences in the jury room almost as soon as she was selected four months ago. “She talked about going on the Oprah Winfrey Show,” said her granddaughter Traci Montgomery, a schoolteacher.

One Los Angeles literary agent said the families of at least four others had been offered a combined book, audio tape and TV movie deal.
“The first to produce the book could make $1m, especially if they convict Jackson,” he said. “And even if they clear him, the public will want to know why.”

The singer has been tried on 10 charges, including abusing a child, plying him with alcohol and plotting to hold his family captive.

Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, said such offers were a sign of things to come. “We do not know if any jurors have engaged in misconduct by discussing the case with anybody outside the jury room, only that it’s a celebrity case and people will try to make money out of it,” he said.

In Britain, jurors are barred from revealing details of their deliberations. But in California they are obliged to remain silent for only 90 days after the verdict, and even that rule is not always enforced.

There has been speculation that prospective book deals could give some jurors an interest in dragging out proceedings: “One wonders whether this jury is pondering the evidence or their own book advances,” said one of more than 2,000 journalists and cameramen waiting near the courthouse.

OJ Simpson, the American football player, was cleared in less than four hours at his murder trial a decade ago. In a more recent high-profile case, Scott Peterson, a fertiliser salesman, was convicted of killing his wife and unborn child after three days and was sentenced to death.
The authorities are concerned about the reactions of hardcore Jackson fans if he is found guilty. Some supporters blame the media for their idol’s plight, although others have slipped away following evidence of Jackson’s fondness for pornography and secret drinking.

Police have confiscated sacks of stones and rocks stacked in nearby streets. “Some had attached cute little messages for the media,” said Danny R Macagni, the Santa Maria police chief.
Jackson, who spent the weekend at his Neverland ranch, 40 minutes from Santa Maria, is said by a spokesman to be confident of being cleared, although his financial woes continue to attract attention.

On Friday his lease on storage hangars at a Los Angeles airport expired and workers began moving out cars and furniture stored there for up to 20 years.

The vehicles included five Rolls-Royces and a white Chevrolet Blazer 4x4, which acquired notoriety after he lent it to the family of Gavin Arvizo, his current accuser.
The immediate fate of the vehicle remains unknown but, whether Jackson is found guilty or innocent, it is expected to be part of gigantic “house clearing sale” reportedly planned to repair his battered finances.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Brits want us to know..and act!

Six new secret British documents have been leaked and are provided below. These were retyped from the originals to protect the source. Full Text http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9125.htm

Wrap...

| 0 comments

Damn! Shoulda gone!

This just in from one of the long-time workshop leaders at the Southern California Writers Conference...this conference in Palm Springs:

"Sure missed you at the PS conference. Lots of excitement. Cricket can fill you in. Fires, earthquakes, heart attacks....

Otherwise we had a grand time."

************************
Blast! And I missed it all! That's all right. Next SCWC will be in LA. Won't go to that one either, but Feb 2007 it will be here in San Diego and that one I flat do not miss. Will hear all the gory details of Palm Springs tomorrow eve when the writers gather in Old Town. Hah!

| 0 comments

NY Times reporter, Sanger...

Just amazing what happens when things are taken out of context. Depending, a reporter can make any phrase mean something else. It's a spin of a minor sort. Maybe minor. When it involves something like the Downing Street Minutes, then the purpose of that spin had better be examined. In this particular case it only makes the reporter look ignorant and/or flat out dishonest--in which case he becomes a propagandist and not an honest reporter. Sheesh!

NYT's Downing Street Dissembling

Between the New York Times' reticence to report on the Downing Street Memo and today's article by David Sanger, one has to wonder if the NYT is going beyond self-censorship and "fixing the facts" around its previous reporting.

David Sanger's article, Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made, published today, makes the claim that the newly released Cabinet office memo of July 21, 2002, profiled today on TomPaine.com by Ray McGovern (see, Downing Street II) clears the White House of allegations substantiated by the minutes of the subsequent cabinet meeting on July 23, 2002, in which both the chief of British intelligence and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw assert that Bush had already decided to remove Saddam Hussein by military force.

To do this, Sanger quotes this line, from the July 21 memo:

Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq.

Unfortunately, Sanger is quoting well out of context. "No political decisions have been taken" is directly referencing the type of military option and the time frame for war. It is not in any way contradicting the reporting from July 23rd that Sir Richard Dearlove, the chief of British intelligence (codenamed "C"):

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.

Or from Jack Straw:

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin.

Sanger, it seems, has mistaken the operational-level decisions regarding how and when to invade with the strategic-level decision to remove Saddam Hussein. On that score, the July 23 memo is clear. By that time, Bush had already decided to invade Iraq.
...And to deceive the American people.
--Patrick Doherty Monday 12:58 PM
Wrap...

| 0 comments

The Investigative Reporters:

Russ Baker is one fine reporter, always has been, so when he talks we'd better listen:

Tomorrow's Woodwards And Bernsteins
Russ Baker
June 13, 2005

Investigative reporter and essayist Russ Baker (www.russbaker.com )is a longtime contributor to TomPaine.com. He is currently involved with launching a nonprofit organization dedicated to revitalizing investigative journalism. He can be reached at russ@russbaker.com.

Well, wasn’t that some excitement over the unmasking of Deep Throat? Besides resolving a long-standing mystery, the revelation came at an especially auspicious moment. Investigative journalism desperately needs a boost right about now.

With W. Mark Felt’s confession, we now know that Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward were not making it up. They had a real, knowledgeable flesh-and-blood insider feeding them information about dark doings in the Republic that proved completely reliable, whatever the motives of the informant. They actually did hold covert meetings in underground parking structures and engage in all manner of classic derring-do. The goings-on came to define the very essence of investigative reporting. A generation of young journalists were thus inspired, and investigative reporting grew and thrived.

But that Golden Age is gone, and we need to figure out why, and what can be done to revive it.
To what extent has investigative reporting dried up? Today, many news organizations have disbanded their investigative units altogether. Others have turned investigative teams into “projects” units that tend more toward unmasking consumer scams, relatively narrow acts of wrongdoing, or perennial injustices than digging for revelations that affront our very notion of how democracy ought to function.

The absence of the latter type of reporting was even apparent at last weekend’s Investigative Reporters and Editors’ annual convention in Denver. The award for best reporting by a large newspaper went to The New York Times for a series exposing how the railroad industry, with government acquiescence, shirks its responsibility for fatal accidents, which rose to 369 at railroad crossings last year. This story, which also won the Pulitzer Prize, was extremely well done and deserving of recognition, as were stories about racial profiling, shoddy highway construction and more. But too few winning entries spotlight the uniquely dangerous violations of the public trust that define the current administration.

True, IRE did honor Ron Suskind for his book, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill, and the Center for Public Integrity forOutsourcing the Pentagon, an exhaustive study of no-bid contracting. But Suskind is a solo reporter and the CPI is a nonprofit. Where are the news organizations? There is an immediate need for more resources devoted to exploring and exposing what may prove to be one of the most corrupt, dishonest administrations in American history. Far more important, there is a long-term need for the kind of rigorous journalistic oversight that is the handmaiden to democracy.

The obstacles to serious investigative reporting are many:

Financial: Today, with ownership of the media increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few corporations, everything is about generating larger and larger profit margins and better quarterly corporate reports. Putting a reporter on a six-month project with no guaranteed outcome is less “cost-effective” than having that person crank out a new article every day. Quality and quantity are often natural enemies.

Conflicting Interests : The large media corporations are often part of larger conglomerates with a strong interest in obscuring the most crucial revelations. Obviously NBC, a small unit within the huge military contractor GE, has a hard time doing stories about military contractors who dominate Washington decision-making, help promote unnecessary wars and waste a fortune in taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, the media corporations increasingly find themselves with pending business before the very same administration they ought to be giving fits to—such as when the FCC is considering changes in ownership rules that will benefit the company.

Intimidation: Years of criticism from the right-wing "noise machine" has made news organizations wary of tough, original reporting that could bring accusations of a liberal bias. In addition, this administration has masterfully played up mini-scandals about reporting techniques (including the "60 Minutes" use of improperly-authenticated documents about Bush’s National Guard service, and Newsweek’s reporting on allegations that U.S. interrogators threw copies of the Quran into the toilet.) These small tempests have served to distract the public from the larger questions about official wrongdoing: on the one hand Bush’s dereliction of military duty, and on the other the horrific mismanagement of prisons in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan.

They’ve also intimidated news decision-makers. Tales of pulled punches and initiatives not pursued continue to leak out of this country’s newsrooms. And we’ve seen an unfortunate increase in news executives’ zeal for prematurely confessing error and professing eagerness for self-reform.

Against this backdrop, old-fashioned muckraking appears doomed unless concerned individuals and institutions take bold action.

Here are a few ideas:
1) Mount a public education effort to teach the public about the importance of investigative journalism. Stress the differences between public issue investigations and gossipy exposes—a difference the public seems increasingly unable to comprehend.

2) Protect whistleblowers so that those with the inside information can come forward without imperiling themselves, their families and their careers. Acknowledge the indispensability of anonymous sources (but only real Deep Throats, not “senior government officials” who use the cloak of anonymity to float material sanctioned by their bosses.)

3) Recognize that good journalism and high profits just aren’t a viable fit. Investigative journalism is too essential, too elemental to freedom and self-governance to be left to the vagaries of Wall Street.

4) Support efforts to acknowledge the crucial role of journalism in a free society by finding alternative ways of paying for it.

At a time when public funding of journalism is retrenching—witness the crisis at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—we will almost certainly need to ask foundations and visionary individuals of means to step up to the plate. Thus far, such largesse has been minimal. But it’s getting too late in the day to hold back investing in the truth. The time is now for a Herculean commitment.
*******************************
The above was published in Tom Paine online. It's very good that TP is not afraid of this administration and offers a forum wherein excellent reporters such as Russ Baker can speak. There really aren't all that many in Bushworld.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Sunday, June 12, 2005

Bush Terror: Cookin' the numbers:

There's a new nonfiction book just out. The topic is bullshit. And that's what BushCo continues to try and feed us. Lots of it, and continually. Always doing his best to "catapult the propaganda". And he's been doing pretty well...until a couple of Washington Post reporters began to investigate. Just look at this:

Go to Original
In Terror Cases, Few Convictions
By Dan Eggen and Julie Tate
The Washington Post
Sunday 12 June 2005

US often depends on lesser charges.
First of Two Parts

On Thursday, President Bush stepped to a lectern at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy in Columbus to urge renewal of the USA Patriot Act and to boast of the government's success in prosecuting terrorists.
Flanked by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Bush said that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted."
Those statistics have been used repeatedly by Bush and other administration officials, including Gonzales and his predecessor, John D. Ashcroft, to characterize the government's efforts against terrorism.
But the numbers are misleading at best.
An analysis of the Justice Department's list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people - not 200 - have been convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security....
****************************
Scroll up and click on the link to read the rest of the first part of this 2-part article. BushCo doesn't put them in camps...he puts them in jail or deports them. The bullshit just continues to stack and stack and stack. This administration is completely unable to tell the truth...and makes little attempt to bother.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

DSMemo-LA Times Kinsley:

It seems that Michael Kinsley takes a somewhat more cynical view than those of us who believe that the Downing Street Memo...which isn't just a memo but the MINUTES of the meeting (a distinction he fails to make) is indeed proof that will stand up in court of BushCo's plans, proof he's a bare-faced liar not only to the citizens of this nation but to the Congress of the United States. Lying to Congress is flat out unconstitutional...and impeachable. As in Watergate, a REAL Congressional investigation of this matter will indeed put members of this administration just where they belong: in jail.

June 12, 2005
latimes.com :
Opinion :
Commentary
Michael Kinsley:

The Left Gets a Memo

After about the 200th e-mail from a stranger demanding that I cease my personal cover-up of something called the Downing Street Memo, I decided to read it. (By mentioning 200 e-mails, I do not intend to brag. I'm sure Tom Friedman got many more.) It's all over the blogosphere and Air America, the left-wing talk-radio network: This is the smoking gun of the Iraq war. It is proof positive that President Bush was determined to invade Iraq a year before he did so. The whole "weapons of mass destruction" concern was phony from the start, and the drama about inspections was just kabuki: going through the motions.Although it is flattering to be thought personally responsible for allowing a proven war criminal to remain in office, in the end I don't buy the fuss. Nevertheless, I am enjoying it, as an encouraging sign of the left's revival.

Developing a paranoid theory and promoting it to the very edge of national respectability takes ideological self-confidence. It takes a critical mass of citizens with extreme views and the time and energy to obsess about them. It takes a promotional infrastructure and the discipline to settle on a story line, disseminate it and stick to it.

It takes, in short, what Hillary Clinton once called a vast conspiracy. The right has had one for years. Even moderate and reasonable right-wingers benefit from a mass of angry people even further right. This overhang of extremists makes the moderates appear more reasonable. It has pulled the center of politics, where the media try to be and where compromises on particular issues end up, in a rightward direction. Listening to extreme views on your own side is soothing even if you would never express them and may not even believe them.

So cheers for the Downing Street Memo. But what does it say? It's a report on a meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and some aides on July 23, 2002. The key passage summarizes "recent talks in Washington" by the head of British foreign intelligence (identified, John le Carre-style, as "C"). C reported that "military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy…. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."C's focus on the dog that didn't bark — the lack of discussion about the aftermath of war — was smart and prescient.

But even on its face, the memo is not proof that Bush had decided on war. It states that war is "now seen as inevitable" by "Washington." That is, people other than Bush had concluded, based on observation, that he was determined to go to war. There is no claim of even fourth-hand knowledge that he had actually declared this intention. Even if "Washington" meant administration decision-makers, rather than the usual freelance chatterboxes, C was only saying that these people believed that war was how events would play out.

Of course, if "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," rather than vice versa, that is pretty good evidence of Bush's intentions, as well as a scandal in its own right. And we know now that this was true. Fixing intelligence and facts to fit a desired policy is the Bush II governing style, especially concerning the Iraq war. But C offered no specifics, or none that made it into the memo. Nor does the memo assert that actual decision-makers told him they were fixing the facts. Although the prose is not exactly crystalline, it seems to be saying only that "Washington" had reached that conclusion.

Of course, you don't need a secret memo to know this. Just look at what was in the newspapers on July 23, 2002, and the day before. Left-wing Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer casually referred to the coming war as "much planned for." The New York Times reported Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's response to a story that "reported preliminary planning on ways the United States might attack Iraq to topple President Saddam Hussein." Rumsfeld effectively confirmed the report by announcing an investigation of the leak. A Wall Street Journal Op-Ed declared that "the drums of war beat louder." A dispatch from Turkey in the New York Times even used the same word, "inevitable," to describe the thinking in Ankara about the thinking in Washington about the decision "to topple President Saddam Hussein of Iraq by force."

Then there's poor Time magazine (cover date July 22 but actually published a week earlier), which had the whole story. "Sometime last spring the President ordered the Pentagon and the CIA to come up with a new plan to invade Iraq and topple its leader." Originally planned for the fall, the war was put off until "at least early next year" (which is when, in fact, it occurred).

Unfortunately, Time went on to speculate that because of a weak economy, the war "may have to wait — some think forever," and concluded that "Washington is engaged more in psy-war than in war itself."

Some people you have to hit over the head. Hey, you folks at Time, what about the Downing Street Memo?
***************
Yes. What about it?
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Left Coaster, Steve Soto: DSM hearings:

"I’d like to suggest that Conyers focus on three issues and call these individuals as possible witnesses next week in his efforts to build a case that the decision had already been made in the summer of 2002. All three of these supporting arguments have already been covered here at the Left Coaster:

First and most damaging to me, as we first reported back in October 2003, why would the White House see a need to build a strategic information campaign using White House staff to manipulate media coverage in favor of a war months in advance of going to the UN, Congress, and the American people if the issue and decision had not already been made? Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner wrote a little-noticed but never disputed paper that outlined the steps the Bush Administration took to build what in essence was a strategic influence and disinformation campaign to manipulate the media and sway public opinion in favor of a war that Bush says he hadn’t yet decided upon. These efforts started with the creation of the Coalition Information Office by none other than Karen Hughes at about the same time the Downing Street Memo said that Bush had made up his mind.

Colonel Gardiner feels that the organization was in fact put together at the time of the memo, and that the “marketing” of the war began in September when Congress returned from summer recess. Since his study came out, Colonel Gardiner has received confirmation from a number of sources including sources inside the Bush Administration that almost all of his initial conclusions were correct. Even though the whole study is chilling, pay particular attention to his material from Page 50 onward to see how the Downing Street Memo can be supported with Gardiner’s work. Perhaps Congressman Conyers can call Colonel Gardiner as a witness next week to lay out the involvement of the White House and outside GOP public relations firms in selling a war to the Congress and the American people through an intimidated and spoon-fed media, a campaign that actually commenced around the same time that the Downing Street Memo indicated a decision had already been made. And yes, I've talked with Gardiner today, and Colonel Gardiner is willing to share his information with Conyers.

Second, none other than Bob Woodward himself in his wet-kiss book “Bush at War” reported that Bush authorized Rumsfeld to move approximately $700 million from Afghanistan reconstruction to the establishment of a logistical infrastructure to support an Iraq invasion, without the required congressional notice and authority. When did this happen, as Woodward notes with a great deal of risk of legal problems for the White House? It happened in July 2002, at about the same time as the Downing Street Memo was written saying the decision had already been made by Bush, within a month of the Downing Street Memo. Perhaps Conyers can call Bob Woodward as a witness to testify about what he found in researching his book on this congressionally-unauthorized transfer of funds from Afghan reconstruction to Iraq war planning during the Summer of 2002.

And lastly, it has been reported that Bush dropped in on a White House meeting in Condi Rice’s office in March 2002, and blurted to the three startled US senators Rice was meeting with “Fuck Saddam, we’re going to take him out.” Perhaps Conyers can call the three senators as well as Michael Elliott and James Carney of Time Magazine to confirm what Bush said and did, three months before the Downing Street Memo said that a decision had already been made.

Again, the key for Conyers is not to get trapped into building his case primarily upon the fixed intelligence claim in the memo, but to build also a circumstantial case as well that supports the bigger claim that the decision had already been made by the White House to go to war in the Summer of 2002, despite what was being told to Congress and the American people."
Wrap.

| 0 comments

Why Bush Repeats and Repeats and..

"What is a meme?"
Glenn Grant: Meme (pron. meem): A contagious information pattern that replicates by parasitically infecting human minds and altering their behavior, causing them to propagate the pattern. (Term coined by Dawkins, by analogy with "gene".) Individual slogans, catch-phrases, melodies, icons, inventions, and fashions are typical memes. An idea or information pattern is not a meme until it causes someone to replicate it, to repeat it to someone else. All transmitted knowledge is memetic.

Tony Lezard: Richard Dawkins, who coined the word in his book The Selfish Gene defines the meme as simply a unit of intellectual or cultural information that survives long enough to be recognized as such, and which can pass from mind to mind. There's not much of a sense of describing thought processes, but nor is it just a model. As Richard Dawkins writes (this is from memory), "God indeed exists, if only as a pattern in brain structures replicated across the minds of billions of people throughout the world." (Of course the patterns aren't physically identical, but they represent the same thing.)

Richard Dawkins: Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leading from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and students. He mentions it in his articles and his lectures. If the idea catches on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain.Memes should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically. When you plant a fertile meme in my mind, you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme's propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell. And this isn't just a way of talking -- the meme for, say, 'belief in life after death' is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure in the nervous systems of people all over the world.
***************************
There's a whole lot more on Google, but this much was sufficient for my puposes. Gotta "catapult the propaganda" you know.
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Bush help? You're kidding...

From the NY Times....
June 12, 2005
The Illiterate Surgeon
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia

Just about the worst thing that can happen to a teenage girl in this world is to develop an obstetric fistula that leaves her trickling bodily wastes, stinking and shunned by everyone around her. That happened four decades ago to Mamitu Gashe.

But the most amazing thing about Ms. Mamitu is not what she endured but what she has become.

Ms. Mamitu's story begins when she was an illiterate 15-year-old in a remote Ethiopian village unreachable by road and with no doctor nearby. She married a local man, became pregnant and after three days of labor, she lapsed into unconsciousness and the baby was stillborn.

"After I woke up, the bed was wet" with urine, she remembers. "I thought I would get better after two or three days, but I didn't."

That's typically how an obstetric fistula arises: a teenage girl, often malnourished and with an immature pelvis, tries to deliver her first baby. The fetus gets stuck, and after several days of labor it is stillborn - but some of the mother's internal tissues have been damaged in that time, and so to her horror she finds herself constantly trickling urine or sometimes feces from her vagina.

Soon she stinks. Her husband normally abandons her, the constant trickle of urine leaves her with terrible sores on her legs, and if she survives at all she is told to build a hut away from the rest of the village and to stay away from the village well. Some girls die of infections or suicide, but many linger for decades as pariahs and hermits - their lives effectively over at the age of about 15.

Fistulas were common in America in the 19th century. But improved medical care means that they are now almost unknown in the West, while the United Nations has estimated that at least two million girls and women live with fistulas in the developing world, mostly in Africa.
This should be an international scandal, because a $300 operation can normally repair the injury. A major effort to improve maternal health in the developing world should be a no-brainer, for it could prevent most fistulas and reduce deaths in childbirth by half within a decade, saving 300,000 lives a year.

But maternal health is woefully neglected, and those suffering fistulas are completely voiceless - young, female, poor, rural and ostracized. They are the 21st century's lepers.

Ms. Mamitu was exceptionally lucky in that she was brought to a hospital here in Addis Ababa that offered free surgery by a saintly husband and wife pair of gynecologists from Australia, Reginald and Catherine Hamlin. Reg is now dead, while Catherine is the Mother Teresa of our time and is long overdue for a Nobel Peace Prize.

After that operation, 42 years ago, Ms. Mamitu was given a job making beds in the hospital. Then she began helping out during surgeries, and after a couple of years of watching she was asked by Dr. Reg Hamlin to cut some stitches. Eventually, Ms. Mamitu was routinely performing the entire fistula repair herself.

Over the decades, Ms. Mamitu has gradually become one of the world's most experienced fistula surgeons. Gynecologists from around the world go to the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital to train in fistula repair, and typically their teacher is Ms. Mamitu.

Not bad for an illiterate Ethiopian peasant who as a child never went to a day of school.

A few years ago, Ms. Mamitu tired of being an illiterate master surgeon, and so she began night school. She's now in the third grade.

The Fistula Hospital where Ms. Mamitu works is nicknamed "puddle city" - because patients stroll around dripping urine - but it abounds with joy and hope.

President Bush has increased aid to the developing world generally and to Africa in particular, but a few days ago he rejected Tony Blair's appeal for a further dramatic increase in assistance for Africa. The real stakes in that rejection will be measured in lives like Ms. Mamitu's. I hope that Mr. Bush will reconsider - for the sake of people like those girls with fistula living in huts alone on the edges of hundreds of thousands of villages.

Ms. Mamitu shows us what a tragedy it would be to write them off. A couple of Australians once gave Ms. Mamitu a break, and so today Ms. Mamitu is not a victim at all, but an inspiration.
And, I hope, an inspiration to us to be more generous.
E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com

Wrap.

| 0 comments

Kerry didn't say that I word!

From MSNBC online:

June 7, 2005 9:15 a.m. ET
Kerry on impeachment
(Keith Olbermann)
SECAUCUS —

Last Wednesday, Senator John Kerry told the editorial board of the newspaper in New Bedford, Massachusetts, the "Standard-Times," that he was amazed at the lack of American media coverage of the so-called "Downing Street Memo" — notes of a July, 2002 British cabinet meeting that suggested the U.S. was making all the evidence fit a pre-planned invasion of Iraq.
The words of the Democrats' 2004 standard-bearer?: "When I go back (to Washington) on Monday, I am going to raise the issue. I think (the memo) is a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth..."

Now, let's play Blogosphere-Telephone with that statement.

By Saturday, those quotes, and the original New Bedford story, had been transmuted by a series of foreign and conservative websites into an article that included the line: "Failed presidential candidate Kerry advised that he will begin the presentation of his case for President Bush's impeachment to Congress, on Monday."

Blogs and websites pulsated with the news: Kerry was going to call for the impeachment of President Bush! My inbox pulsated with the missives of angry conservatives ("you're covering up Kerry's traitorous comment") and angry liberals ("corporate lapdog! Why didn't you cover this? Do your job!").

Once again, the first law of the Non-Mainstream Media was being ignored. Be suspicious of everything you read on the internet, not just those things with which you most agree, or about which you live in the greatest fear.

The Senator's office told "Countdown" last night that he never said anything about impeachment and asked our reporter where he'd read that line. The answer was: the websites of NewsMax and Al-Jazeera.
The story originated — on Al-Jazeera.

The New Bedford newspaper story, exactly 746 words long, literally does not include the words impeach, or impeachment.

If this detail is still relevant in these super-heated political times, the story is not true. But at places as disparate as Al-Jazeera and NewsMax, they wanted it to be.

Watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann each weeknight at 8 p.m. ET & 12 midnight ET
Wrap...

| 0 comments

Kid in trouble....

Brainwashing Camp for Gay Kids
Mike Ditto writes about a brainwashing summer camp for gay kids in Tennessee. This 16 year old attendee is writing a blog from the camp, and he's none too pleased. He says his parents lied to him and it's worse than boot camp. Go read, before they make him take it down.
Wrap.

| 0 comments