outsourced-SF

Bo Crony Left Behind

2007-12-28T12:30:00.001-08:00

Read More: Bush Education, Education, McGraw Hill, McGraw Hill Testing, Nclb, Neil Bush, No Child Left Behind, Breaking Politics News

New Rule: In the next fifteen months, President Bush has to perform at least one act that doesn't make money for someone he knows.

Take "No Child Left Behind." At first it just looked like gentle empty bullshit, a way to neutralize the Democrats edge with voters on education issues. What did it even mean? And how could you be against it? Education. It was a perfect cause that would honor the legacy of any president...'s wife. Which made it even more perfect for pre-9/11 Bush. And who could it hurt? No one. It made Lady Bird Johnson's wild-flowers-by-the-highways project look like the fucking Marshall Plan.

Except, like all Bush ideas, there was more to it. To meet the requirements of "No Child Left Behind" America's public schools have ordered more than eleven million standardized tests in the last two years. (New York State alone ordered 1.7 million.) The cost of the tests -- and the testing industry, including test prep -- now exceeds two billion dollars a year. And 90% of the industry is controlled by five corporations. And the largest of them is McGraw-Hill. And the McGraw family just happens to go back 80 years with the Bushes.

Another beneficiary of No Child Left Behind? Neil Bush's educational software company. The one funded by the United Arab Emirates. The one Barbara Bush said the Katrina victims had to spend her donation on.

Which is, of course, all blood under the bridge. But when Bush does anything, there's always some profit motive behind it. Nothing is free but the hookers. So it wasn't surprising that he announced his post war plans were to replenish the coffers with speeches. But before that, he has to do one purely altruistic thing. Just one.

911: Ripple Effect - Full Length Video

2007-10-12T13:06:00.000-07:00

911: Ripple Effect - Full Length Video

Saddam Wanted Out, Bush Lied it

2007-09-30T17:40:00.000-07:00

This Spanish transcript reveals several damning things. The ones I picked up on are the following:

a. Bush intended to go into Baghdad even in the event that his second resolution was vetoed in the U.N. Security Council. In effect, he was prepared to break Constitutional law by violating the terms of an international treaty to which the U.S. was a signatory.

b. This transcript reveals that under no circumstance was Bush willing to let Saddam Hussein flee Iraq. Which means that his March 17, 2003, offer for Saddam to leave within 48hrs in order to prevent a war, was disingenuous. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq ...

c. The transcript reveals that Bush employed coercive tactics against potential dissident governments, in order to gain their support. He did not allow them to base their support or lack thereof based on the merits of the case alone.

d. Bush willfully ignores, or is ignorant of, United States complicity in some of the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein. Such as the United States being one of several governments who actively assisted his regime conduct an illegal war against Iran, by providing it with logistical support, military equipment and weapons, and material support for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein#Iran-I ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_m ...

e. The transcript reveals that no amount of proof of disarmament could have satisfied Bush's demands for evidence of such. He viewed the diplomatic process as a cover for troop movements, and was not open to the possibility that it might bear fruit.

f. Bush views himself as some great protector of world freedom, rather than as a constitutional officer, whose primary duty it is to make sure the Constitution is obeyed.

g. Finally, this Spanish transcript reveals that Bush considered the capture of one single individual, Saddam Hussein, to be more important than the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, 4,000+ U.S. troops and coalition forces, and the wounding and displacement of millions of individuals.

Cindy Sheehan for Congress

2007-09-26T16:54:00.000-07:00

People before Politics!

My statement to the press when I announced my candidacy at the Presidio on August 9th.

Two years ago this week, I started my first vigil in Crawford, Tx, at what became Camp Casey I near George’s vacation ranch. I never thought that my path would lead me here today. Nothing before Casey was killed in the illegal and immoral war in Iraq prepare me for this new direction, but looking back on my life since April 04. 2004, I believe this is the next natural step to bringing the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan to a swifter conclusion and those responsible accountable for the mess our world is in.

An electorate disgusted with the policies of the Bush regime put the Democrats in the majority in Congress in November ‘06. We voted for change, however,
Congress, under the Speakership of Ms. Pelosi has done nothing but protect the status quo of the corporate elite and, in fact, since she has been the Speaker, the situation in the Middle East has grown far worse, with Congress’ help, and recently more of our essential freedoms were given to BushCo by Congress.
That is not what we elected them to do!

A great majority of citizens in California’s 8th Congressional district want the Bush regime impeached and want our troops home from the Middle East. I believe Ms. Pelosi has lost touch with the people of this district and America and it’s time for our reps that aren’t doing their jobs by upholding their sworn oaths to the Constitution to receive a wakeup call!

I agree that with over 45 million American uninsured, we need universal health care. I agree that with many of our young people joining the military to receive college credit (which very few take full advantage of), it’s time to make college affordable. I agree that the people in the administrative branch are corrupt, as are many members of Congress, and ethics need to be reformed. None of these worthy goals can be accomplished while we’re spending 12 million of our tax dollars an hour in Iraq and while the foxes run the henhouse. In this once great nation of ours, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is rapidly disappearing along with the “American dream” of home ownership. The time is now to bring our tax dollars home from the Middle East to help the people of California’s 8th and to make our communities safer and more prosperous.

Incredibly, even before the November elections, Ms. Pelosi took part of the Constitution off the table and it’s time to put it back on! Ms. Pelosi colluded with BushCo to take away our 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Congress needs to make that body relevant again as a co-equal branch of government that has a responsibility to put checks and balances on the executive branch not be conspirators in its crimes and murder.

The Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act need to be repealed and Habeas Corpus needs to be restored. These things can only happen with fearless leadership, not fearful capitulation to a lying President.

I am running unaffiliated with any political party because I believe the corporately controlled “two” party system is responsible for keeping our country in a state of cold and hot wars for decades and it’s time to rein in the military industrial war complex that President Eisenhower warned us of almost 50 years ago.

My candidacy and service will put people before profits and people before political expediency. This country is ripe for a change and it is going to start right here and right now!

I dedicate my candidacy to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been tragically harmed by BushCo with the complicity of Congress, Inc.

I dedicate my candidacy to my children and unborn grandchildren. All the children of the world deserve long lives lived in peace, prosperity and environmental sustainability.

Last of all, I dedicate my candidacy to my hero, Casey who always stood up for what he believed in, even if it wasn't popular. He is my role model and I always strive to make him proud.

Thank you.

Cindy Sheehan
Candidate For The People

To Donate by Check to Cindy's Campaign mail to:

Cindy for Congress
P.O. Box 1672
Bellflower Ca
90707

Sign up for Newsletter Updates

Less than real men are getting ready to attack Iran? Do the Democrats have the cajones to stop them?

2007-09-26T14:00:00.000-07:00

LESS THAN REAL MEN GETTING READY TO ATTACK IRAN? DO THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THE CAJONES TO STOP THEM?

Well, now that we've all been reassured that Larry Craig is not gay, we can move on to Bush's nuclear saber rattling at Iran. You remember when you couldn't turn on the TV back in 2002-2003 without hearing some NeoCon hack crowing that "Real men want to go to Tehran," right? Real men like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Jonah Goldberg, Peter Steinfels, Elliot Abrams, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Irving Kristol, Robert Zoellick, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Kagen, Gary Schmitt, Frank Gaffney, "Scooter" Libby, Ken Adelman, William Bennett, Michael O'Hanlon, Rich Lowry, Martin Peretz and, of course, Holy Joe Lieberman? Actual real men-- and real women-- have been fighting and dying needlessly in Iraq while these war profiteers have been hooting it up back home. Every single one of them should be tried before a war crimes tribunal-- along with the dimwit who fronts for them.

And today, Dimwit, the lamest of lame ducks, with over a year left for causing mischief in the world and-- if we are to judge by the inability of congressional Democrats to show any resolve, unity or spine--nothing whatsoever to hold him back, was barking about Iran again. He's done such a fabulous job in Iraq. In fact, despite the doubled casualties for American fighting men (the "real men," not the ones he hangs out with) and tripled casualties for Iraqi civilians-- not to mention the complete destruction of their society fro top to bottom-- Dimwit will soon have the most craven of his pet generals declare that his failed and catastrophic policies in Iraq are not just not a disaster but that they are succeeding. Well, by all means, Mr. Presidunce, if you can convince the American public and the idiots who represent them in Congress that Iraq is a success, you have earned the war in Iran you so crave.

Although I have no doubt that if the whole world voted, the United States, and especially the Presidunce in charge of Decidering, would be declared the world's leading terrorist, Bush seems it differently and branded Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism" and raised the specter of a "nuclear holocaust." I'm in the camp that isn't positive that this is just Bush bluster. Today Raw Story cites a credible study that says Bush is preparing a massive strike against Iran.

The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure, using long-range bombers and missiles, according to a new analysis.

...The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicizing the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.
• Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.

• US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.

• US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.

• Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.

• Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.

• Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.

• The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.

• The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

America's biggest threat comes from within

2007-08-29T21:59:00.000-07:00

America’s biggest threat comes from within

Paul Craig Roberts is a Republican who served as undersecretary of the treasury under Ronald Reagan and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, so he’s no kook or Commie. He warns, “Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the United States could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.”

Roberts warns us that Bush has put into place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of executive orders that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency.

Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into Iraq and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging terrorist attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda? Bush already ignores public opinion and laws he doesn’t like. His secret spying network is in place.

He has politicized all levels of government, appointing cronies who are loyal to him rather than competent officials. Has he been setting the groundwork for dictatorship?

Adolf Hitler, who never achieved majority support in a German election, used the Reichstag fire to fan hysteria and push through the Enabling Act, which made him dictator. Determined tyrants never require majority support in order to overthrow democratic constitutions. They declare “national emergencies.” A series of staged or permitted terrorist attacks would accomplish that.

On a recent radio show, Roberts said, “Americans think their danger is terrorists. They don’t understand the terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution…. The terrorists are not anything like the threat we face from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism.”

The "SICKO" Man Bush

2007-08-13T20:46:00.001-07:00

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_images/_home/sicko_mm_homepage.jpg

HEALTHCARE & THE WAR ARE "SICKO"

2007-08-13T20:37:00.001-07:00

HEALTHCARE & THE WAR ARE “SiCKO”

Did you know?

One fourth of the Iraq war budget alone could fund healthcare for every uninsured person in this country.

Think what the trillions of dollars wasted on war, occupation and destruction could do for the people:

• Provide free medicine for all of our seniors and chronically ill.

• Change the dismal statistics of infant mortality in major cities like Detroit, Baltimore and Washington D.C. where the mortality rates for African American and poor children rival impoverished countries abroad;

• Stop the epidemic of hospital closings;

• It could provide healthcare and treatment for the physical and psychological trauma that the survivors of Katrina and Rita are still suffering from;

• Make healthcare for low wage workers and immigrant families a priority.

While the war is bleeding us at home it is miniscule in comparison to the bloodshed, misery and pain that is being inflicted on the Iraqi people. The Lancet medical journal documented that 655,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the war (Oct, 2006). The health of the Iraqi people and the entire region has been destroyed. Solidarity demands that we act now to stop the war, end the occupation and bring the troops home now!

GET INVOLVED:

1) Endorse

2) Become a volunteer organizer

3) Donate

4) Download "Healthcare and the War are Sicko" leaflets at: http://troopsoutnow.org/HWN.pdf - and get them out to your school, workplace, hospital, union hall, etc.

Become a volunteer organizer - sign up online or call or write us at:

Campaign for Healthcare, Not Warfare,
c/o TONC,
55 W. 17th St. 5C,
New York, NY 10011
212-633-6646.

Plea for Help from 9/11 Rescue Workers to Rudolph Giuliani Went Unanswered !!!

2007-07-31T22:19:00.001-07:00

Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Plea for Help from 9/11 Rescue Workers to Rudolph Giuliani Went Unanswered

[The following letter was e-mailed to Rudolph Giuliani on May 29th, 2007 by September 11th rescue workers left to fend for themselves after suffering illnesses caused by their work at ground zero in the days after the attacks. They never received a response.]

May 29, 2007

Dear Mr. Giuliani,

As you know, tens of thousands of New Yorkers like ourselves came together on September 11 to help search for survivors, rescue victims, and begin to clean-up after the attacks on our great city. Many of those first responders including James Zadroga, Cesar Borja, and Debbie Reeve developed debilitating health problems after breathing the toxic dust from the collapsed World Trade Center towers. Thousands of 9/11 responders, whose heroic efforts helped our city and country get back on its feet quickly, have attempted to get much-needed medical attention to help recover from their illnesses. For six years, we have pleaded with the Federal government for help, but have received nothing, but even worse, we haven't received straight answers from our own government.

Mr. Giuliani, in your speech at a Hoover Institution meeting in Washington, D.C. on February 26, 2007, you stated that you have never heard anyone tell you that they want to leave the country to get care because the U.S. has the "best healthcare system in the world." The two of us, along with our friend and 9/11 responder, John Graham, actually did leave the country to receive free healthcare that we couldn't get here in the United States.

For the last several weeks, we have been publicly attacked by your Republican party for traveling with filmmaker Michael Moore to Cuba, where we received free healthcare from doctors. Michael Moore, who took us to Cuba for his new documentary on the U.S. healthcare system called “SiCKO,” is now being investigated by the Bush Administration for taking us to Cuba, a trip we decided to take only after the U.S. government and healthcare system failed for the last six years to provide the support for medical treatment we needed. Our health needs have been ignored and forgotten by the very government that celebrated our sacrifice in the days after that tragedy. And now, the Bush Administration and other conservatives seem more interested in investigating our trip to Cuba than in helping us get the health care we deserve.

Mr. Giuliani, the key message you continue to convey to the American people in your run for the Republican nomination for President is your leadership on September 11. You talk about what it was like to be making critical decisions on September 11. There is no doubt that you were on the ground and witnessed the heroic work of the first responders that day. If there is anyone who should know and understand what the 9/11 responders are going through, it is you. Given the fact that you are running for President, we would like to meet with you to discuss what your plans are for helping the health care needs of 9/11 responders if you become President. We want to share our experiences with you so that if elected, you will understand why many Americans are leaving the country to get healthcare elsewhere because they cannot get it here.

Just last week, the city of New York agreed to include on the official list of September 11 victims a woman who died as a result of dust from the twin towers' collapse. We have watched our friends suffer and die from medical conditions as a direct result of working on Ground Zero. We have health conditions that have cost us employment and put us in very difficult financial situations. Our lives have been changed forever. Our government likes to talk about the fact that we are heroes, yet we continue to be ignored. We deserve the opportunity to sit down with you, someone who watched thousands of first responders in action after September 11, to discuss the issues thousands of us are facing today. Show us that our voices will not be ignored if you are elected President.

Sincerely,

Reggie Cervantes
Bill Maher

White House preparing to stage new September 11 !!!

2007-07-24T21:00:00.001-07:00

White House preparing to stage new September 11 - Reagan official

13:58

20/ 07/ 2007

WASHINGTON, July 20 (RIA Novosti) - A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran within a year.

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.

Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: "When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there's no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule."

"The American people don't really understand the danger that they face," Roberts said, adding that the so-called neoconservatives intended to use a renewal of the fight against terrorism to rally the American people around the fading Republican Party.

Old-line Republicans like Roberts have become increasingly disenchanted with the neoconservative politics of the Bush administration, which they see as a betrayal of fundamental conservative values.

According to a July 9-11 survey by Ipsos, an international public opinion research company, President Bush and the Republicans can claim a mere 31 percent approval rating for their handling of the Iraq war and 38 percent for their foreign policy in general, including terrorism.

"The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," he said. "You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated."

Roberts suggested that in the absence of a massive popular outcry, only the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military could put constraints on Bush's current drive for a fully-fledged dictatorship.

"They may have had enough. They may not go along with it," he said.

The radio interview was a follow-up to Robert's latest column, in which he warned that "unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the U.S. could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."

Roberts, who has been dubbed the "Father of Reaganomics" and has recently gained popularity for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War, regularly contributes articles to Creators Syndicate, an independent distributor of comic strips and syndicated columns for daily newspapers.

Please John Conyers: Impeach Bush NOW

2007-06-03T21:43:00.000-07:00

jbcard's Xanga Site

Please John Conyers: Impeach Bush NOW

Submitted by Bob Fertik on March 3, 2006 - 9:19pm.

Impeachment

On Thursday, Harper's Magazine held a truly outstanding forum on impeaching George Bush (photo by Kate Anne).

The panel could not have been more distinguished. It included former Rep. Liz Holtzman, who became famous through her diligent service on the House Judiciary Committee when it adopted Articles of Impeachment that forced Richard Nixon to resign; John Dean, Nixon's White House Counsel whose conscientious refusal to cover up Nixon's crimes played a crucial role in Nixon's downfall; Harper's editor Lewis Lapham, who has analyzed American politics with profound insight for decades; Michael Ratner, the passionate human rights lawyer from the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is leading the legal battles to stop Bush's torture; and Rep. John Conyers, the civil rights legend who is Bush's most passionate and determined critic in Congress.

If anyone came to the forum doubting Bush deserves to be impeached, that doubt was dispelled immediately when all of the panelists emphatically agreed that Bush's war in Iraq, his torture of prisoners, his illegal wiretapping, and his assertion of dictatorial powers all rose to the level of High Crimes as intended by the Founding Fathers.

Sam Seder of Air America Radio, who was an excellent moderator, tried to play devil's advocate, but even he found it impossible to come up with a reason not to impeach Bush.

So the question for the evening was not whether to impeach Bush, but how - and when.

Obviously the primary obstacle is Republican control of Congress. Only Lapham thought a few Republicans might rise above partisanship to join Democrats. Salon's Michelle Goldberg described that idea as "a delusion almost as great as Bush's conviction that God, not William Rehnquist, made him president."

So the question shifted to whether Democrats could win a majority in Congress. Holtzman declared her faith in the voters, who will wake up to the enormity of Bush's crimes and demand impeachment - or sweep Republicans out of office for standing in the way.

As the panel wrapped up, those fired-up voters in the audience headed for the microphones. When my turn came, I echoed Holtzman's remarks by providing concrete evidence of the tremendous grassroots passion for impeachment.

I have good news: there is a grassroots movement for impeachment, and you can find it at ImpeachPAC.org. We have raised over $60,000 to support pro-impeachment candidates, and we have endorsed two so far. But our main problem is that very few candidates are willing to call for impeachment. Mr. Conyers, why don't you introduce Articles of Impeachment so ImpeachPAC can endorse you?

My question was not meant as an attack on Conyers, who is far and away my favorite Member of Congress, and has done more than any other Member to make impeachment a genuine possibility, however remote it seems. But Conyers was a bit exasperated.

My goodness, please look at H.Res. 635, which calls for an investigation that could lead to impeachment. But I cannot call for impeachment now, before we have investigated all the facts.

My time was up, so I could not continue the debate. But if I could, these are the arguments I would make for the immediate introduction of Articles of Impeachment.

First, the Articles of Impeachment have been written. You can find them in Michael Ratner's brand new book. We don't need a committee to struggle for months over the wording; Conyers and his allies can simply "throw the book" at Bush.

Second, when House Republicans impeached President Clinton in 1998, they emphasized ad nauseum that "impeachment" is merely the equivalent of an indictment, the determination that there is sufficient evidence to charge a suspect with a crime. Impeachment, like an indictment, leads to a trial, in which a jury (in this case the Senate) determines whether the evidence is sufficient for conviction. The evidence we have in hand (as presented in Michael Ratner's book, as well as John Conyers' thorough report on the Iraq War lies, The Constitution in Crisis) is far more than is needed for an indictment. There is absolutely no reason for Conyers' proposed Select Committee to do the work of the Senate in weighing the evidence.

Third, Bush's criminal activity is ongoing and must be stopped. Our occupation of Iraq has already cost 2,300 American lives and at least 28,636 Iraqi lives, if not well over 100,000. We are committing war crimes by torturing and murdering prisoners, using chemical weapons and depleted uranium, and pushing Iraq to the brink of civil war. Bush is still wiretapping countless Americans without a warrant, in direct violation of the FISA law. And even though Bush's crimes are flagrant and obscene, the Republican Congress refuses to either investigate them or stop them.

Finally, as the panelists made clear, the American people are truly in a state of despair that George Bush is able to commit these unspeakable crimes without any effort to hold him accountable. By introducing real Articles of Impeachment - even if only a few Members do so - those Members will make a powerful statement that they are determined to challenge that despair and demand accountability. That act of leadership, in and of itself, would galvanize the 52% of Americans (when last measured in January, long before Dubai and the Katrina tapes) who support impeachment. And it would most likely persuade even more Americans that Bush's impeachment was both necessary and urgent. So if 55% or 60% or even 65% of Americans supported impeachment, Republicans in Congress would have a very difficult time standing in the way - especially as they faced a disastrous election in November.

After four distinguished decades in Congress, John Conyers is not a man who acts rashly. But all of us who have watched Bush shred the Constitution know that Conyers has tried to stop him every step of the way by sending urgent letters, filing Freedom of Information requests, and proposing Resolutions of Inquiry. Through those diligent efforts, Conyers has laid the most solid groundwork possible for impeachment.

So please John Conyers, I honestly beg you to introduce Articles of Impeachment now.

Action items:

1. Send this article with a few words of your own to campaign@johnconyers.com

2. Urge your Representative and Senators to support Impeachment:
http://democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/65

3. C-Span taped this outstanding forum but it does not appear on C-Span's schedule for Saturday, Sunday or Monday. Email viewer@c-span.org and urge them to broadcast it.

4. The New York Times is one block from Town Hall, yet it did not even mention this historic event. Email Executive Editor Bill Keller executive-editor@nytimes.com and Public Editor Byron Calame public@nytimes.com and demand to know why.

5. Link to this article from your favorite blogs and ask the blog owner to join ImpeachPAC's Citizens Impeachment Commission.

6. Register to join in local protests:
http://www.democrats.com/user/register

7. Read the whole protest plan:
http://www.democrats.com/cd

8. Organize your congressional district:
http://pdamerica.org/orgs/cdpp-form.php

9. Support our efforts by contributing to ImpeachPAC.

Thank you for continuing your tireless efforts to save American Democracy!

Mike Gravel for President !!!

2007-06-03T16:18:00.001-07:00

Damn RIGHT He's Angry !! SO AM I !!

Submitted by radical Priest on Sat, 2007-04-28 12:54.

Anyone who ISN'T angry,

just isn't paying ATTENTION !!

I've been angry since that spoiled little twit stole the first election,

then his Daddy and his cronies pulled another fast one and attacked us on 9/11 !

THEN they stole ANOTHER ELECTION !!

Between the audacity of blaming arabs who turned up alive,

or Osama, who isn't even wanted by the FBI for 9/11,

or hijackers whose names weren't even ON the passenger lists,

or mysteriously vanishing jets, AND BLACK BOXES,

or unprecedented perfect implosions of steel framed skyscrapers from kerosene fires,

or $2.3 TRILLION missing on 9/10,

or $167 BILLION missing from WTC after 9/11,

or NORAD missing throughout 9/11,

or WMD's missing from Iraq,

or Sadam not even being INVOLVED WITH 9/11,

.............SUCH A MOUNTAIN OF LIES,

and attacks on our rights, such a fascist manipulation of our government with illegal war, illegal wiretapping, no bid contracts for Halliburton ( Cheney ), Guantanamo torture, Abu Graib torture, violation of International War Crimes Act, Geneva Convention, and United Nations policies, a national debt for an illegal war that our children will have to pay their ENTIRE LIVES !!

DAMNED RIGHT HE'S ANGRY !!!!

SO THE HELL AM I !!!!

Radical Priest,

Reverend Michael Valentine Goldsun

http://radicalpriest.homestead.com/index.html

9/11=PNAC Plot

http://erroneousbusczh.homestead.com/9-11Plot.html

After debate, little-known Democrat draws a crowd | Gravel 2008

2007-06-03T16:05:00.000-07:00

After debate, little-known Democrat draws a crowd | Gravel 2008

After debate, little-known Democrat draws a crowd

April 28, 2007

By Joe Lauria, Globe Correspondent | April 28, 2007

ORANGEBURG, S.C. -- Until the first Democratic presidential debate here on Thursday night, former senator Mike Gravel campaigned in almost total obscurity since becoming the first Democrat to declare more than a year ago, in April 2006.

But all that changed with a few provocative remarks from the stage of South Carolina State University with his seven better-known rivals looking on.

He said the early leading Democratic candidates "frightened" him because they had taken nothing off the table, including nuclear weapons, for possible military action against Iran.

"Tell me, Barack, who do you want to nuke?" he asked Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

"I'm not planning on nuking anybody right now, Mike," Obama replied.

"Good, then we're safe for a while," Gravel said.

He accused candidate Joseph Biden Jr., the Delaware senator, of having "a certain arrogance" in dictating to Iraqis how to run their country.

Biden hit back, saying Gravel was living in "happy land."

Yesterday, Gravel said his debate appearance gave a public that does not know him or his record "a taste of the kind of leadership I can provide." He spoke by telephone from San Diego, where he flew immediately after the debate to address the California Democratic Convention yesterday.

"What will make a difference in this campaign is not money, it's not celebrity, it is a person who is prepared to tell the American people the truth," he said. "The people are fed up and as president I will do a 180 and move this country in the opposite direction."

A native of Springfield, Mass., Gravel served two terms in the Senate, representing Alaska from 1969 to 1981 . He made his mark as a fierce Vietnam war critic who staged a one-man filibuster that led to the end of the military draft. He drafted legislation to end funding for the war and released the Pentagon Papers, which detailed government deception over Vietnam, at the end of June 1971.

The Nixon administration decided not to prosecute Gravel for having Beacon Press in Boston publish the papers, though the US Supreme Court ruled that Gravel could release them only inside the Capitol, based on the Constitution's speech and debate clause.

Gravel today is a fierce critic of the Iraq war and government secrecy.

"This war was lost the day that George Bush invaded Iraq on a fraudulent basis," he said in the debate. Believing that Congress has the power to both declare and end wars, he called for a law to end the war.

"He's the one to say not only that the emperor has no clothes, but that the emperor wannabes have no clothes," said national pollster John Zogby, adding, "There is an angry voter. I don't know how that will take shape, it's way too early. But you got a sense why Mike Gravel is in the race on Thursday and that he is in the race."

The reaction to Gravel's performance has overwhelmed his campaign. His aides said they got more requests for interviews yesterday than in the first 12 months of the campaign.

Gravel's website could not handle the flood of hits after the debate, they said. Bloggers complained that they were ready to donate money but were unable to get into the website .

"He started out with less money than the cost of a John Edwards haircut," said Elliott Jacobson, Gravel's national finance director.

Gravel told reporters after the debate: "We stayed in a $55 motel. I'll hitchhike to the next debate if I have to."

Earlier this month, Gravel returned home to Arlington, Va., from a campaign appearance in New York on a $25 ticket on Van Moose bus lines. He had spoken at the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network candidates' forum, sharing the stage with Senator Hillary Clinton and Obama -- both of whom have already raised more than $20 million each.

Gravel said he decided to run for president because of his anger over Iraq. Friends urged him to use the campaign to also push two policy goals: direct democracy and a revamped federal tax code.

Gravel advocates a constitutional amendment and a federal statute establishing legislative procedures for citizens to make laws through ballot initiatives .

He also supports the Fair Tax, which would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and corporate and individual income taxes, replacing them with a 23 percent national sales tax on all new goods and services. Each month, taxpayers would receive a check to offset the tax on basic items such as food and medicine.

"People are talking about him," Zogby said. "And they are going to hear from him over the next few months as long as he's got money for a bus ticket."

"I would change the whole drug policy" - Mike Gravel - News Bloggers

2007-06-03T15:48:00.000-07:00

"I would change the whole drug policy" - Mike Gravel - News Bloggers

"I would change the whole drug policy" - Mike Gravel

Posted May 3rd 2007 7:58AM by Jeff
Filed under: Elections, Democrats

Mike Gravel a Democratic candidate for President says that he would legalize Marijuana. He makes that very clear at around the five minute mark of this CSPAN call in show. I understand the idea is a long shot, but at least one politician is putting it out there. Prisons are full of American Marijuana users and maybe also Canadians soon. This clip is the second part of four from his May 1st appearance on CSPAN. The full program can be watched here.

On May 2nd Mike appeared on the Colbert Report... looking for a bump.

Permalink
Email this
Linking Blogs
Comments [73]
Share this
- Add this post to...
- Netscape
- Digg
- Del.icio.us

Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 5)

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

1. Wow. Thank God, there is finally a candidate with the chops to put this issue on the table.

A majority of elected officials readily admit to having at least "experimented with" (translation: got stoned all through college) with marijuana, yet they are too poitically timid to even address the issue. Gravel is right. Our prisons are filled with marijuana users, many of whom will become marginalized and disenfranchised by a felony conviction.

That is not even taking into the account the huge influx of tax dollars that could be generated by finally taxing arguably the #1 cash crop in the United States. Taxing pot could be an excellent first step towards undoing some of the unthinkable damage that Bush and his cronies have done bleeding the U.S. economy over the past six years.

Kudos, Mr. Gravel, kudos!

Bush is Nuts !!!

2007-05-31T15:29:00.000-07:00

The Delusions Never End

by mcjoan

Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:54:38 AM PDT

The Bobbsey twins of Bush Boosterism, Ignatius and Broder, both weigh in today with pat-on-the-head assurances that the Republicans are surely going to see the light by, oh, say the end of the summer, maybe September? and lead us out of Iraq.

Ignatius assures us that it's the Bush administration itself that recognizes the need to change course:

President Bush said publicly last Thursday what his top aides have been discussing privately for weeks. He talked about a transition to "a different configuration" in Iraq after the surge of U.S. troops is completed this summer.... On the domestic political front, White House officials realized that last week's victory in passing a war-funding bill could be short-lived. Funding would run out again at the end of September, and there were growing signs that Republicans would join Democrats in calling for a troop withdrawal.

while Broder thinks

[J]ust below the surface, the GOP ground is beginning to shift. Few if any Republicans want to go into the election with 150,000 American troops still under attack in Iraq. Mitch McConnell, the supremely realistic Senate Republican leader, told reporters that "the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president to lead it."

Gives a whole new meaning to the term "pony league." For six long years, reasonable people have been believing that reasonable Republicans would recognize that Bush was leading them down a path to disaster, and would turn on the president in numbers large enough to accomplish something. You need only look at the blood-thirsty bunch of torture proponents and escalation hounds running for the GOP presidential ticket to see the folly in that.

But if that isn't enough to convince you, consider Bush's stated intentions for Iraq:

President Bush envisions a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea where American forces have helped keep an uneasy peace for more than 50 years, the White House said Wednesday.

54 Representatives that cave for Bush

2007-05-30T23:26:00.001-07:00

Primary 2008 List

Submitted by Bob Fertik on May 30, 2007 - 12:52pm.

Democratic Primary Challenges

Here is the list of 59 Representatives who voted against the McGovern Amendment on 5/10/2007. We are recruiting anti-war candidates to challenge them in Democratic primaries in 2008. If they change their position to oppose the endless occupation of Iraq, we will ~~cross them off our list~~.

Dist	Incumbent	Primary
AR-2	Vic Snyder
AR-4	Mike Ross
AZ-5	Harry Mitchell
AZ-8	Gabrielle Giffords
CA-11	~~Jerry McNerney~~	voted anti-war on 5/24
CA-18	Dennis Cardoza
CA-20	Jim Costa
CA-28	Howard Berman	Rep. Cindy Montanez Rep. Lloyd Levine Mike Stettler
CO-2	Mark Udall	[running for US Senate]
CO-3	John Salazar
FL-2	Allen Boyd	Rep. Al Lawson
FL-16	Tim Mahoney
GA-2	Sanford Bishop
GA-8	Jim Marshall	George Carswell
GA-12	John Barrow
GA-13	David Scott
IA-3	Leonard Boswell	Rep. Jo Oldson Rep. Bruce Hunter Rep. Rick Olson Sen. Dick Dearden
IL-3	Daniel Lipinski	Mark Pera
IL-8	Melissa Bean
IN-2	Joe Donnelly
IN-8	Brad Ellsworth
IN-9	Baron Hill
KS-2	Nancy Boyda
KS-3	Dennis Moore
KY-6	Ben Chandler	Sen. Ernesto Scorsone
LA-3	Charlie Melancon
MD-2	Dutch Ruppersberger
MD-5	*Steny Hoyer	Paul Prinsky
MN-7	Collin Peterson
MO-4	Ike Skelton
MS-4	Gene Taylor
NC-2	Bob Etheridge
NC-7	Mike McIntyre
NC-11	Heath Shuler	Sen. Martin Luther Nesbitt Rep. Susan C Fisher Rep. Ray Rapp
ND-0	Earl Pomeroy
NV-1	Shelley Berkley
OH-6	Charles Wilson
OH-18	Zachary Space
OK-2	Dan Boren
PA-4	Jason Altmire
PA-10	Christopher Carney
PA-13	Allyson Schwartz	Chuck Pennachio
PA-17	Tim Holden	Sen. Michael O'Pake
SD-0	Stephanie Herseth
TN-1	David Davis
TN-4	Lincoln Davis
TN-5	Jim Cooper
TN-6	Bart Gordon
TN-8	John Tanner
TX-9	Al Green	Rep. Alma Allen Rep. Hubert Vo
TX-17	Chet Edwards
TX-22	Nick Lampson
TX-23	Ciro Rodriguez
TX-27	Solomon Ortiz	Juan Garcia
TX-28	Henry Cuellar
TX-29	Gene Green	Sen. Mario V. Gallegos
UT-2	Jim Matheson	Mayor Rocky Anderson
VA-9	Rick Boucher
WI-3	Ron Kind

911 Mysteries

2007-05-30T22:49:00.001-07:00

The best 911 video sofar !!!!:

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=15716

2007-05-30T22:49:00.000-07:00

The best 911 video sofar !!!!:

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=15716

Why I leave the Democratic Party !!!

2007-05-30T22:41:00.001-07:00

An Open Letter to the Democratic Congress
By Cindy Sheehan

Dublin, Ireland

Dear Democratic Congress,

Hello, my name is Cindy Sheehan and my son Casey Sheehan was killed on April 04, 2004 in Sadr City , Baghdad , Iraq . He was killed when the Republicans still were in control of Congress. Naively, I set off on my tireless campaign calling on Congress to rescind George's authority to wage his war of terror while asking him "for what noble cause" did Casey and thousands of other have to die. Now, with Democrats in control of Congress, I have lost my optimistic naiveté and have become cynically pessimistic as I see you all caving into "Mr. 28%"

There is absolutely no sane or defensible reason for you to hand Bloody King George more money to condemn more of our brave, tired, and damaged soldiers and the people of Iraq to more death and carnage. You think giving him more money is politically expedient, but it is a moral abomination and every second the occupation of Iraq endures, you all have more blood on your hands.

Ms. Pelosi, Speaker of the House, said after George signed the new weak as a newborn baby funding authorization bill: "Now, I think the president's policy will begin to unravel." Begin to unravel? How many more of our children will have to be killed and how much more of Iraq will have to be demolished before you all think enough unraveling has occurred? How many more crimes will BushCo be allowed to commit while their poll numbers are crumbling before you all gain the political "courage" to hold them accountable. If Iraq hasn't unraveled in Ms. Pelosi's mind, what will it take? With almost 700,000 Iraqis dead and four million refugees (which the US refuses to admit) how could it get worse? Well, it is getting worse and it can get much worse thanks to your complicity.

Being cynically pessimistic, it seems to me that this new vote to extend the war until the end of September, (and let's face it, on October 1st, you will give him more money after some more theatrics, which you think are fooling the anti-war faction of your party) will feed right into the presidential primary season and you believe that if you just hang on until then, the Democrats will be able to re-take the White House. Didn't you see how "well" that worked for John Kerry in 2004 when he played the politics of careful fence sitting and pandering? The American electorate are getting disgusted with weaklings who blow where the wind takes them while frittering away our precious lifeblood and borrowing money from our new owners, the Chinese.

I knew having a Democratic Congress would make no difference in grassroots action. That's why we went to DC when you all were sworn in to tell you that we wanted the troops back from Iraq and BushCo held accountable while you pushed for ethics reform which is quite a hoot...don't' you think? We all know that it is affordable for you all to play this game of political mayhem because you have no children in harm's way...let me tell you what it is like:

You watch your reluctant soldier march off to a war that neither you nor he agrees with. Once your soldier leaves the country all you can do is worry. You lie awake at night staring at the moon wondering if today will be the day that you get that dreaded knock on your door. You can't concentrate, you can't eat, and your entire life becomes consumed with apprehension while you are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Then, when your worst fears are realized, you begin a life of constant pain, regret, and longing. Everyday is hard, but then you come up on "special" days...like upcoming Memorial Day. Memorial Day holds double pain for me because, not only are we supposed to honor our fallen troops, but Casey was born on Memorial Day in 1979. It used to be a day of celebration for us and now it is a day of despair. Our needlessly killed soldiers of this war and the past conflict in Vietnam have all left an unnecessary trail of sorrow and deep holes of absence that will never be filled.

So, Democratic Congress, with the current daily death toll of 3.72 troops per day, you have condemned 473 more to these early graves. 473 more lives wasted for your political greed: Thousands of broken hearts because of your cowardice and avarice. How can you even go to sleep at night or look at yourselves in a mirror? How do you put behind you the screaming mothers on both sides of the conflict? How does the agony you have created escape you? It will never escape me...I can't run far enough or hide well enough to get away from it.

By the end of September, we will be about 80 troops short of another bloody milestone: 4000, and MoveOn.org will hold nationwide candlelight vigils and you all will be busy passing legislation that will snuff the lights out of thousands more human beings.

Congratulations Congress, you have bought yourself a few more months of an illegal and immoral bloodbath. And you know you mean to continue it indefinitely so "other presidents" can solve the horrid problem BushCo forced our world into.

It used to be George Bush's war. You could have ended it honorably. Now it is yours and you all will descend into calumnious history with BushCo.

The Camp Casey Peace Institute is calling all citizens who are as disgusted as we are with you all to join us in Philadelphia on July 4th to try and figure a way out of this "two" party system that is bought and paid for by the war machine which has a stranglehold on every aspect of our lives. As for myself, I am leaving the Democratic Party. You have completely failed those who put you in power to change the direction our country is heading. We did not elect you to help sink our ship of state but to guide it to safe harbor.

We do not condone our government's violent meddling in sovereign countries and we condemn the continued murderous occupation of Iraq .

We gave you a chance, you betrayed us.

Sincerely,
Cindy Sheehan
Founder and President of
Gold Star Families for Peace.

Founder and Director of
The Camp Casey Peace Institute

Eternally grieving mother of Casey Sheehan

911 Mysteries (video about 911) !!!

2007-05-23T20:14:00.000-07:00

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043&q=911+mysteries

Check the 911 mysteries video in the link above : awsome video.

911 Mysteries (video about 911) !!!

2007-05-23T19:55:00.001-07:00

http://www.xanga.com/private/yourhome.aspx?user=jbcard

Check out the 911 Mysteries video and see for yourself the truth about 911 !!!

'The Fifth Estate' ...Cindy Sheehan

2007-01-29T18:55:00.000-08:00

Monday, January 29th, 2007
'The Fifth Estate' ...Cindy Sheehan

"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785.

If one "googles" Thomas Jefferson and "freedom of the press" one finds a myriad of quotes from the second president, author of the Declaration of Independence, and founder of the University of Virginia. Mr. Jefferson understood the importance of having a free press as a "fourth estate" of checks and balances on the Federal Government. His concerns that lack of a free press would lead to tyranny and the situation that we are in now with regards to one of the branches of government becoming too powerful over the others was very prescient, to say the very least.

In the United States today, we have a media that is controlled by corporations that are, for the most part, controlled by other entities that profit off of war. NBC is owned by General Electric that is a major war profiteer (which used to be a crime punishable by hanging). The corporate media has a lot at stake by keeping the wag the dog occupation of Iraq afloat on BushCo's failed ship of state.

The inadequacies and sycophantic nature of the press towards the Bush Regime are legion, but Dick Cheney was recently interviewed by Wolf Blitzer and instead of asking the Vice commander in thief about his connections to the obscene war profiteering company, Halliburton; or his being comfortable with surging more troops to Iraq when he had 5 deferments during the Vietnam conflict; or how he said the insurgency was in its final throes; or how his office was connected to outing Valerie Plane, Blitzer asked Dastardly Dicky about his gay daughter's pregnancy. Wolf almost wept with fear when the puppet master attacked him for asking such a question.

Besides a free press, another supposed check and balance on limiting executive power to its proper constitutional authorities is Congress. With its first vote to give Bloody George the authority to invade a harmless country and its continuing feeding Bloody George the blood money he needs to continue the killing and be unwilling to impeach BushCo for crimes against humanity, Congress abdicated its role in declaring war and reining in tyranny. Who can do the heavy labor that the other "estates" are shirking?

Over the weekend, we the people, went to marches and rallies by the hundreds of thousands. From movie stars who are finally breaking their silence to military families, Gold Star families, Vets, and other activists that don't have "skin in the game" we appeared in the hundreds of thousands. Some of us scraped together bus money and stayed 5-6 people per room to afford the trip. We carried creative signs and chanted or sang while we marched. Some of us have not been silent for years.

We want to put Congress, the media, and the executive branch on notice to show them that we will be the checks and balances that Mad King George and the rest so desperately need while we still have a nation to care about. We the people are the Fifth Estate and we are declaring that we will be peace inSURGEnts to save the people of Iraq and to bring our troops home and see BushCo imprisoned for their murder and corruption.

"I am persuaded that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army." --Thomas Jefferson, 1787

Right now we are the only ones.

Let's give Congress the courage it needs to finally do the right thing.

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Sheehan who was killed in Bush's war of terror on 04/04/04.

She is the co-founder and president of Gold Star Families for Peace and the Camp Casey Peace Institute.

She is the author of three books, the most recent is Peace Mom: A Mother's Journey Through Heartache to Activism.

'The Fifth Estate' ...Cindy Sheehan

2007-01-29T17:29:00.000-08:00

Monday, January 29th, 2007
'The Fifth Estate' ...Cindy Sheehan

"I am persuaded that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army." --Thomas Jefferson, 1787

Right now we are the only ones.

Let's give Congress the courage it needs to finally do the right thing.

Anti-War Groups plan Surge in Washington

2007-01-26T22:30:00.000-08:00

anuary 25th, 2007 3:07 am
Anti-War Groups Plan Surge on Washington

By Aaron Glantz / IPS

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 24 - Peace activists from around the United States will converge on Washington Saturday for what organisers hope will be the largest demonstration to date against the Iraq war.

"We expect a turnout in the six figures," said Tom Andrews, a former Democratic congressman who now runs the group Win Without War, which is organising the march along with True Majority, Working Assets, the RainbowPUSH Coalition, the National Organisation for Women and the national umbrella group United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ).

UFPJ's Leslie Cagan told IPS that the level of energy in the antiwar movement has spiked since the November election, when voters ended Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

"The voters of this country figured out that they could use the November elections as a vehicle to voice their opposition to the war," Cagan said. "What happened there was that the voters gave Congress a mandate to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home."

That success at the polls gave antiwar citizens more optimism that a large demonstration might make an impact, she said.

In mid-November, United for Peace and Justice called a demonstration for the nation's capital for Jan. 27, with other large mobilisations planned for Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco.

In addition, smaller actions are planned for more than 50 cities. In Bismark, North Dakota, the group Surge for Peace will be delivering petitions to members of the local congressional delegation. In Austin, Texas, the Stop the War coalition is hosting a march and rally featuring student activists, Green Party activists, and members of the group Veterans for Peace.

A full listing of all marches nationwide is on the group's website unitedforpeace.org.

"People started saying to us right after the election 'well, what is Congress going to do?'" Cagan said. "And we quickly realised the real question is 'what are we going to do to push this Congress to do what they said they were going to do to get elected'. So we figured we got to get people into Washington as soon as possible after the new session of Congress began."

Organisers said five or six Democratic lawmakers are expected to speak at the rally in Washington, and that Representative Barbara Lee will speak at the Los Angeles gathering.

"A lot more would be speaking but we simply don't have the time on stage," said former congressman Andrews. "If we had all day and there was unlimited time for members of Congress to speak we'd have many members of Congress."

Peace activists will have to fight hard if they want to end the war. In recent weeks, President George W. Bush has proposed escalating the war by sending 21,500 additional U.S. soldiers to Iraq. At least 3,000 troops are already on their way.

In his annual State of the Union address Tuesday night, Bush told a joint session of Congress he "chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success."

"Many in this chambre understand that America must not fail in Iraq, because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching," he added.

While lawmakers from both political parties have put forward proposals condemning Bush's plan to escalate the war, none are binding.

In addition, the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have already said they don't support efforts to cut funding for the war.

In the official Democratic response to Bush's state of the union address, freshman Senator Jim Webb of Virginia focused more on strategy and tactics than the merits of the war itself.

"We need a new direction," said Webb, whose son is currently deployed as a soldier in Iraq. "The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought, nor does the majority of our military."

In his speech, Sen. Webb favoured "regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq."

But he also opposed a "withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos."

United for Peace and Justice's Leslie Cagan told IPS that the mixed message from the Democrats makes a large turnout at Saturday's demonstration particularly important.

"That's why it's critical to keep the pressure on," she said. "We are encouraging every single person who agrees with us who can possibly make the trip to Washington this coming weekend to be with us," adding that the antiwar movement is staging a lobby day on Capital Hill for Monday Jan. 29.

"Now we know it's a big country and everyone can't make the trip," she added. "That's why we've organised demonstrations for over 50 cities across the country including Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle."

Other items in this section

More of Latest News

January 26th, 2007 9:26 pm
Congresswoman gets an earful of complaints about Bush policies in Iraq

January 26th, 2007 8:36 pm
'We protest the war'

January 26th, 2007 7:04 pm
Bush: 'I'm the decision-maker' on Iraq

January 26th, 2007 6:58 pm
4 troops abducted, killed in Iraq attack

January 26th, 2007 6:46 pm
Troops cleared to kill Iranians in Iraq

January 26th, 2007 2:10 am
Antiwar protesters target Congress

January 26th, 2007 2:04 am
Democratic senators won't join Iraq war protest in Washington

January 26th, 2007 1:48 am
Protesters greet Bush with calls to end war

January 26th, 2007 1:18 am
Anti-war protesters gather at Walter Jones' Greenville office

January 26th, 2007 12:29 am
White House will cooperate with investigations

Mike's Latest News Archive

Search the site

Advanced Search | Need Tips on Searching?

Bush stop the war, idiot!!!!

2007-01-26T22:19:00.000-08:00

anuary 26th, 2007 1:48 am
Protesters greet Bush with calls to end war

Impromptu demonstration in Rodney Square draws support

By Summer Harlow / News Journal

WILMINGTON, DE -- War is not the answer!

No more victims!

The anti-war signs with their familiar slogans bobbed along as a dozen marchers and one black Great Dane made their way down 11th Street toward Rodney Square on Wednesday.

Helicopters circled overhead, and drivers, stuck in traffic that had been stopped to allow President Bush's motorcade to pass, honked their horns in support, shouting thanks to the protesters. A few passersby even applauded. Negative comments were few.

One Bush supporter rolled down his window to tell the protesters to get a job.

"Get a conscience," they responded.

"We need to keep speaking out against the war, because our protest now has majority support," said Tom Davis of Wilmington. "The anti-war sentiment is irreversible at this point, and no matter where you are on the political spectrum, you want the troops to come home."

In Rodney Square, across from the DuPont Theatre, the demonstration grew to more than 30 protesters waving American flags and chanting, "Stop the war, stop the war, troops home now."

"I wish we were a thousand strong," said Fred Sinton, of Unionville, Pa. "It's people in the streets that will make the difference."

Ed O'Donnell of Wilmington was proud of his homemade sign -- Bush AND Democrats do nothing about guns and war.

"Both parties have failed us, and not just with Iraq," said O'Donnell.

With all the problems in the world, he said, it's up to the public to try to make a difference.

"If we stop the war one day sooner, or get one gun off the street, it's worth it," he said. "You try to help, one person at a time, one protest at a time, one kind act at a time."

Rob Sadot of Newark said he didn't know how much impact Wednesday's protest would have on Bush.

"But judging from the last election, somebody's paying attention," he said. "By being out here, we're doing something. I think we make people stop and think, at least for that moment."

Where is Osama?

Death, oil and blood vs. Peace, jobs and justice.

Jerome Robinson said he joined the demonstration after he got off work at Kirkwood Fitness and Racquetball Club in downtown Wilmington.

"My brother joined the Army three weeks ago, so now it's personal for me," he said. "It's mind-boggling to me that this started with Osama and shifted to Hussein. We'll probably never know the real motives because it's all just politics. Now all we can do is pray for the troops to come home soon." Pat Jackson brought her son Peter, a senior at the Charter School of Wilmington, to Rodney Square to protest Bush's visit.

"I lived through the Vietnam draft, and I remember listening to the lottery of birthdays, and it was terrifying," she said.

Peter, 17, said he worries if the war continues, Bush's call for more troops could lead to another draft.

So he made a sign to wear over his coat at the demonstration.

Send me to college, not to Iraq.

Impeach Now !!!

2007-01-11T20:17:00.001-08:00

hursday, January 11th, 2007
Impeach Now! ...by Jodin Morey

Well, our chance to convince Nancy Pelosi to Impeach Bush/Cheney is this Monday Jan. 15th.

Pelosi most likely said impeachment was "off the table" to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment.

What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she is forced to join the impeachment movement in the future.

Sacks and sacks of mail are about to arrive in Nancy Pelosi's office initiating impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules this Monday January 15th. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635).

There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.That's where we come in. In addition to a House Resolution (635), or the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

You can initiate the impeachment process and simultaneously help to convince Pelosi to follow through with the process. Do-It-Yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. Be a part of history.

Impeach for Peace -- Impeach Now!

How israel is Engineering the "Clash of Civilizations"

2006-09-24T14:48:00.001-07:00

How Israel is Engineering the "Clash of Civilizations"

By JONATHAN COOK

Nazareth.

The trajectory of a long-running campaign that gave birth this month to the preposterous all-party British parliamentary report into anti-Semitism in the UK can be traced back to intensive lobbying by the Israeli government that began more than four years ago, in early 2002.

At that time, as Ariel Sharon was shredding the tattered remains of the Oslo accords by reinvading West Bank towns handed over to the Palestinian Authority in his destructive rampage known as Operation Defensive Shield, he drafted the Israeli media into the fray. Local newspapers began endlessly highlighting concerns about the rise of a "new anti-Semitism", a theme that was rapidly and enthusiastically taken up by the muscular Zionist lobby in the US.

It was not the first time, of course, that Israel had called on American loyalists to help it out of trouble. In Beyond Chutzpah, Norman Finkelstein documents the advent of claims about a new anti-Semitism to Israel's lacklustre performance in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. On that occasion, it was hoped, the charge of anti-Semitism could be deployed against critics to reduce pressure on Israel to return Sinai to Egypt and negotiate with the Palestinians.

Israel alerted the world to another wave of anti-Semitism in the early 1980s, just as it came under unprecedented criticism for its invasion and occupation of Lebanon. What distinguished the new anti-Semitism from traditional anti-Jewish racism of the kind that led to Germany's death camps, said its promoters, was that this time it embraced the progressive left rather than the far right.

The fresh claims about a new anti-Semitism began life in the spring of 2002, with the English-language website of Israel's respected liberal daily newspaper, Haaretz, flagging for many months a special online supplement of articles on the "New anti-Semitism", warning that the "age-old hatred" was being revived in Europe and America. The refrain was soon taken up the Jerusalem Post, a rightwing English-language newspaper regularly used by the Israeli establishment to shore up support for its policies among Diaspora Jews.

Like its precursors, argued Israel's apologists, the latest wave of anti-Semitism was the responsibility of Western progressive movements -- though with a fresh twist. An ever-present but largely latent Western anti-Semitism was being stoked into frenzy by the growing political and intellectual influence of extremist Muslim immigrants. The implication was that an unholy alliance had been spawned between the left and militant Islam.

Such views were first aired by senior members of Sharon's cabinet. In an interview in the Jerusalem Post in November 2002, for example, Binyamin Netanyahu warned that latent anti-Semitism was again becoming active:

"In my view, there are many in Europe who oppose anti-Semitism, and many governments and leaders who oppose anti-Semitism, but the strain exists there. It is ignoring reality to say that it is not present. It has now been wedded to and stimulated by the more potent and more overt force of anti-Semitism, which is Islamic anti-Semitism coming from some of the Islamic minorities in European countries. This is often disguised as anti-Zionism."

Netanyahu proposed "lancing the boil" by beginning an aggressive public relations campaign of "self-defence". A month later Israel's president, Moshe Katsav, picked on the softest target of all, warning during a state visit that the fight against anti-Semitism must begin in Germany, where "voices of anti-Semitism can be heard".

But, as ever, the main target of the new anti-Semitism campaign were audiences in the US, Israel's generous patron. There, members of the Israel lobby were turning into a chorus of doom.

In the early stages of the campaign, the lobby's real motivation was not concealed: it wanted to smother a fledgling debate by American civil society, particularly the churches and universities, to divest -- withdraw their substantial investments -- from Israel in response to Operation Defensive Shield.

In October 2002, after Israel had effectively reoccupied the West Bank, the ever-reliable Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, lumped in critics who were calling for divestment from Israel with the new anti-Semites. He urged a new body established by the Israeli government called the Forum for Co-ordinating the Struggle against anti-Semitism to articulate clearly "what we know in our hearts and guts: when that line [to anti-Semitism] is crossed".

A fortnight later Foxman had got into his stride, warning that Jews were more vulnerable than at any time since the Second World War. "I did not believe in my lifetime that I or we would be preoccupied on the level that we are, or [face] the intensity of anti-Semitism that we are experiencing," he told the Jerusalem Post.

Echoing Netanyahu's warning, Foxman added that the rapid spread of the new anti-Semitism had been made possible by the communications revolution, mainly the internet, which was allowing Muslims to relay their hate messages across the world within seconds, infecting people around the globe.

It is now clear that Israel and its loyalists had three main goals in mind as they began their campaign. Two were familiar motives from previous attempts at highlighting a "new anti-Semitism". The third was new.

The first aim, and possibly the best understood, was to stifle all criticism of Israel, particularly in the US. During the course of 2003 it became increasingly apparent to journalists like myself that the American media, and soon much of the European media, was growing shy of printing even the mild criticism of Israel it usually allowed. By the time Israel began stepping up the pace of construction of its monstrous wall across the West Bank in spring 2003, editors were reluctant to touch the story.

As the fourth estate fell silent, so did many of the progressive voices in our universities and churches. Divestment was entirely removed from the agenda. McCarthyite organisations like CampusWatch helped enforce the reign of intimidation. Academics who stood their ground, like Columbia University's Joseph Massad, attracted the vindictive attention of new activist groups like the David Project.

A second, less noticed, goal was an urgent desire to prevent any slippage in the numbers of Jews inside Israel that might benefit the Palestinians as the two ethnic groups approached demographic parity in the area know to Israelis as Greater Israel and to Palestinians as historic Palestine.

Demography had been a long-standing obsession of the Zionist movement: during the 1948 war, the Israeli army terrorised away or forcibly removed some 80 per cent of the Palestinians living inside the borders of what became Israel to guarantee its new status as a Jewish state.

But by the turn of the millennium, following Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, and the rapid growth of the oppressed Palestinian populations both in the occupied territories and inside Israel, demography had been pushed to the top of Israel's policy agenda again.

During the second intifada, as the Palestinians fought back against Israel's war machine with a wave of suicide bombs on buses in major Israeli cities, Sharon's government feared that well-off Israeli Jews might start to regard Europe and America as a safer bet than Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. The danger was that the demographic battle might be lost as Israeli Jews emigrated.

By suggesting that Europe in particular had become a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism, it was hoped that Israeli Jews, many of whom have more than one passport, would be afraid to leave. A survey by the Jewish Agency taken as early as May 2002 showed, for example, that 84 per cent of Israelis believed anti-Semitism had again become a serious threat to world Jewry.

At the same time Israeli politicians concentrated their attention on the two European countries with the largest Jewish populations, Britain and France, both of which also have significant numbers of immigrant Muslims. They highlighted a supposed rise in anti-Semitism in these two countries in the hope of attracting their Jewish populations to Israel.

In France, for example, peculiar anti-Semitic attacks were given plenty of media coverage: from a senior rabbi who was stabbed (by himself, as it later turned out) to a young Jewish woman attacked on a train by anti-Semitic thugs (except, as it later emerged, she was not Jewish).

Sharon took advantage of the manufactured climate of fear in July 2004 to claim that France was in the grip of "the wildest anti-Semitism", urging French Jews to come to Israel.

The third goal, however, had not seen before. It tied the rise of a new anti-Semitism with the increase of Islamic fundamentalism in the West, implying that Muslim extremists were asserting an ideological control over Western thinking. It chimed well with the post 9-11 atmosphere.

In this spirit, American Jewish academics like David Goldhagen characterised anti-Semitism as constantly "evolving". In a piece entitled "The Globalisation of anti-Semitism" published in the American Jewish weekly Forward in May 2003, Goldhagen argued that Europe had exported its classical racist anti-Semitism to the Arab world, which in turn was reinfecting the West.

"Then the Arab countries re-exported the new hybrid demonology back to Europe and, using the United Nations and other international institutions, to other countries around the world. In Germany, France, Great Britain and elsewhere, today's intensive anti-Semitic expression and agitation uses old tropes once applied to local Jews -- charges of sowing disorder, wanting to subjugate others -- with new content overwhelmingly directed at Jews outside their countries."

This theory of a "free-floating" contagion of hatred towards Jews, being spread by Arabs and their sympathisers through the internet, media and international bodies, found many admirers. The British neo-conservative journalist Melanie Philips claimed popularly, if ludicrously, that British identity was being subverted and pushed out by an Islamic identity that was turning her country into a capital of terror, "Londonistan".

This final goal of the proponents of "the new anti-Semitism" was so successful because it could be easily conflated with other ideas associated with America's war on terror, such as the clash of civilisations. If it was "us" versus "them", then the new anti-Semitism posited from the outset that the Jews were on the side of the angels. It fell to the Christian West to decide whether to make a pact with good (Judaism, Israel, civilisation) or evil (Islam, Osama bin Laden, Londonistan).

We are far from reaching the end of this treacherous road, both because the White House is bankrupt of policy initiatives apart from its war on terror, and because Israel's place is for the moment assured at the heart of the US administration's neoconservative agenda.

That was made clear last week when Netanyahu, the most popular politician in Israel, added yet another layer of lethal mischief to the neoconservative spin machine as it gears up to confront Iran over its nuclear ambitions. Netanyahu compared Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Adolf Hitler.

"Hitler went out on a world campaign first, and then tried to get nuclear weapons. Iran is trying to get nuclear arms first. Therefore from that perspective, it is much more dangerous," Netanyahu told Israel's anti-terrorism policymakers.

Netanyahu's implication was transparent: Iran is looking for another Final Solution, this one targeting Israel as well as world Jewry. The moment of reckoning is near at hand, according to Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister, who claims against all the evidence that Iran is only months away from posssessing nuclear weapons.

"International terrorism is a mistaken term," Netanyahu added, "not because it doesn't exist, but because the problem is international militant Islam. That is the movement that operates terror on the international level, and that is the movement that is preparing the ultimate terror, nuclear terrorism."

Faced with the evil designs of the "Islamic fascists", such as those in Iran, Israel's nuclear arsenal -- and the nuclear Holocaust Israel can and appears prepared to unleash -- may be presented as the civilised world's salvation.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. He is the author of the forthcoming "Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State" published by Pluto Press, and available in the United States from the University of Michigan Press. His website is www.jkcook.net

Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act

2006-09-24T14:06:00.000-07:00

Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act

Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2006-09-24 14:51. Impeachment

BY ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, Chicago Sun Times

Thirty-two years ago, President Gerald Ford created a political firestorm by pardoning former President Richard Nixon of all crimes he may have committed in Watergate -- and lost his election as a result. Now, President Bush, to avoid a similar public outcry, is quietly trying to pardon himself of any crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of U.S. detainees.

The ''pardon'' is buried in Bush's proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ''pardon'' provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.

Press accounts of the provision have described it as providing immunity for CIA interrogators. But its terms cover the president and other top officials because the act applies to any U.S. national.

Avoiding prosecution under the War Crimes Act has been an obsession of this administration since shortly after 9/11. In a January 2002 memorandum to the president, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales pointed out the problem of prosecution for detainee mistreatment under the War Crimes Act. He notes that given the vague language of the statute, no one could predict what future ''prosecutors and independent counsels'' might do if they decided to bring charges under the act. As an author of the 1978 special prosecutor statute, I know that independent counsels (who used to be called ''special prosecutors'' prior to the statute's reauthorization in 1994) aren't for low-level government officials such as CIA interrogators, but for the president and his Cabinet. It is clear that Gonzales was concerned about top administration officials.

Gonzales also understood that the specter of prosecution could hang over top administration officials involved in detainee mistreatment throughout their lives. Because there is no statute of limitations in cases where death resulted from the mistreatment, prosecutors far into the future, not appointed by Bush or beholden to him, would be making the decisions whether to prosecute.

To ''reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act,'' Gonzales recommended that Bush not apply the Geneva Conventions to al-Qaida and the Taliban. Since the War Crimes Act carried out the Geneva Conventions, Gonzales reasoned that if the Conventions didn't apply, neither did the War Crimes Act. Bush implemented the recommendation on Feb. 7, 2002.

When the Supreme Court recently decided that the Conventions did apply to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees, the possibility of criminal liability for high-level administration officials reared its ugly head again.

What to do? The administration has apparently decided to secure immunity from prosecution through legislation. Under cover of the controversy involving the military tribunals and whether they could use hearsay or coerced evidence, the administration is trying to pardon itself, hoping that no one will notice. The urgent timetable has to do more than anything with the possibility that the next Congress may be controlled by Democrats, who will not permit such a provision to be adopted.

Creating immunity retroactively for violating the law sets a terrible precedent. The president takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution; that document requires him to obey the laws, not violate them. A president who knowingly and deliberately violates U.S. criminal laws should not be able to use stealth tactics to immunize himself from liability, and Congress should not go along.

Elizabeth Holtzman, a former New York congresswoman, is co-author with Cynthia L. Cooper of The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens.

Bush lied all along !!!!

2006-09-08T20:32:00.000-07:00

September 8th, 2006 12:37 pm
Senate panel releases Iraq intel report

By Jim Abrams / Associated Press

WASHINGTON - There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war.

The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."

Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.

The long-awaited report, said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a member of the committee, is "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al-Qaida.

"Impeach Bush"

2006-09-07T17:38:00.000-07:00

‘Impeach Bush’ chorus grows
Sarah Baxter, Washington
THE movement to impeach President George W Bush over the war on terror began with a few tatty bumper stickers on the back of battered old Volvos and slogans such as “Bush lied, people died” on far-left websites. But as Democrat hopes rise of gaining control of Congress this autumn, dreams of impeaching Bush are no longer confined to the political fringe.

A poll last week found that voters, by 50% to 37%, would prefer the Democrats to win control of Congress. If Bush’s opponents find themselves in a position of power, the temptation to humiliate him is likely to be irresistible.

A taste of the battle to come was provided last week by Senator Russ Feingold, a popular choice for the 2008 presidential nomination among Democrat anti-war activists. He proposed a motion of censure against Bush for authorising the National Security Agency to wiretap Americans suspected of links to terrorism without a court warrant.

Feingold gave notice that the party should stop “cowering” before Bush on national security issues. “If there’s any Democrat out there who can’t say the president has no right to make up his own laws, I don’t know if that Democrat really is the right (presidential) candidate,” he said.

Plenty of his Senate colleagues ducked for cover, fearful of alienating either party activists or swing voters. The eavesdropping issue is one of the few hot-button topics where Bush has public support. One leading supporter of Hillary Clinton acknowledged ruefully: “It’s hard to beat the argument, ‘If Al-Qaeda is on the line, we want to be listening’.”

Clinton, the party’s presidential frontrunner, hid last week from reporters who wanted to question her on the censure motion while she was attending a Democrat lunch at the Senate. Most Democrats would rather keep their options open on impeachment than pronounce one way or another.

Republicans are practically begging them to “bring it on” in the hope that the chatter will tar their opponents as loony leftists who care nothing for national security. “This is such a gift,” said Rush Limbaugh, the right-wing radio chat show host.

For demoralised conservatives, the issue is a call to arms for the mid-term congressional elections. “Impeachment, coming your way if there are changes in who controls the House right now,” Paul Weyrich, a top conservative organiser, warned in an e-mail newsletter to supporters.

“With impeachment on the horizon maybe, just maybe, conservatives would not stay at home after all,” Weyrich wrote.

If few senior Democrats are calling publicly for Bush to be placed in the dock, plenty are flirting with the idea. One of them is Al Gore, the defeated 2000 presidential candidate, who is increasingly talked up as a serious anti-war contender at the next election.

Gore said recently that Bush’s “unlawful” eavesdropping was part of a larger pattern of “seeming indifference” to the American constitution, which could well be an impeachable offence.

John Kerry, the 2004 presidential nominee, was overheard in an Irish bar on Capitol Hill talking about how satisfying it would be to impeach Bush if Congress went Democrat. He was just having a laugh, his spokeswoman rushed to explain: “Impeachment jokes in Washington are as old as Donald Rumsfeld.”

But then she turned serious: “How are the same Republicans, who tried to impeach a president over whether he misled a nation about an affair, going to pretend it does not matter if the administration intentionally misled the country into war?”

The urge to impeach is partly payback for the Bill Clinton era when Republicans dragged the president through the mud over his dalliance with the intern Monica Lewinksy.

Others are convinced there is a good case against Bush based on the 2002 Downing Street memo — revealed by The Sunday Times — in which Richard Dearlove, then head of M16, said “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” of removing Saddam Hussein. Congressman John Conyers, the senior Democrat who took part in Watergate proceedings against President Richard Nixon in 1974, has called for a committee of inquiry into the grounds for impeachment.

Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC's 9/11 Docudrama

2006-09-07T17:08:00.000-07:00

Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC’s 9/11 Docudrama

On September 10 and 11, ABC is planning to air a “docudrama” called Path to 9/11, billed by writer Cyrus Nowrasteh as “an objective telling of the events of 9/11.”

The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden — even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded. Rush Limbaugh, who refers to Nowrasteh as “a friend of mine,” reviews the action:

So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they’re on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.

So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed…Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. “Are you kidding?” He asked Berger over and over, “Is this really what you guys want?”

Berger then doesn’t answer after giving his first admonition, “You guys go in on your own. If you go in we’re not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,” and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.

ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.

The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”

Tell ABC to tell the truth about 9/11.

Digg It!

Fil

Bush to Propose Billions in Cuts

2006-02-02T21:32:00.000-08:00

Bush to Propose Billions in Cuts
Farm subsidies and food stamps are among the targets in the 2006 budget plan, to be sent to Congress on Monday. Opposition is building.
by Joel Havemann and Mary Curtius

WASHINGTON — President Bush will propose a 2006 budget Monday that, despite record spending of about $2.5 trillion, will call for billions of dollars in cuts that will touch people on food stamps and farmers on price supports, children under Medicaid and adults in public housing.

The lower-income Americans who benefit from food stamps and Medicaid do not typically provide the Republican Party with many votes or campaign contributions.

Even before the budget is officially sent to Congress on Monday, resistance to Bush's proposals was welling up Saturday from interest groups that benefit from federal aid and from the members of Congress who represent them.

Powerful agricultural interests were among the first to label Bush's proposed budget cuts as unfair and shortsighted. Farmers receive about $15 billion annually in federal farm program payments to help produce major commodities, including corn, cotton, rice and wheat.

California farmers could end up bearing a disproportionate share of the burden if the cuts in crop subsidies were enacted, said economist Daniel Sumner. "Rice and cotton are very important to this state," said Sumner, who is director of the Agricultural Issues Center at UC Davis.

The cuts are being proposed as the president is striving to keep a campaign promise to rein in government spending and halve the federal deficit in five years. The deficit has soared since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent war on terrorism — and as revenue has fallen as the economy has slowed and tax cuts have taken effect.

In addition to the cuts proposed in the 2006 budget, Bush is expected to ask Congress to approve in principle many billions of dollars in additional, unspecified cuts.

Bush has seemed to challenge congressional Republicans and Democrats to make the tough choices necessary to achieve the deficit reductions that members on both sides of the aisle have called for recently.

"I welcome the bipartisan calls to control the spending appetite of the federal government," he said Saturday in his weekly radio address. "On Monday, my administration will submit a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation."

Deficit hawks outside the government welcomed Bush's tone but warned that members of Congress would fight to maintain spending for programs popular with their voters.

"It's going to be a tight budget," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group that lobbies for smaller deficits. "That doesn't mean it's going to be a realistic budget."

Bush's budget will cut "where the money is," Bixby said Saturday, "but it's also where the resistance is."

The lower-income Americans who benefit from food stamps and Medicaid do not typically provide the Republican Party with many votes or campaign contributions.

The proposed budget will give states less flexibility to include working poor families with children as beneficiaries, sources said.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said he was willing to trim farm subsidies if other programs suffered proportionately.

"But if they try to single out the farm bill," Chambliss told reporters on Capitol Hill last week, "then we are going to have one heck of a fight."

The administration will propose a 5% across-the-board cut in price supports for crops and a reduction from $360,000 to $250,000 in the annual cap on subsidies that farmers can receive.

Under the current system, some farmers evade the limit by dividing farms into several separate corporate entities, a practice that the budget also will seek to eliminate.

A Senate Agriculture Committee aide, saying evasion of the cap was extremely rare, argued that farmers needed the safety net of federal aid for the years when they could not sell their crops for the cost of producing them.

In a letter Thursday to Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, a coalition of more than 100 organizations led by the American Farm Bureau Federation, said that Congress, in the 2002 bill that authorized farm subsidies for seven more years, had already cut subsidies by $4 billion a year by imposing the $360,000 cap.

"A budget that requires further cuts or structural weakening in these important programs will put at risk the promising environmental benefits of the bill and the nutritional health of some of the poorest populations in our country," the letter said.

In California, 1.5 metric tons of rice is grown a year, second only to Arkansas, said Tim Johnson, chief executive of the California Rice Commission, which has about 1,500 farmer members. Approximately 600,000 acres of farmland in the state were planted in rice in 2004.

"It's not just farmers that benefit — rice plays an important role in the economy of California," Johnson said. "We are an important export crop — about 40% of what's produced in the state is exported to Japan, Korea, Taiwan and other countries."

Daren Coppock, chief executive of the National Assn. of Wheat Growers, said the budget must not be balanced on the backs of farmers. Referring to the $360,000 maximum payment, he said: "If they change it now, that's not terribly helpful to those who made purchasing decisions over a seven-year planning period.

"The other thing to remember: The president always proposes, but Congress writes it and puts it into law," Coppock said. "There is a lot of work to be done and a lot of people to be heard from before this gets finished."

Rumors of the proposed farm subsidy cuts had been widely circulating in Washington for days before officials at the Department of Agriculture confirmed them in a background briefing to reporters. But the food stamp cut, expected to be about $1 billion in a $32-billion program, received less notice.

States must provide food stamps to people on cash welfare. But this is a much smaller population since Congress overhauled welfare in 1976.

A larger number of people now receive federal job-related aid, such as child care for working women with small children. The budget, sources said, gives states less flexibility to provide food stamps to these working poor people.

The nation's governors can be expected to lead the opposition to this proposal, just as they fought a 2003 proposal to cut their federal Medicaid support in return for greater flexibility in administering the program.

Administration officials made public Friday their proposal for increasing access to health insurance, and critics said they expected the budget itself to make another try at giving more flexibility and fewer dollars.

As announced Friday, the administration said it could save $60 billion in Medicaid over 10 years without service cuts. About $40 billion would come from changes in the way Washington pays the states for Medicaid services. The administration says states are gaming the Medicaid program by unfairly inflating costs.

Amid the welter of spending cuts, a few domestic programs were singled out for increases. Among them: community health clinics and aid to schools in low-income neighborhoods — although those schools are slated for a smaller increase than Bush proposed last year.

The budget also will seek $3 billion for the Millennium Challenge Account, the president's signature effort to help poor countries boost their economic growth. That is $500 million more than was sought for 2005 — but $2 billion less than was promised last year for 2006.

And the budget would expand Pell grants, which help the lowest-income students attend college, at the expense of the Perkins loan program for low- and middle-income college students. The $6-billion loan program would be eliminated.

Eighteen housing and community development programs would be consolidated and cut by about 40% to a total of $3.7 billion.

The budget also proposes eliminating federal subsidies for Amtrak, the national passenger rail carrier. Subsidies totaled $1.2 billion this year.

Times staff writer David Colker contributed to this report.

The 40 billion dollars Bush Debacle

2006-02-02T20:11:00.000-08:00

The so called "christian fundamentalist" republican party representatives and the Bush crime family just passed today (2/1/06) in the Congress a 40 billion dollars spending cut that will affect the middle and poor classes very much.

Cuts in Student Loans, Wellfare and Medicaid will make the life harder for the majority of Americans.

Middle and Poor Americans are already suffering with the high gas prices thanks to GW Bush oil friends.

This cut coupled with the big tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans are part of the Bush crime family and the so called "Neocons" republicans plan which is to bankrupt the federal goverment and as a result will terminate all the social programs from the goverment (wellfare, medicaid, social-security, federal loan and all federal help programs for the poor).

This federal reserve extermination (The federal deficit is already at unsustained levels at 1 triilion dollars and counting). Onli in Iraq US is spending 2 billion/week. China, Japan and Saudi Arabia owns most of this debt.

This deficit and trade debacle coupled with wire-tapping, religious fanatism, limited civil rights is turning America into a nazi-fascist goverment.

In 2006 and 2006 vote this fascist republican party out of the goverment!!!

ImpeachPAC | Electing a Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney

2006-01-25T22:04:00.000-08:00

ImpeachPAC | Electing a Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney

Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping
Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2006-01-15 15:54. Impeachment in the News | Polls

For Release: January 16, 2006

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

ImpeachPAC | Electing a Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney

2006-01-25T22:03:00.000-08:00

ImpeachPAC | Electing a Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney

Should Bush and Cheney Be Impeached for the Iraq War | Democrats.com

2006-01-25T22:00:00.000-08:00

Should Bush and Cheney Be Impeached for the Iraq War | Democrats.com: "Should Bush and Cheney Be Impeached for the Iraq War
(1) In July 2002, George Bush and Dick Cheney deliberately diverted $700 million from the authorized war in Afghanistan to provoke an unauthorized war in Iraq, including a criminal bombing campaign.

(2) On March 18, 2003, Bush and Cheney deliberately lied to Congress when he claimed in writing that continued U.N. inspections would endanger the national security of the U.S. and undermine enforcement of U.N. Resolutions, and that Iraq planned or aided the attacks of September 11, 2001.

(3) By invading Iraq without any threat or just cause, Bush and Cheney launched a War of Aggression in violation of U.S. obligations under the U.N. Charter.

(4) In the conduct of the War, Bush and Cheney violated the Geneva conventions by failing to protect civilians (including journalists) and by authorizing torture of prisoners, which also violated the War Crimes Act of 1996.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, and every top official involved in these policies must be impeached and removed from office.
"

The Year the Chickenhawks Will Go Home to Roost

2005-12-28T23:26:00.000-08:00

Wednesday, December 28th, 2005
2006: The Year the Chickenhawks Will Go Home to Roost

...a message from Cindy Sheehan

Since hot, hot Camp Casey in August, some amazing grass roots actions have taken place all over the country. People are starting to speak up and Congress has begun to take action against the criminal and neo-Fascist regime that tried to take over America.

From Camp Casey to Katrina to use of chemical weaponry and extraordinary rendition to illegally spying on American citizens without due process, Bushco has miserably failed our country and the world. We as Americans said "enough is enough." We sacrificed a lot when we showed up in DC and other cities around the country in the hundreds of thousands to protest against and show that we withdraw any consent to be governed by murderous thugs. We started to peacefully, but forcefully resist the notion that this government has any right to govern us when they have betrayed their offices and their sacred trusts as "defenders" of the Constitution so horribly.

This was also the year that we began to hold such Republicans in Democratic clothing like: Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, and Diane Feinstein (list is by no means all inclusive) accountable for their support of what George is doing in Iraq. When we as Democrats elect our leaders we expect them to reject and loudly repudiate the murderous and corrupt policies of this administration -- not support and defend them.

There are Camp Caseys in front of Hillary's and Chuck Schumer's offices in Long Island every Friday, as well as one in front of Diane Feinstein's Los Angeles office on Fridays. There has been a Camp Casey in front of Kay Bailey Hutchinson's office in Dallas since August. Several protestors have been arrested in Dallas exercising their First Amendment rights. We need to let these warmongers, as well as the Republican warmongers, know that we mean business when we say "bring them home now." Set up Camp Caseys in front of your Senator's or Congress person's office if they support George in his wars of aggression.

Gold Star Families for Peace (www.gsfp.org) is planning many activities for the first part of 2006. I would like to give you all a heads-up on them, so you can make your plans accordingly to support us and to join us if at all possible.

On January 31st, we will be in Washington, DC for the State of the Union address when George gets in front of Congress and the world and lies through his teeth about how great everything is going in Iraq and here at home. His idiotic policies have ruined Iraq and New Orleans and made the world a more dangerous place...allowing that terrorist attacks have tripled world wide since he decided to "fight them over there." He also may be laying the ground work for further acts of needless aggression against Syria and Iraq. GSFP and representatives from other peace organizations and refugees from New Orleans will be gathering in DC to give the "Real State of the Union." Check our website for place and time.

For the Love of God, Can't you Make Him Stop? Recently, it was revealed that George only interacts with four people: Laura, Condi, Karen Hughes and his Mom. His Mom, the Ice Queen who didn't want her "pretty mind" burdened with the images of flag draped coffins coming home, lives in Houston. On President's Day, (Feb. 20) we will be demonstrating in front of her house to implore her to forget about the obscene profits that her family and their friends are making off of this occupation and to beg her to finally do the right thing and make her son stop this insane war OF terror against the world. George and Dick are defiling the highest offices of the world and they need to resign. On President's Day, when we have the day off, we need to demonstrate against the ones who are illegitimately in power, anyway. If you can't make it to Houston, organize your own President's Day protest.

The Camp Casey Peace Foundation will hold its first annual Peace Festival and Concert on April 4, 2006. April 4th is the day Casey and Martin Luther King, Jr. were killed. We want to turn it into a true day for celebrating peace. The Camp Casey Peace Foundation will be awarding the Casey Sheehan Peace Prize, a cash prize, to a young peace activist every year. We want to foster the growth of solving problems non-violently and young people are the ones who get killed in the gray haired old men's wars. We are working on an exciting event and we will announce more details as the event draws closer.

Camp Casey Easter edition: We will be heading back to our leased land in Crawford April 11th to Easter, which is April 16th. Easter is a time of renewal and hopeful promises. Casey was killed on Palm Sunday and his body was returned to us in the cargo section of a United Airlines flight on Holy Saturday and we buried him two days after Easter. Last Easter Season was so painful to us. This Easter we will again be demonstrating in front of the man's home who is responsible for such pain and abject heartache in the world. But, we will be there with a renewed sense of hope that the Chickenhawks will be sent out to pasture this year. Like Michael Moore, I want to be a fly on the wall when Bush and company are hauled out of the White House in handcuffs. Impeachment is not necessary for people who never were elected...eviction is what is needed. If you can't join us in Crawford, set up your own Camp Casey near you.

In 2005, we learned that we have the power. We learned that we can't rely on the propaganda media or the empty promises of most of our elected leadership. We learned that we need to be the change that we desire to see.

We learned that one person can and does make a difference.

We cannot relax in 2006. We cannot slip back into the evil of apathy and complacency that the neocons rejoice in. We need to keep pounding, working, and fighting. We need to support organizations like Gold Star Families for Peace, Veterans for Peace (www.veteransforpeace.org), Code Pink (www.codepink4peace.org) and Iraq Veterans Against the War (www.ivaw.net), or the Peace organization of your choice so we can continue our struggle for peace with justice. We need to support true American patriots like John Conyers who is calling for an investigation and censure for the lies that have cost us so much of our national human treasure.

2006 will be a great year for the people of our country. I know it.

It won't be easy, but we will prevail and the struggle will be worth it.

The New Madness of King George

2005-12-27T18:30:00.000-08:00

The New Madness of King George

By Robert Parry
December 19, 2005

On the Sunday before Christmas, a fidgety George W. Bush interrupted regular programming on U.S. networks to deliver an address to the nation that painted the Iraq War and the War on Terror in the same black-and-white colors he has always favored.

Despite the media's conventional wisdom about Bush’s new “realism” on Iraq, the old canards were still there – Saddam Hussein choosing war by rejecting United Nations weapons inspectors; blurred distinctions between Iraqi insurgents and non-Iraqi terrorists; intimations that Bush’s critics are “partisan” while he embodies the national interest.

Plus, there was the same old stark choice between success and failure. “There are only two options before our country – victory or defeat,” Bush declared, brushing aside the political and military ambiguities of the Iraq War and the War on Terror.

But Bush’s speech and his curious hand gestures as he sat behind a desk in the Oval Office suggested a twitchiness over his apparent realization that the nation increasingly doubts his leadership.

Indeed, it appears the American people finally have begun to understand the costs in blood, money and freedoms that have resulted from letting the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks become a justification for transforming the United States into a modern-day empire led by an autocrat who claims the untrammeled right to strike at his perceived enemies abroad and crack down on his opponents at home.

Wiretaps

A day earlier, an angrier-looking Bush used his weekly radio address to denounce as “irresponsible” senators who resorted to the filibuster to demand more civil-liberties protections in a revised version of the Patriot Act.

Bush also lashed out at press disclosures of his three-year-old decision to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by personally approving warrantless electronic eavesdropping on international communications by people inside the United States.

“As a result (of the disclosure), our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk,” Bush said. “Revealing classified information is illegal.”

Bush’s outrage might seem strange to some observers since he has refused to punish his deputy chief of staff Karl Rove for leaking the classified identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused Bush of twisting intelligence to build his case for invading Iraq in 2003.

But Bush apparently has judged that he, as president, and his close advisers can decide which laws they wish to obey and when, while simultaneously condemning those outside their circle of power for violating the same laws.

This attitude follows Bush’s view that the “commander in chief” clause of the U.S. Constitution grants him virtually unlimited powers as a “war president” as long as the War on Terror lasts, a concept of executive authority that recalls the days of absolute authority claimed by Medieval kings and queens.

Already, Bush has asserted that his “commander in chief” powers allow him to arrest citizens and hold them indefinitely without charges; to authorize physical abuse of prisoners; to invade other countries without the necessity of congressional approval; and to ignore international law, including the U.N. Charter and other treaty obligations.

As the New York Times reported on Dec. 16 and Bush confirmed on Dec. 17, he also is claiming – as his constitutional right – the power to wiretap Americans without court review or the presentation of evidence to any impartial body.

When Bush is challenged on these authorities, he asserts that he is following the law, although it is never clear which law or whether anyone other than his appointed lawyers have advised him on the scope of his power.

(Conservative legal scholars may have to stretch their notion of the “original intent” of the Founders to explain how the writers of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 decided to give a future president the authority to use spy satellites to intercept phone calls and other electronic communications.)

It’s also not clear what evidence exists to support Bush’s charge that disclosure of his wiretapping decision damages the national security and endangers U.S. citizens.

Under the FISA law dating back to the 1970s, electronic eavesdropping has been permitted inside the United States against foreign agents, including anyone collaborating with an international terrorist group. The law only requires a warrant from a secret court, which rarely rejects an administration request.

Presumably, al-Qaeda terrorists inside the United States were aware that their communications were vulnerable to intercepts, explaining why the Sept. 11 attackers were careful to avoid telephonic contacts abroad. But the terrorists would have no way to know whether electronic eavesdropping might be done with or without a warrant, under FISA or Bush’s order.

Yet, Bush’s complaint that disclosure of his personal wiretapping authority endangers national security presupposes the terrorists knew that their phone calls would somehow be immune from a FISA court warrant but susceptible to Bush’s wiretap order.

Since that assumption makes no sense, one can only conclude that Bush threw in the accusation about endangering national security to impugn the patriotism of his critics and rev up his base, much as he did during the run-up to invading Iraq when skeptics were shouted down as traitors and liars. [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com’s “Politics of Preemption.”]

Questionable Targets

Bush’s assertion of his unilateral authority to wiretap anyone he wishes also raises questions about whether some of his eavesdropping is aimed at political opponents or journalists, rather than terrorists.

While Bush claims his wiretaps were vital to the national security, they came at a time when the FISA court was approving record numbers of warrants for secret surveillance. According to FISA’s annual report for 2004, there were a record 1,758 applications for spying authorization that year and none was denied by the special court.

The administration’s explanation for why additional secret wiretaps were needed is that Bush’s order saves time when a quick wiretap is required, such as when a foreign terrorist is captured and his phone records are seized.

But the FISA court can clear warrants in a few hours – or Bush could exercise emergency powers under the law to conduct wiretaps for 72 hours before obtaining approval from the court. That emergency provision was inserted in the law to give presidents leeway when the threat was a surprise nuclear attack by the Soviet Union with the potential of wiping out nearly the entire U.S. population.

Even during the Cold War, the FISA provisions were acceptable to Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. But now, with a much less severe threat from al-Qaeda terrorists, George W. Bush has decided that the law must be waived at his discretion, bypassing the court on hundreds and possibly thousands of surveillance orders.

That suggests other motives may exist for some of these wiretaps, such as the possibility that some intercepted conversations would be rejected by even the rubber-stamping FISA court, like requests to spy on activists, politicians or journalists.

The Bush administration, for instance, has accused the Arab news network al-Jazeera of collaborating with al-Qaeda and U.S. news executives are known to communicate with al-Jazeera over access to its exclusive video. Would these phone calls and e-mails be covered by Bush’s extraordinary wiretap authority?

Bush’s right-wing allies also have labeled some American journalists, such as Seymour Hersh, traitors for writing articles about the War on Terror that reveal secret operations that Bush has wanted to keep hidden. Plus, there may be U.S. politicians or activists communicating with Islamic leaders overseas.

While the full range of Bush’s intercepts is not known, the administration’s use of National Security Agency intercepts was an issue earlier this year, when it was disclosed that John Bolton, Bush’s nominee to be United Nations ambassador, had requested names of Americans that had been excised from NSA transcripts for privacy reasons.

Senate Democrats demanded that documents be turned over on 10 cases in which Bolton used his position as under secretary of state for arms control to obtain the names. The White House refused to provide the information and Bush evaded the need for Senate confirmation of Bolton’s ambassadorship by making him a “recess appointment.”

Hand Gestures

As for Sunday’s prime-time Iraq War speech, Bush broke with the reassuring tradition of a president sitting behind the Oval Office desk with hands folded. Instead, Bush took to waving his arms as he delivered the speech.

“Grim-faced, yet with a trace of anxiety in his eyes, Bush delivered the remarks seated rigidly at a desk, making a variety of hand gestures,” observed Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales. [Washington Post, Dec. 19, 2005]

Some of Bush’s strange body language may be explained by the fact that even he must realize that his assertions include a number of falsehoods, such as his routine deception that Saddam Hussein defied U.N. demands on destroying his weapons of mass destruction and on letting in U.N. weapons inspectors.

“It is true that [Hussein] systematically concealed those [WMD] programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors,” Bush told the nation. “He was given an ultimatum – and he made his choice for war.”

But it is not true that Hussein blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. In fact, he acquiesced to a U.N. ultimatum and let them back into Iraq in November 2002. Chief inspector Hans Blix said his team was finally given free rein to examine suspected WMD sites, but Bush forced the inspectors to leave so the invasion could proceed.

As it turned out, Hussein was telling the truth when he said there were no WMD caches left. After the invasion, Bush’s own team of inspectors concluded that Iraq’s WMD stockpiles had been destroyed by earlier U.N. inspections and by U.S. bombing during the Clinton administration.

Yet, beginning a few months after the U.S. invasion – as it became clear there was no WMD and as U.S. casualties mounted – Bush began rewriting history, claiming that Hussein had not let the U.N. inspectors in, thus forcing Bush to invade. This lie presumably made Bush appear more reasonable.

On July 14, 2003, Bush said about Hussein, “we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.”

In the following months, Bush repeated this claim in slightly varied forms.

On Jan. 27, 2004, Bush said, “We went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution – 1441 – unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.”

Eventually, this false history became part of Bush’s regular litany about the war. Despite the fact that it was an obvious lie – the U.S. news media had witnessed the work of the U.N. inspectors inside Iraq – Bush was rarely challenged about his historical revisionism. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com “President Bush, With the Candlestick…”]

Terrorists or Insurgents

Similarly, Bush continues to blur the distinctions between the Sunni-led Iraqi insurgency that has often used roadside bombs to attack American troops and the relatively small number of non-Iraqi terrorists who have exploded bombs aimed at civilian targets.

Bush has employed the rhetorical device of using insurgent and terrorist synonymously, much as he and Vice President Dick Cheney used juxtaposition to convince millions of Americans that the Iraqi government was somehow responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

In his Dec. 18 speech, for instance, Bush said, “the terrorists will continue to have the coward’s power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers,” making no distinction between the tactics of the insurgents and the terrorists.

The danger from this sleight of hand is that it blocks consideration of possible resolution of the Iraq War. Many military analysts believe the only realistic route toward a reasonably successful policy in Iraq is to address the political and economic concerns of Iraq’s Sunni minority – who want a U.S. withdrawal, more political clout and a share of the nation’s oil revenues – while isolating the relatively small number of foreign jihadists.

Though Bush has made some concessions to this reality in recent speeches, he chose to return to his broad-brush rhetoric in the national address. Again, it was a case of good versus evil, victory or surrender, his way or the highway.

“Defeatism may have its partisan uses,” Bush said of his critics, “but it is not justified by the facts.”

Bush also resorted to a favorite tactic of ascribing ridiculous notions to his critics. “If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone,” Bush said.

The president then returned to his long-time claim that Islamic extremists are motivated by their hatred of America’s freedom.

“The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere, they object to our deepest values and our way of life,” Bush said. “And if we were not fighting them in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Southeast Asia, and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens, they would be on the offense, and headed our way.”

Again, Bush was reprising rhetoric that exaggerates or misstates the enemy’s goals and capabilities as a way to box in the U.S. political debate and shut the door on reasonable alternative strategies.

Bush continues to discuss al-Qaeda as if it is a powerful international force on par with Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, when many analysts see it as a fringe organization that was driven out of most Islamic countries, almost to the ends of the earth – or in this case to the mountains of Afghanistan.

Without doubt, al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists exploited a letdown in U.S. security in 2001 to conduct an extraordinary attack on New York and Washington, but a realistic assessment of its actual clout is important in calibrating a response.

If al-Qaeda is actually a marginal organization that can be isolated even more by the West adopting a respectful approach to the Muslim world, then Bush’s approach of invading Arab countries – and curtailing American liberties – makes no sense, unless Bush’s real motives are something else: say, controlling Middle East resources and transforming the United States into a modern one-party state with him or his allies in permanent control.

The analysis that follows from Bush’s assertion of unlimited presidential powers and his deceptive explanations to the American people about Iraq suggests two alternative theories. Either Bush is increasingly unstable, incapable of discerning reality from his own propaganda, or he is concealing his real agenda with misleading arguments.

Put differently, either the United States is experiencing a kind of modern “madness of King George” – like what happened when King George III became unstable in the years after losing the Colonies – or the American people are living under a cunning Machiavelli with a calculated method to his apparent madness.

Either way, the prospects are troubling for American democracy – and it may not be clear which of the alternative scenarios is more worrisome.

Bush's abuse of power deserves impeachment

2005-12-27T18:23:00.000-08:00

Bush's abuse of power deserves impeachment
With latest outrages, Bush puts impeachment talk into the mainstream

Recklessly and audaciously, George W. Bush is driving the nation whose laws he swore to uphold into a constitutional crisis. He has claimed the powers of a medieval monarch and defied the other two branches of government to deny him. Eventually, despite his party's monopoly of power, he may force the nation to choose between his continuing degradation of basic national values and the terrible remedy of impeachment.

Until Mr. Bush openly proclaimed as commander in chief that he can brush aside the law, cries for impeachment were heard only on the political fringe, although most Americans have long since realized that he misled America into war. Much as he is disliked and disdained by liberals, even they have shown little enthusiasm for impeachment. In addition to the obvious obstacle of a Republican-controlled Congress, there appeared to be no firm proof of an offense that justified such action. To mention the word was to be dismissed -- even by people who believe that this President may well have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors."

The partisan peepshow of the Clinton impeachment did not leave much enthusiasm for that process. Nor would any thoughtful citizen want to risk abusing it in the manner made infamous by Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay.

For responsible citizens, the reluctance to seek the ultimate sanction against the President is especially strong in a time of peril. He and his supporters could argue, quite plausibly, that to impeach him now would be dangerous and destabilizing. His pet pundits and flacks would deploy all the defensive arguments they scorned in 1999.

He might well be able to rally the public to his side again by denouncing "politicians in Washington" for "undermining national security."

As political strategy and as public policy, the impeachment of Mr. Bush is an unappealing prospect. (Besides, if he could be thrown out somehow, who would want Dick Cheney to succeed him?) And yet, the actions and attitudes of this President raise the question of how else we can preserve the bedrock principles of a democratic republic.

Dark suspicions would be aroused by Mr. Bush's insistence on his supposed wartime exemption from the law even if he had greater credibility than he now possesses. Hearing a leader with his diminished reputation for honesty announcing such claims, as he seeks to regain authority by promoting fear, it is impossible not to imagine the worst.

The President says that if he is to protect the nation from our enemies, he must be able to order the surveillance of American citizens without seeking the authority of a court. He has repeatedly violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which provides very few safeguards of traditional civil liberties. He disdains a law that permits him to order the immediate electronic monitoring of anyone, requiring only that his officers seek a warrant within 72 hours from a secret court that approves those requests in almost every case and never hears an opposing brief. He claims that even those minimal restraints are too onerous.

Why would the President instruct the Attorney General not to seek warrants from the FISA court, as the statute requires? What did he and his aides fear from that court's conservative judges -- appointed by the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- who have routinely approved all but a tiny percentage of the warrants presented to them by this and other administrations over the past quarter-century? Which wiretaps did he expect those pliable judges to reject?

The Bush doctrine of a President above the law and the Constitution has a dishonorable tradition that dates back to his father's idol, Richard Nixon. More recently, its pedigree derives from memoranda prepared by the same White House lawyers who have told Mr. Bush that he can tear up international treaties and American statutes that prohibit torture and protect against detention without trial.

What has provoked fresh discussion of impeachment is the President's admission that he has ignored the law's requirements and that he intends to keep doing so. The impeccably conservative legal scholar and former Reagan aide Bruce Fein explained the deep implications of the President's arrogance:

"If President Bush is totally unapologetic and says, 'I continue to maintain that as a wartime President I can do anything I want -- I don't need to consult any other branches,' that is an impeachable offense. It's more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath, because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that... would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant."

There are politicians in both parties who know that Mr. Bush's trespasses cannot be allowed to stand. Only a bipartisan coalition can restrain and, if necessary, remove him. It is to be hoped that he steps back before such a struggle becomes inevitable. Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer and Salon.com, and is the author of Big Lies: The Right- Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth.

Raising the Issue of Impeachment

2005-12-21T18:49:00.000-08:00

Raising the Issue of Impeachment

Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2005-12-20 16:05. Impeachment

Raising the Issue of Impeachment
By John Nichols, The Nation

As President Bush and his aides scramble to explain new revelations regarding Bush's authorization of spying on the international telephone calls and emails of Americans, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has begun a process that could lead to the censure, and perhaps the impeachment, of the president and vice president.

U.S. Representative John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who was a critical player in the Watergate and Iran-Contra investigations into presidential wrongdoing, has introduced a package of resolutions that would censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney and create a select committee to investigate the Administration's possible crimes and make recommendations regarding grounds for impeachment.

The Conyers resolutions add a significant new twist to the debate about how to hold the administration to account. Members of Congress have become increasingly aggressive in the criticism of the White House, with U.S. Senator Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, saiying Monday, "Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous President. It has become apparent that this Administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our Country's law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution." Even Republicans, including Senate Judiciary Committee chair Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, are talking for the first time about mounting potentially serious investigations into abuses of power by the president.

But Conyers is seeking to do much more than schedule a committee hearing, or even launch a formal inquiry. He is proposing that the Congress use all of the powers that are available to it to hold the president and vice president to account – up to and including the power to impeach the holders of the nation's most powerful positions and to remove them from office.

The first of the three resolutions introduced by Conyers, H.Res.635, asks that the Congress establish a select committee to investigate whether members of the administration made moves to invade Iraq before receiving congressional authorization, manipulated pre-war intelligence, encouraged the use of torture in Iraq and elsewhere, and used their positions to retaliate against critics of the war.

The select committee would be asked to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

The second resolution, H.Res.636, asks that the Congress to censure the president "for failing to respond to requests for information concerning allegations that he and others in his Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for the war, countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in Iraq, and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of his Administration, for failing to adequately account for specific misstatements he made regarding the war, and for failing to comply with Executive Order 12958." (Executive Order 12958, issued in 1995 by former President Bill Clinton, seeks to promote openness in government by prescribing a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information.)

A third resolution, H.Res.637, would censure Cheney for a similar set of complaints.

"The people of this country are waking up to the severity of the lies, crimes, and abuses of power committed by this president and his administration," says Jon Bonifaz, a co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, an alliance of more than100 grassroots groups that has detailed Bush administration wrongdoing and encouraged a Congressional response. Bonifaz, an attorney and the author of the book, Warrior King: The Case for Impeaching George Bush (Nation Books), argues that, "Now is the time to return to the rule of law and to hold those who have defied the Constitution accountable for their actions."

Bonifaz is right. But it is unlikely that the effort to censure Bush and Cheney, let alone impeach them, will get far without significant organizing around the country. After all, the House is controlled by allies of the president who have displayed no inclination to hold him to account. Indeed, only a few Democrats, such as Conyers, have taken seriously the Constitutional issues raised by the administration's misdeeds.

Members of Congress in both parties will need to feel a lot of heat if these improtant measures are going to get much traction in this Congress.

The grassroots group Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), which has had a good deal of success organizing activists who want the Democrats to take a more aggressive stance in challenging the administration, will play a critical role in the effort to mobilize support for the Conyers resolutions, as part of a new Censure Bush Coalition campaign. (The campaign's website can be found at www.censurebush.org)

PDA director Tim Carpenter says his group plans to "mobilize and organize a broad base coalition that will demand action from Congress to investigate the lies of the Bush administration and their conduct related to the war in Iraq."

Getting this Congress to get serious about maintaining checks and balances on the Bush administration will be a daunting task. But the recent revelations regarding domestic spying will make it easier. There are a lot of Americans who share the view of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, that Bush and Cheney have exceeded their authority. As Feingold says of Bush, "He is the president, not a king."

It was the bitter experience of dealing with King George III led the founders of this country to write a Constitution that empowers Congress to hold presidents and vice accountable for their actions.

It is this power that John Conyers, the senior member of the House committee charged with maintaining the system of checks and balances established by those founders, is now asking the Congress to employ in the service of the nation that Constitution still governs.

An expanded paperback edition of John Nichols' biography of Vice President Dick Cheney, The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press: 2005), is available nationwide at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com. The book features an exclusive interview with Joe Wilson and a chapter on the vice president's use and misuse of intelligence. Publisher's Weekly describes the book as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says it "reveals the inner Cheney."

LINK TO ORIGINAL

It's Good to be King -- Bush and FISA

2005-12-21T18:38:00.000-08:00

December 19, 2005

Commentary -- It's Good to be the King -- Bush and FISA
This is going to come as quite a surprise, but apparently President Bush has flagrantly violated the law of the land. Before your eyes glaze over and your brain starts to turn off, let me assure you, you actually haven’t heard this one before. This one is a little bit different.

In 2002, Bush signed an Executive Order allowing the National Security Agency to wiretap certain people in the United States who are communicating with someone abroad without obtaining a warrant from a court. Since then, he’s renewed this authorization 36 times, and presumably thousands of people in America have been spied on in this manner.

Now, the NSA is already allowed, in a relatively unrestricted way, to obtain intercepts of electronic communications from everybody else in the world; it is also allowed to do this to Americans, in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It’s just that the Justice Department needs to go to a special court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, in order to get a warrant. To get such a warrant, Justice need not meet convention probable cause standards that would be required in criminal cases. The FISC approves the vast majority of requests. If the situation is an emergency, the wiretap can be kept in place for up to 72 hours before getting a warrant. Indeed, it’s difficult if not impossible to make the case that this executive order is necessary in order to thwart potential terrorist attacks.

There are two ways in which this latest revelation is somewhat different from previous ones.

First, in their open, gung-ho defense of this decision, the administration is somewhere between Nixon’s constant assertion of extreme executive privilege and resurrecting the divine right of kings. Not only can they give no specific justification of the need for indefinitely extended warrantless searches, they can give no real argument about how Bush can simply order a federal agency to commit acts in gross violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and thus of U.S. statute. There are some vague claims about how Congress’s authorization of the use of force on September 14, 2001 is the basis for this authority, but it’s rather hard to read into that document a statement that Bush has the right to set aside any existing legislation by executive decree in the fight against terrorism.

So, in fact, the essence of the argument is that the president, by virtue of his office, can decide whether he believes a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional or not and if it is he can direct agents of the government to violate it. This is equivalent to saying that the president is above the law and is empowered to rule by decree. As Russ Feingold suggested, we have to decide whether we have a president or a king.

Second, Bush has openly admitted to doing this. The administration lied and as much as it could about Iraq’s WMD, but has never admitted anything about it.

When somebody asked me recently whether, in the light of Bush’s increasing unpopularity and increasing perceptions of his dishonesty, there was any chance of impeachment, my answer was no. Crucial to making the case against Nixon for Watergate was his practice of taping Oval Office conversations. The release of those tapes, plus the unexplained 18-minute absence in one of them, was necessary to build the impeachment consensus.

In the case of the much smaller crimes for which Bill Clinton was impeached, again, there was direct physical evidence and he was forced to admit to them.

In Bush’s case, while inferentially there’s been not just a smoking gun but a whole smoking arsenal, there’s been nothing quite as concrete – too much has remained a matter of interpretation, possible to explain or spin away. That’s starting to change.

At the same time, it’s been revealed that the Pentagon frequently spies on antiwar groups; also, under guise of passing an anti-torture bill, Congress has just effectively approved use of testimony obtained by torture to help keep detainees locked up. The outlines of a police state are starting to emerge.

So far, opposition to this particular aspect of what Bush likes to call the advance of freedom has aroused little public opposition, if only because the people directly affected are marginalized groups that no one cares about. That could change if we see the list of people the NSA has spied on.

Impeach Bush!!!

Truth About Bush

2005-12-19T21:41:00.000-08:00

December 18, 2005

Major Bush and Neocons Accomplishments:

* Killing of 2000+ American soldiers
* Killing of 100,000 Iraq civilians
* Killing of 6000+ Americans in New Orleans
* Half Trillion dollars Debt
* 100 Million dollars negative trade balance
* Most Corrupted Goverment ever
* Tax Cuts to the richest 1% Americans
* Destruction of Social Programs for the poor amd middle class
* Government for the Corporations
* Careless for the Environment
* Nazi stilus goverment conduct and policies
* Spying on Civilians
* Torture of Prisonners
* Rigging of Elections

In 2006 and 2008 Itr is time to send this corrupt GOP goverment home (and to jail!)

Rumsfeld's Epiphany

2005-11-29T21:39:00.000-08:00

November 29th, 2005 6:18 pm
Rumsfeld: Don't Call Them 'Insurgents'

By Robert Burns / Associated Press

WASHINGTON - More than 2 1/2 years into the Iraq war, Donald H. Rumsfeld has decided the enemy are not insurgents.

"This is a group of people who don't merit the word `insurgency,' I think," Rumsfeld said Tuesday at a Pentagon news conference. He said the thought had come to him suddenly over the Thanksgiving weekend.

"It was an epiphany."

Rumsfeld's comments drew chuckles but had a serious side.

"I think that you can have a legitimate insurgency in a country that has popular support and has a cohesiveness and has a legitimate gripe," he said. "These people don't have a legitimate gripe." Still, he acknowledged that his point may not be supported by the standard definition of `insurgent.' He promised to look it up.

Webster's New World College Dictionary defines the term "insurgent" as "rising up against established authority."

Even Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who stood beside Rumsfeld at the news conference, found it impossible to describe the fighting in Iraq without twice using the term `insurgent.'

After the word slipped out the first time, Pace looked sheepishly at Rumsfeld and quipped apologetically, "I have to use the word `insurgent' because I can't think of a better word right now."

Without missing a beat, Rumsfeld replied with a wide grin: "Enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government. How's that?"

At another point in their news conference, Rumsfeld and Pace had an unusual exchange in which Rumsfeld corrected his senior military adviser, only to have Pace gently insist that it was the defense secretary who was wrong.

A reporter asked Pace what U.S. commanders in Iraq are supposed to do if they find Iraqi forces abusing prisoners. Pace replied that if inhumane treatment is observed it is a service member's duty to stop it.

"I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it — it's to report it," Rumsfeld said, turning to Pace.

Replied the general: "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it."

The Murderer John Negroponte in Iraq: Death Squds now operating in Iraq

2005-11-16T21:22:00.000-08:00

The Times January 10, 2005

El Salvador-style 'death squads' to be deployed by US against Iraq militants
From Roland Watson in Washington

John Negroponte was in Honduras when American money was used to train Contras to fight Nicaragua's Sandinista regime. (AL-RAYA/AP)

THE Pentagon is considering forming hit squads of Kurdish and Shia fighters to target leaders of the Iraqi insurgency in a strategic shift borrowed from the American struggle against left-wing guerrillas in Central America 20 years ago.

Under the so-called “El Salvador option”, Iraqi and American forces would be sent to kill or kidnap insurgency leaders, even in Syria, where some are thought to shelter.

The plans are reported in this week’s Newsweek magazine as part of Pentagon efforts to get US forces in Iraq on to the front foot against an enemy that is apparently getting the better of them.

Iyad Allawi, the interim Iraqi Prime Minister, was said to be one of the most vigorous supporters of the plan.

The Pentagon declined to comment, but one insider told Newsweek: “What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are. We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defence. And we are losing.”

Hit squads would be controversial and would probably be kept secret.

The experience of the so-called “death squads” in Central America remains raw for many even now and helped to sully the image of the United States in the region.

Then, the Reagan Administration funded and trained teams of nationalist forces to neutralise Salvadorean rebel leaders and sympathisers. Supporters credit the policy with calming the insurgency, although it left a bitter legacy and stirred anti-American sentiment.

John Negroponte, the US Ambassador in Baghdad, had a front-row seat at the time as Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-85.

Death squads were a brutal feature of Latin American politics of the time. In Argentina in the 1970s and Guatemala in the 1980s, soldiers wore uniform by day but used unmarked cars by night to kidnap and kill those hostile to the regime or their suspected sympathisers.

In the early 1980s President Reagan’s Administration funded and helped to train Nicaraguan contras based in Honduras with the aim of ousting Nicaragua’s Sandinista regime. The Contras were equipped using money from illegal American arms sales to Iran, a scandal that could have toppled Mr Reagan.

It was in El Salvador that the United States trained small units of local forces specifically to target rebels.

The thrust of the Pentagon proposal in Iraq, according to Newsweek, is to follow that model and direct US special forces teams to advise, support and train Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shia militiamen to target leaders of the Sunni insurgency.

It is unclear whether the main aim of the missions would be to assassinate the rebels or kidnap them and take them away for interrogation. Any mission in Syria would probably be undertaken by US Special Forces.

Nor is it clear who would take responsibility for such a programme — the Pentagon or the Central Intelligence Agency. Such covert operations have traditionally been run by the CIA at arm’s length from the administration in power, giving US officials the ability to deny knowledge of it.

The Pentagon refused to be drawn on the issue yesterday. “We don’t discuss specific future operations or specific tactics,” a spokeswoman said.

This week Gary Luck, a retired four-star general, will arrive in Iraq to review American policy in the country, looking particularly at the recruitment and training of Iraqi forces. The key to Washington’s exit strategy is the ability of Iraqi forces to take over security roles. The general has been asked by Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, to deliver an “ open-ended” review of how US aims can better be met.

His visit comes after two weeks of increased violence in Iraq in which scores of Iraqis and more than a dozen Americans have been killed in the run-up to the country’s elections.

Journalist Killed after investigating US-backed death squads in Iraq

2005-11-16T21:02:00.000-08:00

Journalist killed after investigating US-backed death squads in Iraq
By James Cogan
1 July 2005

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

On June 24, Yasser Salihee, an Iraqi special correspondent for the news agency Knight Ridder, was killed by a single bullet to the head as he approached a checkpoint that had been thrown up near his home in western Baghdad by US and Iraqi troops. It is believed that the shot was fired by an American sniper. According to eyewitnesses, no warning shots were fired.

The US military has announced it is conducting an investigation into Salihee’s killing. Knight Ridder has already declared, however, that “there’s no reason to think that the shooting had anything to do with his reporting work”. In fact, his last assignment gives reason to suspect that it was.

Over the past month, Salihee had been gathering evidence that US-backed Iraqi forces have been carrying out extra-judicial killings of alleged members and supporters of the anti-occupation resistance. His investigation followed a feature in the New York Times magazine in May, detailing how the US military had modeled the Iraqi interior ministry police commandos, known as the Wolf Brigade, on the death squads unleashed in the 1980s to crush the left-wing insurgency in El Salvador.

The Wolf Brigade was recruited by US operatives and the US-installed interim government headed by Iyad Allawi during 2004. A majority of its officers and personnel served in Saddam Hussein’s special forces and Republican Guard—veterans of killings, torture and repression. The unit has been used against the resistance in rebellious cities such as Mosul and Samarra, and, over the past six weeks, has played a prominent role in the massive crackdown ordered by the Iraqi government in Baghdad codenamed “Operation Lightning”.

On June 27, Knight Ridder published the results of its inquiry in an article jointly written by Salihee and correspondent Tom Lasseter. The journalists “found more than 30 examples in less than a week” of corpses turning up in Baghdad morgues of people who were last seen being detained by the police commandos.

The men, according to the central Baghdad morgue director Faik Baqr, had “been killed in a methodical fashion”. The article reported: “Their hands had been tied or handcuffed behind their backs, their eyes were blindfolded and they appeared to have been tortured. In most cases, the dead men looked as if they’d been whipped with a cord, subjected to electric shocks or beaten with a blunt object and shot to death, often with single bullets to their heads.”

A grocer in west Baghdad told Salihee that he had been detained by police with a man named Anwar Jassim on May 13. “When we were in detention, they put blindfolds and handcuffs on us. On the second day the soldiers were saying ‘He’s dead’. Later we found out it was Anwar.” According to the medical reports at the Yarmuk morgue where police dumped his body, Jassim had a “bullet wound in the back of his head and cuts and bruises on his abdomen, back and neck.”

Police commandos reportedly told the morgue director to leave the corpse “so that dogs could eat it, because he’s terrorist and he deserves it”.

In a second case, a brigadier-general in the Iraqi interior ministry related that his brother had been detained during a raid on May 14, in a working class Sunni suburb in Baghdad’s west. His body was found the next day bearing signs of torture. Witnesses told the general that the abductors “came in white police Toyota Land Cruisers, wore police commando uniforms, flak vests and helmets” and were armed with 9mm Glock pistols.

Glock sidearms are used by many US law enforcement agencies and have been supplied to Iraqi security forces by the US military.

The article also cited a third case. The body of Saadi Khalif was brought to Yarmuk morgue by police commandos several days after he was taken from his home by police on June 10. Saadi’s brother told Knight Ridder: “The doctor told us he was choked and tortured before they shot him. He looked like he had been dragged by a car.”

An article in the British Financial Times on June 29 provided further evidence of police commando atrocities. Mustafa Mohammed Ali, from the western Baghdad suburb of Abu Ghraib, told the newspaper he was detained by the Wolf Brigade on May 22, during the build-up to Operation Lightning. He alleged that he was held for 26 days.

The article reported: “He spent the first day in a barbed wire enclosure with hundreds of other detainees, without food, water or toilet facilities... On the fourth day, the interrogations began. Mr Ali says Wolf Brigade commandos attached electrical wires to his ear and his genitals, and generated a current with a hand-cranked military telephone.”

According to the figures given to the Financial Times, only 22 of the 474 people seized from their homes during the Wolf Brigade sweep in the Abu Ghraib area are still being held. Those released allege they suffered systematic abuse. “Mass detentions and indiscriminate torture seem to be the main tools deployed to crush an insurgency that could last ‘five, six, eight, 10, 12 years’ according to Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary,” the newspaper commented.

In light of the evidence gathered by Salihee, significant discrepancies in the official figures for Operation Lightning in Baghdad raise further concerns about the fate of detainees. In early June, the Iraqi government reported that 1,200 had been detained. Just days later on June 6, this was revised downward to just 887, with no explanation. Some of the deaths referred to in the Knight Ridder article coincide with this period.

Suspicions of wholesale killings

The revelations about the conduct of the Wolf Brigade lend credibility to the claims made by Max Fuller, in a feature headlined “For Iraq, ‘The Salvador Option’ Becomes Reality” and published by the Centre for Research on Globalisation.

Over the past nine months, a terrifying new development in Iraq has been the discovery of dozens of bodies dumped in rubbish heaps, rivers or abandoned buildings. In most cases, the people had suffered torture and mutilation before being killed by a single shot to the head. The US military has consistently reported that the victims were members of the Iraqi army or police. The media has universally reported the mass killings as the work of anti-occupation terrorists.

Fuller noted, however: “What is particularly striking is that many of those killings have taken place since the police commandos became operationally active and often correspond with areas where they have been deployed.”

In Mosul, for example, dozens of men were detained by the commandos last November, as part of a US-led operation to bring the city back under occupation control. Over the following weeks, more than 150 tortured and executed bodies were found. In Samarra, dozens of bodies appeared in nearby Lake Thartar in the wake of operations by the commandos in that city.

From February through to late April, more than 100 bodies were recovered from the Tigris River south of Baghdad—one of the most rebellious areas of the country. The Iraqi government initially claimed they were villagers who had been kidnapped by insurgents in the village of Maidan. This has since been discredited. The victims are from a range of towns and villages, including Kut in the north and Basra in the south. Police in the area told the San Francisco Chronicle that many of the dead had been “motorists passing through the area when stopped by masked men bearing Kalashnikov rifles at impromptu checkpoints”.

Other killings have been discovered in Baquaba and the Syrian border town of Qaim in the aftermath of counter-insurgency operations by US forces and their Iraqi allies. Fuller also noted the suspicions surrounding the assassination of well over 200 university academics, most of whom were opponents of the US occupation of Iraq.

Dozens of bodies have been found over the past two months in Baghdad. In May, the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS)—the main public Sunni organisation opposed to the occupation—directly accused the Wolf Brigade of having “arrested imams and the guardians of some mosques, tortured and killed them, and then got rid of their bodies in a garbage dump in Shaab district” of Baghdad. AMS secretary general Hareth al-Dhari declared at the time: “This is state terrorism by the Minister of the Interior.”

The very existence of the Wolf Brigade underscores the criminality of the US occupation and the utter fraud of the Bush administration claims to be bringing “liberation” and “democracy” to Iraq. Many of the commandos would have been involved in murder and torture on behalf of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The American military deliberately recruited them in order to make use of their experience in mass repression and has directly modeled their operations on those of right-wing death squads in Central America.

The main US advisor to the Wolf Brigade from the time of its formation until April 2005 was James Steele. Steele’s own biography, promoting him for the US lecture circuit, states that “he commanded the US military group in El Salvador during the height of the guerilla war” and “was credited with training and equipping what was acknowledged to be the best counter-terrorist force in the region”. In a 12-year campaign of murder and repression, the Salvadoran units, trained and advised by people like Steele, killed over 70,000 people.

In his speech on June 28, George Bush declared his administration was working with the Iraqi interior and defence ministries to “improve their capabilities to coordinate anti-terrorist operations” and “develop their command and control structures”. The evidence is beginning to emerge that this means paying and equipping former Baathist killers to terrorise, torture and murder Iraqis who are believed to have links to the popular resistance, which an unnamed US analyst estimated for the June 27 edition of Newsweek had “as many as 400,000 auxiliaries and support personnel”.

The killing of journalists seeking to document or expose allegations of state-organised murder has accompanied every dirty war against a civilian population. Since the US occupation of Iraq began, dozens of reporters, cameramen and other media workers have been killed by American-led forces in suspicious circumstances that were never independently investigated.

Two more Iraqi journalists have been killed in the days since Yasser Salihee’s death. On June 26, Maha Ibrahim, a news editor with a television station operated by the anti-occupation Iraqi Islamic Party, was shot dead when US troops opened fire on her car as she and her husband drove to work. Two days later, Ahmad Wail Bakri, a program director for Iraqi al-Sharqiya television was killed by American troops as he reportedly tried to drive around a traffic accident in Baghdad.

See Also:
Washington in crisis over opposition to Iraq war
[28 June 2005]
US imprisons Iraqi journalists without charges
[7 May 2005]
Iraq: Reporters Without Borders condemns US report on killing of journalists
[27 November 2004]

Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

2005-11-16T20:53:00.000-08:00

November 16th, 2005 1:35 pm
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum / Washington Post

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.

Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work; that meeting is not noted in the document.

The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. "The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force," Lautenberg said.

Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on the document. She said that the courts have upheld "the constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality."

The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress.

Alan Huffman, who was a Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with Phillips, confirmed meeting with the task force staff. "We met in the Executive Office Building, if I remember correctly," he said.

A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said the chief executive, James J. Mulva, had been unaware that Conoco officials met with task force staff when he testified at the hearing. The spokesman said that Mulva was chief executive of Phillips in 2001 before the merger and that nobody from Phillips met with the task force.

Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts said the company stood by chief executive Lee R. Raymond's statement in the hearing. In a brief phone interview, former Exxon vice president James Rouse, the official named in the White House document, denied the meeting took place. "That must be inaccurate and I don't have any comment beyond that," said Rouse, now retired.

Ronnie Chappell, a spokesman for BP, declined to comment on the task force meetings. Darci Sinclair, a spokeswoman for Shell, said she did not know whether Shell officials met with the task force, but they often meet members of the administration. Chevron said its executives did not meet with the task force but confirmed that it sent President Bush recommendations in a letter.

The person familiar with the task force's work, who requested anonymity out of concern about retribution, said the document was based on records kept by the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House complex. This person said most meetings were with Andrew Lundquist, the task force's executive director, and Cheney aide Karen Y. Knutson.

According to the White House document, Rouse met with task force staff members on Feb. 14, 2001. On March 21, they met with Archie Dunham, who was chairman of Conoco. On April 12, according to the document, task force staff members met with Conoco official Huffman and two officials from the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Wayne Gibbens and Alby Modiano.

On April 17, task force staff members met with Royal Dutch/Shell Group's chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Shell Oil chairman Steven Miller and two others. On March 22, staff members met with BP regional president Bob Malone, chief economist Peter Davies and company employees Graham Barr and Deb Beaubien.

Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: "Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001?" When there was no response, Lautenberg added: "The meeting . . . "

"No," said Raymond.

"No," said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.

"We did not, no," Mulva said.

"To be honest, I don't know," said BP America chief executive Ross Pillari, who came to the job in August 2001. "I wasn't here then."

"But your company was here," Lautenberg replied.

"Yes," Pillari said.

Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who has held his job since earlier this year, answered last. "Not to my knowledge," he said.

Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.

US Army Admits Use of White Phosphorous as Weapon

2005-11-16T20:41:00.000-08:00

US Army Admits Use of White Phosphorus as Weapon
by Steven D
Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:48:58 PM PDT

(From the diaries. Let's see them deny this shit now -- kos)

That's right. Not from Al Jazheera, or Al Arabiya, but the US fucking Army, in their very own publication, from the (WARNING: pdf file) March edition of Field Artillery Magazine in an article entitled "The Fight for Fallujah":

"WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

* Steven D's diary :: ::
*

In other words the claim by the US Government that White Phosphorus was used only for illumination at Fallujah had been pre-emptively debunked by the Army. Indeed, the article goes on to make clear that soldiers would have liked to have saved more WP rounds to use for "lethal missions."

However, as Mark Kraft, an emailer to Eric Alterman's blog, Altercation, points out today, the Field Artillery Magazine article fails to inform its audience that

. . . there is no way you can use white phosphorus like that without forming a deadly chemical cloud that kills everything within a tenth of a mile in all directions from where it hits. Obviously, the effect of such deadly clouds weren't just psychological in nature.

Furthermore, (from a link provided by Mr. Kraft, thank you very much) testimony about the use of these "shake and bake" techniques of WP usage are detailed in an account by an embedded Journalist regarding the April 2004 attacks on Fallujah by the Marines:

Fighting from a distance

After pounding parts of the city for days, many Marines say the recent combat escalated into more than they had planned for, but not more than they could handle.

"It's a war," said Cpl. Nicholas Bogert, 22, of Morris, N.Y.

Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.

"We had all this SASO (security and stabilization operations) training back home," he said. "And then this turns into a real goddamned war."

Just as his team started to eat a breakfast of packaged rations Saturday, Bogert got a fire mission over the radio.

"Stand by!" he yelled, sending Lance Cpls. Jonathan Alexander and Jonathan Millikin scrambling to their feet.

Shake 'n' bake

Joking and rousting each other like boys just seconds before, the men were instantly all business. With fellow Marines between them and their targets, a lot was at stake.

Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map and called out the settings for the gun they call "Sarah Lee."

Millikin, 21, from Reno, Nev., and Alexander, 23, from Wetumpka, Ala., quickly made the adjustments. They are good at what they do.

"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.

"Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.

The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.

They say they have never seen what they've hit, nor did they talk about it as they dusted off their breakfast and continued their hilarious routine of personal insults and name-calling.

So who you gonna believe? The US Department of Defense or the US Army and the US Marine Corps? Decisions, decisions . . .

The Staggeringly Impossible Results of Ohio's 05 Election...

2005-11-15T21:59:00.000-08:00

The Staggeringly Impossible Results of Ohio's '05 Election...
...As Half of Ohio's Counties Fire Up Blackwell's New Diebold Electronic Diebold Voting Machines
Is this the Election that will finally break the camel's back?

With so much going on, we haven't had much time to report here on the extraordinary outcome of last Tuesday's election in Ohio where the crooked state that brung you...

With so much going on, we haven't had much time to report here on the extraordinary outcome of last Tuesday's election in Ohio where the crooked state that brung you -- by hook and by crook -- a second term for George W. Bush may have turned in results so staggeringly impossible, that perhaps even the Ohio Mainstream Corporate Media will have no choice but to look into it. And that's a good thing.

As usual, the Free Press' heroic Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are on the case. Their article on what happened on ballot issues 1 through 5 last week is A MUST READ for anybody who still gives the slightest damn about whatever democracy might be left in America.

We'll try to summarize here briefly. There were five initiatives on the ballot last week. Issue 1 was a controversial proposition for $2 billion in new state spending. The Christian Right was opposed (because some of the new funds might go to stem cell research), but otherwise, the Republican Governor Taft's Administration (he recently pleaded guilty to several counts of corruption) was pushing it hard alongside progressives in the state.

The Columbus Dispatch's pre-election polling, which Fritrakis and Wasserman describe as "uncannily accurate for decades", called the race correctly within 1% of the final result. The margin of error for the poll was +/- 2.5% with a 95% confidence interval. On Issue 1, the Dispatch poll was right on the money. They predicted 53% in favor, the final result was 54% in favor.

But then came Issues 2 through 5 put forward by ReformOhioNow.org -- a bi-partisan coalition pushing these four initiatives for Electoral Reform in the Buckeye State largely in response to their shameful '04 Election performance led by the extremely partisan Secretary of State (and Bush/Cheney '04 Co-Chair) J. Kenneth Blackwell.

On those four issues, which Blackwell and the Christian Right were against, the final results were impossibly different -- and we mean impossibly! -- from both the Dispatch's final polling before the election and all reasoned common-sense. Take a look:

ISSUE 1 ($2 Billion State Bond initiative)
PRE-POLLING: 53% Yes, 27% No, 20% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 54% Yes, 45% No

ISSUE 2 (Allow easier absentee balloting)
PRE-POLLING: 59% Yes, 33% No, 9% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 36% Yes, 63% No

ISSUE 3 (Revise campaign contribution limits)
PRE-POLLING: 61% Yes, 25% No, 14% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 33% Yes, 66% No

ISSUE 4 (Ind. Comm. to draw Congressional Districts)
PRE-POLLING: 31% Yes, 45% No, 25% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 30% Yes, 69% No

ISSUE 5 (Ind. Board instead of Sec. of State to oversee elections)
PRE-POLLING: 41% Yes, 43% No, 16% Undecided
FINAL RESULT: 29% Yes, 70% No

Now, you tell us...What could possibly explain such unheard of differences between the Dispatch's poll and the final results?

Now, we'll tell you...This was the year that Ohio, under the encouragement and mandates of Blackwell, rolled out new Electronic Touch-Screen Voting Machines in 44 of its 88 counties...41 of them employing the same Diebold Touch-Screen Machines that California's Republican Sec. of State decertified in this state when 20% of them failed this summer in the largest test of its kind ever held.

Those would be the very same Electronic Voting Machines which a recent GAO Report (still unmentioned by a single wire-service or mainstream American newspaper) confirmed to be easily hackable.

Will the absurdly skewed results from last Tuesday's Ohio Election finally light a fire under the media -- either nationally or just in Ohio alone -- to look into what the hell is going on here?! We remain hopeful...if not optimistic.

The Free Press article is a must read, as mentioned, but we'll share their closing thoughts here on the possible reasons for the wildly unexplained discrepancy between the final polling and the final results which, as they posit, are due to either a completely inexplicable breakdown of the Dispatch's historically accurate polling methods wildly beyond the margin-of-error for all initiatives except Issue 1...or...somebody hacked that vote count:

US used white phosphorous in Iraq

2005-11-15T21:50:00.000-08:00

November 15th, 2005 10:51 pm
US used white phosphorus in Iraq

BBC

The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the northern Iraqi city of Falluja.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.

The US earlier denied it had been used in Falluja at all.

Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon.

Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices.

Col Venable said a statement by the US state department that white phosphorus had not been used was based on "poor information".

The BBC's defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial has been a public relations disaster for the US military.

'Incendiary'

The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.

Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases".

"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.

It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.

"When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round or rounds into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.

'Particularly nasty'

White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."

A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.

But Professor Paul Rodgers of the University of Bradford department of peace studies said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

When the Rai documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November, it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.

Bloglines | Subscribe

2005-11-07T22:33:00.000-08:00

Bloglines | Subscribe

Dark Days ion the White House

2005-10-29T12:15:00.000-07:00

October 28th, 2005 2:51 pm
Indictment Adds to White House's Woes

By Ron Fournier / Associated Press

These are dark days for the White House. And they could get darker.

Less than a year after winning re-election by a comfortable margin, President Bush's approval ratings are at the lowest since he took office in 2001 and he is being whipsawed this week by events, some of his own making.

_The U.S. death toll in Iraq hit 2,000 on Tuesday, a fresh reminder of the president's push to war over weapons of mass destruction that were never found.

_A special prosecutor took aim at White House officials in an investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity, a disclosure that may have been part of a campaign to discredit an Iraq war critic. The vice president's chief of staff was indicted on five felony counts Friday, although top aide Karl Rove escaped charges for now.

_An insurrection of the president's conservative political base forced the withdrawal of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers on Thursday.

_Consumer confidence dropped, home sales were down and the number of people who lost their jobs because of Hurricane Katrina climbed above the half-million mark.

"There are times when no matter what you do it seems to blow up in your face, whether it's self-inflicted or inflicted from the outside," said Democratic consultant Joe Lockhart, who was President Clinton's press secretary during the impeachment flap.

In the face of such grim news, Bush is likely to follow the examples of Clinton and other embattled presidents and make a public display of his work ethic.

"The American people expect me to do my job, and I'm going to," Bush said, shrugging off the "background noise" of the CIA leak investigation.

White House officials have said they expect anybody indicted to leave the staff.

On Iraq, the president has given a series of speeches defending his war policies. The approval of a new Iraqi constitution Oct. 15 is one of the few pieces of good news Bush had gotten this month.

The economy has been a baffling issue to Bush and his team. They have not figured out how to convince the public that the economy is doing as well as experts say. It's a hard sell when pension funds are going bankrupt, health care costs and gasoline prices are soaring and jobs are being shipped overseas.

That leaves the rift with conservatives. The White House hopes that Miers fixed that problem by withdrawing.

Bush blamed her demise on a dispute with the Senate over access to White House documents, but that wasn't half the problem. It was a family fight, an ugly one, between a conservative president and like-minded activists who consider themselves entitled to dictate his Supreme Court pick.

They helped him get elected twice. They wanted a tried-and-true conservative on the bench, and Miers didn't cut it.

With independent and Democratic voters abandoning him in droves, Bush couldn't afford to make conservatives angry.

"The base is his last refuge at this point," said Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political science professor.

"He's facing some daunting challenges," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. "The way that political leaders move when they are facing challenges is back to their base."

Massachusetts' junior senator, John Kerry, put a more cynical spin on the Miers' withdrawal. "Caught up in a wave of scandal and concerns about the war in Iraq, the president has allowed right-wing interest groups to decide the fate of his Supreme Court nominee rather than stand up to his ultraconservative base," he said.

Kerry would love to see Bush labeled a quick-to-yield politician. Part of the reason Kerry lost to Bush in the 2004 race was that voters said they knew where the president stood even when they disagreed with him — and that he rarely wavered.

Now the president has given up on a woman he said was the most qualified in the nation.

Where else has Bush gone wrong? His credibility, an asset just a year ago, was undercut when the Iraq war failed to live up to his promises and it was further damaged by his flat-footed response to Hurricane Katrina, according to strategists in both parties.

Even some Republicans believe that Bush made a mistake at the beginning of the year by spending so much postelection political capital on Social Security reform, an issue that few voters cited as a reason for backing him.

Others point to his staff, a talented and loyal group of fellow Texans and their friends who came into the second term bone-tired and short on fresh ideas. Many helped Bush through the Sept. 11 attacks, two wars and a re-election.

Their intense loyalty may have led some advisers to challenge Joseph Wilson's credibility when he questioned Bush's evidence on Iraq and nuclear material. The question Fitzgerald was appointed to explore is whether anybody crossed the line and purposely revealed that Wilson's wife was a spy.

"The bad news tends to breed bad news and oftentimes there is no way to get out of it other than to just wait it out," Lockhart said.

The best thing about bad news is it might get better.

The World Can't Wait! Drive Out the Bush Regime! Mobilize for November 2, 2005

2005-10-27T20:43:00.000-07:00

The World Can't Wait!
Drive Out the Bush Regime!
Mobilize for November 2, 2005!

Your government, on the basis of outrageous lies, is waging a murderous and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq, with other countries in their sights. Your government is openly torturing people, and justifying it. Your government puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.

Your government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.

Your government suppresses the science that doesn't fit its religious, political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to pay a terrible price.

Your government is moving to deny women here, and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion.

Your government enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.

People look at all this and think of Hitler — and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.

Millions and millions are deeply disturbed and outraged by this. They recognize the need for a vehicle to express this outrage, yet they cannot find it; politics as usual cannot meet the enormity of the challenge, and people sense this.

There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing." People who steal elections and believe they're on a "mission from God" will not go without a fight.

There is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party. This whole idea of putting our hopes and energies into "leaders" who tell us to seek common ground with fascists and religious fanatics is proving every day to be a disaster, and actually serves to demobilize people.

But silence and paralysis are NOT acceptable. That which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn — or be forced — to accept. There is no escaping it: the whole disastrous course of this Bush regime must be STOPPED. And we must take the responsibility to do it.

And there is a way. We are talking about something on a scale that can really make a huge change in this country and in the world. We need more than fighting Bush's outrages one at a time, constantly losing ground to the whole onslaught. We must, and can, aim to create a political situation where the Bush regime's program is repudiated, where Bush himself is driven from office, and where the whole direction he has been taking society is reversed. We, in our millions, must and can take responsibility to change the course of history.

To that end, on November 2, the first anniversary of Bush's "re-election", we will take the first major step in this by organizing a truly massive day of resistance all over this country. People everywhere will walk out of school, they will take off work, they will come to the downtowns and town squares and set out from there, going through the streets and calling on many more to JOIN US. They will repudiate this criminal regime, making a powerful statement: "NO! THIS REGIME DOES NOT REPRESENT US! AND WE WILL DRIVE IT OUT!"

November 2 must be a massive and public proclamation that WE REFUSE TO BE RULED IN THIS WAY. November 2 must call out to the tens of millions more who are now agonizing and disgusted. November 2 will be the beginning — a giant first step in forcing Bush to step down, and a powerful announcement that we will not stop until he does so — and it will join with and give support and heart to people all over the globe who so urgently need and want this regime to be stopped.

This will not be easy. If we speak the truth, they will try to silence us. If we act, they will to try to stop us. But we speak for the majority, here and around the world, and as we get this going we are going to reach out to the people who have been so badly fooled by Bush and we are NOT going to stop.

The point is this: history is full of examples where people who had right on their side fought against tremendous odds and were victorious. And it is also full of examples of people passively hoping to wait it out, only to get swallowed up by a horror beyond what they ever imagined. The future is unwritten. WHICH ONE WE GET IS UP TO US.

These next days are crucial. The call you are reading has to get out to millions right away — on the internet, passed out as flyers in communities, published as ads in newspapers. DO NOT WAIT!! GET ORGANIZED!! If you agree with this statement, add your name to it!!! And do more than that: send it to friends, get them to sign it, organize a meeting, take it to your church, your school, your union, your health club, your barber shop, to concerts and libraries and family gatherings, everywhere you go. Raise money, lots of money. Get people together, make plans to be there on November 2, and to build for it.

The world can't wait! Drive out the Bush Regime! Mobilize for November 2!

Sick Republicans !!!!

2005-10-24T21:07:00.000-07:00

This week some of the Bush Crime Family members might have their butts kicked in court!

At least that is what we are hoping for.

The indictements will have a proof that "el Bush" lied about the Iraq weapons of mass destruction.

Maybe then, the dorment demos might wake up and decide to fight the GOP Neocons Crime Family !!

Stop the Bush destruction of the United States of America.

Bush's target:

- Destruction of the social programs

- Destruction of Social-Security/Medicar/Medicaid

- Destruction of labor unions

- Lower wages for the labor force

- Everything for the rich companies: Tax breaks

- Destruction of Bankrupticies laws which favor the people

Impeach Bush !!!

2005-10-17T20:55:00.000-07:00

Bush and his crime family, needs to be impeached for the crimes he has committed against US citizens and in Afganistan and Iraq.

Bush hates the poor average american! Bush and his cronies are thieves and murderers.

Bush only care about the big companies in America.

Bush's crime family is in trouble:

Karl Rove/Dick Cheney/George Bush are involved in the Valery Plain CIA agent!

Tom Delay/Bill Frist are been convicted.

Iraq: Bush's objective is to install bases and steal all the oil from Iraq!!

Never an American President was so corrupt like Bush.

Bush's contributions to the American people:

-Stole 2 elections.

- Changed the Bankruptcy law to favor the credit card companies.

- Changed the Medicare Bill making it worse.

- Tried to destroy the Social-Security program.

- Helped the Oil companies to rip the american people by raising oil to $3/gal and above.

- Nominate the warmonger John Bolton as UN Ambassador

- Nominate the murderer John Negroponte
to oversee the spying programs.

- Killed more than 2,000 youn americans in Iraq. Killed a lot of poor people in New Orleans.

- Nominate his buddies for top positions in yhe goverment.

- Is sinking US's economy: Amost 1 trillion dollars deficit. Amost 100 billion trade deficit.

- Bus is cuting all social federal programs.

- Giving tax breaks for the 2% of rich americans.

Is this enough for an impeachment !!!

More Michael Browns

2005-09-21T19:30:00.000-07:00

ADMINISTRATION
More Michael Browns

By now, the nation has become familiar with the story of Michael Brown, the inexperienced former head of FEMA who oversaw an agency that was disastrously slow in responding to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. A friend of former FEMA director Joe Allbaugh, Brown has spent the previous 11 years as the Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association, a position from which he was forced to resign after numerous lawsuits were filed against the organization. While Brown has become the familiar face of "Bush administration cronyism," there are plenty of recent examples of inexperienced personnel filling key posts throughout the Bush administration. Should President Bush fail to take control over this growing problem, he'll continue to put the health and safety of Americans at risk.

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT NOMINEE LACKS EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD: The Bush administration's choice to head the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency is a 36-year old lawyer with "little immigration or customs experience." ICE is one component that completes Border and Transportation Security underneath the greater jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Michael Chertoff. Julie Myers' lack of experience led Sen. George Voinovich to state at her confirmation hearing: "I'd really like to have [Chertoff] spend some time with us, telling us personally why he thinks you're qualified for the job, because based on the résumé, I don't think you are." (Voinovich later recanted his objections after talking privately with Myers and Chertoff). To resolve worries about her lack of experience, Myers said that she pledges to "work with those who are more knowledgeable." Myers retains strong political connections to make up for her lack of professional experience. Her uncle is Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs; she is married to John Wood, Chertoff's current chief of staff; and, she served as an associate under former independent counsel Ken Starr.

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER FALSIFIED CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDENTIALS: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reassigned a high-ranking Medicare officer after it discovered that he "falsified documents concerning his continuing education." Sean Tunis was formerly the chief medical officer at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a role that placed him in charge of reviewing and implementing all medical issues that arose in the administration of Medicare and Medicaid. Tunis's medical license was suspended last May for at least a year by the Maryland Board of Physicians, and he had been placed on administrative leave since April. HHS recently reassigned him to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality without discussing why the transfer was made. "I regret having made mistakes in handling my (continuing education) records, but I am now pleased to be moving forward into a new phase of my career," Tunis said. Tunis has been placed on a list of personnel who are excluded from doing business with federal health programs.

FDA APPOINTED VETERINARIAN TO HEAD OFFICE OF WOMEN'S HEALTH: The Bush administration recently attempted to appoint an "FDA veteran trained in animal husbandry who spent much of his career in the agency's Center for Veterinary Medicine" to oversee the Office of Women's Health. Animal husbandry is the agricultural practice of breeding and raising livestock. The Office of Women's Health is charged with working to "improve the health and well-being of women and girls in the United States." Three days after the Food and Drug Administration announced the appointment of Norris Alderson, the FDA press office sent out a new announcement stating another individual, Theresa Toigo, would head the office. The FDA claimed there was "no official decision" made to hire Alderson, the animal husbandrist. But a membership directory on the office's website listed him as "acting director" (the web page has since been edited).

OTHER INEXPERIENCED BUSH APPOINTEES: The Bush administration has made a number of other hiring decisions that have raised eyebrows. Jay Hallen, a 24-year old undergraduate who majored in political science and "rarely watched financial news stations and didn't follow the stock market," was chosen to rebuild the Iraq Stock Exchange. Gay Hart Gaines, "an interior decorator by training," was chosen to sit on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s Board of Directors. And as the Progress Report previously noted, David Safavian, former White House procurement official who is now under arrest, came to his position with little relevant experience.

Under the Radar

ETHICS -- FRIST SOLD FAMILY STOCKS RIGHT BEFORE PRICE DROPPED: Stock prices for Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) fell 15 percent in late July, but not before Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist unloaded his family's shares. HCA is the nation's largest for-profit hospital chain, founded by Frist's father and directed by Frist's brother, who is also a leading stockholder. The senator sold his shares in the corporation by July 1, two weeks before the prices fell, followed by the shares of his wife and children by July 8. His spokeswoman explained Frist's decision to sell his stocks as an attempt to "avoid any appearance of conflict of interest [with his work in the Senate]" and that the reason he chose that particular moment to sell as "he's [never] been worried about it in the past." HCA has donated a total of $83,450 since 1989 to the senator's campaigns. Trading on insider information is illegal.

KATRINA -- FEMA HAS ICE TRUCKS "GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES": The Gloucester Daily Times, a small paper based in Massachusetts' Cape Cod region, reported today that nearly two dozen ice trucks have been sitting on Rogers Street in Gloucester waiting to see where FEMA would send them next. Trucks from across the country have driven thousands of miles moving huge shipments of ice at FEMA's direction. The ice seems to be going everywhere but the Gulf Coast. One truck driver said, "We've done jobs for FEMA before, but never to this extent where you sit and sit and sit. I just drove 1,300 miles to dump ice in Gloucester. This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever done." Portland, Maine is also expecting nearly 200 trucks to be idling in their city by the end of the week. A FEMA spokeswoman said of the fiasco, "Sometimes we have more ice and water that was ordered than is necessary. ... Unfortunately the truckers don't quite understand that."

IRAQ -- HALLIBURTON SERVES CONTAMINATED WATER TO TROOPS: Not only did Halliburton's KBR subsidiary serve U.S. troops in Iraq spoiled food (sometimes a year past the expiration date), but also contaminated water from Iraq's Euphrates River, containing "numerous pathogenic organisms" at nearly two times the normal contamination levels of untreated water. "[R]aw sewage is routinely dumped less than two miles from the water intake location." KBR water quality specialists reported their concerns, but were told by their superiors that their claims were "erroneous" and "corrective measures" had been taken, with no evidence anything had been done. Two whistleblowers resigned because of "unsafe water and pressure to cover it up" (one became sick from the drinking water) and another expects to be terminated soon.

BUDGET -- PELOSI OFFERS TO RETURN TRANSPORTATION FUNDING TO HELP HURRICANE VICTIMS: Despite Rep. Don Young's unwillingness to give up Alaska's $721 million in transportation pork, House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi has offered to return to the federal Treasury $70 million in highway and transportation funding for San Francisco to aid the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast. House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay still refuses to give up his district's portion of the of the behemoth transportation bill (at least $64.4 million), insisting that his "earmarks are pretty important to that region." DeLay has not even promised to honor Pelosi's request to return her funding, saying unenthusiastically that he'll "take a look" at that option.

KATRINA -- LAWMAKERS USE TRAGEDY TO REVIVE BAD POLICY: In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, lawmakers of all political stripes have used the "political climate suddenly altered by the hurricane to try to advance long-stalled, sometimes controversial initiatives." For example, Texas conservative Rep. Joe L. Barton is once again fighting to open up fragile coastal regions to offshore oil drilling, an idea that languished in Congress earlier this year. "If there is a silver lining [to the disaster], and I'm not saying that there is, but if there is, it may be that our country is beginning to realize how fragile our energy sector is," Barton said. Meanwhile, bills that could improve future disaster relief efforts have died. The Senate rejected a bill authorizing $1.5 billion to improve communications equipment, even though Sen. Bill Frist had said that while in New Orleans, "people could not communicate from one side of that room to the other."

To All My Fellow Americans Who Vote for George W. Bush

2005-09-11T17:09:00.000-07:00

To All My Fellow Americans Who Voted for George W. Bush:

On this, the fourth anniversary of 9/11, I'm just curious, how does it feel?

How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose main qualification was that he ran horse shows?

That's right. Horse shows.

I really want to know -- and I ask you this in all sincerity and with all due respect -- how do you feel about the utter contempt Mr. Bush has shown for your safety? C'mon, give me just a moment of honesty. Don't start ranting on about how this disaster in New Orleans was the fault of one of the poorest cities in America. Put aside your hatred of Democrats and liberals and anyone with the last name of Clinton. Just look me in the eye and tell me our President did the right thing after 9/11 by naming a horse show runner as the top man to protect us in case of an emergency or catastrophe.

I want you to put aside your self-affixed label of Republican/conservative/born-again/capitalist/ditto-head/right-winger and just talk to me as an American, on the common ground we both call America.

Are we safer now than before 9/11? When you learn that behind the horse show runner, the #2 and #3 men in charge of emergency preparedness have zero experience in emergency preparedness, do you think we are safer?

When you look at Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security, a man with little experience in national security, do you feel secure?

When men who never served in the military and have never seen young men die in battle send our young people off to war, do you think they know how to conduct a war? Do they know what it means to have your legs blown off for a threat that was never there?

Do you really believe that turning over important government services to private corporations has resulted in better services for the people?

Why do you hate our federal government so much? You have voted for politicians for the past 25 years whose main goal has been to de-fund the federal government. Do you think that cutting federal programs like FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers has been good or bad for America? GOOD OR BAD?

With the nation's debt at an all-time high, do you think tax cuts for the rich are still a good idea? Will you give yours back so hundreds of thousands of homeless in New Orleans can have a home?

Do you believe in Jesus? Really? Didn't he say that we would be judged by how we treat the least among us? Hurricane Katrina came in and blew off the facade that we were a nation with liberty and justice for all. The wind howled and the water rose and what was revealed was that the poor in America shall be left to suffer and die while the President of the United States fiddles and tells them to eat cake.

That's not a joke. The day the hurricane hit and the levees broke, Mr. Bush, John McCain and their rich pals were stuffing themselves with cake. A full day after the levees broke (the same levees whose repair funding he had cut), Mr. Bush was playing a guitar some country singer gave him. All this while New Orleans sank under water.

It would take ANOTHER day before the President would do a flyover in his jumbo jet, peeking out the widow at the misery 2500 feet below him as he flew back to his second home in DC. It would then be TWO MORE DAYS before a trickle of federal aid and troops would arrive. This was no seven minutes in a sitting trance while children read "My Pet Goat" to him. This was FOUR DAYS of doing nothing other than saying "Brownie (FEMA director Michael Brown), you're doing a heck of a job!"

My Republican friends, does it bother you that we are the laughing stock of the world?

And on this sacred day of remembrance, do you think we honor or shame those who died on 9/11/01? If we learned nothing and find ourselves today every bit as vulnerable and unprepared as we were on that bright sunny morning, then did the 3,000 die in vain?

Our vulnerability is not just about dealing with terrorists or natural disasters. We are vulnerable and unsafe because we allow one in eight Americans to live in horrible poverty. We accept an education system where one in six children never graduate and most of those who do can't string a coherent sentence together. The middle class can't pay the mortgage or the hospital bills and 45 million have no health coverage whatsoever.

Are we safe? Do you really feel safe? You can only move so far out and build so many gated communities before the fruit of what you've sown will be crashing through your walls and demanding retribution. Do you really want to wait until that happens? Or is it your hope that if they are left alone long enough to soil themselves and shoot themselves and drown in the filth that fills the street that maybe the problem will somehow go away?

I know you know better. You gave the country and the world a man who wasn't up for the job and all he does is hire people who aren't up for the job. You did this to us, to the world, to the people of New Orleans. Please fix it. Bush is yours. And you know, for our peace and safety and security, this has to be fixed. What do you propose?

I have an idea, and it isn't a horse show.

Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com

Firms with Bush ties snag Katrina deals

2005-09-10T23:33:00.000-07:00

September 10th, 2005 12:06 pm
Firms with Bush ties snag Katrina deals

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Companies with ties to the Bush White House and the former head of FEMA are clinching some of the administration's first disaster relief and reconstruction contracts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

At least two major corporate clients of lobbyist Joe Allbaugh, President George W. Bush's former campaign manager and a former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have already been tapped to start recovery work along the battered Gulf Coast.

One is Shaw Group Inc. and the other is Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. Vice President Dick Cheney is a former head of Halliburton.

Bechtel National Inc., a unit of San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp., has also been selected by FEMA to provide short-term housing for people displaced by the hurricane. Bush named Bechtel's CEO to his Export Council and put the former CEO of Bechtel Energy in charge of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

Experts say it has been common practice in both Republican and Democratic administrations for policy makers to take lobbying jobs once they leave office, and many of the same companies seeking contracts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina have already received billions of dollars for work in Iraq.

Halliburton alone has earned more than $9 billion. Pentagon audits released by Democrats in June showed $1.03 billion in "questioned" costs and $422 million in "unsupported" costs for Halliburton's work in Iraq.

But the web of Bush administration connections is attracting renewed attention from watchdog groups in the post-Katrina reconstruction rush. Congress has already appropriated more than $60 billion in emergency funding as a down payment on recovery efforts projected to cost well over $100 billion.

"The government has got to stop stacking senior positions with people who are repeatedly cashing in on the public trust in order to further private commercial interests," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.

TWO BUSH APPOINTEES AT HALLIBURTON

Allbaugh formally registered as a lobbyist for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root in February.

In lobbying disclosure forms filed with the Senate, Allbaugh said his goal was to "educate the congressional and executive branch on defense, disaster relief and homeland security issues affecting Kellogg Brown and Root."

Melissa Norcross, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said Allbaugh has not, since he was hired, "consulted on any specific contracts that the company is considering pursuing, nor has he been tasked by the company with any lobbying responsibilities."

Allbaugh is also a friend of Michael Brown, director of FEMA who was removed as head of Katrina disaster relief and sent back to Washington amid allegations he had padded his resume.

A few months after Allbaugh was hired by Halliburton, the company retained another high-level Bush appointee, Kirk Van Tine.

Van Tine registered as a lobbyist for Halliburton six months after resigning as deputy transportation secretary, a position he held from December 2003 to December 2004.

On Friday, Kellogg Brown & Root received $29.8 million in Pentagon contracts to begin rebuilding Navy bases in Louisiana and Mississippi. Norcross said the work was covered under a contract that the company negotiated before Allbaugh was hired.

Halliburton continues to be a source of income for Cheney, who served as its chief executive officer from 1995 until 2000 when he joined the Republican ticket for the White House. According to tax filings released in April, Cheney's income included $194,852 in deferred pay from the company, which has also won billion-dollar government contracts in Iraq.

Cheney's office said the amount of deferred compensation is fixed and is not affected by Halliburton's current economic performance or earnings.

Allbaugh's other major client, Baton Rouge-based Shaw Group, has updated its Web site to say: "Hurricane Recovery Projects -- Apply Here!"

Shaw said on Thursday it has received a $100 million emergency FEMA contract for housing management and construction. Shaw also clinched a $100 million order on Friday from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Shaw Group spokesman Chris Sammons said Allbaugh was providing the company with "general consulting on business matters," and would not say whether he played a direct role in any of the Katrina deals. "We don't comment on specific consulting activities," he said.

America's Battered Wife Syndrome

2005-09-09T22:35:00.000-07:00

America’s Battered Wife Syndrome
Category: General, Editorial/Comment.
Posted by Advena at around evening time.

Welcome Salon.com, Mike Malloy Show, Kos, and C&L visitors

Dear America

As a friend of the family I can’t sit back and watch you do this to yourself without saying something. Consider this a long distance intervention.

Your man is no good. He treats you like crap, lies to you, abuses you, bullies you, exploits you, takes your money. As a friend I want to tell you that you deserve better. You deserve a person that treats you with respect, cares about your welfare, and your children’s welfare, but that’s not George and it never will be.

Do you tell yourself that he’ll stop, or that it won’t get worse? He won’t ever stop, every insult, injury and death he has caused are a line that once crossed will never be uncrossed. Forget the dream. You will never have the American dream with George. You have to forget about what might have been, what George might have been, and realise that at the end of the day you are what you do, and look at George’s track record.

Notice how he’s alienated all your friends? Who can blame them, they can’t understand why you stay with him when he treats you like shit and embarrasses you in front of everybody. The more his public behaviour overshadows yours, The more doubt creeps over them, they wonder if they knew you as well as they thought they did. You seem to have changed - if you condone his behaviour- and your silence can create the impression that you do. People are more inclined to take things at face value when they feel alienated. Your friends remember the good times you had together, the heroic battles you fought together, all of the intricate interweavings between their families and yours through time and space. Do you even recognise yourself anymore America? He is a drunken, coke-addled loser and he always will be, you should kick him out of your house today before he can destroy any more members of your family, your history, your culture, before he decimates your bank account so irretrievably that China and Saudi Arabia repossess all your stuff.

YOU CAN DO BETTER! You are an amazing country, beautiful, interesting, funny, positively glamorous, you wouldn’t stay single for five minutes, you know that suitors would be competing for your affections and any one of them would be ten times better than George. And how can you stand his god-awful Stepford’s answer to Marie-Antoinette mother, piping up with another casual atrocity every time she opens her mouth.

Because of George and his friends global warming is now upon us - I know what it has cost your family already, combined with George’s complete uselessness and indifference in a crisis. It would probably now be possible for a mathematician to calculate exactly how much of all of our futures we are losing for every minute you stay with that sick,twisted, idiot.

I see you doing what everyone in your position does - you end up looking to the perpetrator for comfort because theres no one else left, and look at how he reacts for Christ’s sake, look at what he did to New Orleans, and you should know that yet again he did it in front of all of your friends, all of us saw nothing happening whilst thousands died, all of us heard Ray Negen and the president of Jefferson Parish (I must heard him 30+ times now and I still cry every time) and all of us heard George’s bloody mother. We have been trying to help and he won’t let us. We are all appalled and aghast, it breaks our hearts to see him hurting you like this, and you not fighting back, you just take it and take it as it slowly spirals down into the pits of hell. What will it take America, will you let him kill you before you’ll kick him out? This is not rhetoric America, he is killing you every day you stay with him. If I had described your relationship with George to you back when you were still with Bill you never would have believed me. He degrades you in little increments, every day he erodes your assets as well as your dignity, your reputation, your legacy and your life America.

All of our TV crews were rescuing survivors as they filmed the devastation because there was nobody else there to help them, all of us saw the victims being treated like some sudden new insurgency. with suspicion and hostility. Those poor people, the heart & soul of New Orleans, the very people whose culture and history made New Orleans beloved around the world, He just left your brothers and sisters to die. Can you really continue in your relationship with George after this? There is a degree at which cognitive dissonance becomes outright delusion. He is a maniac, he is destroying your life, please, please leave him, just leave him, only you have the power to make it stop.

He is selling out your family business, if you let him continue like this how are you going to live? How are you going to feed your children, what happens if you get ill? Everything he has ever touched has turned to shit, he puts any idiot that’ll kiss his ass into positions of power and New Orleans is the result. Kick him out America! Do it today! I know it feels like you would be leaping into a void, but I promise you, you will be leaping out of one. Your friends will come back as soon as they see you are back to your old self, they really miss you. I know that less than 36% of your heart is still in it. Go with the 67% of you, that 36% is just that vestigial, primitive part of the brain that clings to the familiar no matter how badly the familiar sucks.

It all comes down to you, America. I know no-one likes other people passing comment on their relationships but this is an extreme situation. You are in very real danger, he is hurting you everyday and he is hurting us, your friends as well. But only you can make it stop. We are all rooting for you, although we don’t get to talk to you very often anymore, because he cuts us off from you. We are on your side, we will all be over the moon the day you finally kick him out. You know he really should be thrown in jail for the things he has done to you. Him and all of his gangster friends.

Please, please, do it America, you know I am right. If not for yourself then do it for your brothers and sisters and children. Do it before he kills any more of your family or anyone else’s. We are all really worried for your welfare.

Your friend,

Gail

Rummy's and New Orleans/Iraq war

2005-09-08T22:30:00.000-07:00

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield maintains that the US government can both take care of New Orleans and pursue the "global war on terror."

Uh, Donald, let's look at this situation. First, much of New Orleans is under water. You stole money that should have been spent on its levees for the Iraq War, and you stole state national guards from Louisiana to fight in Iraq. (The state national guards hadn't signed up to fight foreign wars and were surprised when you kidnapped them, sometimes for a whole year at a time.) So you haven't actually done a good job with the effects of Katrina in New Orleans. In fact, the job has been so bad that some wags are saying they can't believe you personally were not in charge of the recovery effort.

Then let's consider the war against al-Qaeda. You may have noticed that Ayman al-Zawahiri issued a videotape late last week. It was bundled with the farewell suicide tape of Muhammad Siddique Khan, the mastermind of the 7/7 bombers in London. It now appears that your inability to capture al-Zawahiri has allowed him to intrigue with Pakistani jihadi groups to recruit British subjects to bomb their own country. Bin Laden and Zawahiri are at large and free men, which is your failure.

Then there is the war in Iraq. I don't need to tell you that that isn't going very well. In fact, what in hell are you doing in the godforsaken Turkmen city of Tal Afar? Is it really a big threat to the United States? Is it likely to be friendly to us if you drop 500 pound bombs on its residential districts?

You left out the fourth war Bush is fighting, on the US poor. The average wage of the average American worker fell last quarter, amidst rising corporate profits. Bush cut billions in taxes on the rich, and then gave $300 checks to some poor people, who didn't seem to realize that by taking it they were giving up all sorts of government services and maybe even their social security payments.

So, Donald, maybe it is true that someone can save New Orleans, occupy Iraq and fight a global war on terror all at the same time. But you, at least, cannot actually do these things successfully. Which is why you should have resigned a long time ago.

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | 'York could be UK's New Orleans'

2005-09-08T21:33:00.000-07:00

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | 'York could be UK's New Orleans': "'York could be UK's New Orleans'

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent, in Lancaster
Thursday September 8, 2005

The city of York could be Britain's New Orleans if climate change weather patterns continue as predicted, the Green party warned tonight, as it launched its annual conference in Lancaster.

Delivering the opening speech of the four-day gathering - the first of the autumn season - Professor John Whitelegg, a Green councillor and academic said that York could become uninhabitable in the near future, whether or not action was taken immediately on climate change.

Article continues
Prof Whitelegg, a professor of sustainable development at the Stockholm Environment Institute, which is based at York University, warned the city - which suffered severe flooding in 2000 - would be dependent on its post-flood plans, rather than action to prevent another disaster.

Citing a meeting with Meteorological Office experts, he warned that the worst-case scenario would include the abandonment of the city.

He said: 'We need to plan for the abandonment of York. York is not tenable. It will flood, and flood irreparably, and there will be loss of life.'

Speaking after the address, he said it would be impossible to put a figure on any possible loss of life, as that would depend on emergency preparations by local authorities.

York, and much of low-lying eastern England is highly susceptible to flooding. Prof Whitelegg warned that a repeat of the disastrous 1953 floods, which killed around 300 people in Britain and more than 3,000 in the Netherlands, was all but inevitable.

He said: 'The North Sea acts like a funnel, or egg timer, if you look at the drainage through the narrow English channel at the bottom.

'More extreme weather, such a high tides, strong winds and storms, push down on the area, and the only way out [for the water] is into East Anglia and the Netherlands.'

Referring back to Hurrican Katrina, and the devastation brought to the USA's Gulf coast, he told an audience of around 200 delegates on the opening day of the conference: 'Seeing dead bodies float by in a toxic soup in the world's greatest superpower is a telling reminder that 50 years of economic growth has not provided a just or sustainable society.'

He pointed out that three days before Hurricane Katrina struck he had publicly warned that America could not avoid the repercussions of global warming, despite refusing to sign up to the Kyoto protocol.

On August 26, three days before the hurricane, Prof Whitelegg had put out a press release saying: 'The USA is at more risk than many countries. It is subject to extreme weather events and its people will pay the price of hurricanes.'

He added: 'We can put climate change right - if we don't, similar things will happen in Britain.'

The city of York's website publishes the council's policy statement on flood and coastal defence. According to that document: 'The council currently has no major capital work planned for flood alleviation works in its area.'

It warns residents to heed Environment Agency flood warnings, but adds: 'The council is satisfied that there are minimal risks to human life created by these flood risks.'

Prof Whitelegg's message set an apocalyptic tone for the conference, which will see speeches on the so-called peak oil theory of oil production, which holds that, whilst oil fields remain, the cost of retrieval will soon outweigh tenable commercial prices at the pump.

Other topics up for discussion are the situation in West Papua, the role of local businesses in the local economy and electoral reform in the light of the Greens' failure to make a Westminster breakthrough at the May 5 general elections.

There will also be a vote on changing the party structure to create the Greens' first ever leader and deputy leader, and emergency motions criticising the government's legislative response to the London bombings in July."

Barbara Bush: Things Working Out "Very Well" for Poor Evacuees from New Orleans

2005-09-06T21:54:00.000-07:00

September 6th, 2005 1:30 am
Barbara Bush: Things Working Out "Very Well" for Poor Evacuees from New Orleans

By E&P Staff / Editor & Publisher

NEW YORK -- Accompanying her husband, former President George H.W.Bush, on a tour of hurricane relief centers in Houston, Barbara Bush said today, referring to the poor who had lost everything back home and evacuated, "This is working very well for them."

The former First Lady's remarks were aired this evening on National Public Radio's "Marketplace" program.

She was part of a group in Houston today at the Astrodome that included her husband and former President Bill Clinton, who were chosen by her son, the current president, to head fundraising efforts for the recovery. Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama were also present.

In a segment at the top of the show on the surge of evacuees to the Texas city, Barbara Bush said: "Almost everyone I’ve talked to says we're going to move to Houston."

Then she added: "What I’m hearing is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

Bush- Bin Laden- Al Qaeda Money Laundry Conspiracy

2005-09-05T17:37:00.000-07:00

Bush- Bin Laden- Al Qaeda Money Laundry Conspiracy
by WAYNE MADSEN

Bush- Bin Laden- Al Qaeda Money Laundry Conspiracy (8-25-05)-- Wayne Madsen Report has obtained further paper trails linking George H. W. Bush's longtime mysterious Swiss German money mover to a now defunct bank operated on behalf of Osama Bin Laden, his family, and some of his closest business associates.

The network of Swiss-based terrorist financiers are also linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and prominent European fascist leaders. The bank, Al Taqwa ("Fear of God"), was headquartered in the Italian Swiss enclave Campione d'Italia and had offices in the Bahamas.

It ceased operations after its assets were blocked by a US Treasury Department order, its assets were frozen by the Swiss government, and its banking license was revoked by the Bahamas.

Al Taqwa subsequently changed its name to Nada Management Organization.

Al Taqwa and a complex web of affiliate front companies and brass plates in Switzerland, the Bahamas, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Jersey, Isle of Man, Turkey, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, the United States (Delaware and Texas), Germany, Belgium, Albania, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Austria, Bahrain, Singapore, Thailand, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Liechtenstein were reportedly involved in funding terrorist operations around the world, including the procurement of nuclear material from the former Soviet Union through Baltic intermediaries.

Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides

2005-09-05T17:34:00.000-07:00

Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides
by DOUG THOMPSON

Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides While President George W. Bush travels around the country in a last-ditch effort to sell his Iraq war, White House aides scramble frantically behind the scenes to hide the dark mood of an increasingly angry leader who unleashes obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him.

“I’m not meeting again with that goddamned bitch,” Bush screamed at aides who suggested he meet again with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother whose son died in Iraq. “She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!”

Bush flashes the bird, something aides say he does often and has been doing since his days as governor of Texas.

Bush, administration aides confide, frequently explodes into tirades over those who protest the war, calling them “motherfucking traitors.”

He reportedly was so upset over Veterans of Foreign Wars members who wore “bullshit protectors” over their ears during his speech to their annual convention that he told aides to “tell those VFW assholes that I’ll never speak to them again is they can’t keep their members under control.

Halliburton Subsidiary Gets Katrina Deal

2005-09-05T16:50:00.000-07:00

September 4th, 2005 7:56 pm
Halliburton Subsidiary Gets Katrina Deal

By Lolita C. Baldor / Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A Halliburton Co. subsidiary that has come under fire for its reconstruction work in Iraq has begun tapping a $500 million Navy contract to do emergency repairs at Gulf Coast naval and Marine facilities that were battered by Hurricane Katrina.

The subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root Services Inc. of Arlington, Va., was awarded the competitive bid contract last July to provide debris removal and other emergency work associated with natural disasters.

Jan Davis, a spokeswoman for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, said Sunday that KBR will receive $12 million for work at Naval Air Station Pascagoula, Naval Station Gulfport and Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. It will receive $4.6 million for work at two smaller Navy facilities in New Orleans and others in the South.

The company has provided similar work after major disasters in the United States and abroad for more than 15 years, including in Florida after Hurricane Andrew.

But KBR has been at the center of scrutiny for receiving a five-year, no-bid contract to restore Iraqi oil fields shortly before the war began in 2003.

Halliburton has reported being paid $10.7 billion for Iraq-related government work during 2003 and 2004. The company reported its pretax profits from that work as $163 million. Pentagon auditors have questioned tens of millions of dollars of Halliburton charges for its operations there.

Late last month three congressional Democrats asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to investigate the demotion of a senior civilian Army official who publicly criticized the awarding of that contract.

Bunnatine H. Greenhouse, who had been the Army Corps of Engineers' top procurement official since 1997, was removed from her position last month for what the Corps called a poor job performance. The lawmakers said the demotion "appears to be retaliation" for her June 27 testimony before Congress in which she detailed her objections to the award of contracts for Iraq projects.

Vice President Dick Cheney headed Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, and Democrats have questioned whether the company has gotten favorable treatment because of his connection.

Vacation is over....Mr. Bush

2005-09-04T22:03:00.000-07:00

Friday, September 2nd, 2005
Vacation is Over... an open letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush

Friday, September 2nd, 2005

Dear Mr. Bush:

Any idea where all our helicopters are? It's Day 5 of Hurricane Katrina and thousands remain stranded in New Orleans and need to be airlifted. Where on earth could you have misplaced all our military choppers? Do you need help finding them? I once lost my car in a Sears parking lot. Man, was that a drag.

Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do like helping with national disasters. How come they weren't there to begin with?

Last Thursday I was in south Florida and sat outside while the eye of Hurricane Katrina passed over my head. It was only a Category 1 then but it was pretty nasty. Eleven people died and, as of today, there were still homes without power. That night the weatherman said this storm was on its way to New Orleans. That was Thursday! Did anybody tell you? I know you didn't want to interrupt your vacation and I know how you don't like to get bad news. Plus, you had fundraisers to go to and mothers of dead soldiers to ignore and smear. You sure showed her!

I especially like how, the day after the hurricane, instead of flying to Louisiana, you flew to San Diego to party with your business peeps. Don't let people criticize you for this -- after all, the hurricane was over and what the heck could you do, put your finger in the dike?

And don't listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how you specifically reduced the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New Orleans this summer for the third year in a row. You just tell them that even if you hadn't cut the money to fix those levees, there weren't going to be any Army engineers to fix them anyway because you had a much more important construction job for them -- BUILDING DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ!

On Day 3, when you finally left your vacation home, I have to say I was moved by how you had your Air Force One pilot descend from the clouds as you flew over New Orleans so you could catch a quick look of the disaster. Hey, I know you couldn't stop and grab a bullhorn and stand on some rubble and act like a commander in chief. Been there done that.

There will be those who will try to politicize this tragedy and try to use it against you. Just have your people keep pointing that out. Respond to nothing. Even those pesky scientists who predicted this would happen because the water in the Gulf of Mexico is getting hotter and hotter making a storm like this inevitable. Ignore them and all their global warming Chicken Littles. There is nothing unusual about a hurricane that was so wide it would be like having one F-4 tornado that stretched from New York to Cleveland.

No, Mr. Bush, you just stay the course. It's not your fault that 30 percent of New Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation to get out of town. C'mon, they're black! I mean, it's not like this happened to Kennebunkport. Can you imagine leaving white people on their roofs for five days? Don't make me laugh! Race has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with this!

You hang in there, Mr. Bush. Just try to find a few of our Army helicopters and send them there. Pretend the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are near Tikrit.

Yours,

Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
www.MichaelMoore.com

P.S. That annoying mother, Cindy Sheehan, is no longer at your ranch. She and dozens of other relatives of the Iraqi War dead are now driving across the country, stopping in many cities along the way. Maybe you can catch up with them before they get to DC on September 21st.

Ending the Impunity of the Bush White House

2005-09-04T09:53:00.000-07:00

Ending the Impunity of the Bush White House
by Norman Solomon

The man in the Oval Office is fond of condemning "killers." But his administration continues to kill with impunity.

"They can go into Iraq and do this and do that," Martha Madden, former secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, said Thursday, "but they can't drop some food on Canal Street in New Orleans, Louisiana, right now? It's just mind-boggling."

The policies are matters of priorities. And the priorities of the Bush White House are clear. For killing in Iraq, they spare no expense. For protecting and sustaining life, the cupboards go bare.

The problem is not incompetence. It's inhumanity, cruelty and greed.

Media outlets have popularized some tactical critiques of U.S. military operations in Iraq. But the administration is competent enough to keep the military-industrial complex humming. It's good at generating huge profits for "defense" contractors, oil companies and the like. First things first, and first things last.

Why shore up levees when the precious money it would take can be better used for war in Iraq? Why allow National Guard units to remain home when they can be useful, killing and being killed, in a faraway war based on lies?

And when catastrophe hits people close to home, why should the president respond with urgency or adequacy if their lives don't figure as truly important in his political calculus?

It's time to end the impunity of President George W. Bush.

Of course he doesn't pull the triggers, drop the bombs or oversee the torture himself. And he avoids the dying that he has facilitated in the wake of the hurricane. White-collar criminals – in this case, white-collar war criminals – rarely get close to their dirtiest work.

Every minute has counted in the wake of the hurricane. While dawdling and compounding the massive tragedy, Bush wants to shift responsibility. We should stop and think about why he noisily rattled a big tin cup midway through the week.

While the death toll rises in New Orleans and criticisms of his inaction grow more outraged across the country, the man wants us to think about making a charitable contribution, not taking political action. But George Bush and Dick Cheney must not be let off the hook.

There is something egregiously obscene about the people in charge of the U.S. government telling citizens to donate money for a hurricane relief effort while the administration, from the president on down, has viciously abdicated its most basic responsibilities.

For the activities it views as really important, like the war on Iraq, the Bush White House hardly requires private contributions while siphoning off vast quantities of taxpayer funds. But when the task is to save lives instead of destroying them, kids are supposed to bust open their piggy banks.

"True compassion," Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out, "is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." He accused the federal government of demonstrating "hostility to the poor" – appropriating "military funds with alacrity and generosity" but providing "poverty funds with miserliness." Four decades later, de facto hostility to the poor remains government policy, and its results include widespread deaths in New Orleans that could have been prevented.

Respect must be paid, and justice must be created. The dead cannot be brought back; the suffering of recent days can't be undone. But it's up to us to create maximum pressure for a truly adequate rescue effort – and to organize effectively while demanding political accountability. That means depriving Bush, Cheney and their congressional allies of the power they ruthlessly enjoy. And that means ending their impunity, so that truth has consequences.

Who Should Pay for New Orleans ?

2005-09-03T16:49:00.000-07:00

I do not think that we should pay for this disaster in New Orleans!!!.

This is strictly Bush and the Neocons’s fault. Instead of asking the American people to pay for this, Bush should ask his oil peers from EXXON, TEXACO, MOBIL, Chevron, Shell, etc

Bush is slashing every penny out of the Federal Goverment Social Programs. Bush cut about 70 million dollars out of the Project to rebuild the levies in New Orleans this year.

And yet Bush gave the corporate america big tax cuts.!!!

Bush and his crime family should go to jail to pay for all the deaths, he has caused here and abroad.

Let us see if we can defeat the Neocons next elections!!!!

Gas prices hit record high thanks to Bush

2005-08-19T20:38:00.000-07:00

Gas prices hit record high for tenth straight day

By John W. Schoen / MSNBC

With just a few weeks left in the summer driving season, consumers are wondering just what it will take to put the brake on gas prices. For the last ten days in a row, pump prices set new records. And with inventories of gas at a new five-year low, refiners are having trouble keeping up with demand.

Some drivers report they're beginning to look for other ways to get around. Michael Right, spokesman for the AAA in St. Louis, said a recent survey found that more than a third of its members have started looking for ways to cut back, including carpooling, bicycling or walking to work.

"We got comments back that said people were already taking some kind of action before we were even looking at $2.00 a gallon," Right said.

But those reported changes in driving habits haven’t cut overall demand. Americans have been burning through gasoline at a rate of 9.5 million barrels a day over the past month, up from 9.4 million this time last year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

“We’ve been setting new record high gas prices since 2000, and consumption has continued to increase,” said AAA spokesman Geoff Sundstrom

Meanwhile, refiners have been coping with a series of unexpected outages, which has cut gasoline output. Last week, U.S. refineries operated at 93.5 percent of capacity, down from 95 percent the week before, according to Jacques Rousseau, an industry analyst at Friedman, Billings Ramsey in Houston.

With demand rising and supplies tight, prices continue to push higher. Pump prices soared to a record $2.586 per gallon nationwide Thursday, according to the AAA fuel gauge report, and some areas already are seeing prices at or above $3 a gallon.

"It's disgusting," said Kui Gonsalves, who paid $3.03 per gallon to fill his Toyota on Tuesday morning in Makawao, Hawaii.

But Hawaiian motorists, who pay the highest prices in the U.S., may get some relief as the state becomes the first in the nation to put a price cap on gasoline. The new law, which takes effect Sept. 1, allows the state Public Utilities Commission to set a maximum wholesale price for gasoline in Hawaii, based on the weekly average of spot prices in Los Angeles, New York and the U.S. Gulf Coast. The law would not put a cap on retail prices.

Relief in sight?
Analysts say they expect gasoline demand to begin its normal seasonal decline after Labor Day, when the summer driving season winds down.

“I think that barring some unforeseen geo-political catastrophe affecting oil supplies, then the stage ought to be set for prices to come down once we get to the fall winter period,” said Sundstrom.

Record pump prices don’t seem to be having much impact on new car buyers

In Southfield, Mich., Dave Pongratz picked up a new Hummer H3 on Wednesday as a surprise gift to his wife, Sandy, an avid camper and kayaker who wants a safe vehicle with good towing capacity. Pongratz said he'd rather go to fewer restaurants than buy a vehicle with higher fuel economy that the H3, which gets about 16 miles per gallon in the city.

"Everybody decides, 'What do I want to trade for what I want to do?'" said Pongratz, a plant foreman for General Motors Corp., which makes the Hummer.

Kevin McCormick, a spokesman for DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group, said the company isn't seeing a sales slowdown in any segment, including its popular pickup trucks. Toyota Motor Corp. also said gas prices don't seem to be affecting sales.

Though American drivers are feeling pinched, consumers in some parts of the world would consider U.S. gasoline cheap. Thanks to heavy taxes, European drivers pay much more. In Norway, prices recently toped $7 a gallon. Taxes can make up more than two-thirds of the pump price in some European countries.

But drivers in some Asian and Middle Eastern countries get off easier at the pump -- thanks to heavy government subsidies that keep gasoline below world market prices. In Iraq, where you’ll find the world's cheapest gasoline, you can top off for as little as 5 cents a gallon, according to a recent report by the International Monetary Fund. Last year, the Iraqi government spent some $3 billion on gasoline subsidies, an expenditure the IMF says threatens the country’s fragile Iraqi economy.

Other countries that subsidize gasoline have gradually begun lifting prices. China raised prices by 4.5 percent in June to $1.63 a gallon. India also raised retail gasoline and diesel prices in June, the first increase since last November.

In the U.S., higher gasoline prices have begun to weigh on the economy. On Thursday, a widely-watched gauge of future economic activity rose a just 0.1 percent in July, a sign that higher oil prices are beginning to hurt the economy's growth prospects. On Wednesday, the government reported that wholesale inflation in July took its biggest leap in nine months in July, due in part to the hit consumers are taking at the pumps.

Shoppers hit with high gas prices are apparently beginning to cut back elsewhere in their family budgets. Earlier this week, Wal-Mart its second-quarter revenues fell short of forecasts and the retail giant put part of the blame on higher gasoline prices cutting into its customers spending power. Wal-Mart also warned that earnings for the third quarter would be below analysts’ forecasts.

“I worry about the effect of higher oil prices,” said Wal-Mart chief executive Lee Scott.

Winter chill?
And while gasoline prices may ease up a bit when summer demand cools, many homeowners face sharply higher home heating bills this winter. Natural gas prices have nearly doubled -- wholesale prices jumped to $9.73 per million btus this week, up from $5.13 this time a year ago while heating oil prices jumped nearly 19 cents to $1.88 a gallon, up 69 cents from a year ago.

That big jump is making it tough for heating oil dealers to lock in winter contracts with their customers. Most dealers begin offering a fixed price through the winter, but the recent run-up has made it difficult to predict where prices will be six months from now. Customers who lock in now risk seeing prices pullback, and paying more than they should.

"It's a horrible year. It's ridiculous," said Ron Trinks, who with his wife, Dee, runs Trinks Brothers Oil in South Windsor, Conn.

A lot depends on how cold the weather is this winter. Heating oil inventories are in pretty good shape for this time of year, according to Energy Department figures. But a prolonged cold snap could stretch supplies, touching off further price rises this winter.

(The Associated Press contributed to this report.)

CINDY

2005-08-16T21:27:00.000-07:00

Welcome to MichaelMoore.com!

Bloglines | Subscribe

2005-08-16T21:25:00.000-07:00

Bloglines | Subscribe

Meetwithcindy.org

2005-08-12T20:29:00.000-07:00

Bloglines | My Feeds

WE ARE INSULTED when people like Bush say that America has to 'stay the course' in Iraq to 'honor our children's sacrifices.'
Not one more drop of blood should be shed for the lies and deceptions."
- Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey Sheehan, KIA 04/04/04

You owe her an explanation, Mr. President.

Our mission is to persuade President Bush to meet with Cindy Sheehan and answer her questions about why the war that took her son's life was started and why it is being continued.
Come to Crawford

We need your support. There is power in numbers. Join us in Crawford now!

Crawford Peace House

Directions to get here.
Help Others

If you can't come to Crawford, please contribute to a fund to cover the costs of assisting others with their travel and their stay in Crawford. For details, contact the Crawford Peace House.
Contact the Media

Ask the media to cover Cindy Sheehan's request to meet with the President, and to cover the contrast between pre-war claims for why war was needed and current knowledge of what the facts were known to be.
Call the White House

Call the White House and ask the staff there to contact the President on his ranch and ask him to meet with Cindy Sheehan.

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
E-Mail comments@whitehouse.gov
Contact Congress

Sen. George Allen (Republican, Va.) has publicly encouraged the President to meet with Cindy Sheehan. Has your Congress Member and each of your Senators done so?
Ask them to!

*CARLY'S POEM*
A Nation Rocked to sleep

by Carly Sheehan
Sister Casey KIA 04/04/04
Sadr City Baghdad

Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?
The torrential rains of a mother's weeping will never be done
They call him a hero, you should be glad that he's one, but
Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?

Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?
He must be brave because his boy died for another man's lies
The only grief he allows himself are long, deep sighs
Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?

Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother's grave?
They say that he died so that the flag will continue to wave
But I believe he died because they had oil to save
Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother's grave?

Have you ever heard the sound of a nation being rocked to sleep?
The leaders want to keep you numb so the pain won't be so deep
But if we the people let them continue another mother will weep

Bush gets first look at anti-war protest near ranch

2005-08-12T20:20:00.000-07:00

Bloglines | My Feeds

August 12th, 2005 1:59 pm
Bush gets first look at anti-war protest near ranch

By Patricia Wilson / Reuters

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush got his first look at an anti-war vigil near his ranch on Friday as his motorcade took him by the protest site lined with small white crosses representing fallen American soldiers in Iraq.

When Bush's black sport utility vehicle carried him past the site to a Republican fund-raiser, the protest leader, Cindy Sheehan, whose son was one of the nearly 1,850 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, held up a sign that said: "Why do you make time for donors and not for me?"

Other signs said: "Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam" and "Bring Them Home Now." Some protesters held up white crosses as well.

The protest vigil began last Saturday and is being led by Sheehan, who has been demanding a meeting with Bush to discuss her opposition to the Iraq war.

Two rows of police officers faced the estimated 50 roadside protesters as Bush's 15-vehicle motorcade cruised by without slowing down.

He was headed to Stan and Kathy Hickey's Broken Spoke Ranch for a barbecue and ribs lunch to raise more than $2 million for the Republican National Committee. The 230 people attending were among the party's biggest donors.

Hundreds of small white crosses had been erected along the side of Prairie Chapel Road, each hand-painted with the name of a fallen soldier.

Sheehan's son, Casey, was killed in combat in Iraq in April 2004 and she met with Bush in June 2004, but she wants another meeting. The White House has refused.

With Americans increasingly questioning the U.S. involvement in Iraq, Bush tried to address Sheehan's concerns on Thursday.

"Listen, I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan," Bush told reporters. "She feels strongly about her position. And she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America."

He said he has thought "long and hard" about her demand to "get out of Iraq now" and strongly disagreed, saying a premature withdrawal would betray the Iraqis just as they are being trained to defend themselves and allow for a U.S. pullout.

Sheehan's group, Gold Star Families for Peace, released a protest ad that the organization said would run on cable television channels near Bush's ranch during August.

"Mr. President, I want to tell you face to face how much this hurts. I love my country, but how many more of our loved ones need to die in this senseless war? How many more soldiers have to die before we say enough?" she said in the ad.

The total ad buy was put at $15,000

Evil GOP Bastards

2005-07-08T20:10:00.000-07:00

Evil GOP Bastards

The role of the media. The lies of the Bush Administration are promulgated without rebuttal by the mainstream media. For example, in late October, 2004, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) reported reported that among Bush voters:

*

56% believed that experts agreed that Iraq had WMDs

*

75% believed that Iraq was either involved in 9/11 or gave substantial support to Al Queda.

*

58% said that if Iraq did not have WMDs or was not involved with al Qaeda, the US should not have gone to war.

Accordingly, most Bush voters went to the polls believing demonstrably false information. The only possible source of that false information was the mainstream media (including right-wing talk radio and cable TV “news”). Clearly, the media took no pains to convey correct information to the voters. Furthermore, if the media had done so, Bush might well have lost over 5% of his votes, and the election. In short, he owed his re-election to the failure of the mainstream media to do its job of reporting the news.

And that’s just the beginning. The media further assisted Bush/Cheney by trumpeting the slander against John Kerry by the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” and by muffling the evidence of Bush’s dereliction of duty to the Texas Air National Guard.

The Bush-friendly connivance of the mainstream media continues to this day, as news of “The Downing Street Memo,” with its compelling evidence of impeachable offenses by the President, remains hidden from the front pages of the newspapers and is completely absent from the TV news. So too any journalistic investigation of the integrity of the 2004 election, despite an abundant and ever-growing fund of evidence that the election was stolen.

During the past week, following the disclosure of Mark Felt as the Watergate “Deep Throat,” some pundits have asked, “Where is today’s Deep Throat?” To which others have replied, “No, the question is where are the Woodwards and Bernsteins today?” Both questions miss the mark. The relevant question is, “where are the Ben Bradlees and Kathryn Grahams today?” – (i.e., the editor and publisher of the Washington Post during the Watergate affair). Not in the “mainstream.” The voices of dissent, the remaining investigative journalists, and the conveyers of accurate information, are in the still small voice of the independent press and the internet.

And so, the power of the Presidency has subdued the mainstream media. Even so, the media has enormous, if unrealized, power over the Bush regime, for once the demonstrable facts of the Iraq War, the 9/11 attacks, the economic plunder by the corporations and the plutocrats, the stolen elections, the starvation of social services, etc., become known to the public, the Bush administration is finished, and the Republican party is destined for another generation in the political wilderness. This is the sword of Damocles that the media holds over the Bush gang.

It is a weapon that the mainstream media has chosen not to use, and is unlikely to use as long as its owners remain confined within the GOP reservation. So it is up to the independent publishers and the internet. Can they, at long last, get the facts out to the public? On that question, the future of the Bush Administration and the Republican party turns – and well they know it.

Herein is a grave danger to the Busheviks. A regime of lies can not long endure – especially so in this emerging “information age.” As Bush himself famously observed, “fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." And in fact, the truth is beginning to leak into the public awareness. Those PIPA statistics concerning the public misunderstanding of the Iraq war no longer apply, thus the Administration no longer pretends that Saddam’s WMDs and alliance with al Qaeda justifies the war. Now a majority of the public believes that the Iraq war was a mistake, and that proportion is increasing, as Bush’s approval ratings continue to plummet.

The credibility of the Bush regime is dissolving, and with it the regime’s scaffolding of lies. Donald Rumsfeld told us in March, 2003 that “We know where [the WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.” Subsequent searches of that area have exposed that lie. And Dick Cheney famously proclaimed in August, 2002 that “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” That sound clip is being heard ever more frequently. So when Cheney appears on Larry King Live and says that he is “offended” by the Amnesty International report on torture, and insists that the Iraq insurgency is “in its last throes” – well, “fool me once...”

In the Soviet Union the Communist Party owned and controlled the media and the education system and ruthlessly excluded news and opinion from “the outside.” But it could not suppress The Beatles, Rock and Roll, FAXes, audio and video tapes, The Voice of America and the BBC – the youth culture and the nascent information age. All this, incidentally, before the Internet. So when at last the peoples of the several republics of the Soviet Union no longer believed the official lies, it was all over for the Communists.

Now the Bush regime has to contend with all that, plus “the internets” and the influx of “unofficial” but authentic information from within and from outside our borders.

Even so, most of the American people simply can’t yet get it into their heads that their President and Vice President, along with the chief members of the President’s Cabinet, are unscrupulous liars. But the notion is slowly infecting the body politic like a persistent mind-virus. People hate to discover that they’ve been lied to, and will often steadfastly deny that unpleasant truth. But once they finally acknowledge that they’ve been conned, then watch out! “Beware the wrath of the American people!”

karl Rove as Plame Leaker

2005-07-02T18:42:00.000-07:00

Bloglines | My Feeds

July 2nd, 2005 3:39 pm
MSNBC Analyst Says 2nd Source Confirms Karl Rove as Plame Leaker

By Greg Mitchell / Editor & Publisher

NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source. Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, now claims that at least two sources have confirmed that the name is--top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

O'Donnell first offered this report Friday night on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show. Today, he went beyond that, writing a brief entry at the Huffington Post blog:

"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's e-mails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

"McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

"Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow."

Here is the text of what O'Donnell said on Friday:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury--the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other McLaughlin Group panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.

Besides his career at a TV journalist, O'Donnell has served as a producer and writer for the series "The West Wing."

According to published reports, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the case, has interviewed President Bush and Vice President Cheney and called Karl Rove, among others, to testify before the grand jury.

"The breadth of Fitzgerald's inquiry has led to speculation that it has evolved into an investigation of a conspiracy to leak Plame's identity," the Chicago Tribune observed on Friday, "or of an attempt to cover up White House involvement in the leak."

US Planning for possible attack on Iran

2005-07-01T23:14:00.000-07:00

Bloglines | My Feeds

Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran
White House says report is 'riddled with inaccuracies'

Monday, January 17, 2005 Posted: 8:11 AM EST (1311 GMT)

story.hersh.jpg
Seymour Hersh said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources.

What's this?

Save on All Your Calls with Vonage
When looking for local regional and long distance calling, use Vonage to make...
www.vonage.com
MyCashNow - $100 - $1,500 Overnight
Payday Loan Cash goes in your account overnight. Very low fees. Fast decisions....
www.mycashnow.com
Buy Designer Flower Bouquets
Special flower arrangements. Satisfaction guaranteed.
www.butterfieldblooms.com\8853
Comcast High-Speed Internet
Order Comcast High-Speed Internet. Get your first 6 months of service for only...
www.comcastoffers.com

SPECIAL REPORT
• Bush: Politics stalling Bolton vote
• GOP building support for filibuster rule change
• Highlights: Bush budget
• Gallery: The Bush Cabinet
• Special Report
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Iran
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Donald H. Rumsfeld
War Against Terror
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition."

In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."

"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.

Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and is intended solely for civilian purposes. (Full story)

Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.

Hersh is a veteran journalist who was the first to write about many details of the abuses of prisoners Abu Ghraib in Baghdad.

He said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider.

"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said.

Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.

Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Last week, the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the Bush administration's stated primary rationale for the war -- was halted after having come up empty.

The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there. (Full story)

"The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites."

He added, "The guys on the inside really want to do this."

Hersh identified those inside people as the "neoconservative" civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith -- "the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq."

And he said the preparation goes beyond contingency planning and includes detailed plans for air attacks:

"The next step is Iran. It's definitely there. They're definitely planning ... But they need the intelligence first."

Secret air campaign against Iraq?

2005-07-01T22:55:00.000-07:00

Welcome to MichaelMoore.com!

une 30th, 2005 4:27 pm
Secret air campaign against Iraq?

Downing Street memo, other documents may show war really started earlier than March 2003.

By Tom Regan / Christian Science Monitor

Most American media have focused on the allegations from the Downing Street memo that the Bush administration was going to "fix" the intelligence in order to justify the war against Iraq. Now the reporter who broke the original story says they have missed a more substantial allegation to arise from the same set of leaked documents.

Michael Smith, defense writer for the Sunday Times of London wrote this past Sunday that "The American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began." (This bombing capaign is referred to in the Downing Street memo.)

Addressing a briefing on lessons learned from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully selected targets" before the war officially started. The nine months of allied raids "laid the foundations" for the allied victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.

If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W. Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times last week on how he received the series of documents from two sources in the government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Smith (who originally strongly supported the war in Iraq) wrote that at first he did not consider the now famous "Downing Street Memo" the most important of the documents he received. Instead, he felt it was a separate briefing paper which showed that the Blair government would support military action, but they had to find way to do that legally.

The Downing Street plan, according to the leaked briefing paper, was to use the United Nations to trap Saddam Hussein into giving them a reason to attack. The US and the British would do this by prodding "the UN Security Council to give the Iraqi leader an ultimatum to let in the weapons inspectors." It was hoped that Hussein would find this unacceptable, giving them a "legal justification for war."

But if that didn't work, the US was already working on "Plan B," and the information on that was in the Downing Street memo.

It quotes British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime." This we now realize was Plan B [and apparently confirmed by Gen. Moseley's comments mentioned above]. Put simply, US aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone were dropping a lot more bombs in the hope of provoking a reaction that would give the allies an excuse to carry out a full-scale bombing campaign, an air war, the first stage of the conflict.

The number of bombs dropped on Iraq in March and April of 2002 was almost zero. But from May to August, that increased to 10 tons a month.

But these initial "spikes of activity" didn't have the desired effect. The Iraqis didn't retaliate. They didn't provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed. So at the end of August, the allies dramatically intensified the bombing into what was effectively the initial air war. The number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq by allied aircraft shot up to 54.6 tons in September alone, with the increased rates continuing into 2003.

In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq.

And in another story on June 19th for the Times, Smith reported that another of the leaked documents, a paper on British Foreign Office legal advice, showed that the increased bombing campaign was "illegal" under international law, despite US claims to the contrary.

" ... the leaked Foreign Office legal advice, which was also appended to the Cabinet Office briefing paper for the July [2002] meeting [where the contents of the Downing Street memo wer recorded], made it clear allied aircraft were legally entitled to patrol the no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq only to deter attacks by Saddam’s forces on the Kurdish and Shia populations.

The allies had no power to use military force to put pressure of any kind on the regime.

Smith also writes that since Congress did not authorize military action against Iraq until Oct. 11, 2002, "the revelations indicate Bush may also have acted illegally."

In an interview with RawStory.com (an alternative news source that covers stories under-reported by the mainstream media), John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, a military defense analysis group, said his organization had raised questions about the increase in bombing in August of 2002. "The group saw the strikes as a means by which the US could degrade Iraqi defensive capabilities, and as a precursor to a declared war."

"It was no big secret at the time," [said Mr. Pike]. "It was apparent to us at the time that they were doing it and why they were doing it, and that was part of the reason why we were convinced that a decision to go to war had already been made, because the war had already started." Pike says the allied forces used their position in the 'No-Fly- Zone' to engage in pre-emptive action long before war was formally declared.

"They, I think, had decided to take advantage of Southern Watch and Northern Watch to go ahead and take the air defense system apart and attack any other targets that they felt needed to be preemptively destroyed," Pike asserted. "They explicitly altered the rules of engagement, because initially the rules of engagement had been that they would shoot back if [someone] shot at them. Then they said that if they were shot at, they would shoot at whatever they wanted to."

The conservative commentary blog, RedState.org, however, offers another explanation for the increased bombing – that the US and Britain were trying to force Hussein into complying with coalition requests for him to readmit weapons inspectors. And besides, the site argues, "what if Blair and Bush were trying to goad Hussein into putting a noose around his neck?"

Do you consider that, perhaps, Bush and Blair had determined that Hussein needed to go, once and for all? Perhaps they had good reason to believe that this leopard was not going to change his spots, and wasn't going to stop menacing the neighborhood. Then, maybe Blair and Bush looked around, saw the irresoluteness of the UN, saw the military weakness and political spinelessness of the other major nations on Earth (the nations of "Old Europe", for instance), and determined that, if someone is going to have to fight Hussein – that someone is US! Best fight him now, as opposed to fighting him a few years from now, after UN sanctions have collapsed and he's had a chance to upgun.

The Wall Street Journal reports on how the blogosphere has kept the story of the Downing Street Memo alive despite efforts by Blair and Bush, who have not denied the authenticity of the original document, to put it to rest. On Thursday, Blair admitted that he has been "astonished" by the coverage that the memo had received in the US and Britain.

Finally, in an ironic footnote to the incident, RawStory.com reported that the number of bombs dropped on Iraq actually declined after the start of the war in March, 2003.

Bush The War Criminal

2005-06-30T20:54:00.000-07:00

Bloglines | My Feeds

Bush The War Criminal
June 30, 2005

WAR CRIMINAL !!

WAR CRIMINAL !

WE WILL NEVER LEAVE IRAQ!

Tribunal on Iraq Findings

2005-06-27T19:59:00.000-07:00

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.

Republicans Doubts Iraq Invasion

2005-06-24T20:52:00.000-07:00

Welcome to MichaelMoore.com!: "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.
"

Best Talk Radio Show: Mike Malloy

2005-06-23T20:43:00.000-07:00

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 Salon.com 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: http://www.mikemalloy.com/

Exposing Karl Rove

2005-06-23T19:36:00.000-07:00

jbcard's Xanga Site

Exposing Karl Rove

by WAYNE MADSEN

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.

Hit by friendly fire

2005-06-20T21:55:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2005-06-17T20:52:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-17T10:55:00.000-07:00

Welcome to MichaelMoore.com!: "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

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

2005-06-16T21:31:00.000-07:00

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 MoveOn.org 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.