They can't do any worse than the republicans have in the last several years can they?
Democratic Underground: "Associated Press Wed 08th Nov 2006, 09:07 PM
Democrats take control of the Senate
WASHINGTON - Democrats wrested control of the Senate from Republicans Wednesday with an upset victory in Virginia, giving the party complete domination of Capitol Hill for the first time since 1994.
Jim Webb's squeaker win over incumbent Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record) gave Democrats their 51st seat in the Senate, an astonishing turnabout at the hands of voters unhappy with Republican scandal and unabated violence in Iraq. Allen was the sixth Republican incumbent senator defeated in Tuesday's elections.
The Senate had teetered at 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans for most of Wednesday, with Virginia hanging in the balance. Webb's victory ended Republican hopes of eking out a 50-50 split, with Vice President Dick Cheney wielding tie-breaking authority.
The Associated Press contacted election officials in all 134 localities where voting occurred, obtaining updated numbers Wednesday. About half the localities said they had completed their postelection canvassing and nearly all had counted outstanding absentees. Most were expected to be finished by Friday."
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Monday, October 02, 2006
Gasoline Prices Decrease, But Why?
Gasoline Prices Decrease, But Why?:
September 29, 2006 at 22:33:31
by Charlie Hogue
The good news is that average gasoline prices have fallen about a buck per gallon from their high of several months ago. The bad news is the reason why.
While fuel prices soared, reaching new heights daily, the American people were provided a number of excuses. We heard it was merely supply and demand. That China and India were modernizing and they were using more of the world's resources. Then there were the hurricanes that decimated the gulf coast and destroyed refineries, pipe lines and drilling rigs. Then there was the uncertainty of warfare in the Middle East that dramatically affected the world's volatile oil markets.
All of these less than satisfactory explanations were used at one time or another by big oil and their republican hip-pocket politicians. It's no secret that big oil contributes heavily to republican candidates. Meanwhile oil companies continued to register huge windfall record profits while Americans cutback their lifestyles in an effort to survive. Prices of all goods and materials still greatly reflect the increase in fuel prices.
Most people have become suspicious of these explanations for exorbitant fuel prices and rightly accuse oil companies of price gouging. Most people also now correctly suspect that many in government aren't necessarily looking out for their best interests.
So what's changed? China and India continue to modernize. Refineries and rigs remain under repair. Middle East turmoil escalates. Could it be the approaching midterm elections? You'd better believe it. The reason that gas prices are decreasing is that big oil's candidates are about to be considered for reelection. The symbiotic relationship between big oil and republican politicians continues in the knowledge that fuel prices must temporarily decrease if the beast is to survive to feed and profit again another day. In the meantime they're betting that we'll just forgive and forget.
Charlie Hague works as a union industrial electrician in eastern Iowa. He channels his efforts towards writing liberal/progressive op-eds for the area newspapers. His purpose is to influence enough undecided voters to derail the treasonous neo-conservative agenda.
September 29, 2006 at 22:33:31
by Charlie Hogue
The good news is that average gasoline prices have fallen about a buck per gallon from their high of several months ago. The bad news is the reason why.
While fuel prices soared, reaching new heights daily, the American people were provided a number of excuses. We heard it was merely supply and demand. That China and India were modernizing and they were using more of the world's resources. Then there were the hurricanes that decimated the gulf coast and destroyed refineries, pipe lines and drilling rigs. Then there was the uncertainty of warfare in the Middle East that dramatically affected the world's volatile oil markets.
All of these less than satisfactory explanations were used at one time or another by big oil and their republican hip-pocket politicians. It's no secret that big oil contributes heavily to republican candidates. Meanwhile oil companies continued to register huge windfall record profits while Americans cutback their lifestyles in an effort to survive. Prices of all goods and materials still greatly reflect the increase in fuel prices.
Most people have become suspicious of these explanations for exorbitant fuel prices and rightly accuse oil companies of price gouging. Most people also now correctly suspect that many in government aren't necessarily looking out for their best interests.
So what's changed? China and India continue to modernize. Refineries and rigs remain under repair. Middle East turmoil escalates. Could it be the approaching midterm elections? You'd better believe it. The reason that gas prices are decreasing is that big oil's candidates are about to be considered for reelection. The symbiotic relationship between big oil and republican politicians continues in the knowledge that fuel prices must temporarily decrease if the beast is to survive to feed and profit again another day. In the meantime they're betting that we'll just forgive and forget.
Charlie Hague works as a union industrial electrician in eastern Iowa. He channels his efforts towards writing liberal/progressive op-eds for the area newspapers. His purpose is to influence enough undecided voters to derail the treasonous neo-conservative agenda.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Public Hungry For News On Impeachment
Public Hungry For News On Impeachment: "Public Hungry For News On Impeachment
by Dave Lindorff "
Before Barbara and I got a chance to get any real national attention for The Case for Impeachment outside of programs on Air America, the best the book did on the Amazon sales ranking was about #3500.Then last weekend, we had the opportunity, over a period of two days, to air a 7.5-minute interview on NPR, and a 75-minute presention on C-Span's "Books TV" program. Suddenly the book leapt in the rankings to #42, well ahead of #400, Greg Palast's best-selling Armed Madhouse, and even #80, Ann Coulter's Godless, and closing in on #27, Al Gore's best-selling Inconvenient Truth!It makes you wonder what would happen if the mainstream media, like the NY Times, Washington Post and LA Times, and liberal publications like the Nation, In These Times, Salon, Slate, the Progressive, Harper's, the New Republic and others, or shows like "Fresh Air" and "Democracy Now," would stop ignoring the book and instead review it.But ignoring "The Case for Impeachment" is just part of a larger censorship going on around impeachment, as I explain in this story which is appearing in the current issue of Extra!, the publication of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (www.FAIR.org):
Adultery was serious; this is just the ConstitutionImpeachment Not on Media's
Radar
By Dave Lindorff
There is a growing grassroots campaign demanding the impeachment of George W. Bush. Across the nation, towns and cities have been passing pro-impeachment resolutions. Websites promoting impeachment keep springing up. In several states, bills have been introduced in state legislatures that, if passed, would become formal bills of impeachment in the U.S. House of Representatives, requiring initiation of impeachment hearings under congressional rules dating back to the early 19th century.Starting last fall, several polls (Zogby, 10/29=29/05, 1/9=12/06; Ipsos, 10/6=9/05) reported that a majority of Americans thought Bush should be impeached if he lied the country into war in Iraq or if he authorized warrantless spying on Americans. Those poll results were reported all over the Internet, but they barely made it into any mainstream corporate news reports. Indeed, impeachment itself is getting short shrift in the media, despite all this impeachment organizing activity.When the House Judiciary Committee's ranking minority member, Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich.), introduced a bill in December calling for creation of a select committee to investigate "possible impeachable crimes" by Bush, the dramatic move received virtually no mainstream coverage beyond an AP wire item (12/21/05). Even as the number of Democratic House members co-sponsoring that bill rose from an initial handful to 39, it has received scant attention. The first time impeachment made the front page of the Washington Post was March 25, 2006, when that paper finally ran a story on the wave of town government resolutions across the country.Interestingly, though, the Post did provide Conyers space on the op-ed page for a column explaining that he would not immediately push for impeachment should he become chair of the House Judiciary Committee ("No Rush to Impeachment," 5/18/06).Similarly, when Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wisc.) introduced a censure measure in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the New York Times tucked it away on page A17 (3/13/06). But days later, when Republicans tried to sideline the measure by claiming that such a move would help them in November by "energizing" their conservative base, the Times perversely played that classic "reaction" story on Page 1 (3/16/06).In part, the media downplaying of impeachment may reflect a now-longstanding fear on the part of editors of frontally challenging the Bush administration. It may, however, also reflect the affinity of many in the higher echelons of the corporate news media for the timid and conservative Democratic Party leadership, which has made no bones about its fear and loathing of impeachment and of other more confrontational stances of the party's progressive wing.Certainly the corporate media's approach to calls for Bush's impeachment contrasts markedly with the same outlets' coverage of the Clinton impeachment effort in the late 1990s. Though public support for Clinton's impeachment never got above about 36 percent, even at the height of congressional impeachment proceedings, many media outlets responded to the prospect of impeachment by calling on Clinton to resign. According to the Columbia Journalism Review (11=12/98), by September 1998, 181 newspapers (roughly one in 10 papers in the country) had called for his resignation--including major papers like USA Today (9/14/98) and the Philadelphia Inquirer (9/12/98). Other news organizations, among them Business Week (9/28/98) and the Houston Chronicle (9/10/98), were calling for censure.Yet Clinton's offense was simply lying under oath about an adulterous affair.Bush, in contrast, has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to monitor Americans' telecommunications without a warrant, in clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (New York Times, 12/16/05). Beyond that, documents show he okayed torture of captives in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, contravening the Third Geneva Accord on treatment of prisoners of war, an international accord that was long ago adopted as U.S. law (Human Rights Watch, "Background Paper on Geneva Conventions and Persons Held by U.S. Forces," 1/29/02).He has blatantly subverted the Constitution by claiming the right to ignore (so far) 750 acts [now over 800] duly passed by Congress (Boston Globe, 4/30/06). He has defied the courts in revoking the most basic rights of citizenship-the right to be charged and tried in a court of law (Guardian, 12/5/02). And the evidence is overwhelming that he knowingly lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and about Hussein's alleged link to Al-Qaeda, in order to win public and Congressional approval for his invasion of Iraq (Center for American Progress: "Claims vs. Facts: Iraq/Al-Qaeda Links").These and other Bush offenses pose direct threats to the Constitution and to the survival of the Republic, and yet, despite widespread concern and outrage among the public about many of these actions, not one major corporate news organization has called for Bush's resignation, the initiation of impeachment proceedings, or even for censure --even those that made such fervent appeals for Clinton's removal or resignation over a transgression that at worst was an embarrassment to the nation."The media have been acting drastically differently this time around than they did with Clinton," says David Swanson, co-founder of the organization AfterDowningStreet.org, which has been helping to organize an impeachment movement, and to make impeachment part of the 2006 off-year Congressional election campaign. "Under Clinton, the media were gung-ho for impeachment or for resignation, and the public refused to cooperate. Now the public wants impeachment and the media won't cooperate."Swanson argues that the media's avoidance of the impeachment story is akin to their ducking of responsibility during the build-up to and in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. "Just as they've been afraid to publish each new piece of evidence about the lies that led to war," he says, "they've been afraid to expose the president's impeachable crimes. I think it's because in both cases they've been complicit in those lies and crimes. It's not so much loyalty to Bush over Clinton as it is fear of investigations. With congressional investigations, people would start asking, 'Why didn't we know any of this stuff before?'"There are signs that the impeachment story may go mainstream, however. Pelosi and Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) are both still trying to downplay the notion that the Democrats would move to impeach Bush if they succeeded in capturing the House in November. But as the prospects for such a shift continue to grow (only 15 seats need to change hands), and as Bush's support (as low as 29 percent in current polls) continues to tank, the realization that an impeachment bill will likely be filed after election day, whether by some state legislature or by a newly elected or re-elected Democratic representative, is starting to sink in in newsrooms.At some point, the public's concerns about presidential abuses of power--and about administration incompetence, which has reached the level of criminal negligence in cases like the Katrina response or the failure to plan for the post-war occupation of Iraq--will compel more honest and forthright coverage of the constitutionally provided remedy for such crimes: impeachment.
by Dave Lindorff "
Before Barbara and I got a chance to get any real national attention for The Case for Impeachment outside of programs on Air America, the best the book did on the Amazon sales ranking was about #3500.Then last weekend, we had the opportunity, over a period of two days, to air a 7.5-minute interview on NPR, and a 75-minute presention on C-Span's "Books TV" program. Suddenly the book leapt in the rankings to #42, well ahead of #400, Greg Palast's best-selling Armed Madhouse, and even #80, Ann Coulter's Godless, and closing in on #27, Al Gore's best-selling Inconvenient Truth!It makes you wonder what would happen if the mainstream media, like the NY Times, Washington Post and LA Times, and liberal publications like the Nation, In These Times, Salon, Slate, the Progressive, Harper's, the New Republic and others, or shows like "Fresh Air" and "Democracy Now," would stop ignoring the book and instead review it.But ignoring "The Case for Impeachment" is just part of a larger censorship going on around impeachment, as I explain in this story which is appearing in the current issue of Extra!, the publication of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (www.FAIR.org):
Adultery was serious; this is just the ConstitutionImpeachment Not on Media's
Radar
By Dave Lindorff
There is a growing grassroots campaign demanding the impeachment of George W. Bush. Across the nation, towns and cities have been passing pro-impeachment resolutions. Websites promoting impeachment keep springing up. In several states, bills have been introduced in state legislatures that, if passed, would become formal bills of impeachment in the U.S. House of Representatives, requiring initiation of impeachment hearings under congressional rules dating back to the early 19th century.Starting last fall, several polls (Zogby, 10/29=29/05, 1/9=12/06; Ipsos, 10/6=9/05) reported that a majority of Americans thought Bush should be impeached if he lied the country into war in Iraq or if he authorized warrantless spying on Americans. Those poll results were reported all over the Internet, but they barely made it into any mainstream corporate news reports. Indeed, impeachment itself is getting short shrift in the media, despite all this impeachment organizing activity.When the House Judiciary Committee's ranking minority member, Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich.), introduced a bill in December calling for creation of a select committee to investigate "possible impeachable crimes" by Bush, the dramatic move received virtually no mainstream coverage beyond an AP wire item (12/21/05). Even as the number of Democratic House members co-sponsoring that bill rose from an initial handful to 39, it has received scant attention. The first time impeachment made the front page of the Washington Post was March 25, 2006, when that paper finally ran a story on the wave of town government resolutions across the country.Interestingly, though, the Post did provide Conyers space on the op-ed page for a column explaining that he would not immediately push for impeachment should he become chair of the House Judiciary Committee ("No Rush to Impeachment," 5/18/06).Similarly, when Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wisc.) introduced a censure measure in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the New York Times tucked it away on page A17 (3/13/06). But days later, when Republicans tried to sideline the measure by claiming that such a move would help them in November by "energizing" their conservative base, the Times perversely played that classic "reaction" story on Page 1 (3/16/06).In part, the media downplaying of impeachment may reflect a now-longstanding fear on the part of editors of frontally challenging the Bush administration. It may, however, also reflect the affinity of many in the higher echelons of the corporate news media for the timid and conservative Democratic Party leadership, which has made no bones about its fear and loathing of impeachment and of other more confrontational stances of the party's progressive wing.Certainly the corporate media's approach to calls for Bush's impeachment contrasts markedly with the same outlets' coverage of the Clinton impeachment effort in the late 1990s. Though public support for Clinton's impeachment never got above about 36 percent, even at the height of congressional impeachment proceedings, many media outlets responded to the prospect of impeachment by calling on Clinton to resign. According to the Columbia Journalism Review (11=12/98), by September 1998, 181 newspapers (roughly one in 10 papers in the country) had called for his resignation--including major papers like USA Today (9/14/98) and the Philadelphia Inquirer (9/12/98). Other news organizations, among them Business Week (9/28/98) and the Houston Chronicle (9/10/98), were calling for censure.Yet Clinton's offense was simply lying under oath about an adulterous affair.Bush, in contrast, has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to monitor Americans' telecommunications without a warrant, in clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (New York Times, 12/16/05). Beyond that, documents show he okayed torture of captives in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, contravening the Third Geneva Accord on treatment of prisoners of war, an international accord that was long ago adopted as U.S. law (Human Rights Watch, "Background Paper on Geneva Conventions and Persons Held by U.S. Forces," 1/29/02).He has blatantly subverted the Constitution by claiming the right to ignore (so far) 750 acts [now over 800] duly passed by Congress (Boston Globe, 4/30/06). He has defied the courts in revoking the most basic rights of citizenship-the right to be charged and tried in a court of law (Guardian, 12/5/02). And the evidence is overwhelming that he knowingly lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and about Hussein's alleged link to Al-Qaeda, in order to win public and Congressional approval for his invasion of Iraq (Center for American Progress: "Claims vs. Facts: Iraq/Al-Qaeda Links").These and other Bush offenses pose direct threats to the Constitution and to the survival of the Republic, and yet, despite widespread concern and outrage among the public about many of these actions, not one major corporate news organization has called for Bush's resignation, the initiation of impeachment proceedings, or even for censure --even those that made such fervent appeals for Clinton's removal or resignation over a transgression that at worst was an embarrassment to the nation."The media have been acting drastically differently this time around than they did with Clinton," says David Swanson, co-founder of the organization AfterDowningStreet.org, which has been helping to organize an impeachment movement, and to make impeachment part of the 2006 off-year Congressional election campaign. "Under Clinton, the media were gung-ho for impeachment or for resignation, and the public refused to cooperate. Now the public wants impeachment and the media won't cooperate."Swanson argues that the media's avoidance of the impeachment story is akin to their ducking of responsibility during the build-up to and in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. "Just as they've been afraid to publish each new piece of evidence about the lies that led to war," he says, "they've been afraid to expose the president's impeachable crimes. I think it's because in both cases they've been complicit in those lies and crimes. It's not so much loyalty to Bush over Clinton as it is fear of investigations. With congressional investigations, people would start asking, 'Why didn't we know any of this stuff before?'"There are signs that the impeachment story may go mainstream, however. Pelosi and Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) are both still trying to downplay the notion that the Democrats would move to impeach Bush if they succeeded in capturing the House in November. But as the prospects for such a shift continue to grow (only 15 seats need to change hands), and as Bush's support (as low as 29 percent in current polls) continues to tank, the realization that an impeachment bill will likely be filed after election day, whether by some state legislature or by a newly elected or re-elected Democratic representative, is starting to sink in in newsrooms.At some point, the public's concerns about presidential abuses of power--and about administration incompetence, which has reached the level of criminal negligence in cases like the Katrina response or the failure to plan for the post-war occupation of Iraq--will compel more honest and forthright coverage of the constitutionally provided remedy for such crimes: impeachment.
International Law Authority Rips Bush Policies
International Law Authority Rips Bush Policies: "International Law Authority Rips Bush Policies
by Sherwood Ross "
BUSH POLICIES ARE "ONGOING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY"UNDER U.S. AND WORLD LAW, LEGAL SCHOLAR SAYS
If anyone knows anything about international law it's Dr. Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and he's more than a little ticked off at the moment at President Bush. Dr. Boyle's credentials are little short of amazing.
Now he's written an article with a ring of urgency, saying the House of Representatives "must impeach President Bush for war, lying about war, and threatening more wars."The Bush Administration "demonstrates little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security," Boyle asserts.
by Sherwood Ross "
BUSH POLICIES ARE "ONGOING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY"UNDER U.S. AND WORLD LAW, LEGAL SCHOLAR SAYS
If anyone knows anything about international law it's Dr. Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and he's more than a little ticked off at the moment at President Bush. Dr. Boyle's credentials are little short of amazing.
Now he's written an article with a ring of urgency, saying the House of Representatives "must impeach President Bush for war, lying about war, and threatening more wars."The Bush Administration "demonstrates little if any respect for fundamental considerations of international law, international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation of the requirements for maintaining international peace and security," Boyle asserts.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Bush: I'm Commander In Chief, Screw Your Rights
Bush: I'm Commander In Chief, Screw Your Rights: "Bush: I'm Commander In Chief, Screw Your Rights"
by Robert R. Regl
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - 4th Amendment to the ConstitutionOn August 17 in a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled that Bush's warrantless Terrorist Surveillance Program is in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.President Bush, however, is determined to spy on us without a court order so it's not surprising that he voiced his profound displeasure with the decision and has declared his determination to appeal the ruling. As expected he is trying to salvage whatever political advantage he can out of this judicial denunciation of his audacious power grab. With the help of Carl Rove , Ken Mehlman and the rest of the RNC he is circulating the blatant lie that Democrats are opposed to wiretapping terrorists. They're not.Bush first told us that warrants were obtained for all wiretapping; that was a lie. Then he said that taps were conducted only if one of the parties was in a foreign country; that too was a lie. Now he says that we're at war and he doesn't need a warrant under any circumstances. This is, of course absurd on the face of it. The problem is that Bush doesn't want a sworn record of whom he's tapping and why. Obtaining a warrant from the FISA court is a simple, even routine matter; only 4 of more than 20,000 requests have ever been denied in FISA's 27 year history. However getting a warrant is more than a mere technical nuisance; it furnishes a sworn record of the reasons for the need to wiretap and it gives assurance that it is not a capricious intrusion on civil liberties.
I don't trust the government to have unchecked powers over individuals - regardless of who the President is - that's why the Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution. If a President has the kind of authority over us that Bush claims then the nation the founders created is dead and its citizens are nothing more than feudal vassals. It makes little difference to the serf whether he's captive of a domestic tyrant or a foreign one, his enslavement is the same.
by Robert R. Regl
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - 4th Amendment to the ConstitutionOn August 17 in a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled that Bush's warrantless Terrorist Surveillance Program is in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.President Bush, however, is determined to spy on us without a court order so it's not surprising that he voiced his profound displeasure with the decision and has declared his determination to appeal the ruling. As expected he is trying to salvage whatever political advantage he can out of this judicial denunciation of his audacious power grab. With the help of Carl Rove , Ken Mehlman and the rest of the RNC he is circulating the blatant lie that Democrats are opposed to wiretapping terrorists. They're not.Bush first told us that warrants were obtained for all wiretapping; that was a lie. Then he said that taps were conducted only if one of the parties was in a foreign country; that too was a lie. Now he says that we're at war and he doesn't need a warrant under any circumstances. This is, of course absurd on the face of it. The problem is that Bush doesn't want a sworn record of whom he's tapping and why. Obtaining a warrant from the FISA court is a simple, even routine matter; only 4 of more than 20,000 requests have ever been denied in FISA's 27 year history. However getting a warrant is more than a mere technical nuisance; it furnishes a sworn record of the reasons for the need to wiretap and it gives assurance that it is not a capricious intrusion on civil liberties.
I don't trust the government to have unchecked powers over individuals - regardless of who the President is - that's why the Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution. If a President has the kind of authority over us that Bush claims then the nation the founders created is dead and its citizens are nothing more than feudal vassals. It makes little difference to the serf whether he's captive of a domestic tyrant or a foreign one, his enslavement is the same.
The War Crimes of George W. Bush
The War Crimes of George W. Bush: "The War Crimes of George W. Bush"
Benjamin Ferrencz is a man on a mission. The eighty-seven year old former Nuremberg prosecutor wants to see President George W. Bush in the same International Criminal Courts docket with Saddam Hussein on war crimes charges. "Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime" Ferrencz said. "The atrocities of the Iraq War-from Abu Ghraib to the massacre at Haditha were predictable at the start of the war."
The only difference between Bush and Saddam is Bush has more money, weapons, and a bigger armed force behind him. Those things may not insure victory for Bush, but they do give him a huge advantage in making the world capitulate to his wishes. When you're the only leader who can offer carrots or sticks, other leaders tend not to stand in your way.
Some look at President Bush through rose-colored glasses, believing everything he's done in Iraq is justified and that Saddam is criminally insane. However, in a world that is clouded in a hazy gray, crusading tyrants look very much the same. One may carry a Koran in his inside suit pocket and another may mouth sermons from the Bible at Morning Prayer breakfasts. When either of them moves against innocents they align themselves with those Ferrencz prosecuted sixty years ago at Nuremberg. And they each deserve the same judgments that were meted out on that dark day.
Benjamin Ferrencz is a man on a mission. The eighty-seven year old former Nuremberg prosecutor wants to see President George W. Bush in the same International Criminal Courts docket with Saddam Hussein on war crimes charges. "Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime" Ferrencz said. "The atrocities of the Iraq War-from Abu Ghraib to the massacre at Haditha were predictable at the start of the war."
The only difference between Bush and Saddam is Bush has more money, weapons, and a bigger armed force behind him. Those things may not insure victory for Bush, but they do give him a huge advantage in making the world capitulate to his wishes. When you're the only leader who can offer carrots or sticks, other leaders tend not to stand in your way.
Some look at President Bush through rose-colored glasses, believing everything he's done in Iraq is justified and that Saddam is criminally insane. However, in a world that is clouded in a hazy gray, crusading tyrants look very much the same. One may carry a Koran in his inside suit pocket and another may mouth sermons from the Bible at Morning Prayer breakfasts. When either of them moves against innocents they align themselves with those Ferrencz prosecuted sixty years ago at Nuremberg. And they each deserve the same judgments that were meted out on that dark day.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Bush Impeachment - The Illinois State Legislature is Preparing to Drop a Bombshell
Bush Impeachment - The Illinois State Legislature is Preparing to Drop a Bombshell: "The Illinois General Assembly joins a growing chorus of voices calling for censure or impeachment of President Bush including Democratic state committees in Vermont, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada and North Carolina as well as the residents themselves of seven towns in Vermont, seventy Vermont state legislators and Congressman John Conyers. The call for impeachment is starting to grow well beyond what could be considered a fringe movement. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll Conducted April 6-9 showed that 33% of Americans currently support Impeaching President Bush, coincidentally, only a similar amount supported impeaching Nixon at the start of the Watergate investigation. If and when Illinois HJR0125 hits the capitol and the individual charges are publicly investigated, that number is likely to grow rapidly. Combined with the very real likelihood that Rove is about to be indicted in the LeakGate investigation, and Bush is in real trouble beyond his plummeting poll numbers. His cronies in the Republican dominated congress will probably save him from the embarassment of an impeachment conviction, for now, but his Presidency will be all but finished."
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Aesop's Fables-1 - Wikisource
Aesop's Fables-1 - Wikisource:
"The Wolf and the Lamb"
A Wolf, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay
violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the
Wolf's right to eat him. He thus addressed him: 'Sirrah, last year you
grossly insulted me.' 'Indeed,' bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of
voice, 'I was not then born.' Then said the Wolf, 'You feed in my pasture.'
'No, good sir,' replied the Lamb, 'I have not yet tasted grass.' Again said
the Wolf, 'You drink of my well.' 'No,' exclaimed the Lamb, 'I never yet
drank water, for as yet my mother's milk is both food and drink to me.'
Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, 'Well! I won't
remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations.'
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny. "
"The Wolf and the Lamb"
A Wolf, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay
violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the
Wolf's right to eat him. He thus addressed him: 'Sirrah, last year you
grossly insulted me.' 'Indeed,' bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of
voice, 'I was not then born.' Then said the Wolf, 'You feed in my pasture.'
'No, good sir,' replied the Lamb, 'I have not yet tasted grass.' Again said
the Wolf, 'You drink of my well.' 'No,' exclaimed the Lamb, 'I never yet
drank water, for as yet my mother's milk is both food and drink to me.'
Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, 'Well! I won't
remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations.'
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny. "
Monday, March 27, 2006
http://team8plus.org/
Gregory Nixon
Hammer to the Slammer: Curtains for the GOPMOB?
September 30, 2005-Venice, FL. by Daniel Hopsicker
The investigation into the 4-year old murder of Sun Cruz Casino boat founder
Konstantinos ‘Gus’ Boulis in Fort Lauderdale has begun to reveal hidden
connections between Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s gargantuan
fund-raising machine, essential to victory in the past two Presidential elections,
and a cast of underworld characters not previously thought of as exemplifying
what have come to be known as “Republican family values.” The indictment
of three men Tuesday in the Boulis "hit" exposes an unholy alliance in Florida
between the national Republican party and the Mob, details of which were
first reported in the MadCowMorningNews three months ago (“The Secret World
of Jack Abramoff: Terrorists, Torpedoes and Republican ‘Muscle’”). More
indictments are expected soon.The trail of suspicion leads directly to Abramoff’s
doorstep: the three names already released clearly implicate Adam Kidan, the
Casino line’s erstwhile President, in the crime, who wrote checks—duh-uh!—for
over $250,000 to one of the indicted men, Gambino goombah Anthony “Big Tony”'
Moscatiello, 67, of Howard Beach, N.Y, for no easily discernible reason.
(cont….) [link]
Gregory Nixon
Hammer to the Slammer: Curtains for the GOPMOB?
September 30, 2005-Venice, FL. by Daniel Hopsicker
The investigation into the 4-year old murder of Sun Cruz Casino boat founder
Konstantinos ‘Gus’ Boulis in Fort Lauderdale has begun to reveal hidden
connections between Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s gargantuan
fund-raising machine, essential to victory in the past two Presidential elections,
and a cast of underworld characters not previously thought of as exemplifying
what have come to be known as “Republican family values.” The indictment
of three men Tuesday in the Boulis "hit" exposes an unholy alliance in Florida
between the national Republican party and the Mob, details of which were
first reported in the MadCowMorningNews three months ago (“The Secret World
of Jack Abramoff: Terrorists, Torpedoes and Republican ‘Muscle’”). More
indictments are expected soon.The trail of suspicion leads directly to Abramoff’s
doorstep: the three names already released clearly implicate Adam Kidan, the
Casino line’s erstwhile President, in the crime, who wrote checks—duh-uh!—for
over $250,000 to one of the indicted men, Gambino goombah Anthony “Big Tony”'
Moscatiello, 67, of Howard Beach, N.Y, for no easily discernible reason.
(cont….) [link]
Cannonfire
Cannonfire: "In earlier times, Bush -- who, as vice-president, was
heading the war on drugs -- made sure that Aronow got a contract to
supply the customs service with drug interdiction boats. Naturally,
Aronow made sure that the cops received slower boats than those
used by the smugglers.
Thomas Burdick, who wrote a book about the speedboat king, once
spoke to a former convict named Tommy Teagle, who said that Aronow
and Jeb Bush had been partners in cocaine trafficking and were $2.5
million in debt to their Colombian suppliers. Teagle, who claimed to be
fearful that Bush would have him killed, later changed his story.
Question: Is there any way to make this nation's many naive Christophiles --
the ones who jumped every time Ralph Reed snapped his fingers --
understand the truth about the thugs who commanded their loyalites"
heading the war on drugs -- made sure that Aronow got a contract to
supply the customs service with drug interdiction boats. Naturally,
Aronow made sure that the cops received slower boats than those
used by the smugglers.
Thomas Burdick, who wrote a book about the speedboat king, once
spoke to a former convict named Tommy Teagle, who said that Aronow
and Jeb Bush had been partners in cocaine trafficking and were $2.5
million in debt to their Colombian suppliers. Teagle, who claimed to be
fearful that Bush would have him killed, later changed his story.
Question: Is there any way to make this nation's many naive Christophiles --
the ones who jumped every time Ralph Reed snapped his fingers --
understand the truth about the thugs who commanded their loyalites"
Take Back The Media - Cold Truth Vol. 9: The Republican Mafia
Take Back The Media - Cold Truth Vol. 9: The Republican Mafia:
TBTM Commentary by bozak May 7, 2004
"Is it any wonder why this regime is the most secretive administration in the
history of this country? These "Made Men" have taken the art of crime against
American citizens to a level that is normally seen only in dictatorial governments.
They lie so much to us that people seem to not care anymore. I want my America
back. Before these criminals stole their way into office we were far from perfect,
but at least the whole world didn't hate us. You say what about our British allies?
Read the Guardian and see what the Brits really think about us. If not for that lap
dog of a moron Tony Blair, in no way would the Brits have backed us in our illegal
occupation of Iraq. Of course Tony Blair, like his master Coupe Leader Bush,
serves the interest of big business. How in the hell could Blair not do the dirty work
of British Petroleum? That is why Blair drug his country into the farce of a war. The
Bush regime is all about selling energy. Whether it is ripping off California with his
buddy Kenny Lay at Enron, or invading a sovereign country like Iraq with nothing
more than made up lies, Capo Bush the super Don of the Republican Mafia
will make sure that the oil companies get paid first and foremost. How much money
are you spending filling up your tank as of late? I'm sure nobody remembers Capo
Bush telling Americans when he ran for president that he could keep gas prices
down by just talking to his buddies the Saudi's. He talked to his buddies the Saudi's
all right; only it was an act of collusion. Capo Bush tried to get the Saudi's to lower
the oil prices this summer just before the election to make him look good. Is it not
amazing how stories like these, which are so huge in nature, hit the airwaves for a
day and then vanish? I mean it all started with Consigliere Cheney making this
countries energy policy a secret. Why is our countries energy policy a secret? What
would you expect it to be with Ken Lay of Enron fame helping to make policy?"
TBTM Commentary by bozak May 7, 2004
"Is it any wonder why this regime is the most secretive administration in the
history of this country? These "Made Men" have taken the art of crime against
American citizens to a level that is normally seen only in dictatorial governments.
They lie so much to us that people seem to not care anymore. I want my America
back. Before these criminals stole their way into office we were far from perfect,
but at least the whole world didn't hate us. You say what about our British allies?
Read the Guardian and see what the Brits really think about us. If not for that lap
dog of a moron Tony Blair, in no way would the Brits have backed us in our illegal
occupation of Iraq. Of course Tony Blair, like his master Coupe Leader Bush,
serves the interest of big business. How in the hell could Blair not do the dirty work
of British Petroleum? That is why Blair drug his country into the farce of a war. The
Bush regime is all about selling energy. Whether it is ripping off California with his
buddy Kenny Lay at Enron, or invading a sovereign country like Iraq with nothing
more than made up lies, Capo Bush the super Don of the Republican Mafia
will make sure that the oil companies get paid first and foremost. How much money
are you spending filling up your tank as of late? I'm sure nobody remembers Capo
Bush telling Americans when he ran for president that he could keep gas prices
down by just talking to his buddies the Saudi's. He talked to his buddies the Saudi's
all right; only it was an act of collusion. Capo Bush tried to get the Saudi's to lower
the oil prices this summer just before the election to make him look good. Is it not
amazing how stories like these, which are so huge in nature, hit the airwaves for a
day and then vanish? I mean it all started with Consigliere Cheney making this
countries energy policy a secret. Why is our countries energy policy a secret? What
would you expect it to be with Ken Lay of Enron fame helping to make policy?"
Jack Abramoff /60105/
Jack Abramoff /60105/:
By: Edgar Saint George Editor-in-Chief
"Bush's Bagman Busted"
In order to benefit the the rich and big business, especially big oil and big
pharmaceuticals, Bush's Republican mob swindled all poor people and those
of the middle class, the old, the needy, the sick, the "illegal" aliens, the students
and the entire next generation. The wealthy were awarded fortunes gouged from
ordinary people. For every dollar the worker earns today, the boss gets over
$1000 for damn little labor. Regrettable many of the top crooks, bosses of the
Republican mob, including Bush, Cheney and even the crackpot Alaskan senator,
Ted Stevens, escaped justice. If there have ever been wicked politicians who
should be impeached, Bush, Cheney and Stevens are them! We're not talking
about a trivial thing like a blowjob or a sexual dalliance. These are real criminals
responsible for war, lies, killing tens of thousands of people, stealing hundreds of
millions of dollars, corruption on a colossal scale, constitutional violations, pandering
to the Christian crazies in order to abridge others' religious rights and even snooping
into the private affairs of ordinary citizens.The real criminals aren't in prison. The
system is rigged to protect the politicians and the powerful while prosecuting the
poor and the petty criminal.The era of the "good" politician seems to be waning.
There is no longer much "public service." Now it's public exploitation. Where ever
there is corruption, money, guns and harm, there you'll find droves of conservatives
and Republicans.
By: Edgar Saint George Editor-in-Chief
"Bush's Bagman Busted"
In order to benefit the the rich and big business, especially big oil and big
pharmaceuticals, Bush's Republican mob swindled all poor people and those
of the middle class, the old, the needy, the sick, the "illegal" aliens, the students
and the entire next generation. The wealthy were awarded fortunes gouged from
ordinary people. For every dollar the worker earns today, the boss gets over
$1000 for damn little labor. Regrettable many of the top crooks, bosses of the
Republican mob, including Bush, Cheney and even the crackpot Alaskan senator,
Ted Stevens, escaped justice. If there have ever been wicked politicians who
should be impeached, Bush, Cheney and Stevens are them! We're not talking
about a trivial thing like a blowjob or a sexual dalliance. These are real criminals
responsible for war, lies, killing tens of thousands of people, stealing hundreds of
millions of dollars, corruption on a colossal scale, constitutional violations, pandering
to the Christian crazies in order to abridge others' religious rights and even snooping
into the private affairs of ordinary citizens.The real criminals aren't in prison. The
system is rigged to protect the politicians and the powerful while prosecuting the
poor and the petty criminal.The era of the "good" politician seems to be waning.
There is no longer much "public service." Now it's public exploitation. Where ever
there is corruption, money, guns and harm, there you'll find droves of conservatives
and Republicans.
Conspiracy Planet - 9-11: Conspiracy - 9/11 Conspiracy: Controlled Demolition Dropped WTC
Conspiracy - 9/11 Conspiracy: Controlled Demolition Dropped WTC:
(Oct 21, 2005)In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last
weekend, noted theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently
revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7
were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. Despite the
many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin concluded,
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very
important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an
inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
"'The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or
at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it
would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form
of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe
the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this
argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent
events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche,
the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be
the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values
reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush
administration's lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for
environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence
both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to
weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in
a preemptive strike."
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
The Ed Schultz Show
The Ed Schultz Show:Broadcasting from the heart of America in Fargo,
The Ed Schultz Show debuted on January 5, 2004, and is now heard on
close to 50 markets across the nation.
(03/22/2006 ) Bush Says U.S. Troops Will Stay in Iraq Past '08:
President Bush acknowledged yesterday that the war in Iraq is dominating
nearly every aspect of his presidency.
Bush said that American forces will remain in Iraq for years and it will be up
to a future president to decide when to bring them all home.Bush said the "trauma"
of war has left the public and even some lawmakers in his own party understandably
shaken and skeptical of his vow that the United States will prevail. Bush said,
"Nobody likes war. It creates a sense of uncertainty in the country."
Bush Rejects Calls to Change: Bush rejected calls to change the U.S. military
strategy or shake up the White House staff. Bush rejected calls for the resignation
of Defense Secretary Donald RumsfeldBush said, "Listen, every war plan looks
good on paper until you meet the enemy." Bush did not rule out bringing aboard
a veteran Washington operative to help soothe relations with an increasingly restive
Republican Congress. Aides said the move may happen soon. Bush said, "I'm not
going to announce it right now." Polls show less than 40 percent of Americans
approve of the Bush presidency. Polls also say a growing number no longer trust him.
Bush Dismisses Republican Criticism: Bush dismissed the rising chorus of
Republican criticism as election-year jitters. Bush said, "There's a certain unease as
you head into an election year."
On Troops Coming Home: Bush said he would call home the 130,000 U.S.
troops in Iraq if he was not confident about his victory plan. Asked if a day will
come when there are no U.S. troops there, Bush said "that will be decided by
future presidents and future governments of Iraq." Bush on Civil War Bush said
he disagrees with former Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi, a man who had been
handpicked by his administration, and others who say that the country is already
engaged in a civil war in which dozens of people are killed each day. Bush said,
"The way I look at the situation, the Iraqis took a look and decided not to go to
civil war." Nearly 4 out of 5 people, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe
civil war will break out in Iraq, according to a recent AP-Ipsos poll.
Bush on Censure: Bush dismissed as "needless partisanship" calls by
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, to censure the president for authorizing the secret
National Security Agency spying program, which involves eavesdropping on
U.S. citizens. Telegraphing the GOP's election plan to portray Democrats as weak
on terrorism, Bush dared his opponents to campaign in the 2006 elections on a
platform that includes eliminating the spying program. Bush said, "They ought to take
their message to the people and say, 'Vote for me, I promise we're not going to have
a terrorist surveillance program.'" Bush also taunted Democrats who opposed the
reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act: "If that's what the party believes, they
ought to go around the country saying we shouldn't give the people on the front
line of protecting us the tools necessary to do so." No Democrat has made such a
statement. Bush Speeches on Iraq Continue: Wednesday, Bush continues his tour
of speeches on Iraq in Wheeling, WV. White House officials are hopeful that the
communications offensive by Bush will stop the decline that has sunk his job
approval ratings to the lowest levels of his presidency. Some military analysts said
they were skeptical because Bush has not announced any new policies in his news
conference or in his speeches.
The Ed Schultz Show debuted on January 5, 2004, and is now heard on
close to 50 markets across the nation.
(03/22/2006 ) Bush Says U.S. Troops Will Stay in Iraq Past '08:
President Bush acknowledged yesterday that the war in Iraq is dominating
nearly every aspect of his presidency.
Bush said that American forces will remain in Iraq for years and it will be up
to a future president to decide when to bring them all home.Bush said the "trauma"
of war has left the public and even some lawmakers in his own party understandably
shaken and skeptical of his vow that the United States will prevail. Bush said,
"Nobody likes war. It creates a sense of uncertainty in the country."
Bush Rejects Calls to Change: Bush rejected calls to change the U.S. military
strategy or shake up the White House staff. Bush rejected calls for the resignation
of Defense Secretary Donald RumsfeldBush said, "Listen, every war plan looks
good on paper until you meet the enemy." Bush did not rule out bringing aboard
a veteran Washington operative to help soothe relations with an increasingly restive
Republican Congress. Aides said the move may happen soon. Bush said, "I'm not
going to announce it right now." Polls show less than 40 percent of Americans
approve of the Bush presidency. Polls also say a growing number no longer trust him.
Bush Dismisses Republican Criticism: Bush dismissed the rising chorus of
Republican criticism as election-year jitters. Bush said, "There's a certain unease as
you head into an election year."
On Troops Coming Home: Bush said he would call home the 130,000 U.S.
troops in Iraq if he was not confident about his victory plan. Asked if a day will
come when there are no U.S. troops there, Bush said "that will be decided by
future presidents and future governments of Iraq." Bush on Civil War Bush said
he disagrees with former Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi, a man who had been
handpicked by his administration, and others who say that the country is already
engaged in a civil war in which dozens of people are killed each day. Bush said,
"The way I look at the situation, the Iraqis took a look and decided not to go to
civil war." Nearly 4 out of 5 people, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe
civil war will break out in Iraq, according to a recent AP-Ipsos poll.
Bush on Censure: Bush dismissed as "needless partisanship" calls by
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, to censure the president for authorizing the secret
National Security Agency spying program, which involves eavesdropping on
U.S. citizens. Telegraphing the GOP's election plan to portray Democrats as weak
on terrorism, Bush dared his opponents to campaign in the 2006 elections on a
platform that includes eliminating the spying program. Bush said, "They ought to take
their message to the people and say, 'Vote for me, I promise we're not going to have
a terrorist surveillance program.'" Bush also taunted Democrats who opposed the
reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act: "If that's what the party believes, they
ought to go around the country saying we shouldn't give the people on the front
line of protecting us the tools necessary to do so." No Democrat has made such a
statement. Bush Speeches on Iraq Continue: Wednesday, Bush continues his tour
of speeches on Iraq in Wheeling, WV. White House officials are hopeful that the
communications offensive by Bush will stop the decline that has sunk his job
approval ratings to the lowest levels of his presidency. Some military analysts said
they were skeptical because Bush has not announced any new policies in his news
conference or in his speeches.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad. by Henry Kissinger
Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad. by Henry Kissinger:
I don't think it's 10 percent anymore.Muttbob
I don't think it's 10 percent anymore.Muttbob
The Democratic Party
The Democratic Party:
Rep. Louise Slaughter - "America for Sale: The Cost of Republican Corruption"
"A Confusing and Expensive Medicare Program "
"An Energy "Strategy" That Saves No Energy"
"Polluters Re-Writing Environmental Laws"
"A Nation Still Vulnerable to Terrorist Attacks"
"A Government Run by Political Hacks"
"Fat Cats Get Their Defense Contracts, but Soldiers Don't Get Their Body Armor"
"Drug Companies Get Off the Hook if Their Products Injure Americans"
"Corporate Profits Up, American Family Income Down"
"Student Loan Debt, Student Loan Industry Profits Both at Record Highs"
Rep. Louise Slaughter - "America for Sale: The Cost of Republican Corruption"
"A Confusing and Expensive Medicare Program "
"An Energy "Strategy" That Saves No Energy"
"Polluters Re-Writing Environmental Laws"
"A Nation Still Vulnerable to Terrorist Attacks"
"A Government Run by Political Hacks"
"Fat Cats Get Their Defense Contracts, but Soldiers Don't Get Their Body Armor"
"Drug Companies Get Off the Hook if Their Products Injure Americans"
"Corporate Profits Up, American Family Income Down"
"Student Loan Debt, Student Loan Industry Profits Both at Record Highs"
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Pop Goes the Weasel
Pop Goes the Weasel:
February 24, 2006
Pop Goes the Weasel by Missy Comley Beattie
Bush just spoke before a cheering American Legion.
He "will not rest until freedom reaches everywhere." I guess that means we're really going to tackle Iran and North Korea next, the two members of the "axis of evil" we haven't blown to smithereens. This will have to be done with aerial bombardment since our military is stretched and tattered. But death, after all, is the ultimate freedom.
“Iraq is inspiring millions around the world—the rise of a new generation in the Middle East.” I’d agree with that. Iraq is inspiring a new generation of terrorists—millions. Bush is right-on with this one.
“Under Saddam, dissent was crushed.” We, here at home, know something about this. Ask Cindy Sheehan. She was removed from the State of the Union Address and jailed for wearing a shirt with the number of American dead, killed in Iraq, and the words, “How many more?”
February 24, 2006
Pop Goes the Weasel by Missy Comley Beattie
Bush just spoke before a cheering American Legion.
He "will not rest until freedom reaches everywhere." I guess that means we're really going to tackle Iran and North Korea next, the two members of the "axis of evil" we haven't blown to smithereens. This will have to be done with aerial bombardment since our military is stretched and tattered. But death, after all, is the ultimate freedom.
“Iraq is inspiring millions around the world—the rise of a new generation in the Middle East.” I’d agree with that. Iraq is inspiring a new generation of terrorists—millions. Bush is right-on with this one.
“Under Saddam, dissent was crushed.” We, here at home, know something about this. Ask Cindy Sheehan. She was removed from the State of the Union Address and jailed for wearing a shirt with the number of American dead, killed in Iraq, and the words, “How many more?”
The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
The Destruction of the World Trade Center:: "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin "
Timothy Burke said that “the building popped, lower than the fire. . . . I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion” (NYT, Burke, pp. 8-9).
Firefighter Edward Cachia said: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down” (NYT, Cachia, p. 5).
The importance of these observations is reinforced by the fact that the authors of the NIST Report, after having released a draft to the public, felt the need to add the following statement to the Executive Summary:
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. . . . Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward.
Firefighters Burke and Cachia presumably now need to ask themselves: What are you going to believe, your own eyes or an official government report?
David Ray Griffin "
Timothy Burke said that “the building popped, lower than the fire. . . . I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion” (NYT, Burke, pp. 8-9).
Firefighter Edward Cachia said: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down” (NYT, Cachia, p. 5).
The importance of these observations is reinforced by the fact that the authors of the NIST Report, after having released a draft to the public, felt the need to add the following statement to the Executive Summary:
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. . . . Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward.
Firefighters Burke and Cachia presumably now need to ask themselves: What are you going to believe, your own eyes or an official government report?
The Last Bastion of Free Speech: The Internet
The Last Bastion of Free Speech: The Internet: February 25, 2006
"The Last Bastion of Free Speech: The Internet "
by Katherine Brengle
If the Pentagon takes control of the Internet, power is taken away from the people. The long-opposed military-industrial complex will have an even stronger hold on what information is available to the public than it already does. Already, the Pentagon holds press briefings daily, deciding what (if any) information will become available about our country’s military aims and operations. The White House offers its own tidbits, and we are left to figure out most of the truth on our own. Without free control of the net, this information will become much more difficult to locate, if it is possible at all.
The Internet is too important and too powerful a tool for the Pentagon to be allowed to take from us. Should Rumsfeld&Co. along with AOL, Yahoo!, and other powerful corporate interests succeed in their efforts to halt the free flow of information, all we have fought for will be lost.
For many of us, the Internet is the last bastion of democratic process in this country. It allows us to communicate, organize, get informed, and stay in touch with the rest of the world.
Don’t give up your power.
"The Last Bastion of Free Speech: The Internet "
by Katherine Brengle
If the Pentagon takes control of the Internet, power is taken away from the people. The long-opposed military-industrial complex will have an even stronger hold on what information is available to the public than it already does. Already, the Pentagon holds press briefings daily, deciding what (if any) information will become available about our country’s military aims and operations. The White House offers its own tidbits, and we are left to figure out most of the truth on our own. Without free control of the net, this information will become much more difficult to locate, if it is possible at all.
The Internet is too important and too powerful a tool for the Pentagon to be allowed to take from us. Should Rumsfeld&Co. along with AOL, Yahoo!, and other powerful corporate interests succeed in their efforts to halt the free flow of information, all we have fought for will be lost.
For many of us, the Internet is the last bastion of democratic process in this country. It allows us to communicate, organize, get informed, and stay in touch with the rest of the world.
Don’t give up your power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)