GW Bush

Bush is World"s #1 Terrorist

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Bush The War Criminal

Bloglines | My Feeds

Bush The War Criminal
June 30, 2005




Monday, June 27, 2005

Tribunal on Iraq Findings

Bloglines | My Feeds

Tribunal on Iraq Findings
World Tribunal on Iraq

Monday 27 June 2005r

The attack on Iraq is an attack on justice, on liberty, on our safety, on our future, on us all - The Jury of Conscience

Istanbul, 27 June, 2005 - With a Jury of Conscience from 10 different countries hearing the testimonies of 54 members of the Panel of Advocates who came from across the world, including Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom, this global civil initiative came to an end with a press conference at the Hotel Armada where the chair of the Jury of Conscience, Arundathi Roy, announced the Jury's conclusions.

The Jury defined this war as one of the most unjust in history: 'The Bush and Blair administrations blatantly ignored the massive opposition to the war expressed by millions of people around the world. They embarked upon one of the most unjust, immoral, and cowardly wars in history. The Anglo-American occupation of Iraq of the last 27 months has led to the destruction and devastation of the Iraqi state and society. Law and order have broken down completely, resulting in a pervasive lack of human security; the physical infrastructure is in shambles; the health care delivery system is a mess; the education system has ceased to function; there is massive environmental and ecological devastation; and, the cultural and archeological heritage of the Iraqi people has been desecrated.'

On the basis of the preceding findings and recalling the Charter of the United Nations and other legal documents, the jury has established the following charges against the Governments of the US and the UK:

* Planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles.

* Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure

* Using disproportionate force and indiscriminate weapon systems

* Failing to safeguard the lives of civilians during military activities and during the occupation period thereafter

* Using deadly violence against peaceful protestors

* Imposing punishments without charge or trial, including collective punishment

* Subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment

* Re-writing the laws of a country that has been illegally invaded and occupied

* Willfully devastating the environment

* Actively creating conditions under which the status of Iraqi women has seriously been degraded

* Failing to protect humanity's rich archaeological and cultural heritage in Iraq

* Obstructing the right to information, including the censoring of Iraqi media

* Redefining torture in violation of international law, to allow use of torture and illegal detentions

The Jury also established charges against the Security Council of United Nations for failing to stop war crimes and crimes against humanity among other failures, against the Governments of the Coalition of the Willing for collaborating in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, against the Governments of Other Countries for allowing the use of military bases and air space and providing other logistical support, against Private Corporations for profiting from the war, against the Major Corporate Media for disseminating deliberate falsehoods and failing to report atrocities.

The Jury also provided a number of recommendations that include recognising the right of the Iraqi people to resist the illegal occupation of their country and to develop independent institutions, and affirming that the right to resist the occupation is the right to wage a struggle for self-determination, freedom, and independence as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, we the Jury of Conscience declare our solidarity with the people of Iraq and the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the coalition forces from Iraq.

The Istanbul session of the WTI lasted three days and presented testimony on the illegality and criminal violations in the U.S. pretexts for and conduct of this war. The expert opinion, witness testimony, video and image evidence addressed the impact of war on civilians, the torture of prisoners, the unlawful imprisonment of Iraqis without charges or legal defence, the use of depleted uranium weapons, the effects of the war on Iraq's infrastructure, the destruction of Iraqi cultural institutions and the liability of the invaders in international law for failing to protect these treasures of humanity.

The session in Istanbul was the culminating session of commissions of inquiry and hearings held around the world over the past two years. Sessions on different topics related to the war on Iraq were held in London, Mumbai, Copenhagen, Brussels, New York, Japan, Stockholm, South Korea, Rome, Frankfurt, Geneva, Lisbon and Spain.

They have compiled a definitive historical record of evidence on the illegality of the invasion and occupation that will be recorded in a forthcoming book.

Friday, June 24, 2005

Republicans Doubts Iraq Invasion

Welcome to!: "Republicans Voice Their Doubts

GOP senators tell Rumsfeld they fear the public is turning against the war in Iraq. 'People are beginning to question,' one says.

By Maura Reynolds / Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — One senator described the public's perception of the war in Iraq as 'more and more like Vietnam.' A second worried that 'our very presence there inspires more insurgents.' A third said the strain on the armed forces 'is getting worse, not better.'

Military brass had heard such comments before when they trooped up Capitol Hill to answer questions from Congress. But this time there was a difference: The comments were coming from Republicans.

'We will lose this war if we leave too soon. And what is likely to make us do that? The public going south,' said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). 'And that is happening, and that worries me greatly.'

Echoing through the questions posed Thursday to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and top generals for Iraq was a new note of anxiety, and not just from Democrats long skeptical of the war. Recent polls and phone calls from constituents prompted a series of hang-wringing questions from otherwise supportive Republicans.

One of the most direct was Graham, who described himself as a firm backer of the war from the pro-military state of South Carolina.

'I'm here to tell you, sir, in the most patriotic state that I can imagine, people are beginning to question,' Graham said. 'And I don't think it's a blip on the radar screen.'

In his opening remarks, Rumsfeld had compared the struggle in Iraq to World War II and argued that there are always concerns in the aftermath of war about whether the United States is losing the peace.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Best Talk Radio Show: Mike Malloy

Bloglines | My Feeds

Live 10PM - 1AM Weekdays (EST)
Best of The Mike Malloy Show
Sunday 12AM - 3AM
Want to know about The Mike Malloy Show?

Here's what had to say about it:

"For nearly 20 years, Mike Malloy has been making talk radio like this: caustic, abrasive, inventive, confrontational and resolutely left of center. It has won him admirers and awards, and it has cost him jobs. At a time when the very genre of talk radio is widely seen as synonymous with strident conservatism, his career both ratifies and belies that premise."

Read the entire article here
Also, visit:

Exposing Karl Rove

jbcard's Xanga Site

Exposing Karl Rove


He's America's Joseph Goebbels. As a 21-year old Young Republican in Texas, Karl Rove not only pimped for Richard Nixon's chief political dirty tricks strategist Donald Segretti but soon caught the eye of the incoming Republican National Committee Chairman, George H. W. Bush. Rove's dirty tricks on behalf of Nixon's 1972 campaign catapulted Rove onto the national stage. From his Eagle's Nest in the West Wing of the White House, Rove now directs a formidable political dirty tricks operation and disinformation mill.

Since his formative political years when he tried to paint World War II B-24 pilot and hero George McGovern as a left-wing peacenik through his mid-level career as a planter of disinformation in the media on behalf of Texas and national GOP candidates to his current role as Dubya's "Svengali," Rove has practiced the same style of slash and burn politics as did his Nixonian mentor Segretti. Many of us remember the Lincolnesque Senator Ed Muskie breaking down in tears during the 1972 campaign over Segretti-planted false stories in a New Hampshire newspaper that accused Mrs. Muskie of being a heavy smoker, drinker, and cusser and accused Muskie of uttering a slur in describing New Hampshire's French Canadian population. Rove's hero also forged letters on fake Muskie campaign letterhead, disrupted rallies and fundraising dinners, and spread false stories about the sex lives of candidates. Segretti's brush also smeared George McGovern, George Wallace, Shirley Chisholm, and McGovern's first vice presidential choice, Senator Tom Eagleton. Segretti of course did not go on to a high-level White House job -- he was sentenced to six months in federal prison for distributing illegal campaign material.

In many respects, however, the apprentice Rove has far exceeded the chicanery and evil-mindedness of his mentor Segretti. Rove is a tech-savvy puppet master for Bush. Take, for example, last June's discovery of a "lost" CD-ROM in Lafayette Park across from the White House. Contained on the CD was a PowerPoint presentation given by White House political director Ken Mehlman to Rove on the strategy for next Tuesday's off-year election. The slide show showed First Brother Jeb Bush being vulnerable in Florida. Jeb Bush later joked that the disc was part of a plot cooked up by him and his brother to make it appear that he was vulnerable in order to rally an otherwise complacent GOP base in the Sunshine State. Or was it a joke? Jeb Bush and his political minions like Katherine Harris have shown us that if anyone thinks what the GOP has done in Florida is funny they have an incredibly sick sense of humor.

Rove's own tendency to be sick-minded originates with his mentor Segretti. The 2000 GOP primary was a chance for Rove to hone his skills in dirty tricks. His target then was Senator John McCain who appeared to be within striking distance of Dubya in South Carolina after the then-GOP maverick's surprise upset victory in New Hampshire. Rove's operation proceeded to target McCain with false stories: McCain was a stoolie for his captors in the Hanoi Hilton (this from a lunatic self-promoting Vietnam "veteran"); McCain fathered a black daughter out of wedlock (a despicable reference to McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter); Cindy McCain's drug "abuse"; and even McCain's "homosexuality." In the spirit of Segretti, Rove engineered a victory for Dubya but at the cost of trashing an honorable man and his family. Muskie, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Hart, Tsongas, Clinton, Biden, Dole, Perot, and others had all seen the Segretti/Rove slash and burn tactics before.

And Rove's penchant for fascistic demagoguery and outright lying continues to this very day. After Paul Wellstone's sons asked that Vice President Dick Cheney not attend the Minneapolis memorial service for their father, mother, and sister, the White House explained that the real reason wasn't the surviving Wellstone family's abhorrence for Cheney but the fact the family didn't want Cheney's Secret Service protection to interfere with public access to the service. Of course, the Rove and Ari Fleischer disinformation machine forgot to take into account that two attendees, Bill and Hillary Clinton, had their own Secret Service details. But such is the case with a White House that takes its lessons from Goebbels and the editorial staff of the old Soviet News Agency Tass.

Rove's dirty fingerprints could also be seen in the Iowa Senate race between Tom Harkin and GOP candidate Greg Ganske. A few months ago, a story was leaked that the Harkin campaign had employed a spy within the Ganske campaign. To put this in a Rove context, we must go back to the 1986 Texas gubernatorial race in which Rove's candidate Bill Clements was taking on Democratic Governor Mark White. Just before a debate between the two candidates, Rove spun the story that his office had been bugged. No proof. But the insinuation that White's people had carried out the bugging was reported by the media. In the election, Clements defeated White. Rove stashed away more political capital into his already heavy knapsack of ill-gotten IOUs.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, we were obviously treated to more Rove chicanery when the following Associated Press story hit the wires: "A woman who worked for a media company that produced ads for President George W. Bush's campaign was indicted for secretly mailing a videotape of Bush practicing for a debate to Vice President Al Gore's campaign." Yes, that videotape, along with a 120-page briefing book, just happened to turn up in Gore's headquarters as fast as the CD-ROM turned up in Lafayette Park. The sourcerer Segretti must be very proud of his apprentice. In 1980, no Republican bemoaned the fact that Jimmy Carter's debate briefing book was swiped and found its way into the hands of the Reagan-Bush campaign. In Rove's world, its only an affront when someone "steals" your own campaign secrets and not when your are on the receiving end of a heist.

"If you're not with me, you're against me." Bush's binary view of "good and evil" and "friend and enemy" sits well with the Rove strategy. Georgia's conservative but libertarian-minded Representative Bob Barr found out about this in last August's primary when his GOP primary opponent John Linder began spreading around stories that Barr was "soft on terrorism." Because Barr was skeptical about a number of aspects of the Bush-Ashcroft USA PATRIOT Act, he became a target for the Rove machine. However, it was likely that Barr became a target earlier on when he supported Steve Forbes against Bush in the 2000 primary. Bush apparently means to say, "If you've not always been with me, you're against me." It must have really been a dilemma for Bush and Rove to have to come to the support of John Sununu, Jr. in the New Hampshire Senate race. Although Daddy made George W. unceremoniously give the axe to Sununu's father as White House Chief of Staff during the Bush 41 administration, the man who the junior Sununu defeated in the primary, Bob Smith, was even more of a problem. He had the temerity to quit the Republican Party in 2000 and run against Dubya for President. So in Bushspeak, which is obviously borrowed from Forrest Gump's scripts, "if you're less with me than the other guy, you're more against me."

Undoubtedly, Rove was also behind the campaign to "get" Georgia Representative Cynthia McKinney who was the first nationally-known politician to question what Bush may have known beforehand about 9-11. She was defeated by a former Republican state judge who had supported the wacky Alan Keyes for President in 2000. Never mind, McKinney was "less with Bush" than Keyes, so it was more important to get McKinney who was "more against" Bush.

In all seriousness, rewarding the GOP on November 5 will only increase the appetite of Rove to amass more and more power into the White House. The advent of a Democratic-controlled Senate and House might even begin to spell the end of the road for Segretti's star pupil. German opposition figures in the mid-1930s often lamented the fact that they could have stopped the rise of the Nazis if only they had been more united in a common front when they had a chance. However, they fell prey to the media manipulation of Goebbels and fought among themselves more than they did against the menace from the far right. We Americans also have an early opportunity to stem an out-of-control and anti-constitutional regime with the Rasputin-like Rove at the after steerage helm of our ship of state. That opportunity presents itself next Tuesday--Election Day.

Monday, June 20, 2005

Hit by friendly fire

Bloglines | My Feeds

June 20th, 2005 4:22 pm
Hit by friendly fire

With his polls down, Bush takes flak on Iraq from a host of critics--including some in his own party

By Kevin Whitelaw / U.S. News & World Report

Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

That's strikingly blunt talk from a member of the president's party, even one cast as something of a pariah in the GOP because of his early skepticism about the war. "I got beat up pretty good by my own party and the White House that I was not a loyal Republican," he says. Today, he notes, things are changing: "More and more of my colleagues up here are concerned."

Indeed, there are signs that the politics of the Iraq war are being reshaped by the continuing tide of bad news. Take this month in Iraq, with 47 U.S. troops killed in the first 15 days. That's already five more than the toll for the entire month of June last year. With the rate of insurgent attacks near an all-time high and the war's cost set to top $230 billion, more politicians on both sides of the aisle are responding to opinion polls that show a growing number of Americans favoring a withdrawal from Iraq. Republican Sens. Lincoln Chafee and Lindsey Graham have voiced their concerns. And two Republicans, including the congressman who brought "freedom fries" to the Capitol, even joined a pair of Democratic colleagues in sponsoring a bill calling for a troop withdrawal plan to be drawn up by year's end. "I feel confident that the opposition is going to build," says Rep. Ron Paul, the other Republican sponsor and a longtime opponent of the war.

Sagging polls. The measure is not likely to go anywhere, but Hagel calls it "a major crack in the dike." Whether or not that's so, the White House has reason to worry that the assortment of critiques of Bush's wartime performance may be approaching a tipping point. Only 41 percent of Americans now support Bush's handling of the Iraq war, the lowest mark ever in the Associated Press-Ipsos poll. And the Iraq news has combined with a lethargic economy and doubts about the president's Social Security proposals to push Bush's overall approval ratings near all-time lows. For now, most Republicans remain publvicly loyal to the White House. "Why would you give your enemies a timetable?" asks House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. "[Bush] doesn't fight the war on news articles or television or on polls."

Still, the Bush administration is planning to hit back, starting this week, with a renewed public-relations push by the president. Bush will host Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari and has scheduled a major speech for June 28, the anniversary of the handover of power to an Iraqi government from U.S. authorities. But Congress's patience could wear very thin going into an election year. "If things don't start to turn around in six months, then it may be too late," says Hagel. "I think it's that serious."

Bush's exit strategy--which depends on a successful Iraqi political process--got a boost last week when Sunni and Shiite politicians ended weeks of wrangling over how to increase Sunni representation on the constitution-writing committee. Now, however, committee members have less than two months before their mid-August deadline. And given how long it took to resolve who gets to draft the document, it's hard to imagine a quick accord on the politically explosive issues they face.

Friday, June 17, 2005

Antiwar Group Says Leaked British Memo Shows Bush Misled Public on His War Plans

Bloglines | My Feeds

June 17th, 2005 4:38 pm
Antiwar Group Says Leaked British Memo Shows Bush Misled Public on His War Plans

By Scott Shane / New York Times

WASHINGTON, June 16 - Opponents of the war in Iraq held an unofficial hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday to draw attention to a leaked British government document that they say proves their case that President Bush misled the public about his war plans in 2002 and distorted intelligence to support his policy.

In a jammed room in the basement of the Capitol, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, presided as witnesses asserted that the "Downing Street memo" - minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top security officials - vindicated their view that Mr. Bush made the decision to topple Saddam Hussein long before he has admitted.

"Thanks to the Downing Street minutes, we now know the truth," said Ray McGovern, a C.I.A. analyst for 27 years who helped organize a group of other retired intelligence officers to oppose the war.

The memo said Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of British intelligence, had said in the meeting that Mr. Bush had already decided on war, "but the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Cindy Sheehan, mother of a 24-year-old soldier killed in Iraq last year, said the memo "confirms what I already suspected: the leadership of this country rushed us into an illegal invasion of another sovereign country on prefabricated and cherry-picked intelligence."

The White House has maintained that Mr. Bush decided to invade Iraq only after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made the administration's case in a lengthy presentation to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003. His argument focused on intelligence demonstrating that Iraq had illicit weapons. No weapons, however, have been found.

Asked about the memo last week, President Bush said: "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option." He added, "We worked hard to see if we could figure out how to do this peacefully."

After the hearing, Mr. Conyers and a dozen Congressional colleagues delivered to the White House bundles that they said contained the names of more than 560,000 Americans gathered on the Internet who had endorsed his letter to the president demanding answers to questions raised by the British memo. Some 122 members of Congress also signed the letter.

Asked about Mr. Conyers's letter and the British memo, Scott McClellan, the president's chief spokesman, described the congressman as "an individual who voted against the war in the first place and is simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed."

"And our focus is not on the past," Mr. McClellan said. "It's on the future and working to make sure we succeed in Iraq."

The hearing and other events Thursday reflected antiwar sentiment re-energized both by publication of the British memo and by evidence that Congressional and public opinion has shifted significantly against the president's conduct of the war.

A bipartisan group of House members introduced a resolution calling on the administration to announce by the end of the year a plan for the withdrawal of American forces, and more than 40 legislators announced the formation of an "Out of Iraq" Congressional caucus led by Representative Maxine Waters, a California Democrat.

Also, a New York Times/CBS News poll being published Friday found that 37 percent of Americans questioned approve of how Mr. Bush is dealing with Iraq, down from 45 percent in February.

At an antiwar rally across the street from the White House after Mr. Conyers's hearing, speakers roused a crowd of several hundred people with calls to bring the troops home and to impeach Mr. Bush. The protesters, organized by a group called After Downing Street, called the British memo the "smoking gun" proving their case against the administration.

The Downing Street memo, so named because the meeting was at the prime minister's London residence, was published in The Sunday Times of London on May 1.

It is one of seven prewar documents leaked since September to Michael Smith, a reporter for The Daily Telegraph before he began working for The Sunday Times. One, written in preparation for the July 23 meeting and published Sunday by The Sunday Times, warned that "a postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise" in which "Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."

Activists have accused mainstream news organizations of playing down the document's significance, even as antiwar bloggers have seized upon it as evidence.

David Swanson, a Democratic activist and one of the founders of After Downing Street, criticized those defenders of President Bush and journalists who have called the memo "old news" because the president's war preparations were widely reported by mid-2002.

"It's not old news to most Americans," Mr. Swanson said.

Halliburton to build new $30 mil Guantanamo jail

Welcome to!: "June 16th, 2005 10:23 pm
Halliburton to build new $30 mln Guantanamo jail

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Halliburton Co. unit will build a new $30 million detention facility and security fence at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the United States is holding about 520 foreign terrorism suspects, the Defense Department announced on Thursday.

The announcement comes the same week that Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended the jail after U.S. lawmakers said it had created an image problem for the United States.

Critics have decried the indefinite detention of Guantanamo detainees, whom the United States has denied rights accorded under the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of war. The prison was called 'the gulag of our times' in a recent Amnesty International report.

An air-conditioned two-story prison, known as Detention Camp #6, will be built at Guantanamo to house 220 men. It will include exercise areas, medical and dental spaces as well as a security control room, the contract announcement said.

The contract announcement did not specify whether the new prison would also hold foreign terror suspects.

Under the deal with the Norfolk, Virginia-based U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic, the work is to be wrapped up by July 2006. It is part of a larger contract that could be worth up to $500 million if all options are exercised, the Defense Department said.

The project is to be carried out by Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root Services of Arlington, Virginia. It includes site work, heating ventilation and air conditioning, plumbing and electrical work, the Pentagon said.

The first prisoners arrived at the prison camp in January 2002 after the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacked airliner attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

The Pentagon has said about 520 detainees from more than 40 countries are being held at the prison, without giving a precise figure.

Rumsfeld said on Tuesday U.S. taxpayers had spend more than $100 million on construction costs and no other facility could replace it."h

Thursday, June 16, 2005

122 House Members, Including Pelosi, Sign on to 'Downing Street' Letter to Bush!

Bloglines | My Feeds

logged by Brad on 6/16/2005 @ 10:16am PT...

122 House Members, Including Pelosi, Sign on to 'Downing Street' Letter to Bush!
Conyers to Deliver it -- Along with 553,996 Citizen Signatures -- to White House Later Today!
[UPDATE] - Hearings Liveblogged at PDA

A total of 122 members of Congress, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), have now signed on to Rep. John Conyers' (D-MI) letter to George W. Bush requesting a...

A total of 122 members of Congress, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), have now signed on to Rep. John Conyers' (D-MI) letter to George W. Bush requesting a response to several questions in relation to the Downing Street Minutes.

The original letter, sent several weeks ago by the Ranking Minority Member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee along with 88 congressional Democrats, was recently recirculated after several more members requested signing on. The original letter has so far gone unresponded to.

As well, The BRAD BLOG has learned that a total of 553,996 signatures by citizens have been collected for the letter by Conyers' and over the past two weeks, and those will be delivered today to the White House shortly after today's scheduled hearings on the Downing Street matter.

That hearing is scheduled for 2:30pm ET today, to be followed by a rally in front of the White House and the delivery of the letter by Conyers and several others at 5pm ET.

As reported yesterday, the hearings will be carried live on C-SPAN 3 as well as Pacifica Radio and Radio Left.

Conyers' statement this morning via RAW STORY...

UPDATE: At least 14 20 25 Congressional Members present at hearings in basement room turned into hearings room, appx. 15 by 30 feet. Hearings now ongoing, being LiveBlogged at PDA...

POST HEARING UPDATE: BRAD BLOG raw notes posted...

PARDON THIS CRASS COMMERCIAL REMINDER...But as so many are now linking up to today's coverage here on the Downing Street hearings, and the audio recording, etc., now might be a good time to mention that The BRAD BLOG is run almost entirely on DONATIONS...Please feel free to help me continue!. Thanks.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

C-SPAN To Carry 'Downing Street' Hearings Live...On C_SPAN 3

Bloglines | My Feeds

Blogged by Brad on 6/15/2005 @ 1:30pm PT...

C-SPAN To Carry 'Downing Street' Hearings Live...On C-SPAN 3. But still...
ALSO: Hearings Moved Back into Capitol Building. In the basement. But still... Also Begins Petition Drive. A little late. But still...

C-SPAN has committed to carrying the U.S. House Judiciary Democrats hearings tomorrow on C-SPAN 3. They will be carried LIVE. For those who don't receive C-SPAN 3 on their local...

C-SPAN has committed to carrying the U.S. House Judiciary Democrats hearings tomorrow on C-SPAN 3. They will be carried LIVE.

For those who don't receive C-SPAN 3 on their local cable system, the video and/or audio from the hearings should be carried via the Internets right here.

The hearings will also be carried live on Pacifica Radio and via Radio Left.

Yesterday,, another very large citizens activist organization, joined in sending Petitions to its members to collect signatures for John Conyers Letter to Bush, to be delivered bu Conyers himself after tomorrow's hearing. joins who last week collected some 500,000 signatures in 48 hours or so.

As well, the hearings have now been rescheduled to 2:30pm, and have been moved from the DNC offices -- where they had previously been scheduled, when Republicans would not allow a hearing room for the Democrats -- back to a room in the Capitol Building.

According to a Press Release from, the citizens coalition which has been very instrumental in bringing attention to this matter as previously ignored by the Mainstream Corporate Media...

On Thursday June 16, 2005, from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in Room HC-9 of the U.S. Capitol, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and other Congress Members will hold a hearing on the Downing Street Minutes and related evidence of efforts to cook the books on pre-war intelligence.

The hearings had been planned for the Democratic National Committee offices because the Republicans controlling the House Judiciary Committee had refused to permit the ranking Democratic Member to use a large room on the Hill.

However, the Democrats did have access to a small room in the Capitol, and Congressman Conyers has decided to move the hearings there. This does not indicate any change in position from the Republicans.
Members of the media will be welcome (press credentials required), but citizens in town for the 5 p.m. rally at the White House will have difficulty getting into the 2:30 hearings.

The DNC will serve as an overflow room, so people can still go there: the Wasserman Room at 430 S Capitol St. SE.
Later on the same day at 5:00 p.m. ET in Lafayette Square Park, in front of the White House, a large rally will support Congressman Conyers who plans to deliver to the White House a letter addressed to President Bush and signed by over 500,000 Americans and at least 94 Congress Members. The letter asks the President to respond to questions raised by the Downing Street Minutes.

Among those speaking at the hearings will be:
Joe Wilson, Former Ambassador and Africa Expert; Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst who prepared regular Presidential briefings during the Reagan administration; Cindy Sheehan, mother of fallen American soldier; John Bonifaz, renowned constitutional lawyer and co-founder of

Also featuring written testimony from Karen Kwiatkowski, retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon; and Ann Wright, who resigned from US State Department in protest of the war.

Among those speaking at the rally will be:
Congressman John Conyers (schedule permitting); Congresswoman Barbara Lee (schedule permitting); Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (schedule permitting); Congressman Maurice Hinchey (schedule permitting); Cindy Sheehan, Co-Founder of Gold Star Families for Peace; Reg Keys, Member of Military Families Against the War, challenger to Tony Blair in last election (flying in from UK); John Bonifaz, Co-Founder of; Tom Hayden, Co-Founder of Progressive Democrats of America; Medea Benjamin, Co-Founder Code Pink/Global Exchange; Stephen Cleghorn, Member of Military Families Speak Out; Rev. Lennox Yearwood, President and CEO of HipHop Caucus; Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst; William Rivers Pitt, Reporter for Progressive Democrats of America; Leslie Cagan, National Coordinator of United for Peace and Justice; Kevin Zeese, Director of Democracy Rising; Terry O'Neill, Vice President of the National Organization for Women.

More info, printable flyers, and details of local groups organizing around the country in support on the same day, are available via the same link at

UPDATE: Conyers is scheduled to appear on CSPAN's Washington Journal at 9am ET Thursday morning.

Monday, June 13, 2005

UC Santa Cruz Protesters Tell of Riot Police Brutality

UC Santa Cruz Protesters Tell of Riot Police Brutality

UC Santa Cruz Protesters Tell of Riot Police Brutality

By: Matthew Cardinale
Published: Apr 25, 2005 at 09:00
Email this article

Printer friendly page
Comment on this article

Over 80 student protesters are reported wounded by Riot Police and 19 students were arrested, according to phone interviews with two "Tent University" organizers at UC Santa Cruz.

"Students had numerous bruises and contusions. And figures I heard were 20 arrested and 80 wounded. My girlfriend caught a baton to the chest unprovoked. And numerous people witnessed a cop go into a frenzy and basically dive forward into the crowd with a baton and that's how my girlfriend caught a baton," Indigo Moonstar, 23, a recent graduate of UCSC, said. Moonstar is not his real name, but this is the name he also gave to the Associated Press.

The seemingly pointless arrests and acts of state violence occurred because of the University's concern the students were violating the "No Camping Ordinance."

The students had set up a Tent University to protest student fee increases as well as the exploitation of AFSCME service workers. The Tent University, which was conducted all this week, April 18-22, included workshops on such topics as environmental sustainability, nonviolent activism, social justice, politics, and even yoga.

The arrests on Monday, April 18, prevented the students from holding Tent University at the base of campus during evening hours for the rest of the week like they had originally planned, but the daytime events proceeded without incident.

"For one, that's the most traumatizing thing I've ever been through in my life," Austin Harless, 21, a student organizer at UCSC, said. "Myself and others have been changed. The effects have been extremely pervasive."

"It's causing a lot of us to question our lives," Harless said.

"You have your assumed notions you hold about freedom and the safety of the community and you see the police choking your friends, you think, Who can I call? But the police are the ones who are supposed to be upholding the peace," Harless explained.

"I think it was atrocious. I think it was pure fascism," Moonstar said.

"It was a completely unnecessary and inappropriate response on the part of the University. There's been a lot of discussion amongst us on what happened and why. And the conclusion we've come to is it appears to be a premeditated show of force on the part of the University administration in response to the recent resurgence of radical activism on our campus," Moonstar said.

"The way it works at UCSC campus is that from 7am to 8pm, those are the hours of free speech. So we were allowed to assemble in the field until 8pm," Harless said.

"We also had two big shade tents in the morning which were allowed because they are open air shade structures. People had their own individual tents, but they didn't put up the tents until after the 4pm vote," Harless said.

"At 8pm we gathered again. Two administration reps came in. Jean Marie Scott (Associate Vice Chancellor of The Colleges and University Housing Services) and Gail Heit (Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs)," Harless described. "They said, look, there will be repercussions. Let's talk about [relocating to] the quarry or camping someplace else. And people were like, no, we decided earlier," Harless said.

"People started taking out individual tents and putting up tents. People were playing drums," Harless said.

"At that point they gathered in a group of Administrators, and they started gathering and giving the official order to disperse," Harless said.

"I was standing back and watching Administration going through the crowd and giving the official order to disperse, and they'd only talked to about 25% of the people when a line of police cars rolled up in the street, at least 8 to 10 of them, vans and stuff too," Harless said.

"It's interesting to note the Berkeley Police were brought in to deal with us," Harless said.

"And there was a Paddy Wagon sitting on our campus that said Berkeley Police on it, and so they'd been preparing all day with riot police," Harless said.

"Some of us had police whistles. I ran into the big tent and said POLICE ARE HERE, and people started blowing their whistles," Harless recalled.

"In the fervor we said INTO THE NOME, which was our Big White Tent Structure," Harless said. "Everyone ran into the Nome. We had held Nonviolent Direct Action Training. There were those prepared to civilly disobey, or lock down, and the rest were to observe on the side of the tent," Harless said.

"At this point there were maybe 150 of observing protesters total, plus 80 ready to lock down," Harless said.

"There were 8 circles in the Nome that were locked down to each other," Harless said. "We created circles where you're gonna sit down and link arms between people to your right and left and you take your hands and clasp underneath your legs," he described.

"At that point, the Riot Police moved in and made a circle around the Nome, about 30 of them. They all had Plexiglas helmets, shades, and they all had batons," Harless said.

"There were 150 protesters surrounding the police. Those police were facing outwards towards the protester with their backs towards us," Harless said.

"At this point they proceeded to bring in groups of 4 to 5 police. Including one guy who video filmed everything," Harless said.

"And 3-4 police with thick gloves on. They would come in, everyone would be shirking. And the police with the gloves on would come in and start applying pressure at people's throats and pressure points around their jaw and started trying to pull people upward. So they would do that to get you out of the circle," Harless said.

"So they would do that and another would try to break the clasping of your hands. All this, the pain treatment, is an effort to break you from the circle," Harless said.

"A lot of people at that point went limp and basically laid down on the floor not to be taken out of the tent. Police would push your hand down trying to fold it on yourself and twist it behind your back," Harless said.

"Our video of this [online at Santa Cruz Indymedia] has had 60,000 hits in the last 12 hours. It's 6 minutes long and shows you everything I'm talking about," Harless said.

To learn more about Tent University, readers may also visit the activists' official website at

Matthew Cardinale is a freelance writer, activist, and MA candidate at UC Irvine in Sociology. He may be reached at

Full Text Of British Briefing Papers Revealed: More Evidence Intel Was Fixed

Bloglines | Subscribe


As noted previously on ThinkProgress, the American media had failed to report on the British Briefing Papers – covered by the British media last September – that showed that the British felt the pre-war evidence for attacking Iraq was weak and that the U.S. lacked a plan to address the post-war situation. Using the Downing Street Minutes to bring light to these Briefing Papers, the Washington Post’s Walter Pincus wrote a front-page story this weekend calling attention to the charges in those documents.

In a headline entitled, “Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan,” Pincus uncovered a British memo warning of post-war instability that would arise because the Bush administration was unrealistic about the post-war phase. A number of the Papers in the Pincus article are attached below. As one of the Papers warns, the U.S. had no plans for “what happens on the morning after [attacking Iraq].”

The main thrust of the British Briefing Papers certainly focused on the Bush administration’s failure to plan, but there’s another key point in the Papers which Pincus chose not to highlight, a point which meshes well with the revelations in the Downing Street Minutes. As you know, the Downing Street Minutes said the Bush administration “fixed” the intelligence around its policy of attacking Iraq. The British Briefing Papers lend further credence to this point.

British Knew Iraqi WMD Were Not a Threat: “There is no greater threat now that [Saddam] will use WMD than there has been in recent years, so continuing containment is an option.” [Iraq: Options Paper]

Evidence Did Not Show Much Advance In Iraq’s Weapons Programs: “Even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on [the] nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.” [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]

Evidence Was Thin on Iraq/Al Qaeda Ties: “US is scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al [Qaida] is so far frankly unconvincing.” [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]

“No Credible Evidence” On Iraq/Al Qaeda Link: “There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida.” [Straw Paper, 3/25/02]

Wolfowitz Knew Supposed Iraq/Al Qaeda Link Was Weak: Wolfowitz said that “there might be doubt about the alleged meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11, and Iraqi intelligence (did we, he asked, know anything more about this meeting?).” [Meyer Paper, 3/18/02]

The full British Briefing Papers have been attached below. When reading them, keep in mind that these Papers were written approximately a full year before the invasion of Iraq. The Papers present a shockingly accurate forecast of what has transpired in the years since, and suggest the Bush administration chose to ignore the advice of our key ally when it came to dealing with Iraq.

British Iraq Options Paper
Manning Paper
Meyer Paper
Ricketts Paper
Straw Paper
British Legal Background Paper

Posted by Faiz at 7:36 am
Permalink | Comment (86)
Filed Under: Iraq, Intelligence

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:


Great article, Thank you. This is what the world needs to see. The hard data needed to make a valid

Comment by captain beyond — June 13th, 2005 @ 9:12 am

There was a letter to the editor about a year ago from a suburban housewife and mother of three that pretty much summed things up. It it she mentions that with all time that it takes to keep up with the responsibilities of being the preverbial “soccor Mom” that even she knew there were no at the very least grave doubts that there WMD in Iraq.
The evidence that is surrficing that the bush administration is basically a war-mongerinng machine was evident a long time ago to anyone that took the small amount of time to find it. My only hope is that bush&co will finally be held accountable.

Comment by Michael DiBari — June 13th, 2005 @ 9:35 am

Bush lied, thousands died

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 9:38 am

Bush himself could admit he misled us into Iraq and I still wouldn’t buy it.

Comment by Head in sand right winger — June 13th, 2005 @ 9:52 am

Interesting reactions so far from talking heads on media non-reaction, from “It’s not absolutely 100% definitive,”
“So? Everyone knew that Bush and Cheney and Powell et all were lying, so it’s not news. We’ll bury it.”

Democrats should be repeating, over and over, that they were deceived, over and over, because they gave the president the benefit of the doubt after 9-11.

Comment by tubino — June 13th, 2005 @ 10:49 am

It is of utmost importance to get this information into the mainstream media, which has systematically been suppressing facts about the catastrophe in Iraq, in favor of newsless entertainment like the Jackson trial.
Evidently our Brave New Media concur with Karl Rove and his puppet that the only security of value in the United States is that of the White House and denizens of various billionaire mansions scattered around American and on tax-free islands.
The new plutocracy is choking us and our democracy to death.

Comment by Clifford Slayman — June 13th, 2005 @ 10:53 am

Bush is on the defensive. His second term is crippled, stop dead in it’s tracks. he will make a mistake. We must take back seats in the House in 2006

Comment by Seneca — June 13th, 2005 @ 10:54 am

The Democratic party does not want withdrawal. They want to stay there because (1) Big Israeli lobby money to Clinton and others (2) The Dems are in bed with the same defense industry as Repubs (3) Dems, like Repubs or even more than Repubs, are neoliberals and believe in American supremacy and noblesse oblige - bringing “democracy” to the lesser creatures - and all that other condescending, delusional, ego-maniacal crapola

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 10:54 am

For the British memos “Iraq: Conditions for Military Action", the Downing Street Memo, the Robb-Silberman report and a host of other Iraq-related materials, see the Iraq Document Library.

Comment by Jon — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:05 am

Yes, I know about the trial, I just believe that [he] who I will not call my President needs to serve the rest of his time here on earth, on death row

Comment by larry uzarski — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:14 am

I would settle for him retiring permanently to the ranch with a very hefty fine.

This is creepy.

Comment by Seneca — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:25 am

Seneca, Bush will make a mistake? that’s like saying the sun will rise. I don’t think we can afford any more of his mistakes.

Comment by t0m — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:27 am

Better yet, I think we should demand that the Bush twins should join the Army. Might give King George a different perspective on the war.

Comment by David B — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:31 am

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 10:54 am

I hope you are not serious Carlos. If you are, however, please think back to when Clinton was in office. I’m pretty sure that he did not invade Iraq.

Comment by MNSasquatch — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:31 am

Carlos’ ignorant comments warrant one question: Where’d ya get that info, buddy? sounds as if you just made it up.

Comment by Larry R — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:36 am

This post is an excellent resource. But didn’t the narrative just get more complicated with the NYT angle today?

WASHINGTON, June 12 - A memorandum written by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s cabinet office in late July 2002 explicitly states that the Bush administration had made “no political decisions” to invade Iraq, but that American military planning for the possibility was advanced.
>> cs/13downing.html

Comment by P O’Neill — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:39 am

Sorry people
I’m not making it up - you’ve heard of AIPAC right? When Hilary and Lieberman are big recipients and both of them are unwilling to even discuss withdrawal - Hilary and LIeberman both fit into the neoliberal camp - as does Bill Clinton - although Bill didn’t invade Iraq - under his watch we conducted continuous bombing of Iraq in the no-fly zone for 10 years during sanctions AND - it was his wonderful Secretary of State - Madeline Allbright (sp?) who when asked if it was worth 1 million+ children dying due to the sanctions in Iraq - her answer was “yes” it was worth it. If that’s not a sickening, stomach turning response, I don’t know what is.

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:40 am

I just love it when neoliberals call peoplel ignorant - how dare anyone point out that the Democratic party isn’t any better than the Republican party. You’re ignorant when you think that.

The difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is - the Republicans are crooks who wrap themselves in God and the Flag while robbing you - the Democrats are crooks who cloak themselves in compassionate high-minded rhetoric about your freedom, and the children, while robbing you

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:44 am

Why point to Hilary Clinton and Lieberman as not willing to discuss withdrawal? There are at least 55 Republican senators (plus lots of Democratic senators unwilling to discuss withdrawal. And what’s that got to do with AIPAC. It’s not at all clear (at least to me) that however Iraq plays out, how that would impact Israel. That takes a crystal ball that only Carlos seems to have.

Comment by Larry R — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:52 am

If Carlos supports Bush’s illegal war–he should immediately enlist in the Army or Marines. Our overworked recruiters are desperate for enlistees–like Carlos. He can take a copy of the Downing Street Memo to boot camp to read in his free time.

Comment by Judy — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:55 am

And just one more comment to support my other ones - since I’ve been labeled ignorant - we must not forget that it was the Democrats who voted along with the Republicans, almost unanimously to give Bush carte blanche authority to conduct war whenever and wherever he saw fit - And that lies at the heart of why the Democratic party is keeping silent about the Iraq war and any talk of withdrawal - the duplicity of some in the Democratic party is being protected - the fact that Hilary Clinton can at this late date say she does not want to discuss withdrawal - and that she has not discussed the Downing street memos - is a loud and clear message - don’t look to the Democratic mainstream on this issue - if it’s up to people like her we’ll end up like we did under Johnson and Vietnam - year after year of hideous useless death and suffering for what? - for his massive ego that could not admit he was wrong - until he had no choice - and finally stepped aside - and when you think about it - every major war in the last hundred years has been presided over by a Democratic president - something to think about, instead of just labeling me ignorant to try and silence me - which won’t work anyway:)

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:55 am


I think in terms of the lessor of two evils. Yes both sides are beholden to big business and corporate money, but which party is more likely to ATTEMPT to improve the lives of all Americans, which party seeks to ensure that all children have health insurance, and which party seeks provide adequate education to all children?

These are the important issues, these are the issues that directly impact the lives of those living in America and these are the issues that need to be addressed.

Comment by MNSasquatch — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:55 am

I don’t support the war - I’m for total and immediate withdrawal. Where do you stand?

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:56 am

Carlos, your mistake is in assuming the majority HAS heard of AIPAC. The scales still firmly adhere to the eyes of (most of) the sheeple…

Comment by Mark — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:57 am

And Judy
My son is draft-age. And he almost joined the Marines. Fortunately, he saw that that was a crazy decision, and he did not.

So when you start making light of people joining up - you need to realize - I’m fighting for my son’s life when I discuss the issue of the Iraq war.
This is not a joke to me. To me, this war is illegal, I protested it before it began - where were you? Were you out protesting before shock and awe began? Where was the Democratic party then? Totallly behind shock and awe, a policy which can only rightfullly be described as a terrorist act.

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:59 am

And what’s that got to do with AIPAC. It’s not at all clear (at least to me) that however Iraq plays out, how that would impact Israel. That takes a crystal ball that only Carlos seems to have.
Israel (Sharon) has been clear about Israel wanting to neutralize all enemies. FOURTEEN permanent military bases in Iraq is consistent with this! So is threatening Iran’s nuclear program, Syria, etc.

So it is no stretch to say that the AIPAC position favors massive US military spending and activity in the ME to make Israel the only military power in the region.

Comment by tubino — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:59 am

Please stop jumping on Carlos. He’s basically right. A good number of Democrats, certainly most of the ones who call the shots in the party now, are exactly as he’s describing them. If we’re going to turn the country around from Bushism, then we need to say a big no to the corporate whore wing of the party and support only real progressive Democrats like Conyers.

Comment by Gary Kleppe — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:01 pm

You ask what AIPAC has to do with withdrawal - well let’s see where should I start - how about permanent US military installations in Iraq which would be jeopardized by withdrawal - how about Israel and the US seeing mutual security in permanent US bases in Iraq -

That’s just one - we could also discuss the fact that the US needed to withdraw all its troops from Saudi Arabia, where we had permanent bases, after 911 because of the intense pressure put on the Saudi royal family by the militant Islamics including OBL - so where better to put those troops than in Iraq - and it made the Saudis happy because Iraq was thorn in their side being a secular country as it was -

There are many many reasons

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:04 pm

Carlos–Glad to hear you don’t support the war and that you are working for immediate withdrawal. I hope you are also doing everything possible to demand that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rove, Frist, and McConnell be held responsible to America’s disaster in Iraq. Join Rep. John Conyers in demanding a full investigation of the DSM. This is no time to waste energy on Bill & Hillary bashing. The credibility of our nation is at stake. We mush impeach Bush.

Comment by Judy — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:05 pm

touche t0m :)

But mistakes in defense and spin are lethal.

Comment by Seneca — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:07 pm

Gary, agreed.

Just because we’re mostly Democrats here doesn’t mean Democratic politicians are faultless.

Comment by Russ Ruszkowski — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:09 pm


Unfortunately, during the discussions of impending Shock and Awe, the Democratic Party was headless and rather impotent. The results have been tragic to say the least.

Over the past few weeks, voices within the Democratic Party have begun to be heard - Dean, Conyers, even Hillary - for answers to the invasion. While I agree that withdrawl is the needed result, I’m not sure that a power vacuum in the region is the best idea. I guess I don’t know what the answer should be and I don’t have any brilliant ideas, but the fact that people are finally waking up and seeing the mess that has been created is a positive sign. It is just sad that it took so long and so many lives to understand the impact.

The Democratic Party made a terrible mistake in backing the President prior to the war. However, due to the swell of nationalism sweeping the country, there was little doubt that most Congressional members would support the President. Too bad the lies were not exposed and made public long before troops were sent into the no-win situation that is Iraq.

Comment by MNSasquatch — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:10 pm

Yes, I signed Conyers letter. What’s interesting to me is that you assumed because I criticize the Democratic party that I’m pro-war. Before giving me advice perhaps you need to examine your own assumptions and beliefs about the Democratic party, which I think at this point is morally and politically bankrupt, just like the Republicans.

Yes I know the Democrats, some of them, fight for health care - and mostly its Democrats at the local level who are making a difference.

And if you want to talk spin - this whole bruhaha about Dean’s attack on the Republicans is another distraction - look over here people at Dean - and ignore the 500 lb gorilla in the room which is the Iraq war. Dean didn’t even mention the war at the recent Take Back America conference. Arianna Huffington was the only one to bring it up.

So Democrats - if you really believe in your rhetoric - you need to take your party to task - and tell Dean to discuss the war and stop this sideshow circus attack on Republicans.

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:12 pm

Carlos–Like you, I did everything I could in 2002 and 2003 to stop Bush from starting this war. I marched in DC & Louisville. I sent thousands of emails and made thousands of calls to Congress. I contacted UN members. I even emailed the Pope! We American’s are responsible for Bush’s illegal disastrous war. I hope your son and my daughters do not get drafted, but we both know that more than 1700 families have already lost their kids. I think the most important thing right now is to drop the partisan spin and join forces to ensure that the people responsible to this war–Bush / Cheney & Co. are tried and convicted for their crimes. The DSM says it all.

Comment by Judy — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:16 pm

I understand your dilemma regarding the ugly decisions the Democratic Party became party. I think you’re quandary is one that the leadership seems to be in. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but my sense is, you and the Party are unable at this point to come out and say, “We were wrong, we were fooled again, and now we need to make it right by just getting the heck out of there.” To me, discussions of concerns about power vacuums is just a way to avoid the reality of the situation, which is - we did something that was illegal and uttterly stupid and destructive - and there is no way to right this by staying - the genie has been let out of the box - when you destroy a culture - a fabric of society - what else can you expect but chaos -

The Democratic Party learned nothing from Vietnam - and the lesson there was - you don’t invade other countries unless you’ve been attacked, you don’t it because (1) it’s wrong (2) it leads to disaster for everyone involveld.

The only honorable thing, in my opinion, for the US to do now, is to withdraw.

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:18 pm

Some people are Democrats by default, some pugs are that as well. the democratic party is populated with DINOs and probably even pug moles. It’s corporate wing, like Biden and others, is pug lite.

Comment by Little Debbie Winger — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:20 pm

Judy -
You want to impeach Bush - but what about the war. You say nothing about what to do now that we’re in Iraq. What’s your solution.

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:20 pm

It’s easier to impeach than withdraw troops from Iraq. Neither is going to happen soon enough to please us all.

Comment by Little Debbie Winger — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:21 pm

I went to your link - I’ve seen that story today in the news and somewhere it mentioned that the US military is now considering making political liasons with the insurgency - which I guess will no longer be called the insurgency if we become aligned with one group or another - but we’ve probably been aligned all along - as there was talk that the destruction of Fallujah - which itself is a massive war crime - was really an attempt to wipe out a political opponent of Chalabi et al - so we’ve been playing card all along

What’s been going on in Iraq will be revealed someday as the hideous, evil thing that it is - and our children died for this - it is almost too much to even think about

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:27 pm


I agree with most of what you are saying, and I think that the DSM will give the DEM party the excuse they need to say how wrong the war was and that they were fooled by the administration. I think you can see this happening even as REPs are beginning to challenge the facts of the war and they are staring the talk of setting a timeline for withdrawl. I think this is a VERY positive step.

I also do not think the country as a whole will ever learn from the past until we look beyond ourselves and our own self-interests. Far too many Americans do not realize that there is a whole world outside of our borders and that some of those living outside of our borders actually have different beliefs than we do. Only when we realize this and ACCEPT this can real change be made. Can you imagine the postive change that could be made in Africa if people actually cared about what happens to someone on the other side of the world? Adults and children do not have to die from CURABLE diseases and malnutrition.

Sorry, getting off the soapbox now.

Comment by MNSasquatch — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:28 pm

Little Debbie Winger -
It might require that the military command countermand the President’s orders, and begin withdrawals on their own.

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:29 pm


I admit that this is weak, but the vote by many Democrats in Congress for the “Iraq War Resolution” was to “put teeth into the inspection program".

I remember specifically, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton making floor speeches that put caveats on their votes and warned Bush that he had better be right about WMD and telling him that any of their support will end if they found out that Bush was lying.

I agree with you that the DLC Democrats are failing to heed the concerns of most of their constituents in the party. I think that the issue of troops currently in Iraq is tainted by the realpolitik of the invasion and occupation. I, like you, favor immediate withdrawal – with a shuddering concern about what might happen in Iraq when we leave, but I am not going to write off Democrats who take a slower, more cautious approach. The pottery barn rule does apply here. We broke it and leaving now would be like shoplifting.

Comment by blaze — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:30 pm

Blaze -
If, as you say, Clinton and Kerry put the caveat that they would withdraw support if Bush was lying, why isn’t Clinton champing at the bit to bring the DSM to the floor of the Senate. And why didn’t Kerry do it. Why is it Conyers? Admittedly he has the power of the Judiciary committee, but the Senate is silent on this issue, except for Kennedy.

I don’t trust Hilary Clinton. And the reason is - she smells too much like Lyndon Johnson. I’m old enough to have protested the Vietnam war, and Johnson was a real nightmare - most of the protests during the Vietnam war were done in front of his White House, and he did nothing. He refused to listen. I think Hilary would be the same way if she were in the Presidency. She would keep the troops there - the nightmare would go on and on.

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:37 pm

Comment by blaze — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:30 pm

Very well said Blaze. I’m glad somebody could sum up what was stuck in my head regarding the chilling impact of leaving a broken country.

Comment by MNSasquatch — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:39 pm

Ban abortion, more children to grow up and join the military to fight for the War Pary (Democrats and Republicans) that occupies Warshington. The ‘Good Americans’ won’t see the light until after 60,000 dead soldiers come back in flag-draped coffins. Until then, expect the slaughter to continue ad infinitum. People are a ‘renewable resource’ that can be exploited so the billionaires can live lives of hedonistic leisure in Tahiti.

Dr. Strangelove would be jealous of our current crop of ‘leaders.’

The US has been runnin’ and gunnin’ across the globe ever since Eisenhower sent 900 advisors into Vietnam and sold the French surplus military hardware.

Comment by Ron — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:45 pm


I really am not sure about Hillary. When Johnson was in power there was a major Democrat majority. Now, in the minority and facing the spinning blades of the current media, Democrats have been ducking and dodging for so long that it is hard to pin down a position.

I can understand the strategy by the Senate, of being quiet and letting this administration stew in their own offal. Daschle was destroyed (basically without a whimper) with the assistance of spin. Hillary is currently set up for a burning.

But you know what? I still believe that principle trumps spin and I am looking for the leader. Dick Durbin, John Conyers, Bulldog Waxman, Barbara Boxer (to a lesser extent). There is also realpolitik involved in our election process. How do Dems avoid the media lies campaign and how do we take back the vote count? Kerry is a thing of the past, but I think that Hillary might just be warming up.

Comment by blaze — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:47 pm

Impeachment procedures followed by trial by international court of war crimes should begin immediately!

Comment by Wayne — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:51 pm


There is a poll on asking the question: should a date be set for withdrawl from Iraq? currently 77% said yes. If this continues, withdrawl WILL happen.

Comment by MNSasquatch — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:57 pm

Good job Carlos-deflect deflect deflect- now what about these memos. lol

Comment by MNoops — June 13th, 2005 @ 1:10 pm

Testing… I had another comment, but the server isn’t letting me post it.

Comment by Gary Kleppe — June 13th, 2005 @ 1:23 pm

The pottery barn rule does apply here. We broke it and leaving now would be like shoplifting.

Iraq is more like if we ran into a store with a gun and started shooting up the place, taking out all the store managers in the process. Then when the police tell us to come out with our hands up, we say that we’d like to, but we can’t because that would leave nobody to run the store.

Comment by Gary Kleppe — June 13th, 2005 @ 1:26 pm

SHEEPLE, get a clue! We will NOT be leaving Iraq, ever! The ‘crats and the Republican Guard are all fully cognizant of this. Have you given any thought to the REAL reaon we declared war on Iraq?

[As pointed out in Crossing the Rubicon, Britain needs Iraqi oil just as the U.S. does. Plans for invasion were nothing new. If the intelligence being gathered before the war did not fit these plans, the “facts” would be changed. This British “Downing Street” memo is merely icing on the cake. From day one the Iraq conquest had nothing to do with the “war on terror.” It always was, and still is, a resource war.

“The basic plan was to capture 11 percent of the world’s oil and put it in a bank while Halliburton, DynCorp, and a dozen other corporations get billions of US taxpayer dollars to rebuild the infrastructure for a time when the US will be able to use it, parcel it out to starving allies [such as Britain], or simply withhold it from foes.”

Crossing the Rubicon, p.535

Comment by Mark — June 13th, 2005 @ 1:28 pm

If you think this is deflection, then I counter that the DSM hoopla is also deflection. Do we focus JUST on the DSM and impeaching Bush while IGNORING the Iraq war. It seems to me alot of Dems would like to do just that. Are you one of them? What’s your position on Iraq war?

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 2:15 pm

Judy, I bristled a bit when I read your comment that “We American’s are responsible for Bush’s illegal disastrous war.” Like you, I was out there beforehand fighting like hell to keep us out, and then I was fighting like hell to prevent Bush from being reelected. So were a whole heck of a lot of other people, with the world behind us.

Know what? The war happened anyway. The second coronation happened anyway. Now, despite strenuous opposition and some Democrats showing some spine for a change, the courts are getting packed with right-wing activist judges and John Bolton will probably get to blow up the U.N. anyway.

Say it’s really true (and I have strong doubts) that the majority of Americans were/are behind Bush: I am not one of those Americans, and therefore I am not at all responsible for this illegal disastrous war. No one who fought with all they had to prevent it are responsible.

The Bush administration (with Tony Blair’s help) is responsible for this illegal, disastrous war. Those citizens who naively and romantically believed (and still believe!) his lies and allow themselves to be manipulated are complicit, but even they are not responsible. Those who determine what will be “spun” to us in the media must share in the responsibility (it’s debatable if they and Bush aren’t joined at the hip), but many reporters are complicit only because they fear repercussions if they report factually and show courage in covering what’s really going on.

I’ll wager that, even if Congress had not voted to give Bush the power to wage war on Iraq, he would have done it anyway. Would that be any different from what he does every single day that he’s in office? Yes, the Democrats, in trying to look like they’re fair and bipartisan, have proven themselves in the past to be utter wimps; but I maintain that Bush didn’t need their wimpiness to get what he wanted. He didn’t need the sheepdom to get what he wanted. He doesn’t even need his opponents to get tired of fighting against him to get what he wants. By God, he’s going to get what he wants no matter what! Wake up, people!

The only way we’re going to stop him and his ilk is to demand verifiable paper trails to make sure the mid-term elections are a big wakeup call and the voices of Americans are all heard loud and clear. Failing that, we ALL need to be prepared to pour into the streets to fight (even die) for the land that we love.

Comment by dkistner — June 13th, 2005 @ 2:17 pm

I agree with you - there are lies behind the lies behind the lies - and at the bottom the answer can be found - as Deep Throat liked to say - by following the money.

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 2:17 pm

The clincher should be documents on OIL.

Greg Palast has found these on the plans to privatize and steal Iraq’s oil, and elections were initially put off so they had time to do it “legally” because no elected government, even a puppet one, could get away with rubber stamping that.

First Palast story with interviews with author of plan, Grover Norquist and General Jay Garner, first American ruler of Iraq: 83&row=1

Follow up story with oil execs on differences with Bush admin: 17&row=2

The Bushies seem to be taking this seriously–they’re suing Palast.

Comment by Professor Smartass — June 13th, 2005 @ 2:34 pm

Are these docs part of a “Bush Guard Memo Redux” scheme set in motion by a British Karl Rove? Because how do we know they are real and not fakes?

Comment by Romdinstler Jones — June 13th, 2005 @ 2:47 pm

Brits have not disputed authenticity, so it’s a little late to play that card.

I think about that now with anything that sounds too good to be true–could be a poison pill.

Comment by Professor Smartass — June 13th, 2005 @ 2:53 pm

Right on Carlos,
Out of Iraq now, right now! Don’t buy the same old B.S. we were told during Vietnam—-stay the course blah blah blah.
I gave up on the Democrats after voting for them for over 50 years. They are hopeless. I am going to give the Green Party a chance to show what they will do for the working and middle class. Peace

Comment by CheDebbs — June 13th, 2005 @ 3:19 pm

So then Tony Blair went ahead and participated in a war that he knew was a fake. Right.

I wonder if these secret documents came from Bill Buckett or Dan Rather?

Keep digging folks…so far the only thing we find is that John Kerry is no smarter than George W. Bush and you don’t know how to win elections.

Comment by Joe Smith — June 13th, 2005 @ 3:40 pm

Of course we know how to win elections. All you need to do is install crooked, unauditable voting machines in enough precincts.

Comment by Gary Kleppe — June 13th, 2005 @ 4:03 pm

HELLO BUCKY… or is it polished sausage?

Comment by Skid — June 13th, 2005 @ 4:08 pm

The original Carlos said “bush lied, thousands died".
The Carlos after that is Buckshot.
In addition to his other personalities.

When is thinkprogress going to ban him?

Comment by Susan — June 13th, 2005 @ 4:49 pm

What are you talking about. I did say Bush lied, thousands died. I have not said anything under the name Buckshot

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 4:51 pm

Why would you want me banned. Because you don’t agree with me. Now that’s being a good Republican, or are you a pro-war Democrat. Or a stay the course Democrat? Or a Isn’t Dean terrific when he ignores the war supporter?

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 4:53 pm

Sorry Skid - I meant my responses to be addressed to Susan who suggested I be banned cause she believes I’m other people - maybe she’s paranoid - but I have only posted as Carlos - not polished sausage or buckshot or anyone else. So before Susan goes suggesting that people be banned maybe she communicate a bit more. Unless she jsut wants to silence dissent.

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 4:59 pm

More DSM Fallout
Think Progress has the full text of, now four memos from England. These four memos, from a year before the invasion, outline (in advance) what transpired in Iraq

Trackback by The Supreme Irony of Life… — June 13th, 2005 @ 5:21 pm

It doesn’t matter what I think of the war, the topic at hand is the DSM.

Comment by MNoops — June 13th, 2005 @ 5:36 pm

Except that you think the war is a distraction from DSM - but they are tied together - how can you separate the war from DSM - what nonsense - it’s like trying separate a letter that discusses murdering someone and the actual murder - how would that play in a court of law - like the defendant’s lawyer says - we can only discuss the letter we can’t discuss the murder - or vice versa -

in fact try discussing the DSM without discussing the war. Now that would be a challenge. You have said nothing about the memo yourself.

Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 5:42 pm

If you are, however, please think back to when Clinton was in office. I’m pretty sure that he did not invade Iraq.

Comment by MNSasquatch — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:31 am


Operation Desert Fox

On December 16, 1998, United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) military forces launched cruise missile attacks against military targets in Iraq. These strikes were ordered by the President of the United States and were undertaken in response to Iraq’s continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors. The strikes were designed to deliver a serous blow to Saddam Hussein’s capability to manufacture, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten or otherwise intimidate his neighbors.

In November 1998, US President William J. Clinton warned Iraqi leadership that force would be used if they continued to hamper United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors efforts. This operation, dubbed Desert Fox, was a rapid and intense use of air power that lasted four days (17-20 December 1998), ending on the first day of Ramadan, the ninth month of the Muslim year during which Muslim believers must fast between dawn and dusk. It was also the first operation that used B-1B Lancer bomber aircraft in a combat role. As in earlier confrontations between coalition forces and Iraqi military forces in the Persian Gulf, the intent was to show the coalition’s resolve to continue to support the UN’s monitoring effort. This was basically the “straw that broke the camel’s back” in the year-long tug of war between Hussein and the coalition. In fact, the US deployed forces to the Persian Gulf in February 1998 as part of operation Desert Thunder. Like confrontations in the past, Hussein selected a time when the US and her European allies were busy with preparing for another situation, again in the former republic of Yugoslavia.

I was against this when it happened thinking Clinton was trying to destract. Richard Clarke says differently in his book.

Comment by John Gillnitz — June 13th, 2005 @ 5:55 pm

It doesn’t matter what I think of the war, the topic at hand is the DSM.

Comment by MNoops — June 13th, 2005 @ 5:36 pm

The DSM is hearsay. It is someone else’s interpretation of what someone said.

The authorization Bush signed to allow torture in violation of the Geneva Convention (and federal law) should be what triggers chIMPEACHMENT. If Ohio and Tom DeLay don’t take him down first.

Comment by John Gillnitz — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:00 pm

Carlos conveniently ignores several FACTS (instead of tired AIPAC allegations, and Bill Clinton, who is not, some say, equivalent to the Democratic party):

1) John Kerry outed the USPNAC airbases scheme during the FIRST debate, and repudiated it: “The US has no legitimate longterm interest in staying in Iraq.”

2) Howard Dean, who famously opposed the war, is now head of the national party machine. How did that happen, even when H. Clinton (?) and a lot of others opposed? Must be more to this party than you say.

3) Nancy Pelosi opposed, even opposed the Iraq Resolution, and that’s how she got her current job – by OPPOSING assistance the Bush agenda in Iraq.

4) What was the actual vote on that Iraq Resolution? A lot of leftists like carlos have faulty memory on that PARTY DISCIPLINE vote. In the Senate, party discipline split the vote 50-50. Twenty-five Dem US Senators voted NAY. In the House, 60% voted NAY. Gee, that doesn’t sound like a party that wanted to invade Iraq – or they have a strange way of saying it.

5) Why did that vote go so strongly NAY? Because of action by the party, aka the membership. That vote may have gone mostly Yea, if not for the responsiveness of both the membership and the representatives. Changing the leader in the House is not a small change. Democracy produced that change.

6) John Conyers, Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, and several other Democrats have strongly protested and fought against the Bush regime’s actions in Iraq. Have they been condemned by the party? Absolutely not. Indeed, 94 House members have signed the letter to Bush demanding he come clean on his Bush-Blair war conspiracy. That’s 94 out of about 200 – again not a sign that the party supports Bush on Iraq.

7) The myth that Dems are Rs is conclusively disproven by Bush’s actions, and the near-total toleration of those actions by Rs, and NOT by Dems. Not only was USPNAC not Clinton’s plan, or the Dems’ plan in secret – it is treason.

8) John Kerry won the election – Bush Lost Ohio. If Kerry had been allowed to take office, the airbases scheme would already be TOAST. Confusing Kerry’s statements supporting a measured stand-down in Iraq (to prevent civil war) is not the same as Bush’s permanent airbases and actions intended to CAUSE civil war.

Leftists are busy trying to beat the third party or no party drum, but that is the path of NO poltiical power in our system. I’ve heard leftists support the idea that only a revolution, or only a social collapse, or only a massive terrorist strike, say a nuke, would change the American system. My own view, as an ardent, active protester since I was 12 years old during Vietnam, is that these statements are inherently BIGOTED.

Wishing for disasters in order to change politics is the whole definition of powerlessness.

Comment by Paul in LA — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:01 pm

John Smith=Bucky/Sausage… not Carlos, he’s generally good people.

Comment by Skid — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:04 pm

One Carlos? Two?

Comment by Skid — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:07 pm

“The DSM is hearsay. It is someone else’s interpretation of what someone said.”

UNTRUE. The DSM, and supporting documents, is bona fide intel on the Bush-Blair conspiracy, with the majority of the information coming from Britain’s MI6 (equivalent to the CIA). It is solid evidence of the actual stance of the two governments.

Actually, that’s obvious, if you observe the difference in response between the two pieces of evidence. The torture evidence? Gonzales is the new AG.

The DSM? Blair has to come to the US to issue an outright lie for Bush. Blair is likely to fall from power within the next few months, which would weaken Bush considerably – not least of which because the new PM might hold an investigation – more real evidence from the main attacking ally.

Bush is in serious trouble, but this is a coup. I believe all the evidence is important, but the continued efforts by some on the left to downplay the DSM is counterproductive, and flows mainly from the desire to ignore the existence of GOVERNMENTS.

Comment by Paul in LA — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:09 pm

Wishing for disasters in order to change politics is the whole definition of powerlessness.

I’m with ya’ Paul. Looks like they got their power by a lot more than wishing (9/11)…

Comment by Skid — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:13 pm

Carlos: “Dean didn’t even mention the war at the recent Take Back America conference. Arianna Huffington was the only one to bring it up.”

AH is not even IN the Dem party. She ran third party against an elected governor in an unconstitutional (and stolen) recall election in my state, to her considerable shame.

Dean is head of the DNC. His job is specifically contingent on DOMESTIC policy – not as a lightning rod for opposing Iraq. Taking the job specifically meant he had to retarget the rhetoric. That’s mainly because a political solution is not the same thing as an up-down suicide vote, which is all the leftists want to see happen. They oppose politics – they refuse to acknowledge political reality.

Dean is forced to acknowledge political reality – that’s what the DNC Chair’s job is all about.

As usual, it is up to the PEOPLE to make the case against the Iraq war, and against Bush as a traitor. An impeachment, were it to start (unlikely but possible), would have to begin as always with the grassroots. For all the obvious reasons, it cannot start within the representatives themselves. John Conyers would not be pushing so hard if not for the hundreds of thousands of letters he has received, including from the pro-impeachment efforts of me and my friends for the last three years, which focussed on trying to get him to file an impeachment bill.

I am very happy now that this evidence is coming out; that Conyers is willing to carry the torch; and that 94 Dems have announced their willingness to support the investigation that may lead to impeachment.

Leftists continue to ignore the politics, down the parties as the same, and downplay the DSM on the argument that it is redundant to their superior knowledge of all things (except politics). Instead, they ought to be fighting their asses off moving the issue forward. Instead, the appeals to Huffington and other political-fringe voices, as if that has any weight in Congress.

Comment by Paul in LA — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:27 pm

John, I consider the just DSM another nail in the coffin.

And yes Carlos, I can discuss the DSM without discussing the day to day events of the war.

The deflections were bringing up, Bill , Hillary, Albright, Lieberman-anything but discussing the implications of DSM. I’m also very happy that this site stays on top of it and keeps me up to date with emails. great job!

Comment by MNoops — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:30 pm

Very interesting dialogue, especially when able to rise above name calling and malicious labelling.

My synopsis would be that it is agreed that our government is corrupt and non-representative of the “real” public and that the public is growing increasingly frustrated. The constant questions regarding motives and allegiances are indicitive of such.

The war/invasion/campaign/crusade, whatever you wish to call it, is most certainly wrong. Legalities and tactics can be argued all day. The bloodshed, however, is the only truth and the most troubling.

Now, I do not wish to throw my hat in anyone’s ring but I do find that Carlos is one of the few talking around the edges of the real solution. No violence, no emails to political or religious figures, no alignment with this pundit or that one. Rather, clear and civilized actions are what is necessary. This is, after all, a democracy for, of, and by the people. What to do? Here are some thoughts:
- Stop paying taxes
- Start Protesting
- Stop being “politically correct” (ie; you cannot support the troops but not support the war)

Start doing something or stop complaining. It’s one or the other.

Comment by Stephen — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:42 pm

This posting shows just how knowledgable Americans are. Thanks for voting Bush in again, World Peace will be a step closer come 2008 when he leaves office.

Comment by Gary — June 13th, 2005 @ 8:44 pm

Clinton gave us NAFTA, Welfare Reform and the WTO, all great for the republicans and the corporate lobby, rotten for the American people.
The dems didn’t just screw up by supporting the war. Look at Feinstein’s voting record, she’s given W everything he’s requested except women’s rights issues. Lieberman can’t go five minutes without reciting the right’s talking points in regards to Iraq having made the world safer. Did you see the way W dry humped Lieberman’s leg after his last State of the Union?
Dems have supported the Class Action Fairness nightmare, the Bankruptcy horror, the Medicare Reform pile, figure it out, folks, they don’t represent the people.
Ever since Clinton showed the Dems how easy it was to raise cash by catering to big business we’ve been stuck with the republican party and the republican-light party.
If you’re hoping for a hero to arrive from the left side of the aisle then you’re deluded. They’re bought and paid for. Look at their voting records, it’ll take you five minutes.

Comment by Kev — June 13th, 2005 @ 9:57 pm

Slim odds are better than no odds.

Comment by Skid — June 13th, 2005 @ 10:04 pm

The entire world, including we Democrats knew Bush was lying about Iraq and the WMD fiasco. Until the DNC can find another media savy nominee, and we (the main stream ‘regular’ folks), get off our lazy butt’s and VOTE it won’t matter what anyone thinks or says. Christian Fundamentalist people are in the minority, believe it or not. But they are the one’s that are active. I think the rest of us now are out of denial and ready to vote. Bring Gov. Bill Richardson on. Get Dean a retirement community to harass.

Comment by karen kelly — June 13th, 2005 @ 10:53 pm

my first visit… loved it. Thanks. Loved all of the opinions. My first thought. Bill Hicks said it soo well. “I think the puppet on the left is of my liking. I think the puppet on the right is my liking. Wow! Look…. It is the same pupeteer holding them both.” I think that we all really know this. Reps and Dems all feed at the trough. It is all about oil and passage ways for whatever the powers that be feel need to be opended. Be it NAFTA/CAFTA, European Union. I urge everyone to read Howard Zinn’s book on the history of America since 1492. A must read.


Comment by Ron E — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:00 pm

I am glad to hear the likes of Carlos. Who was it that said, “Dissent is the greatest form of Patriotism?”
But let’s examine the powers that be. If we clump together the dems and neo-cons as part of the same corporate-driven machine, my only concern would be that if some other fringe party were to miraculously rise up and take power, where would it leave us in terms of global hegemony? Would a stand-down, pacifistic change of government truly encourage the world’s terrorists to offer an olive branch? If we’re not to take some active role in stablizing the Middle East and secure the future’s oil supply, who will?

With China and India in higher demand for oil-energy, it concerns me that the ultimate dilemma stems from pur continued fossil fuel addiction. And look how the rest of the world is getting hooked. Someone has to keep the junkies in check. I’d feel safer if it was us and not Iran, or China, or Russia, or even the EU.

Comment by DJ Robbie Rouser — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:33 pm

Paul in LA,

Great comments as usual, you seem to have confidence that Bush is in trouble and I badly want to agree, but here is what stops me: we have our echo chambers and they have theirs. Ours is filled with knowledge, true patriotism and much passion. Theirs gets played on a thousand radio stations and on most of the TV outlets. The vast majority of our fellow Americans hear their story and not ours. The fact that there has been any traction at all on the DSM, Tom Delay, Iraq disaster, etc. surprises (but encourages) me. I’m also encouraged by the recent show of nerve by a handful of editorial pages that have called the Bush administration what it is: a lying cabal. Cautiously optimistic, I suppose.

In an earlier post you state that “this is a coup” and I was hoping you would elaborate. Is this based on Bush’s plummeting poll numbers or something more tangible?

I think that ANY Democrat that is openly criticizing Howard Dean should be considered a clear impediment to the cause of revolutionary change in our political landscape. He is showing courage, speaking the truth, fighting like hell and not being intimidated by harsh attacks that he knew would be coming. Maybe he didn’t know they’d be coming from the likes of Joe Biden, but you can be sure everyone that knows how valuable Dean is to the future of a true “progressive” movement has put Biden’s name on their shitlist. Every time one of these whores opens their mouth they expose their priorities….and those priorities are not democracy first. Those politicians must be firmly rebuked.