Received this from a commenter today: "We're at a turning point. The Bush people know it. Today in Salt Lake City, Utah, the reddest most right wing state in the nation, thousands gatherered to boo and heckle and defy the President, who was there to call us traitors. Marines spoke up and out. Mormons spoke up and out. The Mayor of Salt Lake even LED the demonstrations. We're at a turning point. The president and his henchmen are calling us all traitors. And we're not gonna take it anymore."
KEITH OLBERMANN ON MSNBC
Aug. 30, 2006 | 8:34 p.m. ET
Feeling morally, intellectually confused?
The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.
Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.
Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.
For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.
Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.
It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.
In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless.
That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.
That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.
It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.
It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.
It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.
The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.
Most relevant of all — it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.
That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.
Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.
History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.
Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.
Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.
His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.
It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.
But back to today’s Omniscient ones.
That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.
And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.
Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their “omniscience” as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.
But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.
Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.
And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes?
In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?
The confusion we -- as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding.
But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart — that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.
The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.
And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism.”
As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.
This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.
Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.
But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: “confused” or “immoral.”
Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:
“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”
And so good night, and good luck.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12131617/
From Garth Bishop, re the Keith Oberman speech on MSNBC: "wonderful, very Churchillian in nature, the stuff dreams are is made of.
About 7:15 this morning on MSNBC I caught the video of the gigantic anti-Bush anti-war rally in Salt Lake City yesterday headed by another wonderful person----SLC Major Rocky Anderson. He should be nominated for U.S. president by the Dems. Good words, well spoken, has always been against the war, and has the perfect TV image, so vital in today's political world.
Did you know that Keith is the only newscaster that writes his own copy? Might be a few local people who do it, but Keith is the only nat'l one that I know of."
During Clinton's impeachment trial, De Lay managed to scare conservatives into voting against their consciences! John Dean says, "If truthfulness about extramarital affairs had been a requisite for everyone in Congress to hold their seats before they voted to oust Clinton, neither the House nor the Senate could have formed a quorum." And these were conservative Christians! Whatever happened to "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!"We all have built into us the capacities for kindness and creativity and beauty. It's a matter of perspective. As Einstein said, "The single most important decision any of us will ever make is whether or not to believe that the universe is friendly." It's our choice.
Received a letter from U.S. Army Officer, 1LT Marcus Byrne stationed in Iraq. Please read his letter below. And please send him and his troops a care package. We must hold these guys in our prayers and send them lots of chocolate! They are fighting for THEIR lives...God Bless them.
You can send CARE PACKAGES to this soldier, and he says: "Anything me or my guys dont need I try to take out to the Outposts where they cant get to the PX that often."
1LT Marcus Byrne
HHC 501st FSB
Camp TQ, Unit 92868
FPO, AE 09381
"As the Native Americans reminded us: "No tree has branches so foolish as to fight among themselves."
You can reach my Home page at: LYDIA CORNELL
And for SPIRITUAL SOLUTIONS to the world crises, along with some amazing prayer miracles in the next few weeks, please check out RADICAL PRAYER at my other blog THE PEACEMAKERS* LIGHT OF TRUTH
And we uncover the truth about Ann Coulter like no one has ever done before at: COULTER KAMPF where you can also find breaking news about hate-speak, extremism, propaganda and smear tactics.
LETTER FROM FIRST LIEUTENANT MARCUS BYRNE, STATIONED IN IRAQ:
Lydia,
I enjoyed your outreach to recovering Republicans. I think I was a republican until...well, until I started reading and became an active newshunter and not a passive gatherer allowing it to come to me.... At the beginning I was a huge supporter of this war and the people running it. I assumed they knew things that they couldnt tell the American people, but when we got here and there were no WMDs, no links to Al Qaeda ..... I changed. By that time I had already made the committment to serve so I did and I am, but that doesnt mean I have to agree with everything they do and say, especially when they put me and my wife in harms way not to defend America, but to defend exclusive contracting and oil rights for corporate cronies. I am working with Marines now also. Brave souls... They had to call Army down here to Ramadi to help them get it under control.
Thanks for your support
Marcus Byrne
His blog is: AIRBYRNE
I urge my readers to send CARE packages to the troops. See address at top of blog.
Salt Lake sounds off in protest and support
ReplyDeleteUtahns show their protest and support
By Heather May
and Christopher Smart
The Salt Lake Tribune
A crowd of thousands cheered Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson for calling President Bush a "dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights violating president" whose time in office would "rank as the worst presidency our nation has ever had to endure."
The group - including children and elderly and some hailing from throughout Utah - then marched to the federal building Wednesday to deliver a copy of a symbolic indictment against the president and Congress for abuse of power and failure to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
With their signs labeling Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld the "axis of evil," calling the Iraq war a "mission of lies" or comparing the invasion of Iraq after Sept. 11, 2001, to invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor, the estimated 1,500 to 4,000 protesters hoped their demonstration at the Salt Lake City-County Building sent a message about the reddest state in the country.
"If they [the Bush administration] lack support in Utah, my God they're in trouble,"
For those who didn't get enough, organizers held a "Rock Against Rumsfeld" concert at Pioneer Park in the evening. Between songs, Salt Lake City singer Colin Robison challenged Rumsfeld's Tuesday speech to the American Legion.
"Critics of the war were equated with Nazi sympathizers. How dare he?" Robison asked the crowd of over 300. "What about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay? Who's the Nazi?
A mother of an Iraqi war veteran on his second tour, Debbie Johnson, told the crowd they need not heed the "Orwellian double-speak" of the administration.
"This war is illegal. You don't have to support the war to support our troops."
But protesters at the anti-Bush rally vehemently defended their patriotism.
"I love America as much as anybody else," said Brenda Durant, 52, who traveled to the protest from Vernal. "I support the troops and I want to bring them home alive."
Former Marine Capt. Eric Martineau was in his dress blues to protest the war in Iraq and the Bush administration policies. "I want to let Utah know that pre-emptive war is not LDS doctrine," he said, noting he is Mormon. "We'll look back at this [war] and see it as a turning point."
Anderson has been attacked by the GOP in radio ads for headlining in the rally, but he didn't soft-pedal his condemnation of Bush. He led the crowd to chant, "Give us the truth," throughout his speech and lambasted the president, Congress and the media for leading the country into an "unjustified and illegal" war.
"The truth has been established. Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on the United States," Anderson said. "There is no evidence of any operational ties between Iraq and al-Qaida. And there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. . . . We are fed lie after lie, our media reinforces those lies, and we are a nation that has been led to a tragic, illegal, unprovoked war."
Anderson, the two-term Democratic mayor whose name was chanted by demonstrators during his speech, had invited national anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan to speak, but she canceled because of poor health.
At the federal building, protesters had to wait outside as organizers delivered the petition. The lingering pack, observed by five armed federal guards, chanted "No more war" and "We are the people."
Looking around the spectacle, Ruth Dunn, of Tooele, summed up the day: "This is what democracy looks like."
hmay@sltrib.com
csmart@sltrib.com
---
Tribune reporter Jeremiah Stettler contributed to this story.
Bush in Salt Lake City
Pro-Bush Rally
Anti-Bush Rally
Pro-Troops Rally
Dumsfeld's speech was insulting, and we need to call him on the lies, spin and poisonous rhetoric designed to demonize and silence people who hold opposing views, that speech was worthy of Hitler, however there were several things he said that I agree with such as:
ReplyDeleteThank you Mike, this is a GREAT article.
ReplyDeleteLike these for example
ReplyDeleteDumsfeld said "Your watchdog role is particularly important today in a war that is to a great extent fought in the media on a global stage, a role to not allow the distortions and myths be repeated without challenge"
Dumsfeld said "The good news is that most Americans, though understandably influenced by what they see and read, have good inner gyroscopes. They have good center of gravity. So, I'm confident that over time they will evaluate and reflect on what is happening in this struggle and come to wise conclusions about it."
We can not allow the distortions of the Neo Cons designed to deceive the masses to be repeated without challenge, and we canot allow these evil megalomaniacs to control the media and use it as a propaganda tool to deceive the masses and sway public opinion.
runny also said that the majority of the American people are good people who can not be deceived for long and will eventually evaluate the facts as opposed to the spin and realize what is really going on in this country and which of our leaders are not to be trusted.
I do however agree with this portion of Rummys speech
ReplyDeleteDumsfeld said "Rumsfeld added, “any moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.”
We need to make sure there is no moral opr intellectual confusion, the Neo Cons are an evil pack of lying sceming megalomaniacs and they are wrong and allowing them to deceive the masses and implement their evil self serving agendas will most definately weaken democracy and the ability of FREE societies to persevere...........so actually I agree with Dumsfeld on something even though in reality he is a lying spinmeister and we agree on very little.
“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
ReplyDelete“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”
And so good night, and good luck.
Edward R. Murrow.
White House ‘Cuts And Runs’ on ‘Stay the Course’
ReplyDeleteIn today’s Washington Post, the White House complains that its critics use the term “stay the course” to describe President Bush’s strategy in Iraq:
Many Democrats accuse the president of advocating “stay the course” in Iraq, but the White House rejects the phrase and regularly emphasizes that it is adapting tactics to changing circumstances, such as moving more U.S. troops into Baghdad recently after a previous security strategy appeared to fail.
“Strategically, we are staying committed to the fact that this is an important mission and one that should be accomplished,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Democrats, this adviser said, say “we’re ‘doing the same thing over and over’ when that’s not the case.”
Where did anyone get the idea that the White House supports a “stay the course” strategy?
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, 8/17/06: “[Y]ou…cannot be a President in a wartime and not realize that you’ve got to stay the course.”
Snow, 8/16/06: “[T]hat’s why the President is determined to stay the course.”
President Bush, 7/11/06: “As a matter of fact, we will win in Iraq so long as we stay the course.”
Vice President Cheney, 6/6/06: “[W]e have to stay the course.”
People who say the Bush administration wants to “stay the course” in Iraq are not making an accusation, as today’s Washington Post suggests. They are telling the truth.
Digg It!
Mike, how about giving us a link to these cut and paste jobs.
ReplyDeleteReport: U.S. Secretly Negotiated with Gaza Kidnappers
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. secretly agreed to the "real demands" set by the group behind the August 14 kidnapping of two Fox News journalists in Gaza, according to a report in the pan-Arab newspaper al Hayat.
The paper quotes "informed sources close to the mediations" as saying that the U.S. secretly negotiated with the group through leaders of "the Palestinian popular resistance committees."
Last week, the previously unknown group calling itself "The Holy Jihad Brigades" issued a statement demanding the release of all Muslims held in U.S. prisons in return for the release of the two journalists. In fact, the paper reports that the public demand was not serious and that the group's "real demands" were that the U.S. press Israel to reopen the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Palestine and cease the shelling of "Palestinian activists'" residences.
According to the report, the mediators contacted a representative of a European country who in turn contacted U.S. and British diplomats. The paper's sources said in the report that members of a senior FBI delegation, who had arrived in the area a few days earlier, were also involved in the negotiations.
The announcement that the two journalists had converted to Islam as a reason for their release was only a camouflage to conceal the fact that the U.S. had agreed to the hostage-takers' demands, according to the sources cited in the article. A few days ago the Rafah crossing was reopened for a few hours daily, and the Israeli forces stopped shelling residences of activists in the past few days, noted the paper's sources.
When asked for a response by ABCNews.com, a State Department spokesperson refused to comment on the report in al Hayat. The department's stated policy has been that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists.
There goes another repug talking point you CAN negotiate with people in Gaza, and Lebanon, and EVEN Iran where Reagan sold weapons to get hostages released in Lebanon.
And if you negotiate with a modicum of honesty and humility...both sides do benefit, and I for one am glad they DID because two human beings came home to people who care about them.......which is always a GOOD THING.
Hi everyone! Here's what I'd like to say to Donald Rumsfeld if I ever had the chance:
ReplyDelete"Hey Donald! You're either with Americans or you're against us! Which is it? Are you for the freedom loving Americans that speak out against your policies or do you only like the Americans that parrot back what you and Bushitler say each and every day?!!! Answer me!!!!"
Yup, that's what I would say.
Let's not forget that the Bush Regime is a terrorist regime and they have their appeasers here in America. They're called NEOCONS.
The End.
Tiny Intellect HE gave you the name and Date of the quotes try getting off your ass and google or STFU
ReplyDeleteTallTexan.....a Bush Regime appeaser who trys to change the subject of the thread by stating to Mike to post links for QUOTES BY THE CHRISTOFASCISTS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND IN WASHINGTON!
ReplyDeleteSorry TT, Americans despise your kind. We are sick of you.
Just for the record....
ReplyDelete...I would say 'yes' if Keith Olbermann asked me to marry him.
:-)
Why Do Preachy Republicans Behave So Badly?: Margaret Carlson
ReplyDeleteBy Margaret Carlson
Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) -- I don't mind when public officials preach about what's wrong with government. We could all use a nudge, official or otherwise, toward better performance in all lines of work.
What I don't like is when those doing the scolding are themselves behaving badly. Republicans say that government is a cesspool of waste, fraud and abuse led by profligate liberals; then, once in power, they do their part to make sure that's true.
There are sleazy Democrats, certainly, but the Republicans outdo them. David Safavian, once the White House's top procurement official, ran his operation like a business that only lobbyist and golfing benefactor Jack Abramoff could love. Safavian was convicted in June of obstructing justice and lying to investigators about how he helped the now-disgraced lobbyist.
For $2.4 million in bribes, Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham gave away defense contracts. Governor Bob Taft of Ohio last year pleaded no contest to charges that he accepted almost $6,000 in gifts. One of the people from whom Taft received gifts, Tom Noe, a friend and Republican fund-raiser, was charged with stealing money from a state worker's compensation fund that he had invested in rare coins.
The latest example is Kenneth Tomlinson, the former chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and current head of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. Tomlinson once disparaged former public television officials for allowing bias in programming and wasting money; yet he was being biased himself in programming he started, according to a report by an inspector general released late last year.
Fiefdom
Now, another report concludes that Tomlinson ran both broadcast agencies like a fiefdom. He hired a friend on contract without notice to the board or staff and signed invoices saying that work was done, without any evidence that it was, according to a summary of the latest report by the State Department's inspector general that was made public Tuesday.
Employees at the board of governors called the unnamed (and unseen) employee, who was paid almost a quarter of a million dollars, ``the phantom,'' according to the office of Representative Howard Berman, a California Democrat and one of three lawmakers to release the summary.
The State Department inspector general also found that Tomlinson had government employees work on personal matters and used board of governors ``resources in support of his horse- racing operation,'' of all things.
Among other peculiar but colorful details, Tomlinson named his horses, which have raced at tracks all over the U.S., after Afghan leaders, including President Hamid Karzai, according to the New York Times.
Running a Business
Maybe doing two things at once is what Republicans mean when they talk about bringing efficiency and entrepreneurship from private companies to government. It wasn't enough to keep a business running while on government time. The summary said Tomlinson requested compensation in excess of the 130-day annual maximum he was supposed to work, and then, amazingly, billed both the Broadcasting Board of Governors and Corporation for Public Broadcasting for work on the same exact days on 14 occasions.
Tomlinson was criticized last year in the report by the inspector general of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for cloaking his efforts to change the agency under the banner of reform. He resigned in November as chairman of the agency, which hands out $400 million to member stations each year.
He wasn't trying to simply kill programming he thought was slanted so much as to substitute his own slanted programming. He hired consultants without board approval to keep track of the political leanings of guests on ``Now with Bill Moyers'' and ``The Diane Rehm Show'' on National Public Radio, according to the earlier report.
$4.1 Million Contract
Meanwhile, Tomlinson gave a $4.1 million contract, one of the largest ever, to finance a weekly program hosted by the pro- Republican editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal.
He improperly hired people and showed political favoritism in selecting the agency's current chairman, a large contributor to President George W. Bush, according to the report.
When released, that report had language that soft-pedaled his tenure, saying he didn't act ``maliciously or with any intent to harm CPB.'' A curious reference to an unnamed staffer ``whose responsibility it was to advise the board and its members'' seemed a subtle form of blame-shifting.
Only a two-page summary of the latest investigation by the State Department, initiated by Berman along with Representative Tom Lantos of California and Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, is out. But isn't this enough, if you think public office requires private honesty, to give the guy the heave-ho? Not if you're Bush and the appointee in question is a loyal Republican and a crony of Karl Rove's to boot.
`Partisan Divisions'
Tomlinson said in a statement that the inspector general's report ``was inspired by partisan divisions'' and that he spent only minutes a day on other business. Others on his side say his horse-racing business was a hobby, (although he owns a large farm in Middleburg, Virginia, and his horse, Massoud, has won $140,000 in purses in the last two years, according to the New York Times).
Some allies say everyone does it (yet, does everyone hire a $250,000 consultant that no one sees?) and that the government should get out of the broadcasting business anyway.
On the latter point, Tomlinson's pals may have a point. But he didn't move to shut down either the Corporation for Public Broadcasting or the Broadcasting Board of Governors. He milked them. The White House stands behind Tomlinson and says there's no plan to withdraw his nomination for another term as chairman of the broadcasting board. In Bush world, Tomlinson's doing a heckuva job.
Thanks for posting that Clif about Ken Tomlinson.
ReplyDeleteKenny Tomlinson makes me want to take a shower to get the grime off my skin because he is such a vile human being!!! He's a lying, deceiving, stinking Fascist hell bent on changing all that is good in our nation and turning it into Oscar the Grouch's garbage can!!!
All neocons have that effect on me.
Bush: Iraq a 'decisive ideological struggle'
ReplyDeletePresident predicts victory despite disillusionment
AP Updated: 48 minutes ago
American support
Only a third of Americans saying they approve of Bush's handling of the war or his leadership overall -- a figure that worries Republicans who are hoping they have enough support to keep control of Congress in elections just over two months away.
Demonstrators and counter-demonstrators
Even in Utah -- which gave Bush a wider margin of victory than any other state in the 2004 election -- the president's appearance was a source of dispute. Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, a Democrat, led thousands of anti-Bush demonstrators on a march through the city Wednesday. He called Bush a "dishonest, warmongering, human-rights-violating president."
The pro-Bush American Legion did not have any anti-war speakers or nationally prominent Democrats scheduled to speak at its convention, which attracted at least 12,000 veterans. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld addressed the group earlier this week as part of the high-powered campaign to build support for the war.
This is the third time in less than a year that Bush has made a series of speeches on Iraq and terrorism. This time, it's an all-hands-on-deck effort, with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld also touting the mission this week."
bush is a cheerleader they trot out to try and justify and drum up support for their sick twisted self serving agenda.
Caught Red-Handed: Stevens Blocked Creation of Federal Spending Database
ReplyDeleteLast week, an “unidentified senator” placed a hold on legislation introduced by Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) that would create a easily-accessible Google-like database of all federal spending, which totaled $2.5 trillion last year.
The bill appeared to be headed for passage after being approved unanimously in committee. However, the anonymous senator’s hold on the bill prevented it from coming to a vote.
In response, liberals and conservatives worked together to ask every Senate office whether they had placed a hold on the bill. Of all 100 senators, only Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) would not deny placing the hold. In addition, one of the bill’s leading sponsors, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), said of Stevens, “he’s the only senator blocking it.” Stevens’s opposition to such a bill is not surprising; he is one of the most prolific earmarkers in the Senate:"
So next time the repugs try and pretend they are the fiscally responsible party and liberals are for running up deficits remember this and also remember we have had a repug controlled congress for the last 12 years, GWB was handed a surplus and in less than a year has run up the largest deficits in the history of this country while still trying to deceive the American public that repugs are still the fiscally responsible party and democrats are for tax and spend and running up deficits another repug lie.
dlet - I too would like to know how one man can unilaterally bring legislation to a halt… and why haven’t any Democrats used this technique to block some of the soul crushing Republican legislation?
ReplyDeleteMike, have you heard? General Casey has now changed his mind about Iraq. He's now saying it's going terrific, great, and wonderul!
ReplyDeleteWow!
Oh wait, it's an election year...nevermind. He's only joking to help out the Bush Crime Family & Regime.
Aside from the fact that Ted Stevens represents everything wrong with an elected representative, the bigger question that needs to be addressed is, “Why does this rule exist in the US Senate?” These folks act as if the Senate is a private club and they make rules to help them look good, and to hide when it’s necessary. Whatever happened to being responsible and conductiong business in the open?
ReplyDeleteThe article said something about a ’secret hold’ on the legislation. Must be something Cheney advised him to do. Maybe he is in the dungeon holding the bill in the dark where no one can find him babbling “I want my bridge….I want my bridge…”
Its just weird that one guy can do this. Doesn’t seem democratic to me. But then not many things do in this day and age.
Comment by Southwest Bob — August 30, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNews from the Democratic National Committee:
ReplyDeleteAs President Bush kicks off his latest PR campaign in an attempt to regain public support for his failed policies in Iraq and the war on terror leading into the midterm elections, a new document from DNC research outlines how the Bush Administration's policies have made America less safe at home and around the world.
FROM MISSION ACCOMPLISHED TO LOWERED EXPECTATIONS
May 2003: Mission Accomplished. On May 1, 2003, Bush dramatically landed atop an aircraft carrier to proclaim major combat operations over in Iraq; he spoke in front of a banner reading, "Mission Accomplished". During his speech he stated that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." [President Bush, 5/1/03]
March 2006: Bush: Iraq will be left to "Future Presidents." President Bush made it clear that there would be American troops in Iraq when he left office and it would be his successor's job to bring them home. In response to a question in a White House news conference about if there would come a day when there would be no American forces in Iraq, Bush answered, "That, of course, is an objective. And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq." [CBS News, 3/21/06]
August 2006: Administration Lowering Expectations for Iraq. The Bush Administration was significantly lowering expectations of what could be achieved in Iraq, recognizing the United States would have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned. "What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning." According to an article in the Washington Post, "The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry, or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges." [Washington Post, 8/14/05; Christian Science Monitor, 8/15/05]
- War in Iraq About to Exceed Length of WWII; Since Beginning of War, 2,637 Have Died and 19,323 Wounded. In September 2006, the duration of combat operations would exceed the length of time that U.S. forces fought in Europe during WWII. Since the beginning of the war, 2,637 US troops have died and 19,323 have been wounded. [Detroit Free Press, 8/28/06; www.icasualties.org, accessed 8/30/06]
- Bush Approves Involuntary Call-Ups For the Marine Corps, Ordering Thousands Back to Active Duty. "The Marine Corps said Tuesday that it would begin calling Marines back to active-duty service on an involuntary basis to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the latest sign that the American force is under strain -- the Iraq war has forced the Army, and now the Marines, to rely on the ready reserve to fill holes in the combat force." The call-ups were approved by President Bush. [Los Angeles Times, 8/23/06; Reuters, 8/22/06]
- Involuntary Call-Ups Supplemented By Stop-Loss Orders That Keep Soldiers On Active Duty Even After Their Commitment Is Complete. "For much of the conflict, the Army also has had to use "stop-loss orders" -- which keep soldiers in their units even after their active-duty commitments are complete -- as well as involuntary call-ups of its reservists. Both actions have been criticized as a 'back-door draft' and are unpopular with service members, many of whom say they have already done their part." [LA Times, 8/23/06]
- 9/11 Commissioner Lee Hamilton Says Iraq Is Breeding Ground For Terrorism. In an interview on Meet the Press, Hamilton said, "I think there isn't any doubt that it's a breeding ground for terrorism today." [Meet the Press, 8/13/06]
IRAQ FACES CIVIL WAR; US MILITARY STRETCHED TOO THIN
IRAQ FACING CIVIL WAR
Generals Raised Fears Of Iraq Civil War. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on August 3, 2006, Generals Abizaid and Pace both expressed fears that Iraq was headed towards a civil war. Responding to questions about escalations in violence in recent weeks, General John Abizaid admitted that "Iraq could move toward civil war." He described the sectarian violence as "probably as bad as I have seen it[.]" Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff concurred with Abizaid's assessment that Iraq was in danger of civil war on its current path. Pace said at the hearing, "We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war." While Pace indicated that he did not see this path developing one year ago, Abizaid admitted that the trend has been consistent, saying that it was obvious one year ago that sectarian violence was on the rise. [AP, 8/3/06]
Britain's Outgoing Ambassador To Iraq Forecast That "Civil War" And "Division" Of Iraq Was More Likely Than A "Stable Democracy," Contrary To British Public Statements. William Patey, the outgoing British Ambassador to Iraq, wrote in his final diplomatic telegram from Baghdad that Iraq would likely fall into civil war, end up in ethnic division, and not be an ally in the war on terror. Patey's cable forecast a bleak future for Iraq: "The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy." Patey added that Bush's "lowered expectation" for the country "must remain in doubt," expectations which he described as "a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror[.]" According to Reuters, the statement "gives a far more pessimistic assessment for prospects in Iraq than Britain has disclosed in public." [BBC News, 8/3/06; Reuters, 8/3/06]
Former Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Said Iraq Was In Civil War. Iyad Allawi former Interim Iraqi Prime Minister and leader of the Iraqi National List a secular nationalist party made up of Sunnis and Shiites said that Iraq was already in a civil war. Allawi said, "It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is." [BBC, 3/19/06]
Experts Say Iraq Has Been In A Civil War Since 2004. "'By the standard that political scientists use, there's been a civil war going on in Iraq since sovereignty was handed over to the interim government in 2004,' said Stanford University's James Fearon...American military analyst Stephen Biddle says U.S. policy-makers make a mistake if they 'miss the nature of the conflict, which in Iraq is already a civil war between rival ethnic and sectarian groups.'" [AP, 3/15/06; Los Angeles Times, 2/25/06; Washington Times 3/15/06]
National Intelligence Estimate Warned in 2003 Of the Strength of the Insurgency and the Possibility for Civil War. "U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war, according to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the reports." [San Jose Mercury News, 3/1/06]
MILITARY STRETCHED TOO THIN
2006: Military Stretched Too Thin. Experts say that the Pentagon has had to struggle to meet the manpower requirements of the Iraq war in light of the continuing insurgency and civil unrest. A recent study done for the Pentagon by Army Lt. Col. Andrew F. Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments found that the military is stretched into a "thin green line". He said that the Army lacks sufficient troop levels to avoid too-frequent rotations into Iraq and Afghanistan. Troops are spending about a third of the time on deployment, instead of a fifth of the time - the preferred timetable to allow the Army to adequately rest, train and rebuild its units. With just over a half-million active duty troops, the Army may not be able to sustain the current pace of deployments long enough to defeat insurgencies in either Iraq or Afghanistan. [Los Angeles Times, 8/23/06; Denver Post, 1/28/06]
- Iraq Veteran Says Bush Administration Is Not Keeping Its Promises to Military. When asked about the latest plan for involuntary call-ups, Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, said "The bottom line is: Everyone is exhausted...It may be legal, but it is kind of like the difference between a contract and a promise. Overall we are eroding the promise made to our military." [Los Angeles Times, 8/23/06]
2005: Gen. Myers Reported That Military Stretched Too Thin. "The concentration of American troops and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan limits the Pentagon's ability to deal with other potential armed conflicts, the military's highest ranking officer reported to Congress on Monday. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed Congress that major combat operations elsewhere in the world...would probably be more protracted and produce higher American and foreign civilian casualties because of the commitment of Pentagon resources in Iraq and Afghanistan." [NYT, 5/3/05]
2005: Lt. General Says Army Reserve Becoming "Broken Force." The head of the Army Reserve has sent a sharply worded memo to other military leaders expressing "deepening concern" about the continued readiness of his troops and warning that his branch of 200,000 soldiers "is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force." In the Dec. 20th memo Lt. Gen. James Helmly lashed out at what he said were outdated and "dysfunctional" policies on mobilizing and managing the force. Helmly complained that his repeated requests to adjust the policies to current realities have been rebuffed by Pentagon authorities. [Washington Post, 6/6/05]
2004: Career Officer Forced to Retire For Saying that Army Stretched Too Thin. Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs was forced to retire in 2004 minus one star after he gave an interview in which he said the Army had been stretched thin in Afghanistan and Iraq and needed thousands more troops. [Duluth News Tribune, 4/14/06]
2003: Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki Rebuked For Saying That Several "Hundred Thousand Troops" Would Be Needed in Iraq. During a February testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) asked Gen. Shinseki to estimate "the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war." Shinseki replied "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." Later, Rumsfeld dismissed Shinseki's estimate, saying that "My personal view is that it will prove to be high," and Dep. Sec. Wolfowitz told the House Budget Committee that "the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq [is] wildly off the mark." Senate Armed Services Committee 2/25/03; House Budget Committee Hearing 2/27/03; Rumsfeld News Conference, 2/28/03]
EXTENDED CONFLICT IN IRAQ WEAKENS US POSITION IN THE WORLD
Newsweek: "America Is Viewed As Weak...Distracted And Drained because of Iraq." According to an article in Newsweek by Michael Hirsh, "America is viewed as weak at the moment, distracted and drained because of Iraq...and everybody out there is taking advantage of it. Too often, Americans tend to see other players on the international stage as merely part of the backdrop, conforming to our movements or remaining stationary while we get our act together. In fact, most of these world leaders are aggressive players in their own right who will push back, and hard, when they see softness -- they are betting that George W. Bush is too out of resources and time to protest while they make a mockery of his agenda and his leadership." [Newsweek, 6/15/06]
Boston Globe: Bush's Reaction to Escalation of International Violence Shows Foreign Policy Has Undergone "A Sea of Change." According to an article in the Boston Globe, "The dramatic escalation of violence in Israel and Lebanon yesterday added yet another international crisis to the Bush administration's list of mounting problems, which include a looming confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program, North Korea's missile tests, and steadily rising sectarian killings in Iraq. As Bush heads to the summit of the Group of Eight industrial countries in Russia this weekend, analysts and administration officials say his reaction to these erupting international crises shows that his administration has undergone a sea change in foreign policy: The tough-talking superpower willing to use unilateral force is now a quieter player that urges moderation and restraint and is more willing to let allies take the lead." [Boston Globe, 6/14/06]
Time Magazine: The End of Cowboy Diplomacy. A cover story in Time Magazine entitled "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy," explained how the war in Iraq has affected American ability to affect foreign policy change regarding other important matters. "Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was revealing: Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jong Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action. Instead, the administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation. The Bush Doctrine foundered in the principal place the U.S. tried to apply it. Though no one in the White House openly questions Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, some aides now acknowledge that it has come at a steep cost in military resources, public support and credibility abroad. The administration is paying the bill every day as it tries to cope with other crises. Pursuing the forward-leaning foreign policy envisioned in the Bush Doctrine is nearly impossible at a time when the U.S. is trying to figure out how to extricate itself from Iraq." [Time, 7/9/06]
Academic Dean at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. According to Stephen Walt, academic dean at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, "the Iraq war was corroding all...elements of US power. Our armed forces have been weakened and our economy burdened by the costs of occupation, and the abuses at Abu Ghraib jail are a stain on the US's reputation." [Financial Times, 10/19/05]
Scholar at Conservative at American Enterprise Institute: Reversal of Bush Middle East Policy "Shameful." Michael Rubin, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and a former defense department official under Bush, was critical of Bush's stalled efforts to impact the Middle East. "I am willing to blame Bush because I think the reversal of his policy is shameful," Rubin said. "What he did was the equivalent of the doctor starting surgery on a patient, opening him up, and then getting tired and leaving him on the table." [Boston Globe, 6/14/06]
Former National Security Council Member: "Administration Has Lost Control." "I think what we are seeing is an administration that has lost control, that is reacting to events, not shaping them," said Ivo Daalder, who served on President Bill Clinton's National Security Council staff. [Boston Globe, 6/14/06]
U.S. Peace Envoy in Middle East: Bush Administration "Preoccupied with Iraq." Middle East experts warned that a weakened Bush administration may be too preoccupied with its problems with Iraq and Iran to deal with the sharply escalating crisis around Israel. Dennis Ross, a longtime U.S. peace envoy in the region, said that "the Bush administration is preoccupied with Iraq and Iran and North Korea, and doesn't seem to have much time for this issue." Ross said that because it was distracted by the other crises the administration appeared to looking at the crisis in Gaza, where one Israeli soldier was being held captive, in narrow terms. In reality, the resolution of that problem "is going to have a very big impact" on future relations between Israel and the Palestinians, he said. [Newsday, 7/13/06]
President of Council on Foreign Relations: Iraq War "Absorbed A Tremendous Amount of U.S. Military Capacity," "Weakened Our Position." Richard N. Haass, president of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations and head of policy planning at the State Department during the outbreak of the Iraq war in 2003, said that in hindsight, while history's judgment would depend on how things turned out in Iraq, the impact on U.S. foreign policy at this point was "clearly negative." The war, he said, "has absorbed a tremendous amount of U.S. military capacity, the result being that the United States has far less spare or available capacity, not just to use in the active sense, but to exploit in the diplomatic sense. It has therefore weakened our position against both North Korea and Iran." He said that it had also "exacerbated the U.S. fiscal situation, which obviously has all sorts of economic repercussions." "For all that, a lot of the impact on U.S. foreign policy still awaits how things turn out," Haass says. "It's a very different impact if Iraq suddenly implodes or becomes the venue for not just a civil war but a regional war. Obviously, in such a circumstance, the implications for U.S. foreign policy would be both greater and more negative." [Council on Foreign Relations Interview, 3/14/06]
UNDER GEORGE BUSH, AMERICA IS LESS SAFE
Under Bush Republican Leadership, the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Have Not Been Properly Implemented. The 9/11 Commission gave the Bush Administration 5 F's and 12 D's on the implementation of the Commission's recommendations for homeland security. [Final Report on 9/11 Commission Recommendations, 12/05]
AIRPORT SECURITY: Still No Unified Terrorist Watch List. There remains no unified terrorist watch list for screening airline passengers. In its December 2005 report card, the 9/11 Commission gave the Administration a failing grade for its efforts to improve passenger pre-screening, noting that "few improvements have been made to the existing passenger screening system since right after 9/11. The completion of the testing phase of TSA's pre-screening program for airline passengers has been delayed. A new system, utilizing all names on the consolidated terrorist watch list, is therefore not yet in operation." While $130 million has been spent on the Secure Flight program -- a system that would match airline passengers against terrorist watch lists -- the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that it remains in development and faces considerable management and oversight challenges. Secure Flight was suspending the program in March due to security and privacy concerns. [9/11 Public Discourse Project, December 2005; govexec.com, 6/25/06]
PORTS: Screening Technology at U.S. Ports Still Inadequate. "The radiation-detection technology currently used in the world's ports by the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection Agency is not adequately capable of detecting a nuclear weapon or a lightly shielded dirty bomb...The flaws in detection technology require the Pentagon's counterproliferation teams to physically board container ships at sea to determine if they are carrying weapons of mass destruction. Even if there were enough trained boarding teams to perform these inspections on a regular basis -- and there are not -- there is still the practical problem of inspecting the contents of cargo containers at sea...This factor guarantees that in the absence of very detailed intelligence, inspectors will be able to perform only the most superficial of examinations." ["Port Security is Still a House of Cards," Stephen E. Flynn, Far Eastern Economic Review, January/February 2006]
BORDERS: Millions Wasted On Inadequate Border Security Efforts. Millions of tax dollars have been wasted as a result of failed border security technology initiatives that have been undertaken by the Department -- the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System and the America's Shield Initiatives. The Administration has failed to provide promised funding for Border Patrol agents (20 percent short), detention bed spaces (20 percent short), and the Immigration and Customs agent resources called for by the 9/11 Act (75 percent short). ["The State of Homeland Security, 2006" prepared by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Homeland Security; 2/06]
FIRST RESPONDERS: Emergency Preparedness Still Inadequate. The President's budget for 2007 proposed to cut $612 million from first responder grants and training programs. The budget cuts funding levels for programs designed to assist state and local law enforcement agencies by more than $1 billion compared to FY 2006, the Firefighters Grant Program was cut by 50 percent, and the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, which trains first responders, was cut by 66 percent. In addition, the President's 2007 budget requested no funding to enhance interoperable communications. ["The State of Homeland Security, 2006" prepared by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Homeland Security; 2/06]
CHEMICAL PLANT SECURITY: Bush Dropped Chemical Plant Regulations, "A Victory for Major Chemical Manufacturers." The Washington Post reported Bush "abandoned" tough new security regulations... on the chemical industry, calling it, 'a victory for major chemical manufacturers'" The decision to abandon these new regulations was made despite the fact that only about one-sixth of the 15,000 facilities with large amounts of dangerous chemicals are covered by federal security requirements. [GAO, Homeland Security: Federal and Industry Efforts Are Addressing Security Issues at Chemical Facilities, but Additional Action Is Needed, 4/27/05; Washington Post, 10/3/02]
RAIL AND TRANSIT SECURITY: Bush Has Not Improved Rail and Transit Security. Terrorist groups have already targeted surface transportation for attacks, including the attack on a Moscow Metro rail car in 2004, a coordinated series of 10 explosions on four commuter trains in Madrid that same year, and a coordinated series of four explosions on three London subway trains and one bus in 2005. Despite this, the TSA budget dedicates only 1 percent of the department's funding to surface transportation security. The budget also eliminates dedicated grants used by public transportation systems to increase security, forcing surface transportation to compete with ports and other critical infrastructure for funding. ["The State of Homeland Security, 2006" prepared by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Homeland Security; 2/06]
UNDER GEORGE BUSH, THE WORLD IS LESS SAFE
HUNT FOR BIN-LADEN: Failure to Hunt for Bin Laden "Gravest Error in The War against al Qaeda." According to the Washington Post, "The Bush Administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda? "We messed up by not getting into Tora Bora sooner and letting the Afghans do all the work," said a senior official with direct responsibilities in counterterrorism. "Clearly a decision point came when we started bombing Tora Bora and we decided just to bomb, because that's when he escaped.We didn't put U.S. forces on the ground, despite all the brave talk, and that is what we have had to change since then." [Washington Post, 4/17/02]
- Bush Administration Closed CIA Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden. The Central Intelligence Agency closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants. The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded in late 2005 and its analysts were reassigned. Michael Scheuer, a former senior CIA official who was the first head of the unit, said the move reflected a mistaken view within the agency that bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was. "This will clearly denigrate our operations against Al Qaeda," he said. "These days at the agency, bin Laden and Al Qaeda appear to be treated merely as first among equals." [New York Times, 7/4/06]
- Al Qaeda Linked to Recent Plot To Blow Up US Bound Flights. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the [London] plot bore the hallmarks of al-Qaeda, "which has called on supporters to renew attacks against both nations." Terror expert Rohan Gunaratna said, "It's a classic al-Qaeda tactic. It's a hallmark of al-Qaeda to carry out coordinated, simultaneous attacks." Another terrorism expert Paul Beaver insisted that British military action in Iraq and Afghanistan helped make us a target for Osama bin Laden's thugs. He said: "In the last two months, al-Qaeda promised it would avenge Iraq and Afghanistan by attacking British and American aviation assets. I see a direct link with that." [Calgary Herald, 8/12/06; Daily Record, 8/11/06]
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: Iran Pursuing Nuclear Arms Program. Iran hid its nuclear program for more than a dozen years from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear monitoring arm of the United Nations, and now the United States and Europe contend that Iran is pursuing an arms program. In January of 2006, Iran restarted its effort to make atomic fuel after negotiations with Britain, France and Germany over the fate of its atomic program broke down. [New York Times, 4/28/06; New York Times, 8/7/06]
- Experts Say Bush Administration Strategy Emboldened Iranian Nuclear Program. The Bush Administration refused to negotiate with Iran for years, when the country was willing to make real concessions on its nuclear program. Just after the U.S. takeover of Baghdad in 2003, Iran proposed a dialogue with the United States. According to former senior director of the National Security Council, Flynt Leverett, the offer was "a serious effort." The Bush Administration's refusal to enter into talks, according to Middle East expert Trita Parsi, "strengthened the hands of those in Iran who believe that the only way to compel the United States to talk is not by sending peace offers, but by being a nuisance." [Washington Post, 6/18/06; American Prospect, June 2006]
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: North Korea Pursuing Nuclear Arms Program. Since 9/11, North Korea has accelerated their nuclear efforts. A report by the National Security Advisory Group issued in July of 2005 states that "North Korea's runaway nuclear program could be a direct path to nuclear terror...North Korea sells missiles and other dangerous technology worldwide, with no apparent limits or compunction...[the country's] leaders and elite engage in smuggling, counterfeiting, and other illicit activities. These same people might traffic in nuclear materials the way A.Q. Khan trafficked in Pakistan's nuclear technology." [Worst Weapons in Worst Hands, The National Security Advisory Group, July 2005]
- Experts Say Bush Administration Strategy Has Claimed Credit For Diplomatic Process But Failed to Take Any Responsibility for a Lack of Results. A report by the National Security Advisory Group issued in July of 2005 states that "Since 9/11, in the face of North Korea's runaway nuclear program, U.S. policymakers: did nothing as North Korea crossed redline after redline; claimed credit for diplomatic process (the Six-Party Talks) but have taken no responsibility for total lack of results; attempted to outsource the issue to China and then blame the failure on China; [and] tried to blame the Clinton administration, the administration that actually stopped plutonium production in North Korea." The report continues by saying that during the Clinton Administration, North Korea had no plutonium, but during the Bush Administration, North Korea has at least four to six nuclear weapons worth of plutonium. [Worst Weapons in Worst Hands, The National Security Advisory Group, July 2005]
People are afraid to speak out against these repug thugs, but that is slowly changing.
ReplyDeletelook at their new tactic of labeling their enemies what they really are to muddy the terminology so people cant use it against them, the insugents are being labeled fascists and people who speak out are being labeled traitors, appeasors, and linked via word association to nazis and people who supported the nazis.
I guess this administration will be known as the one that talked BIG but did little.....but given the foole dead eye choose to front for him it is little wonder...after all Cheney has his investments in Eurpope to cover HIS ass.
ReplyDeleteHave you guys noticed that the fascists in the Bush Regime (which is all of them including the House & Senate too under the same party logo) has decided to deflect fascism onto others now? Yup, all terrorists are fascists now, which means anyone who doesn't agree with them or which means anyone who straps a belt to their waste strapped with bombs to kill them is also one!
ReplyDeleteIslamofascists technically would mean any Muslim who owns a corporation and it's this corporation along with other Muslim owned corporations who control the country in which they live!
Ridiculous!!
Fascists are fascists. Those that are speaking out against the Bush Regime are not fascists....we're Patriots who are using their freedoms to stop the madness in the White House! Those who are strapping bombs to their waists and who are killing people don't like America's policies against their countries!!!!
I say......SPEAK OUT AND SPEAK OUT OFTEN NO MATTER WHAT THE FASCISTS LABEL US AS!!!!!!!!!!!
Is it November yet? I can't wait.
come november Troll Tex and the other repugs wont have much to crow about in fact repug political operatives like him may be in the unemployment line being supported by my tax dollars.
ReplyDeleteWant to know what Dumsfeld dead eye and the Idiot do not want to to know;
ReplyDeleteSADR MILITIA DEFEATS IRAQI ARMY
In the Viet Nam war that would have been the headline. But no one even commented on this little pearl. NYTIMES:
...After several hours of gunfire and mortars, “the clashes reached a point where members of the militias executed soldiers after their ammunition ran out in a public square, in front of residents,” said Maj. Gen. Othman al-Ghanimi, commander of the 8th Division of the Iraqi Army in Diwaniya.... [*]
The Sadr militia battled the army until the latter ran out of ammunition and surrendered. The Sadr army then executed their prisoners. But the NY TIMES lede read, " At least 20 gunmen and 8 civilians were killed when the Iraqi army clashed for hours today with members of a militia loyal to Moktada al-Sadr". That sounds like Sadr was defeated, unless the Grey Lady has started to call the Iraqi army 'gunmen.'
Yes, all those divisions have pacified Baghdad, yes indeed..
Too bad the MSM is more worried about the idiot from Tailand..or Utah..or the NEXT foole they can divert attention from the TOTAL FIASCO Iraq has become.
Tell me again how liberal they all are and just want to publish anything to make the IDIOT look bad.
look at Rummys speech though, just like the trolls here and just like Hitlers it was designed to demonize and try to discredit and silence the oposition, looks like the American public is getting wise to those deceitful manipulative tactics and that is why only 1/3 of our nation support the war in Iraq and our fool in chief, clearly the minority.
ReplyDeleteThe Bush Record: More Poverty, More Uninsured
ReplyDeletePresident Bush says “the foundation of our economy is solid, and it’s strong.” That’s true, for some: corporate profits have now climbed to their highest share of GDP since the 1960’s.
Mike they are getting wise to their empty pockets...wonder why this fall gas prices are falling like a stone just as the election cycle begins?
ReplyDeleteThe repugs are SCARED and pulling out ALL the stops to cling to power.
ReplyDeleteReport: Uninsured Up, Real Income Down For Men and Women, Poverty Unchanged
ReplyDeleteThis morning, the Census Bureau released new figures about health insurance, income, and poverty. It’s not a pretty picture.
The number of Americans without health insurance continues to rise at an alarming rate, men and women are earning less money and there are as many people living in poverty as there have ever been. Some key stats:
– In 2005, 46.6 million people were without health insurance coverage, up from 45.3 million people in 2004.
– The percentage of people without health insurance coverage increased from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005.
– For full-tim, year round workers, the median earnings of men declined 1.8 percent to $41,386, and the median earnings of women declined 1.3 percent to $31,858.
– In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004.
This helps explain why just 32% of Americans approve of Bush’s handling of the economy. Just 22% believe the economy is getting better, “the lowest level of public confidence in the direction of the economy seen in five years.”
This is quite chilling....if you think about it.
ReplyDeleteNSA: Blogs Are Media Too
In a recent directive to its employees, the National Security Agency explains that "the media," in its opinion, includes bloggers.
The document defines "media" as "any print, electronic, or broadcast outlet (including blogs) where information is made available to the general public."
The NSA directive orders the secretive agency's 45,000 employees to report "unauthorized media disclosures" of classified information. That is, leaks.
It raises an interesting question: do bloggers enjoy the reporter's privilege of protecting their sources in court?
In a landmark case from 2004, Apple computer argued that bloggers aren't journalists because they aren't professional, and therefore aren't protected by "shield laws." Such statutes keep law enforcement from forcing reporters to reveal confidential sources. The company lost the original ruling -- and lost on appeal this May.
NSA's point of view appears to bolster bloggers' standing as journalists. If anybody who can disseminate information -- that is, receive and broadcast a leak -- is a member of the media, then that means us bloggers are in the club. "I thnk that's becoming increasingly obvious," Kurt Opsahl, a blogging-rights expert and counsel to the California-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, told me. "There's no principled way to distinguish between the various media."
(Courtesy dickarmitage.blogspot.com. No, just kidding. via Secrecy News)
Update: An earlier version of this post cited an article on the case of Josh Wolf, a California blogger currently in prison for refusing to turn over videotapes to a federal grand jury. However, at the federal level, California's shield law did not apply; federal prosecutors did not take a stance on Wolf's reporter status. Jurt Opsahl, a blogging-rights expert and counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told me he is not aware of a case in which the federal government has asserted bloggers are not journalists.
It is chiulling because by doing this they ADMIT they ARE monitoring the BLOGS like this one, and they could concievable try to intimidate a blogger or even prosecute the blogger if the NSA or government did not like what was being outed they want kept under raps.
ReplyDeleteAnd the government and military do classify many things just to HIDE them.
Mike, what's the difference between whether we read the newspapper or blogs?
ReplyDeleteNEW TV SPOT CONFRONTS THE LIES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
ReplyDeleteRepublican operatives are already expressing outrage over the new Charles Sanders TV spot for the Ohio special election in the 3rd Congressional district on September 15th. It was posted on his web site this morning and is set to start running on multiple TV stations in his district tomorrow.
You can see this controversial new ad on this special page, where you can also encourage Mr. Sander for taking such a strong unapologetic stand by donating to help run these courageous ads.
VIDEO PAGE: http://www.charleswsanders.org/donations4a.php
STATEMENT OF CHARLES SANDERS:
The Bush Administration is perhaps the most unnerving, duplicitous band of pirates to ever occupy the White House. Most likely, it will be decades before the full magnitude of evasiveness and paranoia is known concerning how this Administration initiates policy. The Bush people have punished assistants who have become whistle blowers from its very beginning. It fired the photographer who took the picture featured in my new TV spot because it adequately frames the reality of the Bush occupation of Iraq. The American People deserve a representative who will expose surreptitious conduct by its government, whether done in my district or outside of it. And you can help me do it by submitting my action page to call for our troops to start coming home now.
ACTION PAGE: http://www.charleswsanders.org/petitions/pnum457.php
Many Veterans, including myself, do question this unholy war because of the sheer weight of the lies surrounding why it was initiated in the first place. Our heart and prayers go out to the hundreds of Military personnel who sacrificed all to maintain the United States integrity and mandated resolve to bring some semblance of order in this most unstable part of the world. With such a high price being paid, should we allow over the top politicians a pass on accountability? I should hope not. If each American family must take responsibility for its own, then surely each level of government should also be so regulated. It is a fact that most of our soldiers, Marines, sailors and airman were dispatched with inadequate body armor and shielding to protect military vehicles in the most vulnerable areas.
Military personnel, including our national guard, were sent to Iraq, with no formal training on how to defend against road side bombs and other improvised munitions. Our ad seeks to highlight the failures of the Bush Administration and those who acquiesce with it. Iraq must be allowed to stand up for itself, sooner not later. We simply cannot sit idly by and say "not my problem." The whole fiasco is all of our problems, so therefore, we must END it. Enough chicanery already, let the truth be known and maybe, just maybe, enough political will can emerge to force an end to this senseless war. My career minded baby brother is headed back to the middle East next month, I want what is best for him. I have been out of the military for thirty nine years, but I still actively care about our deployed military forces. Why can't we be honest and face reality that we are going nowhere in Iraq? We now must seek the honorable route out of Iraq before more antagonisms surface against the best that America has to offer.
Your humble representative,
CHARLES W. SANDERS
CANDIDATE FOR UNITED STATES CONGRESS.
Clif said "Mike they are getting wise to their empty pockets...wonder why this fall gas prices are falling like a stone just as the election cycle begins?"
ReplyDeleteI thought the same thing Clif and prices are dropping before summer driving season is even over and at the peak of huricaine season, I wonder if they released some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or Bush and Co made some kind of deal with their islamic fascist friends and cohorts to bring down the price of oil for the fall elections.
Clif said "It is chiulling because by doing this they ADMIT they ARE monitoring the BLOGS like this one, and they could concievable try to intimidate a blogger or even prosecute the blogger if the NSA or government did not like what was being outed they want kept under raps.
ReplyDeleteAnd the government and military do classify many things just to HIDE them."
Clif I stated many times last week that it is disgraceful that the Bush administration has done nothing to secure our borders and ports,has disbanded the CIA untit whose job it was to capture Osama (the guy who attacked us on 9/11) has failed to provide body armor and neccessary equipment to our troops to keep them safe as well as an adequate troop count to keep the peace and keep our troops safe for a war they claim is so important the fate of democracy and civilization itself rests on the outcome but yet seems to think it MORE IMPORTANT to spend our limited tax payer funded money and manpower on monitoring liberal blogs and illegally and unconstitutional spying on political opponents via illegally spying on our entire population of 300,000,000 citizens phone calls...........call me crazy but last time I checked it wasnt 3 year old girls calling their grandmother or liberals blowing up airplanes that are a threat and need to be monitored it was radical islamic terrorists.
WHAT BUSH IS DOING IS A MASSIVE WASTE OF RESOURCES BOTH FINANCIAL AND MANPOWER AND IS TREASONOUS.
so instead of keeping us safe as he claims by securing our borders, capturing or killing the person responsible for attacking us on 9/11, and fighting the war on terror against the real terrorists who attacked us as well as taking care of the soldiers who fight these so called vital wars what does Bush and co do, they invade a country that had nothing to do with attacking us on 9/11 for their own self serving agenda, they then despite soaring deficits squander and waste our tax payer's money monitoring liberal blogs, and spying on ordinary citizens (most likely their political rivals or people that dissent and oppose them), they have overextended our military and have trampled on and run roughshod over our constitutional rights personal freedoms and right to privacy all for their treasonous megalomaniac agenda.
Kirk said "Does anyone know if the people in Turkey got Tamiflu, and are the ones in Iraq as well?
ReplyDeleteAnd yes Rummy has "5-25 million" dollars worth of stock in Gilead- the company that makes Tamiflu. He was Chairman of the board from like 97-'01. Gilead has gone from @30/share to 60/share in the last year.
Question..... how does a public govt figure get away with a financial statement that says "5-25 million"? Can I do that on my taxes? (I have between 5 and 50 thousand dollars worth of deductions this year)
Do Bush's policies make you feel more or less safe?
ReplyDeleteLess 65%
More 35%
Total Votes: 64,732
Note on Poll Results
Will his policies help or hurt Republicans in the midterm elections?
ReplyDeleteHurt 66%
Help 21%
Neither 13%
Total Votes: 65,118
Note on Poll Results
The source for those polls was:
ReplyDeleteSources: AP, whitehouse.gov
From VOLTAIRE'S ARTICLE:
ReplyDelete"Three hours before Bush arrived, A FEW HUNDRED gathered to voice their support for the president at Washington Square, the same location where earlier in the day THOUSANDS PROTESTED against Bush's policies."
Buried down in the lower part of the very slanted article, the writers still couldn't get away from the truth: THOUSANDS PROTESTED. ONly HUNDREDS supported him, and during the rally, it was pro-bush, because is was GOP ORGANIZED EVENT.
Now I know the reason we are so different. The GOP actually believes consolidating wealth and power is "American." It's not; our forefathers worked hard to ensure we'd never have another elitist, royal society like the one they left behind in Britain, where wealth is amassed in the hands of a few...where the name of the game is how many landed gentry and "millionaires" can be created.
AMERICA WAS BUILT ON THE MIDDLE CLASS AND BUSH IS TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE MIDDLE CLASS.
ONLY IN this country, do we not take care of the widows and orphans, the infirm, the elderly the way they do in Canada -- where everyone gets health care in clean, gleaming doctors' offices -- and they never see a single doctor's bill.
We can't even cover health care for children on rooftops in New Orleans, poor children go without health care in this great big beautiful rich nation -- AND YOU KNOW WHY?
SO BILL FRIST'S FATHER CAN AMASS MORE PHARACEUTICAL BILLIONS AND HOARD MORE MONEY FOR THE WEALTHY ELITE.
THIS IS AGAINST EVERY CHRISTIAN COMMANDMENT AND CHRIST'S VERY MISSION. THIS IS A TRAVESTY.
Voltaire said...
ReplyDelete"Peaceniks" brandishing weapons and beating up soldiers...
Sorry folks. I had to drop in to once more remind you of why I was so adament about Voltaires obvious comfort with lying last night.
Because if he lies about little things, like having a son, and yes, he lied, then he'll lie about big things. Like he just did above.
Show us in this article just WHERE it says these guys were "Peaceniks", democrats or even liberals.
Not one word about it in the article. But he posts the article. Then coyly posts his LIE about what he slimely calls "Peaceniks".
If they'll lie about the little things, they'll lie about the big ones.
Sorry for the interuption.
ReplyDeleteYou may go back to your regularly scheduled brainwashing now.
BTW with ALL the talk about ISOLATIONISTS and apeasers, of WW@ it might be nice to KNOW who they REALLY were...
ReplyDeletePeople like Robert Taft (R) senator from OHIO and failed presidential canidate in 1940, 1948 and 1952.
Herbert Hoover (R) former President of The US
Thomas Edmund Dewey (R) Governor of New York (1943-1955)and the unsuccessful Republican candidate for the U.S. Presidency in 1944 and 1948.
Arthur Hendrick Vandenberg (R)Republican Senator from the state of Michigan
Hamilton Fish III (R) U.S Congressman from New York.
Robert Elkington Wood (R) Chairman of Sears and Roebuck
Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr.
Henry Ford the founder of the Ford Motor Company
Gerald Prentice Nye (R) United States Senator from North Dakota
Robert Marion La Follette, Jr. (R) senator from Wisconsin
Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr. future president of the US
Potter Stewart future Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Ann Coulter is coming up on Hannity an Colmes in a few minutes.
ReplyDeleteWhy does a little girl have to wait for 2 days in emergency in County Hospital, which is an understaffed war zone? How can people who are laid off their jobs (from out-sourcing/and Ford or GM recently) even afford health insurance and what happens when a very poor person gets leukemia? Why don't we do the honorable, moral thing and take care of each other? That's really all we have: our character. In the final final ending of life, it's how we treat one another that really matters.
ReplyDeleteWhy was there only one air-traffic controller handling the runway at an airport in Kentucky recently -- when air safetly should be NUBMER ON ON OUR LIST anyway? Especially in this day and age. I heard a retired air traffic controller telling the saddest tales of how they lay people off, always cutting costs to the detriment of our society.
In some parts of
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTT think Mann will have to run off the set shrieking like a banshee again?
ReplyDeleteI read that article Volt on Little Green Footballs, and it seemed strangely like a "set up."
ReplyDeleteyou sure there wasn't some other issue involved? Peaceniks don't beat people up.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNor is it greedy HMO's which DENY treatment just to maximise the money they can hoard for themselves, money OVER treatment is not christian is it?
ReplyDeleteIslamofascists technically would mean any Muslim who owns a corporation and it's this corporation along with other Muslim owned corporations who control the country in which they live!
ReplyDelete-d kayinmaine
Um...no technically I believe this would mean you're an incoherent ignoramus.
Fascism- a political philosophy, movement, or regime...that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Merriam-Webster Online
Eeevil "corporations" don't merit a mention in the definition of fascism, Precious.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFF said "Eeevil "corporations" don't merit a mention in the definition of fascism, Precious."
ReplyDeleteanother lie Foole you picked an abreviated definition check out the detailed definitions clif and I have posted then look at the Neo Cons and you may learn what a fascist is Foole.
Volt said "Question..... how does a public govt figure get away with a financial statement that says "5-25 million"? Can I do that on my taxes? (I have between 5 and 50 thousand dollars worth of deductions this year)"
ReplyDelete-Mikey
Mike,
Stock prices OFTEN fluctuate.
The 5 mil. figure is probably the 52 week low, and the 25 mil. is probably the 52 week high.""
I have to call BS and side with Worf on this as well as on that article you posted dolt, people worth $25,000,000 dont invest everything they have in stocks so volatile that they flucuate 500% in less than 12 months, and if you are trying to spin things that any sane person would do such a thing then you are a liar and a fool and you take us for fools as well if you expect us to believe that BS!!!!
Let's have civilized discussions, and cut the name calling on all sides.
ReplyDeleteIf possible...
Wrong War, Wrong Word
ReplyDeleteIf you control the language, you control the debate. As the Bush Administration's Middle Eastern policy sinks ever deeper into bloody incoherence, the "war on terror" has been getting a quiet linguistic makeover. It's becoming the "war on Islamic fascism." The term has been around for a while--Nexis takes it back to 1990, when the writer and historian Malise Ruthven used "Islamo-fascism" in the London Independent to describe the authoritarian governments of the Muslim world; after 9/11 it was picked up by neocons and prowar pundits, including Stephen Schwartz in the Spectator and Christopher Hitchens in this magazine, to describe a broad swath of Muslim bad guys from Osama to the mullahs of Iran. But the term moved into the mainstream this August when Bush referred to the recently thwarted Britain-based suicide attack plot on airplanes as "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists." Joe Lieberman compares Iraq to "the Spanish Civil War, which was the harbinger of what was to come." The move away from "war on terrorism" arrives not a moment too soon for language fussbudgets who had problems with the idea of making war on a tactic. To say nothing of those who wondered why, if terrorism was the problem, invading Iraq was the solution. (From the President's August 21 press conference: Q: "But what did Iraq have to do with September 11?" A: "Nothing." Now he tells us!)
What's wrong with "Islamo-fascism"? For starters, it's a terrible historical analogy. Italian Fascism, German Nazism and other European fascist movements of the 1920s and '30s were nationalist and secular, closely allied with international capital and aimed at creating powerful, up-to-date, all-encompassing states. Some of the trappings might have been anti-modernist--Mussolini looked back to ancient Rome, the Nazis were fascinated by Nordic mythology and other Wagnerian folderol--but the basic thrust was modern, bureaucratic and rational. You wouldn't find a fascist leader consulting the Bible to figure out how to organize the banking system or the penal code or the women's fashion industry. Even its anti-Semitism was "scientific": The problem was the Jews' genetic inferiority and otherness, which countless biologists, anthropologists and medical researchers were called upon to prove--not that the Jews killed Christ and refused to accept the true faith. Call me pedantic, but if only to remind us that the worst barbarities of the modern era were committed by the most modern people, I think it is worth preserving "fascism" as a term with specific historical content.
Second, and more important, "Islamo-fascism" conflates a wide variety of disparate states, movements and organizations as if, like the fascists, they all want similar things and are working together to achieve them. Neocons have called Saddam Hussein and the Baathists of Syria Islamo-fascists, but these relatively secular nationalist tyrants have nothing in common with shadowy, stateless, fundamentalist Al Qaeda--as even Bush now acknowledges--or with the Taliban, who want to return Afghanistan to the seventh century; and the Taliban aren't much like Iran, which is different from (and somewhat less repressive than) Saudi Arabia--whoops, our big ally in the Middle East! Who are the "Islamo-fascists" in Saudi Arabia--the current regime or its religious-fanatical opponents? It was under the actually existing US-supported government that female students were forced back into their burning school rather than be allowed to escape unveiled. Under that government people are lashed and beheaded, women can't vote or drive, non-Muslim worship is forbidden, a religious dress code is enforced by the state through violence and Wahhabism--the "Islamo-fascist" denomination--is exported around the globe.
Hey just watched Ann Coulter and Doug Schoen, sitting next to alan colmes.
ReplyDeleteDoug Schoen and I went to the Democratic National Convention together in 2000 out here in Los Angeles.
What a fateful night.
Irony and ''Islamofascism''
ReplyDeleteShi'ite and Sunni Muslim excrescences that issue in terrorism are coming to be called "Islamofascism" among those who want to see the "War on Terror" be part of "World War III" (or IV). Roger Scruton, author of A Political Philosophy: Arguments for Conservatism, heads his August 17 Wall Street Journal column "Islamofascism," and subheads it: "Beware a religion without irony." He does not tell us to beware of Christianity and Judaism. They are evidently "with" irony.
Ironically, he cites the rarest ironist, Soren Kierkegaard, as having argued that Christianity is "informed by a spirit of irony." Scruton defines the term boldly: "Irony means accepting 'the other,' as someone other than you." Such an ironic posture is the basis of "every real negotiation, every offer of peace, every acceptance of the other." Is this "accepting 'the other'" a mark of Christian history? I'm a friendly enough "insider" student of Christian history for a half century, and have not found such acceptance of the other to be characteristic of the Christian tradition.
From the first "Christian" decade, the Jew was the unaccepted "other," as were the Romans. When the formerly persecuted Christians took over the Empire, they immediately began persecuting the pagan as "the other." For 1,400 years Christians in power hunted the heretic as "the other." Were Crusaders and Inquisitors acceptant negotiators? Western and Eastern Christians and then Catholics and Protestants did not accept "the other."
Islam has rarely been "a religion with irony." To his credit, Scruton acknowledges Ottoman Turks for their few moments of openness and, laudably, does not "give up hope for a tolerant Islam." But his contrast includes some more deceptive advertising. Note how he inserts the adjective "secular" here: "Christians and Jews are heirs to a long tradition of secular government, which began under the Roman Empire and was renewed at the Enlightenment: Human societies should be governed by human laws, and these laws must take precedence over religious edicts. The primary duty of citizens is to obey the state; ... all religions must bow down to the sovereign authority if they are to exist within its jurisdiction." Okay. But when did Christians teach or practice that, unless theirs was the established religion within a polity? I will grant the point that a civil society like our own "subordinates" religion, and we'd not be a republic did we not do so.
Once more: "Beware a religion without irony." Ironically, it is not precisely the Christian religion that Scruton credits with being ironic; no, it is the "secular" tradition. Christians are "heirs to a long tradition of secular government." Scruton does not say that Christianity and Judaism produced the tradition of secular government; Christians ordinarily resisted the Roman Empire and the Enlightenment, though they creatively exploited the latter, as in the case of the United States. That many Muslims and many passages in the Qur'an have created gross problems in the civil order throughout history is plain. That is a subject for another day, another column.
Ironically, many Christians today who want to "take America back" and Christianize the public order are simply critical of the gifts of "secular government" and the Enlightenment. Beware also such a "religion without irony."
Islam and Fascism
ReplyDeleteAmerica’s overall position in the Middle East continues to worsen. America’s “moderate” Arab friends now shed their friendship. President Bush opposes terrorism aimed at Israel. He believes that Israel has the right to strike back against the Islamofascists. These are the Hezbollah fighters who belong to the Shiite sect of Islam (guided by Iran). In Bush’s strategy, they are to be distinguished from the Shiite government of Iraq, which is somehow different because Iran’s agents are advanced by popular vote and with the backing of U.S. troops. This sanctifies them in the eyes of the administration. If an Islamofascist is elected in Baghdad, it makes no difference. If he resides in Lebanon and fires rockets at Israeli civilians, then he is properly dubbed an Islamofascist. According to the Wikipedia, “Islamofascism is a neologism and political epithet used to compare the ideological or operational characteristics of certain modern Islamist movements with European fascist movements of the early 20th century….” Hezbollah and the Iranian government, as well as al Qaeda, are considered to be representatives of Islamofascism. The Wikipedia says that none of these “label themselves fascist, however, and critics of the term argue that associating the religion of Islam with fascism is both offensive and historically inaccurate.”
The term “fascist” is often used as a label for politicians or policies we don’t like. Many on the far Left believe President Bush is a fascist. Others believe that the Left’s push for more and more government regulation is fascist. We have all heard the conspiracy theorists refer to 9/11 as Bush’s “Reichstag fire.” One might ask, indeed, whether the term “fascist” has any validity at all. If the political exaggerators think President Bush is a fascist, they have failed to know what real fascism looks like. Unlike communism, it is a popular movement. It seeks to mobilize the vulgar masses with vulgar propaganda and thrilling violence. The fascist leader is often a supreme performer, an actor, a narcissist, a petty novelist or painter. His thuggish retinue, drawn from the scum of society, makes anti-capitalist noises. They array themselves against the classical liberals and conservatives. This is because fascism is a revolutionary creed, like communism.
And what form does fascist government take? It is best described in the words of Benedetto Croce as onagrocracy (i.e., government by braying asses). It is a form of dictatorship attended by much sound and fury. To be sure, the United States has many braying asses, but they aren’t necessarily fascists because they aren’t revolutionaries and they aren’t surrounded by thugs. Not yet. In the Islamic world, however, Osama bin Laden is certainly a performer and a dramatist. His associates use assassination and murder to impose their will upon society. The group that murdered Egyptian President Anwar Sadat claimed that he was a Muslim in name only. They justified his assassination by saying he was an apostate whose death was mandated by the Koran. True fascism is about pageantry and violence. It is thuggery elevated to high theater, just as 9/11 was high theater. It rallies support through breathtaking violence, dramatic killing and more.
In a book titled Anatomy of Fascism, Robert O. Paxton addresses the question of whether Islamism may be considered a form of fascism. Noting that fascism tended to embrace secularization, he wrote that Mussolini and Hitler were circumstantially anti-Catholic. But the religion-embracing fascism of Falange Espanola, Belgian Rexism and the Finnish Lapua Movement offer religiously infused versions of fascism. According to Paxton, “Religion may be as powerful an engine of identity as the nation; indeed, in some cultures, religious identity may be far more powerful than national identity. In integrist religious fundamentalism, the violent promotion of the unity and dynamism of the faith may function very much like the violent promotion of the unity and dynamism of the nation.” As a reaction against democracy, and against bourgeois modernization, Islam may not be an exact fit with fascism. Admittedly, it does not arise in reaction to democracy (as it did in Italy, Germany and Spain). It may be argued, however, that an indirect revolt against America (as a symbol of democracy) is the object against which the Islamists are reacting. We must recall the Ayatollah’s statement – oft repeated – that America is the Great Satan. One must ask why this would be? Why wasn’t the atheist Soviet Union the Great Satan? This is a point of interest, suggesting that the Islamist is reacting against the idea of democracy, even if that idea exists in a faraway land on the other side of the ocean. The fact that the Shiites are using democracy in Iraq to gain power is merely an example of that same opportunism that we find in the rise of Hitler and Mussolini.
The Islamic world craves a great leader. It doesn’t dream of democracy, though democracy may be exploited to the advantage of Islamic power. The essential fact is America’s liberal creed (in the classical sense). The American president sees the rockets falling on Israeli civilians and he recognizes the terrorist signature. He wants democracy and peace. The Islamists are against both. He therefore opposes Hezbollah and sympathizes with Israel. Unlike his rivals from the Democratic Party, President Bush is clear with regard to his Western identity. He does not imagine himself in Arab garb reading the Koran. He is a professed Christian, and all his nonsense about the “religion of peace” is mere confusion. Deep down he knows what is abhorrent to Western values and what is acceptable, in terms of the larger struggle. And yet, his incoherence makes him a supporter of Iranian stooges in Iraq. He needs to realize that Muslim thoughts are not American thoughts. A parting of the ways is built into reality. How can Bush build a democracy in Iraq while supporting Israel against its Shiite Muslim enemy? This cannot be done, now or ever. The national feeling of Iraq cannot accept an America that sympathizes with the Jewish enemy. A division exists, and a parting of the ways is clearly indicated. “You are not our friend,” say the Muslims to the Americans. The Americans are bewildered. What do you mean? Of course we are friends! Of course we can work together! Why not? We are bringing you democracy.
But what does this democracy bring in return?
The mentality of the Arab politician partakes of a fascist perspective which sees in Western interests a more monstrous chauvinism, imperialism and arrogance than that of the Faithful. Iran and the United States are involved in a proxy war. And now the Sunnis, despite themselves, begin to cheer for Hezbollah. The fractured Muslim world is drawing together. As noted by Arnaud de Borchgrave in the Washington Times on Aug. 7, Mustafa Bakri announced to the Egyptian parliament that “Condoleezza Rice is a murderer, just like Olmert and Bush. She has come to ruin and destroy. We must stop pinning our hopes on these people. These are our true enemies. America is the head of the serpent, and the greatest enemy we must confront…. Nasrallah [of Hezbollah] is reviving the history of Saladin and Gamal Abdel Nasser…. You can come and see the pictures of Nasrallah in our homes … and in our streets…. It is our hope Nasrallah will be the leader of this nation, who will unite it, Allah willing.”
The head of the Shiite terrorists, Sheik Nasrallah, has captured the Sunni imagination. He has done what nobody expected. Shiites have won Sunni sympathy, even as they crush the Sunnis in Iraq. The raw calculus of power, of the fascist imperative of answering the wounded pride of a humiliated people, is now at work. Nobody in the West can say anything or make any offering to stop this process from snowballing. We are now headed for calamity. Iran has the initiative in the struggle, and is gaining momentum. Hezbollah’s leader, the cleric Nasrallah, is urging Arabs to leave Haifa. “I have a special message to the Arabs of Haifa,” he said. “To your martyrs and to your wounded. I call on you to leave this city. I hope you do this…. Please leave so we don’t shed your blood, which is our blood.”
The initial panic of the Iranian leadership at the Israeli offensive is past. The Shiites have broken through – not militarily but psychologically. The possibility of grave mischief opens up as Europe trembles, ready for appeasement. The world economy can be held hostage now, as grand theater and its supreme performer rally the Arabs in a deep and emotionally charged way. True fascism is about pageantry and violence. The law is replaced by naked force, reason by emotion. Fascism arises in times of great stress, when the modern democratic formula has failed. Those who wish to promote a tribal or sectarian interest are the fascist mainstay. They seek to unify a people. (In this case the Muslim Nation.) They vilify the enemy – the American and the Jew. It is a case of group narcissism, a mass identity disorder in which a people’s self-image is falsified and their hopes are raised by a mythological savior (part writer, part actor, part soldier). The whole is further infused with the sadomasochism of the gory end.
Sometimes a dictionary leaves out a lot in their attempts to have as few words as possible in their definitions....
Voltaire said...
ReplyDeleteBy that logic worf,
I guess when YOU said YOU were adopted you LIED about having parents.
Really?
Well lemme see here.
I was legally adopted from a state orphanage. My parents were there in the morning when I got up and there when I went to sleep at night. My father gave me their surname, paid for EVERY BILL I EVER INCURRED, was LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY ACTION I EVER COMMITTED , not just "some things" and I lived under HIS ROOF EVERY DAY of my life as a child.
Now lets take a look at Volts "son".
Voltaire said...
He's kinda my adopted son
Kinda? Whats kinda? Oh well, I guess he raised him from his youth and clothed him, fed him his meals, paid all his medical bills, dental bills, was his legal guardian per the state so he was responsible when he breaks a window in the neighbors yard. Yea, I guess I could certainly see that as calling him his son.
Yea. Well as long as he did all that then I guess I'm cool with it.
Voltaire said...
I used to babysit him
:|
Ok, I'm not trying to be difficult here. Lets just say as long as he lived with him for a significant portion of his youth, then thats good enough to call him a son and we'll leave it at that, ok? That will be good enough.
Voltaire said...
He went to live with his grandpa and still does
So let me see if I am getting this straight.
You compare my parents, who went through processes, paperwork, attorneys, judges and waiting periods, paid every bill I ever incurred, accepted full responsibility for all my actions, gave me their surname and put a roof over my head for my entire childhood existence, and you compare that to a kid whom you babysat for and that never even lived under your roof?
Give me a break.
And if the folks in here wanna moan and cry for you then more power to them and you. Oh boo hoo for you, you big bad tough talking republican sanctimonious hypocrite. Boo freakin hoo.
Voltaire said...
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Europe, my son went there this summer
Voltaire said...
My son who is 17 had finally had enough
Voltaire said...
but my sons friend got between them and drug my boy
Give me a break.
Any normal person would have said "a kid I used to baby sit", or "this kid I was close with".
My son.
I think you were trying to play on Lydia's emotions and make yourself appear more fatherly than you actually are. More human than you actually are.
But I see you. I see you clear.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled hogwash.
ReplyDeleteInsurance companies are for insurance like HMO's are for medicine
ReplyDeleteReport Criticizes millions in CEO Pay
ReplyDeleteBy Diane Stafford, Kansas city Mo. star.
Higher Gasoline prices and war have been good - at least finacially for CEO's in the US oil and defense industries.
In comparison, the groups note average workerspay raises have lagged far behind..
Each year the advocacy organization chooses a theme relavant to current events.in 2004 the report zeroed in on CEO pay in companies that outsourced the most US jobs overseas, in 2002 the report looked at CEO pay in the US companies that layed off the largest number of workers.
This report focuses on 2 groups: top executives of the 15 largest Us oil companies who were paid on average of $32.7 million last year, or three times as much as CEO's in other comparibly sized US companies and 8 times as much as foreign oil companies paid their CEO's.
Top CEO's of the 34 largest defense contractors, who last year were paid on average of $7.7 million or double what they earned pre 9/11 and 44 times more than military generals with over 20 years of experience.
The report put those numbers in workforce perspective; since 1990, the overall CEO to worker pay gap in the US has grown from 107 to 1 to last years 411 to 1.
Insurance companies use a single case as the reason for high preminums...but like HMO's squeeze every penny out for them just as HMO's do. Some things should NOT be done with the profit motive as the FIRST priority
ReplyDeleteThere are some things MORE important than MONEY
ReplyDeleteReport: Uninsured Up, Real Income Down For Men and Women, Poverty Unchanged
ReplyDeleteThis morning, the Census Bureau released new figures about health insurance, income, and poverty. It’s not a pretty picture.
The number of Americans without health insurance continues to rise at an alarming rate, men and women are earning less money and there are as many people living in poverty as there have ever been. Some key stats:
– In 2005, 46.6 million people were without health insurance coverage, up from 45.3 million people in 2004.
– The percentage of people without health insurance coverage increased from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005.
– For full-tim, year round workers, the median earnings of men declined 1.8 percent to $41,386, and the median earnings of women declined 1.3 percent to $31,858.
– In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004.
This helps explain why just 32% of Americans approve of Bush’s handling of the economy. Just 22% believe the economy is getting better, “the lowest level of public confidence in the direction of the economy seen in five years.”
12:58 PM
Funny how under Bush pay for the wealthy elite has gone up exponentially while pay for working class people has gone done and insurance coverage is disapearing, and thats not even adjusting for inflation which would make those figures far more grim.
ReplyDeleteVolt said "And Mike, I personally don't know the extent or scope of Rumsfelds investments or personal wealth.
ReplyDeleteI was merely stating a possiblity."
Then thats what you should have said instead of your blind really lame attempt to defend him, man up and say what you just said is not only not plausible its BS, no one worth 25 million would put everything they own in stocks so volatile that the fluctuate 500% in less than a year unless they are a complete fool.
Just a few thoughts on what BuSh had to say:
ReplyDelete''[Our enemies] are successors to fascists, to Nazis, to communists and other totalitarians of the 20th century.''
I think that's how the rest of the world feels about the current Commander in Chief right about now, don't you think? Without not mentioning bin Laden on that enemies list of course, who is CERTAINLY not a man of integrity anywhere in the world.
AP''As we recently saw, the enemy still wants to attack us. We're in a war we didn't ask for, but it's a war we must wage, and a war we will win.''
Incorrect. If you go back to when the Iraq war started in '03, let us not forget that Jr. Bush once said that Saddam and his Government tried to kill the elder Bush when this started, plus the government were producing WMD, which appears to be untrue. And the beat goes on in Iraq: more people dying there left and right, and no end in sight. Starting to sound like Vietnam, don't you think?
''The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq.''
Again, BuSh has completely forgotten that the war on terror involves Osama bin Laden. The only way I see this war to end in Baghdad is simply to withdraw troops. How Iraq handles issues with terror should be done on their own.
''If America were to pull out before Iraq can defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable -- and absolutely disastrous.''
OK, I can see a little bit of sense in that statement. But come on, folks, Iraq does have a military Army, does it not?
''There must be consequences for Iran's defiance, and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.''
I don't condone the Iranian Government and what it stands for (its previous President of Iran (Mohammad Khatami), however, was a reformist who wanted to open up dialog with the US. The guy running Iran right now is an extremely dangerous man, and if what the former hostages from the 444-day seige say is true, then the U.S. needs to confront the nuke weapon issue with Iran in a way that does not result into a conflict. Jimmy Carter proved one thing that he did right, and that was not get into war with Iran during the hostage crisis, and instead come up with other ways to end the crisis, albeit it took until 1981 to make it happen.
Great post Robert!!
ReplyDeleteI'm baaaaaaack.
ReplyDeleteThomas,the pussy peanut farmer got the hostages released? The only reason those poor people that ole Jimmy let sit in captivity for over 400 days were released was the Iranian's knew the old cowboy was coming into office and he would light thier fuse.They were scared shitless of Ronnie.The only thing those shitbirds in dirty nightshirts understand is force.Carter's pussieness helped put america in a position of weakness that in fact lead to 9-11.You friggin libs no nothing but bending over and holding your ankle's.
ReplyDeleteROBERT thank you for a reasoned and very sensible response to Bush's statements.
ReplyDeleteYou friggin liberals are sooooooooo transparent,such easy targets.
ReplyDeletewufuss's daddy take a hike, you lowlife loser. Go play marbles on the freeway or sumpin.
ReplyDeleteI thought Worf and Mike were predicting that the Plame affair would spell the demise of the Bush administration. Guess again, fellas:
ReplyDeleteFrom the Washington Post:
End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.
Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey
Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.
That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
I've always been interested in what Olbermann had to say. There's no reason to be ashamed of "stealing" from Edward R. Morrow; I wasn't aware of that quote until reading it, and sometimes you need to look back in order to move ahead. In keeping with the Nazi comparison, this administration would rather keep us alive instead of using "camps" because they probably enjoy watching us suffer, by ignoring us (the poor) or branding us traitors (the protestors).
ReplyDeleteIt's great that the "reddest of the red" states now understands the mistake they made two years ago. I think the Bush administration is officially on borrowed time, and I hope that this is the beginning so that not even the best spin-doctors, lawyers and pundits (like Aryan-cheerleader Ann Coulter) could bail them out.
Bush recently compared his "war on terror" to our past fights and conflicts with Nazis and communism. Yet more of his "justified" warmongering. Also, I read that the Department of Energy reported that gas prices are the lowest they've been the past few years and it may go down to the $2.00 mark by November. Strange that this is happening so close to the midterm elections...
August 31, 2006
ReplyDeleteWhat It Means to Protect the Nation
By Ed Koch
Why do so many Americans refuse to face the fact that our country is at war with international terrorism?
The leading terrorist group, al-Qaeda, is fighting us on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both Iran and North Korea are threatening nuclear war. And yet many Americans, including some Congressional Democrats, denounce President Bush, and in so doing, weaken our country's ability to resist Islamic fascism. One Congressional Democrat, John Conyers of Michigan, announced his intention to impeach the President when Republicans lose control of both Houses of Congress.
There is something terribly wrong with people seeking to demean and weaken the president in war time, thereby strengthening our country's enemies. As a result of the language and tactics of those opposed to our presence in Iraq, our enemies have been emboldened, believing the American public to be sharply divided on the war, and in fact at war with itself. To other countries, Americans appear pitted against one another not in an election, but in a verbal bloodbath, convincing the world we are impotent -- a paper tiger.
The tyrannical forces in Iran led by its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, make clear that if they can destroy us, they will. Ahmadinejad has said about the U.S., "...Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?...you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved..." Ahmadinejad has also stated his goal of destroying the state of Israel several times, saying, "...Israel must be wiped off the map."
If a sovereign nation makes such threats, do those who are threatened have to wait until the missiles are in the air before taking action? Or may threatened states defend themselves with preemptive action?
The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop developing nuclear technology leading to the creation of a nuclear bomb. Iran has refused, notwithstanding threatened sanctions. Iran's conventional missiles can already reach Europe and Israel. Must Israel wait until the world knows exactly when Iran's bomb has been built? Experts estimate that it may take years or as little as six months. No one knows with certainty when the cobra will be able to strike. Iran has lied to the U.N. about its nuclear development efforts before. Is there anyone who believes it is not prepared to lie in the future or is currently lying?
Many of those who attack the president, hoping to make him ineffective and bring him down, are opposed to our alliance with Israel. You can verify that and the signs of anti-Semitism by looking at the banners and listening to the anti-Israel invective in the speeches in the street demonstrations and marches against the war in Iraq and President Bush. Regrettably, many of those marchers are blind to the terrorism that faces the Western civilization, sympathize with it, or fear it less than they despise the governmental leaders of the U.S.
Recently, Scotland Yard arrested 25 British-born Muslims in the midst of plotting to blow up over the Atlantic Ocean ten U.S.-bound airplanes filled with approximately 4,000 people. The British authorities have indicted 14 and continue with its investigation of 11 more, having released several suspects. In a recent poll of British Muslims by NOP Research, broadcast by British Channel 4-TV on August 7, "Forty-five percent say 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American and Israeli governments. This figure is more than twice as high as those who say it was not a conspiracy. Tragically, almost one in four British Muslims believe that last year's 7/7 attacks on London were justified because of British support for the U.S.-led war on terror."
I know of no comparable poll taken in the American Muslim community, which numbers 2 to 6 million. There are certainly enough Muslims here to poll. Are we afraid to learn the results?
When the government engages in racial and ethnic profiling at our airports, there is an outcry among those who call themselves civil libertarians. They seek to shame us, citing the actions taken in World War II against Japanese-American citizens. The difference is that no Japanese-American engaged in a single hostile act against the U.S. in World War II.
We know today that the 19 terrorists who brought the World Trade Center towers down were Muslims. We know that Muslims planned and implemented the attacks on our embassies in Africa, the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen and the army barracks in Saudi Arabia. So when our counter intelligence investigates alleged terrorist groups, shouldn't suspected Muslim groups be first on the list?
At airports, shouldn't those who speak Arabic or are identified by trained inspectors by clothing, actions, appearance or information as Muslims receive special attention? Most will undoubtedly be innocent, and understandably affronted and inconvenienced. Nevertheless, it is the rational measure to take when we are at war.
Protecting the nation does not mean silence in the face of criminality on the part of the U.S. military forces or improper government action. It means exercising restraint, responsibility, good faith and respect for other people. It means not seeking political gain at the expense of the nation's security in war time. Knowing what to do can be likened to Mr. Justice Potter Stewart's statement in a pornography case. Said he, "I know it when I see it." We should not say "My country right or wrong," as Commander Stephen Decatur did, but we should preserve our country's values while not jeopardizing its very existence.
Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/what_it_means_to_protect_the_n.html at September 01, 2006 - 11:12:31 AM CDT
Also, I read that the Department of Energy reported that gas prices are the lowest they've been the past few years and it may go down to the $2.00 mark by November. Strange that this is happening so close to the midterm elections...
ReplyDelete-Charlie_R
Agreed, Charlie_R. These lower gas prices are a neo-con conspiracy orchestrated by that fascist, George Bush.
Wasn't it enough that he caused the World Trade Center conflagration and conjured hurricane Katrina to devastate black people?
Indeed these lower gas prices, right before the election, have Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it. Shameful indeed.
I just hope that democrats like Ms. Cornell can put enough pressure on the devils at Diebold so that they tally the votes fairly this time.
Charlie R: GREAT POST, thank you!
ReplyDelete(FF, you should do standup cynicism, I mean, comedy!)
You Liberals have a conspiracy for everything: if gas prices went up, you would say that Bush and his big oil buddies were profiteering. Now that they are going down, it's a conspiracy to affect the election.
ReplyDeleteHave you considered that simple market forces may be at play here?
Same thing with the voting machines. If the GOP wins, the Diebold machines have been rigged. If the Dems win, it was a fair election.
Every time reality hits you in the face, you people can't handle the truth and you make up a conspiracy.
Lydia, tell me now, not after the election, if the Diebold machines are rigged, because if the Dems retake the House, how would your conspiracy mindset explain that?
ReplyDeleteThank god for Keith Olbermann. It's too bad liberals are so underrepresented on the nation's television, since we make up such a huge majority of its population.
ReplyDeletewufuss's daddy said...
ReplyDeleteI'm baaaaaaack.
Finished popping all of mommy's boils, huh, sport? Next, she'll ask you to wash her hump.
Your mom still likes me Carl.I love that thing she does with her tongue.Mmmmm.
ReplyDeleteYou dope,when Arbitron does the rating's for Olbermann's show they ask for a show of hands.
ReplyDeleteoh look Rusty the cowardly troll is posting as as another alias I say its time to ban the pathetic waste of skin.
ReplyDeleteShut up you tub of lard,or I'll ban you.Hey,I just heard the microwave beep,your hot pockets are done.
ReplyDeleteYou and Carl...two butt pirates.
ReplyDeleteWhat was it that guy used to call you? Oh yea....the crisco kid.That was Moo Moo was'nt it?
ReplyDeleteSeem's like a lot of people have you pegged Mike.
ReplyDeleteMike,could you answer a question? Do you now or have you ever had a girlfriend? If you have to blow her up it does'nt count.
ReplyDeleteI dare you Rusty try and BAN ME and see what happens next, you are a pathetic authoritarian loser just like your masters, that gets sick pleasure out of feeling like you have power over people and are actually powerful, when in reality all you are is a pathetic bootlicking troll.
ReplyDeleteHey numbnutz,answer the girlfriend question.
ReplyDeleteKeep it up,I'm close to banning your fat a$$.
ReplyDeleteWhy the need for multiple alias's tough guy, are you that big a coward you can use the same login or are you that pathetic that you are trying to make it look like there are more of you losers here than there really are, and you are such an unimportant loser that you have nothing better to do than play gamesby insulting people under multiple handles to try and feel important in your deluded fantasy world you are a tough rich millionaire playboy but in reality you are a pathetic loser with nothing in their life who craves attention because they are such an insignificant loser that no one else even pays attention to them.
ReplyDeletePresident Bush and Islamo-Mush »
ReplyDeleteThe best case is that President Bush’s speech in Utah was a cynical manipulation of the American public.
Perhaps this is why he portrays his unpopular war in Iraq as part of a heroic battle against the forces of evil. Sunni and Shia, Persian and Arab, Al Qaida and Hamas are all, he claims, “a single movement, a worldwide network of radicals.”
This mushy merger of rival groups and nations with vastly different histories and motives, some in actual combat with each other, may help the president convince some that they should back his war in Iraq as a way of defeating Hezbollah and Hamas. It helps him explain why he abandoned pursuit of Osama bin Laden to overthrow Saddam Hussein. They are, in his view, all the same.
Another possibility is that the president actually believes this simplistic notion picked up from the fringe writings of the radical right. He may believe that these petty groups and their posturing leaders “are successors to fascists, to Nazis, to communists and other totalitarians of the 20th century.” By inflating his enemies, he raises his own perceived role in history. He becomes the Churchillian leader of “the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century.”
It is difficult to believe that the senior leadership in the National Security Council, the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports this grandiose analysis. It is harder to believe that the senior analysts in the intelligence agencies have concurred with this distorted world view.
The idiot Bush lumps everything into two categories. Us and them. The man never read a book so how would he know the history of nations and peooples. He never traveled outside of the country to know that people are different. How did our fellow Americans purchase such a pig in a poke?
ReplyDeleteAre we so wrapped up in television that advertising can sell us “chicken feces” and we think it is “Chicken salad” as a president.
Are we as a nation so afraid of the world and ready for Armegeddon that we have lost our ability to think rationally? Has our collective IQ dropped that low?
Why are we letting the Christian Taliban set our foreign policy? Will we get out and vote to throw these troglodytes out of office and back into the caves from which they reared their ugly heads?
Comment by yankeluh — September 1, 2006 @ 10:34 am
60%: Percentage of Americans who think there will be more terrorism in the U.S. because of the Iraq war.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of Americans think our fool, in chief is making us LESS SAFE, as opposed to more safe, wonder how that will play out in November when the repugs try and portray themselves as the national security party.
PRESIDENTIAL TRIVIA QUIZ
ReplyDeleteWhat American President holds the record for:
1. ordering the most executions in any state while serving as Governor?
2. being the first President to enter office with a Criminal Record?
3. having the largest annual budget deficit?
4. being President during the 12 month period in which the most private bankruptcies were filed?
5. being President during the 12 month period in which the most mortgage defaults were filed?
6. being President during the largest stock market loss in the history of the market?
7. having the richest Cabinet Members?
8. having the most campaign fund raising trips while in office?
9. the most private use of Air Force One? (Including as a U-Haul moving van for his daughters.)
10. receiving the most Corporate campaign donations?
11. having his largest campaign contributor presiding over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in the US?
12. allowing the highest gasoline prices in US history?
13. being President during the largest job loss in US history?
14. being President during the largest shift of jobs outside the Country in US history?
15. the most pre-emptive invasions of independent countries?
16. creating the largest (and probably the most inept) governmental bureaucracy in US history (Homeland Security)?
17. breaking the most international treaties?
18. being the first President to remove the US from the Human Rights Commission?
19. being the first President to remove the US from the World Court of Law?
20. being the first President to violate the Geneva Convention?
21. being the first President to refuse entry into the US by the UN Elections Inspectors?
22. holding the fewest number of press conferences since the advent of TV?
23. taking the most vacation days in 12 months?
24. causing the US to be viewed as the most hated nation in the world?
25. having the greatest failure of diplomacy of any free world country?
26. not preventing the worst security failure of US history?
27. not responding in a timely manner to one of the worst natural disasters in US history?
28. having the most world protestors against any US President?
29. earning the distinction of being viewed as the biggest threat to world peace and security?
Hint: It wasn't George Washington or Bill Clinton, or any of those in between.
Found at:
http://www.storytimedolls.net/mmff.html
Published on Monday, April 11, 2005 by TomDispatch.com
ReplyDeleteOil, Geopolitics, and the Coming War with Iran
by Michael T. Klare
As the United States gears up for an attack on Iran, one thing is certain: the Bush administration will never mention oil as a reason for going to war. As in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be cited as the principal justification for an American assault. "We will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon [by Iran]," is the way President Bush put it in a much-quoted 2003 statement. But just as the failure to discover illicit weapons in Iraq undermined the administration's use of WMD as the paramount reason for its invasion, so its claim that an attack on Iran would be justified because of its alleged nuclear potential should invite widespread skepticism. More important, any serious assessment of Iran's strategic importance to the United States should focus on its role in the global energy equation.
Just exactly how much weight the oil factor carries in the administration's decision-making is not something that we can determine with absolute assurance at this time, but given the importance energy has played in the careers and thinking of various high officials of this administration, and given Iran's immense resources, it would be ludicrous not to take the oil factor into account -- and yet you can rest assured that, as relations with Iran worsen, American media reports and analysis of the situation will generally steer a course well clear of the subject (as they did in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq).
One further caveat: When talking about oil's importance in American strategic thinking about Iran, it is important to go beyond the obvious question of Iran's potential role in satisfying our country's future energy requirements. Because Iran occupies a strategic location on the north side of the Persian Gulf, it is in a position to threaten oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates, which together possess more than half of the world's known oil reserves. Iran also sits athwart the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which, daily, 40% of the world's oil exports pass. In addition, Iran is becoming a major supplier of oil and natural gas to China, India, and Japan, thereby giving Tehran additional clout in world affairs. It is these geopolitical dimensions of energy, as much as Iran's potential to export significant quantities of oil to the United States, that undoubtedly govern the administration's strategic calculations.
Having said this, let me proceed to an assessment of Iran's future energy potential. According to the most recent tally by Oil and Gas Journal, Iran houses the second-largest pool of untapped petroleum in the world, an estimated 125.8 billion barrels. Only Saudi Arabia, with an estimated 260 billion barrels, possesses more; Iraq, the third in line, has an estimated 115 billion barrels. With this much oil -- about one-tenth of the world's estimated total supply -- Iran is certain to play a key role in the global energy equation, no matter what else occurs.
It is not, however, just sheer quantity that matters in Iran's case; no less important is its future productive capacity. Although Saudi Arabia possesses larger reserves, it is now producing oil at close to its maximum sustainable rate (about 10 million barrels per day). It will probably be unable to raise its output significantly over the next 20 years while global demand, pushed by significantly higher consumption in the United States, China, and India, is expected to rise by 50%. Iran, on the other hand, has considerable growth potential: it is now producing about 4 million barrels per day, but is thought to be capable of boosting its output by another 3 million barrels or so. Few, if any, other countries possess this potential, so Iran's importance as a producer, already significant, is bound to grow in the years ahead.
And it is not just oil that Iran possesses in great abundance, but also natural gas. According to Oil and Gas Journal, Iran has an estimated 940 trillion cubic feet of gas, or approximately 16% of total world reserves. (Only Russia, with 1,680 trillion cubic feet, has a larger supply.) As it takes approximately 6,000 cubic feet of gas to equal the energy content of 1 barrel of oil, Iran's gas reserves represent the equivalent of about 155 billion barrels of oil. This, in turn, means that its combined hydrocarbon reserves are the equivalent of some 280 billion barrels of oil, just slightly behind Saudi Arabia's combined supply. At present, Iran is producing only a small share of its gas reserves, about 2.7 trillion cubic feet per year. This means that Iran is one of the few countries capable of supplying much larger amounts of natural gas in the future.
What all this means is that Iran will play a critical role in the world's future energy equation. This is especially true because the global demand for natural gas is growing faster than that for any other source of energy, including oil. While the world currently consumes more oil than gas, the supply of petroleum is expected to contract in the not-too-distant future as global production approaches its peak sustainable level -- perhaps as soon as 2010 -- and then begins a gradual but irreversible decline. The production of natural gas, on the other hand, is not likely to peak until several decades from now, and so is expected to take up much of the slack when oil supplies become less abundant. Natural gas is also considered a more attractive fuel than oil in many applications, especially because when consumed it releases less carbon dioxide (a major contributor to the greenhouse effect).
When considering Iran's role in the global energy equation, therefore, Bush administration officials have two key strategic aims: a desire to open up Iranian oil and gas fields to exploitation by American firms, and concern over Iran's growing ties to America's competitors in the global energy market. Under U.S. law, the first of these aims can only be achieved after the President lifts EO 12959, and this is not likely to occur as long as Iran is controlled by anti-American mullahs and refuses to abandon its uranium enrichment activities with potential bomb-making applications. Likewise, the ban on U.S. involvement in Iranian energy production and export gives Tehran no choice but to pursue ties with other consuming nations. From the Bush administration's point of view, there is only one obvious and immediate way to alter this unappetizing landscape -- by inducing "regime change" in Iran and replacing the existing leadership with one far friendlier to U.S. strategic interests.
In this sense, more than any other, the current planning for an attack on Iran is fundamentally driven by concern over the safety of U.S. energy supplies, as was the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
11:32 AM
The Rolling Stones call George W Bush 'full of shit'
ReplyDeleteMick Jagger lays into the US President on the band's new album...
THE ROLLING STONES accuse US President GEORGE W BUSH of being "full of sh*t" on their new album.
The track 'Sweet Neo Con', one of the tracks on the forthcoming 'A Bigger Bang', was already known to be fiercely anti-Bush.
However, frontman Mick Jagger's disdain for the American leader has now been confirmed, with Rolling Stones singer revealing some of the lyrics in an interview with Newsweek.
But the singer has revealed that guitarist Keith Richards, who lives in the US, is a bit worried about the direct nature of the words.
An extract from 'Sweet Neo Con' features the following lines: "You call yourself a Christian, I call you u a hypocrite/You call yourself a patriot, well I think you're full of sh*t."
Jagger said of the track: "It is direct. Keith said: 'It's not really metaphorical.'
"I think he's a bit worried because he lives in the US. But I don't."
You Liberals have a conspiracy for everything: if gas prices went up, you would say that Bush and his big oil buddies were profiteering. Now that they are going down, it's a conspiracy to affect the election.
ReplyDelete-TalllTexan
Yeah, is there no conspiracy theory too wild, too zany, too goofy, too synapse-challenged even for a lib?
Next thang you know some lib will be claiming that there is a fake Wonderbread truck parked outside to eavesdrop on their important conversations, or that eevil repug agents have hacked into their website to prevent it from influencing thousands of undecided voters.
Anyway, I'm going to think happy thoughts so that Conservatives will win in November. I see children and bunnies playing on the campus of Diebold industries as a wise Karl Rove looks on approvingly. I see legions of independent voters skipping to the polls to vote straight Republican (some of whom may be gay).
I know this will work because my study of metaphysics shows that anything that we imagine is certain to become reality.
Johnny said "This is getting ridiculous!
ReplyDeleteI enjoy mini-debates with Lydia and occassionally give her a bit of a hard time , however, I do not stalk her endlessly demanding perfect answers.
Had I myself posed this same, reasonable question, I would have been more than satisfied with all the responses.
TT is getting way too much attention for this frivolous issue! Im really starting to believe hes out to get Lydia..... BIG TIME! He's way too obssessed and focused on her!
Additionally, I was stunned by his continual and deliberate ignoring of Worfs factual & repetitive statement:
"The Bush admin cherry picked out what they wanted, THEN gave it to Congress."
I would have been kicked off Coulters cowardly site long ago for the same behaviour.
Its not amusing anymore!
Mike said: "TT is getting way too much attention for this frivolous issue!"
ReplyDeleteI really could care less about what five or six people think of me on some "backwater blog" (Worf's words, not mine,), but I guess, Mike, you DO care about how much attention I get.
Get a life. This is a blog, it's not real life. Blogs are fun and informative, but you can't confuse a blog for your real life.
These virtual interactions, in the grand scheme of things, are relatively meaningless in comparison to what we have with our real life friends and family.
you and your troll buddies care alot more about this "little Backwater Blog" than you let on Troll Tex.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I have plenty of friends, family and hobbies, this is far from the only thing in my life, but nice try at trying to silence me, to bad it failed like everything you and your masters do.
BTW Rusty better try harder, i'm back!!!!!!!
Mike, when and how have I ever tried to silence you?
ReplyDeleteYou and Clif bury this blog with reams of cut and paste jobs to the point that it's sometimes unreadable. If anyone is trying to silence you, look to yourself.
AHH so I guess i;m not supposed to cut and paste anything anymore Troll Tex because you dont like it, sorry but until Lydia tells me not to cut and paste anything I will continue doing as I please and if it annoys or bothers you, so much the better.
ReplyDeleteI have to say though that it is rather interesting that you really havent posted here much at all the last month........and yet when someone addresses you you are right there almost immediately to reply, kind of like you are monitoring the blog.
Mike said: "I have to say though that it is rather interesting that you really havent posted here much at all the last month........"
ReplyDeleteSeems like you are monitoring my blogging activity here, Mike/Big Ed. Care to explain?
Well the PENTAGON finally says it Might become a civil war....good thing that Honest Abe did not have the idiot Dumsfeld back in the 1860's, cause after Lee got done marching north into Gettysburg...Dumsfeld might have admitted a civil war was a possibility.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the idiot repugs plan on swiftboating the pentagon, cause they strayed from the party line....
ReplyDeleteI know Dumsfeld can find some general to FIRE because the facts do not fit his game plan again
ReplyDeleteClif said "I wonder if the idiot repugs plan on swiftboating the pentagon, cause they strayed from the party line...."
ReplyDeletedont you know Clif, they are traitors in league with fascists. LOL
TT said "Seems like you are monitoring my blogging activity here, Mike/Big Ed. Care to explain?
ReplyDeleteNO!
But with the BAD news in this report (released late friday afternoon on laborday weekend, so they hope everybody is getting ready for laborday and will not notice the BAD news) the terra alert is gonna rise...or they will find some losers who haven't even got passports or air line tickets to arrest again.
ReplyDeleteDumsfeld will run out of people to fire soon or people that will cowtow to that fool.
ReplyDeleteThink somebody should tell the idiot in chief, that stay the course in Iraq is no better than it was on the Titanic, (especially after it struck the iceburg, and became a fiasco for the people on board)
ReplyDeleteremember I previously said I believe the Neo Cons will box Iran into a corner so they use the oil weapon to hit average joe's in their pocketbook and get them on board with attacking Iran, well I think thats exactly what they are doing with these so called terrorists plots against airplanes that were foiled.
ReplyDeleteThink about it what better way to turn Americans against the new bogey man of Iran than to hit them where they live with inconvieience, for example worf you said you refuse to fly why not inconvienience millions of regular Americans by not letting them bring simple things like baby formula or toothpaste or sunscreen with them or by having to check bags and deal with lost luggage instead of simply creating a line to have someone inspect these items for the few who want to bring them and or implementing technology that will detect liquid explosives..
That inconvienience could easily be manipulated to rage and justification to attack iran, particulary if the box Iran into a corner and force them to use the oil weapon that will be extremely painful to the poor and middle class but have little effect on the wealthy whose expenditures on oil only represent a small miniscule portion of their disposable income and will not pose a hardship
I guess the Idiot is being a repug true to form..after all Eisenhower dumped the bay of pigs in Kennedy's lap, and the idiots daddy dumped Somilia in Clinton's lap...why shouldn't HE dump Iraq on the NEXT president
ReplyDeleteOh and BTW Tiny minded one...the wapo slander column is not quite accurate.....so it is repug spin as usual, which is proly why you posted it here;
ReplyDeletewell there is a good reply here;
Response to Wash Post Editorial of 9/1/06
Allegation: It is untrue that the WH orchestrated leak of Plame’s identity to ruin her career and punish Joe Wilson
According to Washington Post article of 10/12/03: “two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to at least six Washington journalists.” An administration source told the Post: “officials brought up Plame as part of their broader case against Wilson . . . It was unsolicited . . . They were pushing back. They used everything they had.”
After Novak’s column appeared Rove called Chris Matthews and told him Mr. Wilson’s wife was “fair game” (Newsweek 7/11/05)
Mr. Fitzgerald, who has long been aware of Mr. Armitage’s role, stated in court filing: “there is ample evidence that multiple officials in the White House discussed [Valerie Wilson’s] employment with reporters prior to (and after) July 14, “ and further that “it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to ‘punish’ [Mr.] Wilson.” (Washington Post 4/7/06)
Allegation: Mr. Wilson’s charge that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger is false
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessment of Iraq describes Mr. Wilson’s role:
The CIA’s decision to send Mr. Wilson to Niger was part of an effort to obtain responses to questions from the Vice President’s Office and State and Defense on “the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal” (p. 39)
Two CIA staffers debriefed Mr. Wilson upon his return from Niger and wrote a draft intelligence report that was sent to the CIA Director of Operations (“DO”) reports officer. (p. 43)
The intelligence report based on Mr. Wilson’s trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002, and was “widely distributed.” It did not identify Mr. Wilson by name to protect him as a source, which the CIA had promised Mr. Wilson. (p. 43)
According to the report, the CIA’s DO gave Mr. Wilson’s information a grade of “good” “which means it added to the IC’s body of understanding on the issue.” (p. 46)
After Mr. Wilson’s July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed, the Administration acted as if he had made a major revelation:
The day after a spokesman for the President told The Washington Post: “the sixteen words [“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”] did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union.” (NY Times 7/8/03)
On July 11, 2003, CIA Director George Tenet said “These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president.” (LA Times 7/12/03).
According to a Washington Post article, the National Intelligence Council stated in a January 2003 memo that “the Niger story [that Iraq had been caught trying to buy uranium from Niger] was baseless and should be laid to rest.” (Washington Post 4/9/06)
According to a Vanity Fair article of July 2006, there was a last-minute decision before the President’s State of the Union Address to attribute the Niger uranium deal to British intelligence even though “the CIA had told the White House again and again that it didn’t trust the British reports.”
On March 7, 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the IAEA, publicly disclosed that the Niger documents which formed the basis for reports of a Iraq-Niger uranium transaction were false. He stated that “the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.”
Allegation: Mr. Wilson “ought to have expected . . . that the answer [to why he was sent to Niger] would point to his wife.”
A July 22, 2003 Newsday article cites a senior intelligence officer who confirmed that “she [Valerie Plame] did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment.”
Joe Wilson’s July 15, 2005 letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence explains that Valerie Wilson was not at the meeting at which the subject of him traveling to Niger was raised for the first time and then only after a discussion of what the participants at the meeting did not did not know about Niger. This is confirmed by SSCI report at p. 40.
And this by Larry Johnson on his blog
ReplyDeleteSmearing the Wilsons and Sliming America
by
Larry C Johnson
How low can they go? I refer of course to the latest vitriol directed at Valerie and Joe Wilson by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post, who claim that Joe Wilson, not Bush Administration officials, is responsible for destroying his wife's cover and exposing her as a CIA operative. Hitchens battle with the bottle may account for his addled thinking, but what is Hiatt's excuse? Both men perform like Cirque du Soleil contortionists in dreaming up excuses for the nutty and destructive policies and actions of the Bush Administration. In watching their behavior we see a parallel with the devotees of Jim Jones who gathered in Guyana almost 30 years ago to drink poisoned kool aid.
Let's focus on the Post's Fred Hiatt. In today's Post editorial page, Hiatt writes:
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.
The claim that Joe Wilson’s op-ed from July of 2003 was a pack of lies and misrepresented the truth is an old rightiwng, White House canard. Here is what Joe Wilson said in the July 2003 op-ed:
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.
False claim? False claim my ass! There were at least four reports. We now know that the National Intelligence officer for Africa in January 2003 briefed the White House that the Iraq/Niger claim was bunk. Even a partisan Senate Intelligence Committe report cites repeated efforts by the intelligence community to warn the President’s advisors that reports claiming Iraq was trying to buy uranium, including British reoirts, were not credible.
What is so bizarre is that the White House did admit that it was wrong to put the infamous 16 words into the State of the Union Address (of course, they blamed the CIA), just days after Wilson's op-ed appeared. If, as Hiatt claims, Wilson's op-ed was false, then why did the White House correct the record by confirming the substance of his claim?
Hiatt also portrays an astonishing ignorance of national security affairs. He offers up this goofiness referring to Joe Wilson's "culpability" for exposing his wife's job:
He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife.
Yes, why would the CIA send the former Director of Africa at the National Security Council, a former Ambassador to Gabon, and the last U.S. official to face down Saddam Hussein to Africa? Because Joe Wilson was uniquely qualified to do the job. Moreover, this is (or at least was) a common acitivity by the CIA. My former boss at State Department, Ambassador Morris D. Busby, made at least two trips I know of at the behest of the CIA after leaving government because of his experience in dealing with terrorism, narcotics, and Latin America. There are times when the CIA wants information and does not want to expose its own assets.
There was nothing on the public record or in any public document identifying Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA operative. That information was classified. Sending Joe on a mission to Africa does not point the finger at her. Moreover, she did not make the decision to send him. That is another of Hiatt's lies and is routinely echoed by rightwing hacks. As Walter Pincus reported in the Washington Post in July 2005:
“They [the White House] said that his 2002 trip to Niger was a boondoggle arranged by his wife, but CIA officials say that is incorrect. One reason for the confusion about Plame's role is that she had arranged a trip for him to Niger three years earlier on an unrelated matter, CIA officials told The Washington Post.” (Washington Post, 27 July 2005)
Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed. (Washington Post, 27 July 2005)
We are forced to revisit this nonsense because we have now learned that in addition to Libby and Rove, Richard Armitage also was shooting off his mouth about classified information. Regardless of Armitage’s role as an initial source for Novak, we are still left with the fact that Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby abused their power and were actively engaged in a coordinated effort to discredit Joe Wilson for his behind the scene efforts to alert the public to the falsehoods in the President’s State of the Union address.
While Richard Armitage may have had no malicious intent, the same cannot be said for Cheney, Libby and Rove. They knew exactly what they were doing. According to The Washington Post, during the week of July 6, 2003, “two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to at least six Washington journalists.” Sometime after Novak’s column appeared, Rove called Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s “Hardball” and told him that Mr. Wilson’s wife was “fair game.”
And we have the document released by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in United States v. Libby, that provides a copy of notes Cheney had written in the margins of Mr. Wilson’s July 6 op-ed. In a court filing, Fitzgerald stated that the notes demonstrated that Cheney and Libby were “acutely focused” on the Wilson column and on rebutting his criticisms of the White House’s handling of the Niger intelligence. Those notes became the basis for Republican National Committee talking points circulated and repeated by Ken Mehlman and others.
Why is this relevant? Today the Bush Administration is once again trying to manufacture a case for war. They are calling critics of its policies on Iran and Iraq "appeasers" and decrying the lack of intelligence on Iran. It is deja vu all over again to quote Yogi Berra. They whine about a lack of intelligence on Iran but refuse to accept responsibility for their own role in destroying Valerie Plame's undercover work, which was focused on monitoring the flow of nuclear technology to Iran. They may not have fully understood what Val was doing because of her cover status. But that's the point. They don't think these things true. Their only goal is political survival.
Perhpas the new attention on the Plame affair will fuel public support for accountability in government. The gang of political thugs currently in the White House refuse to be held accountable for anything. With the help of enablers like Fred Hiatt and Christopher Hitchens and others in the main stream media, it is no wonder that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld skate from disaster to disaster, oblivious to the field of debris left in their wake.
We must also remember that the Government sanctioned attack on the Wilsons is not an isolated event. Just ask former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill or National Security Advisor Richard Clarke. Add to this list the names of the two CIA Baghdad Chiefs of Station who were savaged for their prescient early warnings that Iraq was moving into a civil war. The Plame/Wilson affair stands as a stark reminder that President Bush and his minions prefer destroying those who call them to account for failed policies rather than admit error and take corrective measures that will serve the longterm interests of the United States. As we move towards a new war with Iran, we should not be surprised that people who know the truth are reluctant to come forward. If you choose to blow the whistle you are choosing career suicide and a full frontal assault on your character. In smearing the Wilsons, Bush and Cheney also are sliming America.
And this rebuttal to the disingenuous smear column wapo put out;(and this is the best because it shows the wapo opinion article author is a neo-con repug hack, getting the NEW talking points out...Which means, your just another repug minion who is slinging his mental feces further.
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised by several things in the WaPo's disingenuous editorial on the Plame Affair today. For example, I'm not surprised it relies on the word, "primary."
But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage. [my emphasis]
It's a word Novak conjured up when he went clean last month, and it seems designed to cast the majority of the blame on Armitage and away from Rove. Yet it relates solely to Plame's purported role in Wilson's trip to Niger; Novak never says that Armitage was his source for Plame's classified identity or name (he reverts to much less convincing stories to explain away his use of the word "operative," "Plame," none of which come from Armitage but which are more important to the story than Plame's general role). And the word "primary" might be taken to mean "first," particularly if you're the NYT, even though English speakers and smart doggies know there's a difference.
I suspect if I rifled through Fred Hiatt's, Chris Hitchens', and Byron York's trash, I'd find a little talking points document stressing the importance of this word "primary," which seems to suggest so much, but more likely obscures the entire story.
Runaway Special Prosecutor
I'm also not surprised that Fred raises the specter of a runaway special prosecutor.
The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.
After the example of Ken Starr, a runaway special prosecutor is something to be feared. But look what Fred has to ignore to be able to make this claim. First, Fitzgerald's investigation has been anything but costly (Christy, you think you could smack down Fred on this issue? because since you beat Byron silly on it, he has not made such a baseless suggestion).
And I'm even more amused by the other two claims. First, Fred is worried about how prolonged this investigation has been. But as I pointed last month, the White House took two and a half years to comply with the initial subpoenas for entire chunks of emails, 250 pages worth. Two and a half years!! So if the right wants to complain about prolonged events, they might start with how long it takes the White House to respond to subpoenas.
And check out this claim:
All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.
Armitage reported his role in this case on October 1, 2003. He was interviewed by the FBI on October 2, 2003. Armitage's identity has been known for three years, but still the DOJ continued the investigation (even when Ashcroft and Bush Skull and Bones buddy Robert McCallum were still leading it). John Ashcroft asked James Comey to appoint a special prosecutor almost three months after Armitage's identity was revealed. So, Fred, I suspect there are entirely unrelated reasons why the investigation continued and why Libby saw fit to lie about his involvement, reasons that have nothing to do with Richard Armitage.
Obscuring Wilson's Accusation
Nor am I surprised at the gymnastics Fred uses to try to turn this onto Wilson. Watch closely. Fred doesn't claim that Wilson was wrong when he asserted BushCo "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy.
Perhaps Fred knows better than to do so since his own newspaper reported that Bush had been warned, prior to the SOTU, that the Niger claims (and therefore the uranium claims) were baseless. Perhaps Fred knows better than to do so because Condi admitted the SOTU included claims about Niger. Or perhaps Fred knows better than to do so because the CIA gave up on the claim on June 17, 2003, before Wilson first came forward with his op-ed.
Or perhaps more provocatively, Fred knows better than to do so because Richard Armitage, Novak's "primary" source, almost certainly told Novak that,
Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government.
That is, at the same time Armitage was purportedly the "primary" leaker to Novak, he was also admitting to Novak that the entire uranium claim had been based on the forged documents--and that the US government knew (at least by July 2003) that the forgeries were prepared by Rocco Martino.
Whatever the reason that Fred decides not to deny the really explosive part of Wilson's claim, he instead chooses to distort Wilson's words to turn this on Wilson. Wilson says:
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
[snip]
Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.
The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.
Wilson discusses what should have happened. He allows for the possibility that his report was deemed inaccurate. And he doesn't "charge" that his report "was" circulated to SAOs, only that it should have been. And for that--to which the correct response should have been, "no, it wasn't circulated to the SAOs"--Fred deems it Wilson's fault that Libby started digging up dirt on Joe Wilson starting two months earlier, in May 2003.
Repeating Cheney's Talking Points
Finally, I am not surprised that Fred Hiatt is--even today--repeating one of the talking points Dick Cheney developed when he read Joe Wilson's op-ed all those years ago. Cheney wrote:
Have they done this sort of thing?
Send an Amb to answer a question?
Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us?
Or did his wife send him on a junket?
And Fred, faithful to his talking points, again raises Dick's absurd point, to question why a guy with experience working with the former Nigerien leaders named in the uranium allegations, knowledge of the uranium trade, and experience with Saddam Hussein, would be sent to answer a question about those former Nigerien leaders selling uranium to Saddam Hussein.
He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife.
Pretty remarkable. It's been three years. And the wingnuts are still working off the talking points Dick wrote when he first read Wilson's op-ed.
Why Not Editorialize on Iran?
But here's what I am surprised by. Fred Hiatt wrote this editorial today instead of editorializing on Iran's refusal to deal with the UN yesterday. Hiatt has been warmongering on Iran for quite some time now, in inflammatory language. And the Iran announcement today is news, if predictable news.
But instead of choosing to incite more fear and loathing of all things diplomatic, Hiatt instead chose to recycle discredited attacks on the Wilsons, supplemented by new nonsense.
That surprises me. Why is Hiatt still harping on the Wilsons, when he claims to be concerned about Iran's imminent weaponization of a nuclear bomb? Why are the Wilsons a bigger threat to Fred Hiatt than Iran's purported nuclear weapons program?
I wouldn’t want to admit it, either
ReplyDeleteRasmussen Reports conducts a national tracking poll of 15,000 voters per month, and in its latest round of polling, they found fewer and fewer people who wanted to identify themselves as Republicans.
The number of Americans calling themselves Republican has fallen to its lowest level in more than two-and-a-half years. Just 31.9% of American adults now say they’re affiliated with the GOP. That’s down from 37.2% in October 2004 and 34.5% at the beginning of 2006. […]
The number of Democrats has grown slightly, from 36.1% at the beginning of the year to 37.3% now. Those who claim to be unaffiliated have increased to 30.8% this month. That’s the highest total recorded since Rasmussen Reports began releasing this data in January 2004.
Add it all together and the Democrats have their biggest net advantage — more than five percentage points — since January 2004. In the first month of 2006, the Democrats’ advantage was just 1.6 percentage points. Last month, 32.8% of adults said they were Republicans and 36.8% identified themselves as Democrats.
Given the past several years, can you really blame people for distancing themselves from the GOP? If I were a Republican, I wouldn’t want to admit it either.
So? We control Diebold and Diebold controls the world.
ReplyDeleteBwahahahha.
Until November FOOLE, because as the election in Mexico shows, the PEOPLE can still retake their power and call the corrupt politicians, and upset their plans to control elections....
ReplyDeleteAs we noted here earlier today, a new front has opened in the war on Republican corruption--Alaska. (If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here.)
ReplyDeleteSome 20 search warrants were executed in a series of raids Thursday across Alaska. Not all of the locations searched have yet been identified, but the offices of six state lawmakers were among those searched, including the office of Ben Stevens, son of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), himself already in the news this week after being unveiled as the senator who put a secret hold on a bipartisan bill that would create a publicly available database of all federal grants and contracts.
Already the Alaska Affair has contributed one of this new Gilded Age's most memorable episodes. Among the items federal agents were looking for in state lawmakers' offices were garments, including hats, with the logo "Corrupt Bastards Club" or "Corrupt Bastards Caucus."
Used to be that it was the coverup that got you. Now it's the bragging.
FBI Raids Office of AK Senator's Son
ReplyDeleteBy Paul Kiel - August 31, 2006, 11:08 PM
Yesterday, the FBI raided the office of Ben Stevens, who's president of the Alaska State Senate -- and son of Sen. Ted "King of Pork" Stevens (R-AK). Investigators searched his office (and those of five other legislators) for evidence of any ties ("financial information and gifts") between the lawmakers and VECO Corp., "an Anchorage-based oil field services and construction company whose executives are major contributors to political campaigns," according to the AP.
VECO, a reader notes, is one of father Ted Stevens' biggest campaign contributors. Its employees donated $45,750 during his career.
This is the second time in a week Ted Stevens' name has made headlines at TPMmuckraker -- earlier, readers will recall, he was unmasked on this site as being the GOP "masked holder" who held up the Obama/Coburn porkbusting transparency bill.
Update: Is this part of what the Feds want to know about? From an April 28 article in the Anchorage Daily News: "Veco, an Alaska oil field services and construction company whose executives are major contributors to Republican political campaigns, paid [Ben] Stevens $57,000 last year for unspecified 'business services,' according to Stevens' most recent disclosure."
And more, from a Nov. 3, 2005 AP article: "Ben Stevens' business relationship with the oil field service company Veco, which has paid him $243,000 since 2000, was cited as an example of 'corruption' in the recall petition brought against Stevens by Republican Moderate Party founder Ray Metcalfe."
at leqast they are keeping it in the family...what is that called...cronyism?
Smearing the Wilsons and Sliming America
ReplyDeleteby
Larry C Johnson
We must also remember that the Government sanctioned attack on the Wilsons is not an isolated event. Just ask former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill or National Security Advisor Richard Clarke. Add to this list the names of the two CIA Baghdad Chiefs of Station who were savaged for their prescient early warnings that Iraq was moving into a civil war. The Plame/Wilson affair stands as a stark reminder that President Bush and his minions prefer destroying those who call them to account for failed policies rather than admit error and take corrective measures that will serve the longterm interests of the United States. As we move towards a new war with Iran, we should not be surprised that people who know the truth are reluctant to come forward. If you choose to blow the whistle you are choosing career suicide and a full frontal assault on your character. In smearing the Wilsons, Bush and Cheney also are sliming America.
"Smearing the Wilsons and Sliming America
ReplyDeleteby
Larry C Johnson"
This is the same guy who observed, in July of 2001, that terrorism poses no risk to America. Great source, Mike.
Troll Tex said ""Smearing the Wilsons and Sliming America
ReplyDeleteby
Larry C Johnson"
This is the same guy who observed, in July of 2001, that terrorism poses no risk to America. Great source, Mike."
Didnt our "protector" and "decider" GWB essentially say the same thing when he dismissed Richard Clarke's warning right before 9/11 happened, if he would have truly believed that terrorism was such a threat, he surely would have heeding Clarke's warning and taken some action to prevent the trajedy of 9/11 wouldnt he TT??????????????????????????????????????????
I mean thats what most reasonable people would do if a terrorism expert warned them of an impending terrorist threat and they truly believed that terrorism was a threat........unless of course they believed that terrorism posed no risk to America......HMMMMMMMMM
Mike, didn't Clark say make that claim when he was trying to sell a book? Yeah, real credible there, Mike.
ReplyDeleteHurricane Katrina; Has America Forgotten?
ReplyDeleteThis week marked the one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, which means it’s time for white Americans to look into the mirror and ask themselves what they have done to make life easier for the millions of impoverished Blacks they allowed to drown in New Orleans. The answer is, to put it bluntly, diddly squat. Despite all the promises to rebuild the Chocolate City and restore it to its original chocolatey goodness, houses ripped from their foundations still rest in the middle of the streets, with large crowds of local politicians standing around wondering what Bush is going to do about it. Parts of the Gulf of Mexico are still completely underwater. The thousands who fled Louisiana haven't been offered enough cash incentives to come back, and the grinning skeletons of entire Black families who remained behind carpet the rooftops to this day, patiently waiting for rescue teams that will never come.
We can never completely repay African-Americans for what we did to them in New Orleans, nor can we ever wash the blood of slavery off our hands. But there are meaningless little gestures we can make to show the Black community that we at least care enough to pretend like we give damn about their suffering. Naming a street in your community after Dr. Martin Luther King, for instance. Giving Halle Berry an Oscar. And most importantly, understanding that African Americans are essentially helpless children who need constant nurturing to survive.
About ten years ago, I noticed a homeless African-American man panhandling on the street corner outside my apartment building. Realizing that as a white man I was somehow responsible for his sorry state of affairs, I felt obligated to make amends. So I gave the poor man a crisp ten dollar bill, and he thanked me profusely.
The next day, I passed the same guy begging for change again. I gave him another ten bucks as I walked by. “Blesh you shir,” he slurred. “Gah Blesh you!” I shook my head and reminded him that the money was his by rights. In an anglo-centric system of White Privilege built through the exploitation of African slaves, every dollar a white person earns is essentially stolen from a black person - or from any other minority (except for those damn Asians who are practically house Negroes because they work hard and don't complain).
On third day, the poor guy was still out there on the corner but he didn’t even bother to thank me when I gave him another ten dollars. He just nodded as if he had expected it. Nevertheless, I gave him ten dollars every single day for the next two or three weeks. By the end of the month, rent was due and I was a little short on cash, so I had to skip my reparations payments for a while. Then one afternoon as I was knitting macrame bong sweaters for Hempfest '96, there came a loud pounding on my door.
“YO, WHERE’S MY MONEY, BITCH?” A familiar voice shouted from the hall. “I KNOW YOU'RE IN THERE! OPEN UP!"
"I'm broke!" I cried. "I don't have any money to give you!"
“LIAR!" he growled back at me. "YOU TOOK ME FROM AFRICA AND BROUGHT ME OVER HERE IN CHAINS! NOW I WANT MY FORTY ACRES AND A MULE!!!”
As a progressive American sensitive to the plight of the oppressed hyphenated peoples, and aware that as a White American I am to totally blame for it, how could I possibly argue with him? I quickly slipped my credit card under the door, and listened as his footsteps dwindled away down the hall.
That was the last I heard from him until a couple weeks ago, when he knocked on my door as I was knitting bong sweaters for Hempfest '06. I looked through the peephole and saw a transformed man. Clean cut, shaven, and wearing a nice suit, he was almost completely indistinguishable from the downtrodden street bum I had met ten years before.
“I want to shake your hand,” he said when I opened the door and greeted him. “Before I met you, I was a broken man, and convinced that I was totally to blame for my condition. But your stup...err, generosity opened my eyes. Thanks to you, I was able to rise up out of the gutter and begin a rewarding and lucrative career transforming white guilt into cold hard cash. Now I'm running for Congress in the State of Maryland, and I'm counting on your support.”
“Of course, Mr. Mfume!" I agreed, beaming with pride. "I'll be more than happy to help in any way I can! I'll campaign, I'll pass out flyers, whatever you want!"
“Actually," he replied, clearing his throat, "they cancelled your credit card. I ‘ll need a new one.”
Later that evening, as I crawled onto the mountain of delinquent credit card bills and “pay or vacate notices” I've been sleeping on since I pawned my sensory deprivation tank, I congratulated myself on a job well done. In a small way, I had fulfilled my duty as the descendent of people with the same color skin as slave owners to enrich the lives of people with the same color skin as slaves 150 years in the grave.
No longer can the racist great, great, great, great grandchildren of plantation owners use the fact that they weren't even alive during the era of slavery to escape their responsibility for the plight of African-Americans. Hurricane Katrina will make sure of that. Like Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, it will forever serve as an annual booster shot of white guilt.
isnt he also the same guy you tried to smear by claiming he threated one of your repug buddies Troll Tex, I believe you called him out and dared him to butt heads with you, too bad for you, you called out the wrong Larry Johnson, in fact the guy you wrongly directed your incoherent tin foil hat rant towards couldnt even respond as he was locked out of the blog due to you dishonest hacker cronnies....................................funny how repugs are so cowardly they dont even have the guts to engage in a fight or battle thats not either rigged in their favor or the outcome is a foregone conclusion because they are attacking people or countries much smaller or weaker than that lack the power or resources to fight back and adequately defend themselves.
ReplyDeleteMike, when are you going down to New Orleans to help out?
ReplyDeleteMike, you shouldn't talk about guts since you won't even admit that you posted as "Big Ed" when EVERYONE here knows it was you.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Bush and his Big Cyber Hacker Buddies are really concerned with a backwater blog read by five people.
look at the slimy political operative trying to discredit everyone that speaks out against his masters, funny how according to you guys everyone who speaks out has an axe to grind or an ulterior motive, you guys sure love that projection tactic that Rove tought you where you try and project what you are on to your opponent......you know the way you guys are really the fascists and you claim the islamic insurgents are or the way its you guys that have an axe to grind and ulterior motives but you try to project that onto people that speak out and oppose you, or the way you guys are incompetent and you try and portray your opponents like Clarke or Shinseki as incompetent because they had the courage to speak out against their Authoritarian bosses who try to retaliate against, smear and discredit any one who doesnt toe the party line and spew the party rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteTT said Mike, you shouldn't talk about guts since you won't even admit that you posted as "Big Ed" when EVERYONE here knows it was you."
ReplyDeleteI addressed this before Troll Tex you are a liar, I have posted as Mike from day one her using slimy troll alias's is your cowardly game not mine, I challenge you to PROVE this unsubstantianted accusation Troll Tex.
BTW who is EVERYONE your the only one who keeps saying this over and overagain to hijack the thread and make it about the blogger instead of the issues which you dont want to talk about.
I AM NOT A TROLL POSTING UNDER MULTIPLE ALIAS"S AND THIS IS THE LAST TIME I WILL ADDRESS THIS OR any of your other boondogles like abortion etc......
Mike, you addressed it by not commenting on it. That is hardly "addressing" it.
ReplyDeleteThree words is all it takes: "I deny it."
What are the chances that you and Big Ed would misspell the same word the exact same way? Pretty remote, the way I figure it.
Troll Tex said "Yeah, Bush and his Big Cyber Hacker Buddies are really concerned with a backwater blog read by five people."
ReplyDeleteYou trolls seem pretty obsessed by this back water blog read by only 5 people I mean you guys constantly lurk here and monitor it around the clock almost, you lock people out you disagree with you call names and insult people to take the focus off the issues.
But regarding your statement that there are only 5 people who read it I have to ask there is Lydia, Clif, Worf, myself who post regularly does that mean all you repug trolls are one person using a bunch of alias's............btw, dont forget Larry, Carl, Kaye and James who used to post fairly regularly till you locked them out.
All the slimy troll alias's have sure been working hard trying to spin things like there are only 4 people posting here, you guys must really be afraid of Lydia and what she has to say if you have to work that hard to discredit her and her little back water blog...................................BTW how come all you rich successful movers and shakers choose to spend SO MUCH TIME at a little backwater blog that no one reads and where there are only a bunch of dishonest trolls pretending to be real people and posting biased political spin that is not factual or truthful, I mean shouldnt you rich repugs be hobnobbing with the rich and famous, dont you have BETTER things to do with your "VALUABLE" time than spend in a blog that supposedly "no one" reads and there are a bunch of dishonest kooks who only post slanted biased libberal cut and pastes and lies and who according to you pretend to be multiple people................................................I FIND THAT CURIOUS, CURIOUS INDEED!!!!!
better yet Troll Tex, why all of the sudden are all the slimy troll operatives like you, Rusty, Krista, Lisa, Wufuss dandy etc...........try to make it "APPEAR" that there are only 4 people that visit this site, are you guys that afraid of Lydia and her blog that you have to frantical use multiple alias's to try and spin things and discredit her....................................................and again I have to ask if all this blog is are a coulple of kooks pretending to be lots of people and if all we do is lie and spin liberal stories, why in gods name are you repugs so obsessed with spending all your time here that is the million dollar question that begs an answer Troll Tex.................................guess its time to run away or try and wrench the discussion back to the fact that out of 300,000,000 million Americans it simply couldnt be possible that a guy calling himself big ed spelled the word hippocrite the same as I do, "INCONCEIVABLE" right troll tex?
ReplyDeleteCaught on Tape: A ‘Stay the Course’ Retrospective
ReplyDeleteYesterday, the White House complained to the Washington Post that their critics were smearing them with inaccurate labels:
Many Democrats accuse the president of advocating “stay the course” in Iraq, but the White House rejects the phrase and regularly emphasizes that it is adapting tactics to changing circumstances, such as moving more U.S. troops into Baghdad recently after a previous security strategy appeared to fail.
Where did anyone ever get the idea that President Bush advocates “staying the course” in Iraq? Let’s go to the videotape:
Transcript below:
BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]
SNOW: The second thing you do is you stay the course. [7/10/06]
SNOW: But on the other hand, you also cannot be a President in a wartime and not realize that you’ve got to stay the course. [8/17/06]
BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]
BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]
BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]
SNOW: People are going to want more of it, and that’s why the President is determined to stay the course. April. [8/16/06]
BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]
BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]
Filed under: Iraq
Mike, don't you find it suspicious that you and Lydia allege that hackers are behind your computer and Internet incompetence when other Liberal blogs hosted by eBlogger don't seem to have any problems at all?
ReplyDeleteOr, what about other Liberal blogs like HuffPo and Daily Kos?
I think you and Lydia would rather invent a human agency to explain away your incompetence.
Mike, if others are using multipla handles, ask them about it, not me.
ReplyDeleteNo Troll Tex, first of all you repugs dont pick fights with people or entities as big as you are or big enough in your estimation to fight back, you guys like to pick on people or countrys that are smaller than you that you think you can intimidate and beat
ReplyDeletesecondly those other people didnt take on Ann Coulter head to head, coulter has lots of resources and connections in government and else where and could very easily sick her attack dogs on people she doesnt like and that she feels are a threat but lack the resources to fight back.
And like you said a while back troll tex, "absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence" by Troll Tex
I;m not asking anyone, I KNOW that you trolls are hacking the blog or have administrative privleges at E blogger and are using multiple alias's to insult people and you know it as well.
ReplyDeleteyou know damb straight that Rusty and Wufuff Dandy and anonymous and Mr Macky etc,,,,,are the same person and you also know who they are, you guys have been making a concerted effort to drive people of the blog for months that is obvious.
but like a typical repug you dodged my question again, if there are only 4 real people on this blog as YOU claim and no one reads it and no one posts anything worthwhile, then why do you and the others spend so much time here..............how bout you answer that $64,000 question for me champ before we move on to anything else.
ReplyDeleteCaught Red-Handed: Stevens Blocked Creation of Federal Spending Database
ReplyDeleteLast week, an “unidentified senator” placed a hold on legislation introduced by Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) that would create a easily-accessible Google-like database of all federal spending, which totaled $2.5 trillion last year.
The bill appeared to be headed for passage after being approved unanimously in committee. However, the anonymous senator’s hold on the bill prevented it from coming to a vote.
In response, liberals and conservatives worked together to ask every Senate office whether they had placed a hold on the bill. Of all 100 senators, only Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) would not deny placing the hold. In addition, one of the bill’s leading sponsors, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), said of Stevens, “he’s the only senator blocking it.” Stevens’s opposition to such a bill is not surprising; he is one of the most prolific earmarkers in the Senate:
– In 2005, Stevens helped slip in legislation to begin construction on the “Bridge to Nowhere,” earmarking over $200 million for a bridge to an island home to 50 people. When an amendment jeopardized funding for the project, Stevens threatened to resign.
– Later that year, Stevens tried to insert an amendment into the national defense bill allowing oil drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. When the Senate struck the provision, Stevens called it “the saddest day of my life” and has “written off” Senate friends who opposed drilling.
– This year, Stevens earmarked $450,000 to research baby food made from salmon and over $1 million for “alternative salmon product research.” This is the third year in a row he has appropriated money to research salmon products.
More at TPMmuckraker.
Whats the matter Troll Tex, cat got your tongue or did you have to consult your master Karl Rove on how to answer that one?
ReplyDeleteVolt said "No Mike, I'm not a fan.
ReplyDeleteI believe that some of their (Bush Administration/Neo Cons) actions are the correct ones based on the evidence I see, but their intent is evil.
I think we are doing a noble thing in the middle east, but THEIR reasons are suspect.
They do it to increase their power and wealth and to bring about more evil. However, I think unless they are very careful it'll turn out to be a good thing. Look at how Libya gave up their nuke program, how Syria withdrew from Lebanon. Freedom is starting to gain a foothold in the greater middle east. Hamas is now on the record as wanting a 2 state solution and peace with Israel.
Something we agree on the Neo Cons intent is evil and the reason they are doing what they are doing is to increase their power and wealth and to bring about evil"
See when we are civil and honest we can cross party lines and ideologies and find things we agree on.
Worfeus said "She (Katherine Harris) made the law for everyone.
ReplyDeleteAnd together with the Presidents brother, they kept the votes of so many from ever reaching the tallybooths.
Or did you think it was just a coincendence that the same night we were choosing the President of the United States, the state police in a state where the boss of the state police, the govenor, who happeneed to be the brother to the man running for President, set up road blocks on a road coming out of Broward county where 16,000 Black voters, all democrat lived.
The road blocks were successful at fining thousands for petty fines like tail lights and old tickets, and also kept everyone there from reaching the polls in time.
Yea, I am sure it was just a coincendence.
Worfeus said "Its like no one seemed to notice that the DECIDING state where all the crap happened just happened to be governed by the guy running for President's brother, and everthing just "happened" to work out in his favor.
ReplyDeleteAnd the woman counting the votes just happened to be the Head of the Campaign to elect the brother of the govenor.
Yea, nothing unusual or suspicious there.
Worf said "Voltaire there were open allegations of abuse, corruption and keeping blacks from voting.
ReplyDeleteThere should have been a major recount overseen by the entire country, since those votes would decide the president for the entire country, and the allegations of corruption were so serious, and so well documented.
What that BITCH harris did was give the finger to the country, used her local little crap laws to make decisions for the rest of us, and then when the country said no, the Republican headed Supreme Court made the decision.
In other words, the Judicuary Branch elected the Executive Branch, after the brother of the governor, and the head of the campaign to elect George Bush, passed them the ball.
Its about as foul and evil and corrupt a thing as I could ever think of, and you should be as ashamed of it as I am.
Wanna know why Dumsfeld has been waxing Hysterically lately..and the idiot neo-cons are starting to really feel the heat.
ReplyDeleteGoats and Hussars: A British Harbinger of American Defeat
By Chris Floyd
Don Rumsfeld is fond of historical analogies when pontificating about Iraq; he particularly favors comparisons to the Nazi era and the Allied occupation of Germany after World War II. Unfortunately, any historian will tell you that Rummy's parallels are invariably false, even ludicrous. So we thought we'd give the beleaguered Pentagon warlord a more accurate and telling analogy to chew on.
Try this one, Don. Imagine that British occupation troops in, say, Hanover, had been forced to abandon a major base, under fire, and retreat into guerrilla operations in the Black Forest - in 1948, three years after the fall of the Nazi regime. And that as soon as the Brits made their undignified bug-out, the base had been devoured by looters while the local, Allies-backed authorities simply melted away and an extremist, virulently anti-Western militia moved into the power vacuum.
What would they have called that, Don? "Measurable progress on the road to democracy?" "Another achieved metric of our highly successful post-war plan?" Or would they have said, back in those more plain-spoken, Harry Truman days, that it was "a major defeat, a humiliating strategic reversal, foreshadowing a far greater disaster?"
You'd have to wait a long time - perhaps to the end of the "Long War" - to get a straight answer from Rumsfeld on that one, but this precise scenario, transposed from Lower Saxony to Maysan province, unfolded in Iraq last week, when British forces abandoned their base at Abu Naji and disappeared into the desert wastes and marshes along the Iranian border. The move was largely ignored by the American media, but the implications are enormous. The UK contingent of the invading coalition has always been the proverbial canary in the mine shaft: if they can't make a go of things in what we've long been told is the "secure south," where friendly Shiites hold absolute sway, then the entire misbegotten Bush-Blair enterprise is well and truly FUBAR.
The Queen's Royal Hussars, 1,200-strong, abruptly decamped from the three-year-old base last Thursday after taking constant mortar and missile fire for months from those same friendly Shiites. The move was touted as part of a long-planned, eventual turnover of security in the region to the Coalition-backed Iraqi central government, but there was just one problem: the Brits forgot to tell the Iraqis they were checking out early - and in a hurry.
"British forces evacuated the military headquarters without coordination with the Iraqi forces," Dhaffar Jabbar, spokesman for the Maysan governor, told Reuters on Thursday, as looters began moving into the camp in the wake of the British withdrawal. A unit of Iraqi government troops mutinied when told to keep order at the base - and instead attacked a military post of their own army. By Friday, the locals had torn the place to pieces, carting away more than $500,000 worth of equipment and fixtures that the British had left behind. After that initial, ineffectual show of force, the Iraqi "authorities" stepped aside and watched helplessly as the looters taunted them and cheered the "great victory" over the Western invaders.
The largely notional - if not fictional - power of the Baghdad central government simply vanished while the forces of hardline cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which already controls the local government, stepped forward to proclaim its triumph and guide the victory celebrations in the nearby provincial capital, Amarah. "This is the first city that has kicked out the occupier!" blared Sadr-supplied loudspeakers to streets filled with revelers, as the Washington Post noted in a solid - but deeply buried - story on the retreat.
British officials were understandably a bit sniffy about the humiliation. First, they denied there was any problem with the handover at all: the Iraqis had been notified (a whole 24 hours in advance, apparently), the exchange of authority was brisk and efficient, and the Iraqis had "secured the base," military spokesman Major Charlie Burbridge insisted to AP. But when reports of the looting at Abu Naji began pouring in, British officers simply washed their hands of the nasty business. The camp was now "the property of the Maysan authorities and Iraqi Forces [are] in attendance," said Burbridge; therefore, Her Majesty's military would have no more comment on the matter. In this casual - not to mention callous - dismissal of the chaos spawned in wake of the Hussars' departure, we can see in miniature the philosophy now being writ large across the country in the Bush administration's "Iraqization" policy: "We broke it; you fix it."
And where are Her Majesty's Hussars now? Six hundred of them have dispersed into guerrilla bands in the wilderness, where they will survive on helicopter drops of supplies while they patrol the Iranian border. The ostensible reason behind this extraordinary operation is two-fold, said the doughty Burbridge: first, to find out if the Bush administration is up to its usual mendacious hijinks in claiming that the evildoers in Iran are fuelling the insurgency among the happily liberated Iraqi people; and second, to do a little more of that Iraqization window dressing before finally getting the hell out of Dodge completely, beginning sometime next year, according to reports across the UK media spectrum.
Of course, the good major didn't put it quite like that. "The Americans believe there is an inflow of IEDs and weapons across the border with Iran," he told the Post. "Our first objective is to go and find out if that is the case. If that is true, we'll be able to disrupt the flow." The second aim is training Iraqi border guards, he added.
Yes, a few hundred men wandering through the wasteland, dependent on air-dropped rations, will certainly be able to seal off an almost 300-mile border riddled with centuries-old smuggling routes. And modern-day Desert Rats rolling up in bristling Land Rovers to isolated villages where Shiite clans span both borders will no doubt be gathering a lot of actionable intelligence from the locals. And of course it is much easier to "train Iraqi border guards" on the fly in the wild than at a long-established base with full amenities and, er, training facilities.
In other words, the British move makes no sense - if you accept the official spin at face value, i.e., that it's an act of careful deliberation aimed at furthering the Coalition's stated goals of a free, secure, democratic Iraq. But those in the reality-based community will see it for what it is: a panicky, patchwork reaction to events and forces far beyond the Coalition's intentions or control.
The other six hundred Hussars driven out of Abu Naji have retreated to the main British camp at Basra - another "safe" city that has now degenerated into a level of violence approaching the hellish chaos of Baghdad, the Independent reports. British troops who once walked the streets freely, lightly armed, wearing red berets instead of helmets, are now largely confined to the base, except for excursions to help Iraqi government forces in pitched battles against the Shiite militias that control the city. Harsh religious rule has long descended on the once freewheeling port city, again presaging the sectarian darkness now settling heavily across Baghdad.
Just a few months ago, the UK's Ministry of Defence was churning out "good news" PR stories about life at Abu Naji - such as the whimsical tale of the troop's pet goat, Ben, a lovable rogue always getting into scrapes with the regiment's crusty sergeant major, even though the soldiers "knew he had a soft spot for Ben." The goat, we were told, had enjoyed visits from such distinguished guests as the Iraqi prime minister and the Duke of Kent. Now this supposed oasis of British power has been destroyed, with the Coalition-trained Iraqi troops meant to secure it either fading into the shadows or actively joining in with the rampaging crowds and extremist militias. Meanwhile, the Hussars are reducing to roaming the countryside on vague, pointless, impossible missions, killing time, killing people - and being killed - until the inevitable collapse of the whole shebang.
The goat is gone. The canary is dying. The surrender and sack of Abu Naji is a preview of what's to come, on a much larger scale of death and chaos, as the bloodsoaked folly of Bush and Blair's war howls toward its miserable end.
The wheels of the fiasco Dumsfeld Dead eye and the idiot started are coming off...in Baghdad, Basra, and around Iraq.....and Blair and the British know it. That's why they WANT to leave next year.
The "government of Iraq hiding inside the green zone can't stop people like Al Sadr from consolidating power in the Shiites areas south east of Baghdad. Hell the Iraqi government does not even have operational control over the Iraqi army...the US does.
In Kurdistan the NO longer fly the Iraqi flag but their OWN.....Iraq is falling apart while the morons who started the war Lie and spin.
They keep claiming that they are turning a corner but they FAIL to add with each turn of a corner Iraq gets more unstable, and falls further into chaos.
They decry any attempt to question their intel, lies or lack of a real plan, but claim progress where NONE exists.
They punish those who question the difference between what they say...and the reality on the ground.
The south was supposed to be stable, but Basra is where two Shiite militias fight for control, which is not a Sunni insurgency, but a civil war for control of the Shiite areas.
The dead enders are taking control of larger sections of the country as the coalition troops move out.
The Shiite people in the country are fundamentally closer to Hezbollah than the PNAC neo-con idiots. They will back the Shiite movements around the world including those who live inside Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This means the war has DESTABILISED the region much more than just enabling Osama(remember he is the guy Bush forgot) to recruit new terrorists and train them inside the insurgency.
Last fall Murtha said we had about six months left, and last spring that time ran out about the same time the civil war began in earnest, and as the situation falls completely apart. The British are planning on leaving, maybe the US should look at their reasons for wanting to leave Iraq, while they do not have to do so from the roof of the their embassy in Baghdad. Another historical analogy Dumsfeld should check out...JUST INCASE.
TT said ""Disregard for human life"? With that nut in Iran threatening us with nukes, better to pre-emptively take him out before he launches one on us.
ReplyDeleteThink it's unlikely? How many people thought they would try to decpapitate our government on Sept. 10?"
Look at the Reich Wing propaganda and spin machine in action:
1)look how he deceitfully uses the word "THEY to try to link Iran to 9/11 and try to imply they were behind attacking us when the guy who really attacked us Osama Bin Forgotten, Bush let ride of into the sunset without a second thought, he even disbanded the CIA unit whose job it was to catch him. LIE NUMBER 1
2) TT implied Iran threatened us with nukes, another blatent lie, first of all they dont even have nukes, secondly they NEVER threatened us with nukes, and lastly they are decades away from possessing a long range nuclear weapon capable of hitting the USA.
3)TT hippocritically states that nuking another country pre emptively is wrong and he fears that, Iran would nuke another country pre emptively if allowed to possess nuclear weapons, he then states that his solution is to nuke Iran pre-emptively...............................so if it is wrong to nuke another country pre-emptively and his claimed greatest fear is that Iran may nuke another country pre emptively how can he say it is ok for us to nuke them pre-emptively, I mean if its wrong to nuke another country pre emptively how can he say its ok for us to do the very thing we decry with out being a hippocrite.
I mean couldnt Iran also claim they were nuking that other country pre-emptively in self defense in fact isnt that opening a door for any rogue country to attack another country and hide behind the defense that they attacked them pre-emptively in self defense.
its similar to me going to TT's house ringing his doorbell and bashing his brains out with a baseball bat and then claiming it was a pre emptive attack in self defense because I had a feeling in my big toe he might do me harm some day. all legitimizing pre emptive attacks does is create lawlessness and chaos and legitimize aggression by providing a defense for those with bad intentions to hide behind.
Hey Clif, go read my 11:47AM qote from volt, we finally found something to agree on.
ReplyDeleteRemember Al Queda wanted the republicans to win because they are incompetant. With November coming up Al Queda doesn’t want the democrats pulling the troops out of Iraq and sending those same troops after Al Queda, so it’s time for reverse psychology - “We at Al Queda call your president names and you Americans will get upset and vote Republican” time.
ReplyDeleteComment by bones — September 2, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
Oh and BTW Afghanistan is Getting WORSE also;
ReplyDeleteTaliban Resurgence Produces Record Opium Harvest in Afghanistan
Opium production in Afghanistan is at the highest level ever recorded and shows an increase of 50 percent from last year. The increase in opium cultivation is a result of the resurgence of Taliban rebels. The head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, said in a statement: “The southern part of Afghanistan was displaying the ominous hallmarks of incipient collapse, with large-scale drug cultivation and trafficking, insurgency and terrorism, crime and corruption.”
NYT:
September 3, 2006
Opium Harvest at Record Level in Afghanistan
By CARLOTTA GALL
KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 2 — Afghanistan’s opium harvest this year has reached the highest levels ever recorded, showing an increase of almost 50 percent from last year, the head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, said Saturday in Kabul.
He described the figures as “alarming” and “very bad news” for the Afghan government and international donors who have poured millions of dollars into programs to reduce the poppy crop since 2001.
He said the increase in cultivation was fueled by the resurgence of Taliban rebels in the south, the country’s prime opium growing region. As the insurgents have stepped up their attacks, they have also encouraged and profited from the drug trade, promising protection to growers if they worked to expand their opium operations.
full NYT story
One very GOOD quote from the story;
The Taliban had distributed leaflets at night, inviting farmers to increase their poppy cultivation in exchange for protection, Mr. Costa said. The rebels also profit from levies in return for protection of drug convoys passing through the border areas they controlled. There were also signs of a pernicious strategy to encourage farmers to increase poppy cultivation in an effort to force a government reaction, which would then turn the population further against the government, Mr. Costa said.
But he did not blame only the Taliban for the increase. He specifically accused the former governor of Helmand Province, Sher Muhammad Akhund, of encouraging farmers to grow more poppies in the months before he was removed from office. The result was an increase of 160 percent in that “villain province” from its harvest last year, he said, the highest rise in the country.
“There is evidence of major pressure exerted by him in favor of cultivating opium,” Mr. Costa said.
In the news briefing on Saturday, Mr. Costa also criticized the government’s action of removing the governor and giving him a position in the upper house of Parliament.
“I have been on record for asking the president for corrupt officials not to be moved around but to be removed, to be neutralized; if records can prove conviction, to be arrested and convicted. So far we do not have much evidence for that And we hope that more forceful initiatives will be taken exactly in that area,” he said.
Moving incompetent corrupt officials around...looks like the idiot and dead eye are really exporting their kind of democracy
65, We HAVE thought about it.
ReplyDeleteThe war was immoral and presented under false pretenses, by a group of self-centered individuals with no regard for those who would be fighting for their folly.
Perhaps you should think about it. Think about the commander in chief, who was AWOL when he was in the service; think about his family background (how his family got their fortune, and with whom they deal); think about how W never had a job he applied for - he was given business to run and he ran them all into the ground, except for the baseball team that he sold after he had the taxpayers pay for the new stadium that enriched the value of the team; think about the ignorance of this man who cannot speak coherently; think about the man who smeared and slimed two decorated war heroes in his determination to rise in politics; think about the troops who were sent into battle with inferior armor and equipment; think about the funds he has cut for veterans health care; think about the profits made on the lives of those soldiers by Halliburton and KBR; think about the deterioration of everything American in this country as we are being driven into bankruptcy by his reckless management.
Comment by Marie — September 2, 2006 @ 12:30 am
BTW it is NOT just me who thinks we have done the wrong things to win the war on terra...and in fact enabled Osama(you know the guy Bush forgot), and emboldened the terrorists and anger the Arab street further enabling Bin Laden.
ReplyDeleteWar on Terra: the Economist relents and repents (sort of)
In a 2-page editorial which is not on the front page of their website and which is strangely only available to subscribers, the Economist go through heavy contorsions to admit the wholesale failure of the War on Terra.
an honest tally of the record since September 11th has to conclude that the number of jihadists and their sympathisers has probably multiplied many times since then. It has multiplied, moreover, partly as a result of the way America responded.
They acknowledge the reality of the failure of the "War on Terra", they note the fact that US policies are a cause for such failure, but try throughout to find excuses.
Even though Mr bin Laden himself eluded America's forces in Afghanistan, the invasion deprived al-Qaeda of a haven for planning and training. This achievement, however, was cancelled out by the consequences of Mr Bush's second war: the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. There, three and a half years on, fighting and terrorism kill hundreds every month, providing the jihadists with both a banner around which to recruit and a live arena in which to sharpen their military skills.
They still see the invasion of Afghanistan as a success (because the warlords "cannot topple the government n Kabul") but, for the first time, they use unambiguously strong words about Iraq: invasion, jihad arena, etc... They still blame it on "Rumsfeldan incompetence", though.
Mr Bush and Tony Blair tried and failed to win a clear United Nations mandate for war. By invading without one, they made themselves vulnerable to the charge that the war was unlawful. The quarrel in the Security Council widened a rift between America and Britain on one hand and France, Germany and Russia on the other. But this would have counted for much less if the weapons of mass destruction had existed. When it transpired that they did not, Muslims—and many others—began to assume that they had been just a pretext.
(...)
There were those (such as this newspaper) who supported the Iraq war solely because of the danger that a Saddam Hussein with a biological or atomic bomb would indeed have posed. But Mr Bush and Mr Blair refused after the war to be embarrassed by the absence of the weapons that had so alarmed them beforehand. They stressed instead all the other reasons why it had been a good idea to overthrow Mr Hussein.
Are they finally, finally, getting a bit miffed at having been lied to and played for dunces, repeatedly? And just a bit ashamed of themselves for having supported those lies for so long and arguing all along that the invasion was a good idea but botched?
It's not clear. Their article is furiously ambiguous, alternating criticism of the situation on the ground, the execution, and the motivations with semi-lame justifications and heavy reliance on indirect sentences to hide behind third parties ("Muslims began to assume it was just a pretext" - seriously, how much more weaselly can you get?)
If it was all about dictatorship, what about the dictatorship the West continues to embrace in Saudi Arabia, and the quasi-dictatorship in Pakistan? If it was about helping Islam's moderates against its reactionaries, what is so clever about stepping in to someone else's civil war?
(...)
By what right do you invade someone else's country in order to impose a pattern of government?
Indeed? Good of them to ask these questions, but a clear and unambiguous reply would have been appropriate at this point. Nah.
Some curtailing of freedoms was inevitable. Yet Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, the torture memos and extraordinary rendition have not just been unAmerican and morally wrong but also hugely counter-productive. In a battle that is largely about ideas, America seems to many to have abandoned the moral high ground and so won more recruits for the jihadists.
That's an issue they've been somewhat more consistent all along, so I won't bash them with it.
not every Islamist movement is inspired by the ideas that animate al-Qaeda. In Palestine Hamas is a pious (and vicious) version of a national-liberation movement with local goals, not another front in a global fight. Ditto, more or less, Hizbullah, except that it is also a tool of Iran. And Iran itself is better understood as an assertive rising (and dangerous) power that happens to have a theocratic constitution than as an ally of al-Qaeda, whose ideas come from a separate strand of Islam.
Ooh. Nuances... Local politics... Complexity...
The Economist has actually always been excellent at writing deep background stories about such multi-layered stories, bringing in the motivations of the parties in a pretty even handed way. This paragraph is itself a pretty good summary of what they can write at their best. Pity that the editorial crowd of the Economist stopped reading what the journalists of the Economist wrote - or deliberately chose to ignore it.
Al-Qaeda did not invent terrorism. In its Baader-Meinhof or Shining Path or Irish or Basque or Palestinian guise, terrorism was the background noise of the second half of the 20th century. But September 11th seemed to portend something new. There was something different in the sheer epic malevolence of the thing: more than 3,000 dead, with destruction sliding out of a clear blue sky, all captured on live TV. Most previous terror organisations had negotiable demands and therefore exercised a measure of restraint. Al-Qaeda's fantastic aims—sweeping away regimes, reversing history and restoring the caliphate—are married to an appetite for killing that knows no limits.
They are still struggling with the stupid idea that "everything is different now". All rational arguments which they bring to the table show that it's not so different. Al-Qaeda did not invent terrorism. But their ideological blinders (knee-jerk support for American exceptionalism) and the emotional impact of the 9/11 attack (promptly cultivated and abused by the Bush administration) won't let them admit it unambiguously.
What the article misses is the bigger picture.
* Not a single mention of oil, which is frankly the only reason why our politicians and pundits care about in any way about the Arab world. The vicious circle of being dependent on Arab oil, propping up "friendly" (but deeply corrupt) regimes, and seeing local opponents turn their grievances into hate for the West which steals their resources and supports their oppressors, using religion, tolerated by all the local regimes, into a tool of political expression;
* Not a single mention of the damage made to international law (which has built up over the past 60 years thanks to the USA's constant, if not always consistent, support), the terrible fact that the precedents of pre-emptive strikes, wars of choice and all out war on concepts have been handed to as a great future excuse for unscrupulous regimes around the world;
* Not a mention of the fundamental breach that has appeared between Europe and the USA. The "West" has been shattered in a probably irremediable way;
* and, finally, not a word on what could have been. In September 2001, all the governments of the planet wanted to support the USA, and would have done a lot of things not to get in their way. A massive push to close offshore financial havens, impose an international court with teeth, and real enforcement capacity for the UN would have been supported with little resistance. At home, a massive effort to change energy use patterns, and to launche a crash investment programme into sustainable energy sources would have been enthusiastically supported.
But no, the Economist is trying to justify its unflinching support for Bush's Iraq folly, and looking at the bigger picture would only serve to make them look even more foolish. The problem was not Rumsfeld incompetence, it was the perception that Al Qaida was a civilisational threat rather than gangsters with grievances, and the abuse of that perception by a power-hungry crowd in the White House, supported by shameless sycophants in the heart of what then were our more respectable papers and magazines.
No, the Economist, you won't get off the hook so easily.
Civil War and Partition
ReplyDelete"During the period from the establishment of the new Iraqi government on May 20 until Aug. 11, the average number of weekly attacks jumped to almost 800. That was a substantial increase from earlier this year and almost double the number of the first part of 2004.
As a consequence, Iraqi casualties increased 51 percent over the last reporting period. The document notes that, based on initial reports, Iraqi casualties among civilians and security forces reached nearly 120 a day, up from about 80 a day in the previous reporting period from mid-February to mid-May. About two years ago they were running about 30 a day.
“Although the overall number of attacks increased in all categories, the proportion of those attacks directed against civilians increased substantially,” the Pentagon noted. “Death squads and terrorists are locked in mutually reinforcing cycles of sectarian strife, with Sunni and Shia extremists each portraying themselves as the defenders of their respective sectarian groups.” " Michael Gordon
---------------------------------------------------------------
"defenders of their respective sectarian groups"
"Sectarian groups?" What has been missing from the start of our Iraq venture has been a willingness to accept the idea that Iraq was and is a "state" but it has never been a "nation-state."
In fact, the country created by international agreement after World War One remains what it always was - an artificial construct built on the land that was always just "Mesopotamia" before.
If there can be said to be an Iraqi People, then that "people" are the result of the more or less forced union of several ethno-religious nations over the last eighty odd years. These people were subjected to "pressure cooker" efforts to develop "Iraqi Man." The schools were a major instrument in that effort. Police and media pressure were used as well as all the other instruments of successive governments. Progress toward "Iraqi Man" took place. In some segments of the population, a self-awareness of being Iraqi rather than Sunni Arab, Kurd, Chaldean, Shia Arab, etc. took root. This was most noticeable among army officers, the secular Shia and other more groups directly connected to the central government.
At the same time the masses of Iraqis retained their essential group identities in the categories now so familiar to us all. These groups are closely tied to similar categories throughout the Islamic and Arab worlds; Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, Turcoman, etc.
The Americans who launched the war in Iraq imagined that none of this was real. Believing deeply in a Utopian vision of human social progress and inclined to think that Israel would be benefited by a Middle East no longer obsessed with a view of the world which involved a moiety of Muslims against all others, the American revolutionaries whom we generally call "neocons" openly called and still call for transformative westernization throughout the region. I would include President Bush and Condoleeza Rice in this group. It is unfashionable to call for "westernization" these days, so the rubrics of "democratization" and "globalization" are applied with the result that great and revolutionary outcomes have been expected from constitution writing and elections. These mechanisms of democracy do not yield the results the "neocons" had hoped for because these mechanisms are not transformative. They are merely expressive of what lies within the collective minds of the people voting.
What lies within the psyches of the peoples of Iraq is a belief that their communities are not "Iraq" as President Bush imagines it. He believes that these peoples see themselves as individuals, acting as individuals within the polity of Iraq, but most of them see themselves in far older and more deeply rooted categories.
These categories are now engaged in combat on the dusty plains of Mesopotamia. They are like lions fighting over the "kill" that our intervention has left for them.
Pat Lang
Too bad the idiot PNAC neo-cons and their boot licking minions can not read history or properly apply it, because current fiasco in Iraq has much more in common with the dissolution of Yugoslavia after it's strongman Tito dies(instead of being forced out by an invading army).
Both countries were created out of the aftermath of WW1 and are basically cobbled countries out of very different sectarian groups who had centuries of hate and violence between them. Left to the citizens of the countries, they would dissolve quickly, but instead we try to hold Iraq together. Because with out the central government ..the Laws written by L Paul Bremer during the CPA phase would simply cease to be revealant. The laws that set up the rules under which all contracts for the foreign oil companies to come into Iraq and develop the fields and pump out the oil for the government. The western oil companies would not have those laws to underwrite the generous contracts for the western oil corps. And all the "hard work" of the PNAC neo-con fooles would come to naught, which is the MOST likely out come anyway.
Too bad the fooles who planned the invasion back in the 90's did not actually look into the history of Iraq and see when there is no strong central government CHAOS reigns quickly. That the majority of the country was Shiite which were led by religious mullahs similar to those in Iran..which would bring the part of Iraq under their control into Iran's camp. And send the Kurds further down the road of establishing a Kurdish state of their own.
The fooles believed their own spin because it had to be that way otherwise why would they attempt to destabilise the country and region...for YEARS. Undermining the western based countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, endangering them to sectarian violence from their sizable Shiite minorities...and leaving the region only one Islamic based major power..IRAN.
Bush ET AL is the best ally Iran has had for years in the region. They have removed the only regional Arab power that could have stood up to Iran....and at the same time bogged the US military in the current fiasco which limits the Bushco-neo-con's abilities of choices for action against Iran, and the intel the neo-cons claim about Iran(like they were so right about Iraq).
With enemies like Bush...Iran could not ended up better situated in the region. As a side effect..the fiasco in Iraq, and the belligerent stance against Iran..Bush is creating a situation where the oil market has much higher prices for oil, which is filling Iran's banks and federal budget with billions, at least they get a balanced budget out of this mess.
Holy reeking reams of redundancy, Batman.
ReplyDeleteOwww...My mouse finger is tired from scrolling past all cliffy and mikey's cut-and-paste pseudo wisdom.
Well? Can't y'all hyperlink-impaired plagiarizing freaks find any more bonehead liberal articles to cut-and-paste into this blog? Because none of us are capable of googling any of this stuff on our own, ya know.
You dreary, humorless bozos wouldn't know a good time if it fell out of the sky, sat on your face and started giggling.
Good to see the foole being so intellectual again
ReplyDeleteGot to make wise as stupid remarks because the truth can not be debated, eh FOOLE?
ReplyDeleteBecause it is now apparent thaty thr British want OUT of the Fiasco in Iraq...and repugs are running from bush and his LOSER policies....and even denying their repug affiliation...not good for the coming elections.
ReplyDeleteWith the NEW FBI investigation into corruption in Alaska...and the corruption in Ohio, and Kentucky the rrepugs have a lot to fear because when Democrats take over in thoise states, especially Alaska and Ohio...the state governments will not HIDE the problems with past elections..
ReplyDeleteCorruption like THIS in Ohio;
ReplyDeleteTurns out, there really isn’t such a thing as a free lunch. Or even a deeply discounted one.
The four Republican women who accepted Tom Noe’s money in order to attend a $2,000-a-plate luncheon fund-raiser for President Bush in 2003 will have to pay far more to pick up the final tab.
In addition to the $1,000 fines they faced for violating state ethics laws, The Blade has learned that Lucas County Commissioner Maggie Thurber, Toledo City Councilman Betty Shultz, former Toledo mayor Donna Owens, and former state representative Sally Perz will each have to pay $4,125 for their share of the $16,499 cost to investigate them.
Judge Mark Reddin of Bowling Green accepted their pleas in June in Toledo Municipal Court and fined each $1,000. But he also ordered them to pay the cost of the investigation.
With the penalty total rising to $5,125 each, the women now face a stiffer punishment than Gov. Bob Taft or any of his four former aides who were all found guilty of similar ethics offenses stemming from their relationships with Noe.
“It is so frustrating because you want the kind of penalties that make it so clear that this should never ever happen,” said Catherine Turcer, legislative director for Ohio Citizen Action, a public policy advocacy group. “Clearly, you need to get the message that money laundering is wrong, but so were the other ethics violations.”
Governor Taft was fined $4,000 for failing to file complete ethics-disclosure statements. Prosecutors said he failed to disclose dozens of golf outings and gifts he received from lobbyists and businessmen, including Noe.
State officeholders are required under Ohio law to disclose the source of gifts valued above $75.
Four former gubernatorial aides — former chief-of-staff Brian Hicks, Cherie Carroll, Doug Talbott, and Doug Moormann — also were found guilty of ethics violations, all misdemeanors. Mr. Talbott was also found guilty of receiving Noe cash and laundering it into three Ohio Supreme Court races.
The four Lucas County women were the only ones, besides Noe, to face any charges related to his illegal funneling of more than $45,000 into the re-election campaign of President Bush.
In October, 2003, Noe gave money to 24 people, including the women, to attend the Bush fund-raiser in Columbus. Records show he gave $1,950 to Ms. Shultz and $1,900 to Ms. Owens; each then wrote checks for $2,000 to the Bush campaign. Noe also gave $3,900 to Ms. Perz and $3,750 the Ms. Thurber; each took their husbands to the event and paid $4,000.
State law requires certain public officials to disclose the source of all gifts greater than $75. Technically, the women, who each testified before a federal grand jury investigating Noe, were charged with failing to disclose the meal portion of the fund-raiser.
The other alleged conduits testified before the grand jury or cooperated with the investigation. The U.S. attorney’s office has said it elected not to charge them because they cooperated.
Noe will be sentenced Sept. 12 in U.S. District Court in Toledo for his conviction on three federal campaign counts. He pleaded guilty to charges that he funneled the money into the Bush campaign. He faces more than 30 months in prison.
In compiling the cost of the ethics investigation, the Ohio Ethics Commission computed how much it had to pay for the interviews with the suspects and witnesses. The tab also includes the cost borne by the Ohio inspector general’s office and the Ohio Highway Patrol, which aided in the investigation.
The final bill was forwarded recently to Lynn Grimshaw, the special prosecutor hired to handle the cases.
The $16,499 includes the cost of the primary investigators to interview the women and other witnesses. It does not include supervisory or administrative oversight of the investigation.
Mr. Grimshaw said yesterday that he has not sent the bill yet and said he is trying to determine what procedure he should follow.
Ms. Thurber declined comment and Ms. Perz and Ms. Owens could not be reached. Ms. Shultz pointed out that she approached the Ethics Commission and that they did not approach her. She declined further comment.
Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, said Ms. Thurber and Ms. Shultz should no longer be public officials. Ms. Thurber did not seek re-election but will hold her post until December. Ms. Shultz was re-elected last year to another term on city council.
“It just doesn’t make sense,” Mr. Redfern said. “They knowingly violated federal campaign finance laws.”
Folks, I just saw a very disturbing story on CBS-2 (that's KCBS for those who don't live in LA)...Adam Gadahn, who apparently is this generation's Benedict Arnold, made a very frightening video, believing that all of us in this country should turn to islam.
ReplyDeleteThe information on this traitor is on the wikipedia website, and of course on several newssites around the nation.
I don't know what kind of threat that he will be, but since this guy is from Orange County CA, Los Angeles no doubt will be at risk for a potential attack. He is a dangerous man, and the FBI already has him on the list of wanted terrorists.
Of course this government won't do much, when you have Criminal Bush and The Three Stooges around.
The late Chris Adams, a pro wrestler and one-time Judo champion from the Dallas-Fort Worth area (originally from England) once said a long time ago that when people turn on their own kind, he considered that the worst most despicable type. He was right.
Congrats to USC and the Dodgers, who both won today. Fight on and Go Blue!
Yes, thanks Robert. I updated Wikipedia with a link to the video:
ReplyDeleteOn 2 September 2006 a video surfaced on various pro-al Qaeda websites featuring Adam Gadahn for approximately 44 minutes of the 48 minute video called "Invitation to Islam" which also featured Ayman al-Zawahiri. In the video, Gadahn praises George Galloway and Robert Fiske for expressing their "respect and admiration for Islam" and for "acknowledging that it is the truth" and for "demonstrating their sympathy for Muslims their causes". Gadahn urges American soldiers to "surrender to the truth" and "escape from the unbelieving Army" and "join the winning side". Video: Al Qaeda tells U.S. to convert or die
-Wikipedia
Of course this government won't do much, when you have Criminal Bush and The Three Stooges around.
-Robert
Yes Bush is certainly a softie when it comes to national defense and homeland security. By "Three Stooges" are you referring to mikey, larry and wharfy?
But there is hardly any subject which enrages cliffy more than someone who threatens or disses his beloved America.
Undoubtedly cliffy will be expressing his uncontrollable outrage about this America-hating traitor called gadahn...um...any minute now...
THE FOOLE said;
ReplyDeleteBy "Three Stooges" are you referring to mikey, larry and wharfy?
No stupid the real Stooges here you tiny mind and dolt
"Mike said...
ReplyDeleteTT said ""Disregard for human life"? With that nut in Iran threatening us with nukes, better to pre-emptively take him out before he launches one on us."
Mike said... "3)TT hippocritically states that nuking another country pre emptively is wrong and he fears that, Iran would nuke another country pre emptively if allowed to possess nuclear weapons, he then states that his solution is to nuke Iran pre-emptively...............................so if it is wrong to nuke another country pre-emptively and his claimed greatest fear is that Iran may nuke another country pre emptively how can he say it is ok for us to nuke them pre-emptively, I mean if its wrong to nuke another country pre emptively how can he say its ok for us to do the very thing we decry with out being a hippocrite."
Mike, your quotes don't match up. Did I say we should pre-emptively nuke another country?
By the way, nice to know you have such an active social life that you spent your Saturday night searching going through my statements with a fine tooth comb.
Honestly, Mike, isn't your behaviour a little obsessive?
Also, it's quite possible I said it, but your quote doesn't have me saying that we should nuke another country pre-emptively.
The Foole said;
ReplyDeleteBut there is hardly any subject which enrages cliffy more than someone who threatens or disses his beloved America.
You finally got one right, because the idiot and his minions have doen MUCH more damage to America than any body else this decade.
They have destroted the military, getting it bogged down in a fiasco.
The cut funds for real security...while finding ways to waste money on bridges to nowhere, and paying repug spinmeisters to lie for them.
They have broken the budget WORSE than even Reagan did...and that is not a good thing.
Their legacy will be a fiasco in Iraq,
not winning in Afghganistan, letting Osama(you know the guy Bush forgot) escape,
going on vacation while a major american city drowns and then thinking photo ops and fly by's are the answer,
selling the ports(which BTW Daubai still own and operate),
attempting to shread the bill of rights, and create an imperial presidency,
pimping out the federal government for big oil, pharma, walmart, while at the SAME time giving tax breaks to outsource the jobs of the american workers.
YES FOOLE I do get upset when those whonare supposed to defend this country act the foole, like the PNAC neo-con repugs have done.
BTW Foole Gadan is sitting in a cave making videos which 99.9999999% of Americans will not believe his lies, or delusional spin.
ReplyDeleteMany do believe the derisive rethortic of Dumsfeld, dead eye, and the idiot.
They are the ones who have FAILED so miserably, both in actually capturing Osama(you know ther guy Bush forgot) and al Zawahiri....and BTW the person who sent Anthrax into the offices of US Congressmen and Senators, along with major MSM persons. They MUSH have forgotten that attack just like they seem to have forgotten Osama.
Clif, what you failed to note was that Clinton totally decimated the budgets for our various intelligence agencies during the 90s, and that was a proximate cause of 9/11.
ReplyDeleteI agree there is too much pork, but thank God Bush restored the budgets for the intelligence agencies.
Tiny Minded foole said;
ReplyDeleteClinton totally decimated the budgets for our various intelligence agencies during the 90s,
Too bad soo sad for your spin that the repugs controlled congress from 19994 onward and SET the spending priorities and the budget, and THEY were the oines who allocayed the funding, and did not challange Clinton but rather were AWOL with their collective noses up Starr's ass hoping for impeachment
And JUST throwing Money is not the answer, I would expect a repug to understand that.
ReplyDeleteand the repugs have done so well on Intel
1 no WMD's in Iraq
2 Osama(remember he is the guy Bush forgot) is still free
3 No clue as to the rising insurgency in Iraq(according to their own pronouncements)
4 Disbanding the CIA section looking for Osama, real good move considering the Taliban is retaking parts of Afghanistan, and al Quaeda is re-emerging as a Islamist fundamentalist force.
5 Throwing out Arabic translators(from the military) on religious fundamentalists grounds.
6 Purging experts in various sections of CIA, state and DOD to place PONAC neo-con fellow travelers in their place(which lead directly to the fiasco in IRAQ)
7 Cheney pressuring CIA and DOD for Intel he wants...NOT what the Intel really is.
8 Letting Douglas Feith run a DOD Intel operation even though he is an apologist for AIPIC and Israel instead of the US
10 BUT most important of all punishing people who challenge their failures, while promoting those who go along with the failed policies and plans.
Money can not fix failures like that son. But a change in the leadership at the top(like replacing Dumsfeld, dead eye, condi and the idiot) will.
And BTW foole Bush 41 bagan the downward trend of the intelligence budget...because of the collapse of the soviet union...remember his "new world order" and the peace dividend?
ReplyDeleteClif, you are being inconsistent. "Only a change at the top" is what you say could have fixed the intelligence, but you blame Congress. On the other hand, if you say Congress controlled things in the 90s, you give credit to Clinton. Mighty selective.
ReplyDeleteBTW, only a fool mis-spells the word "fool." You are worse than Dan Quayle when he added an "e" to the end of "potato."
The intell budget topped in 1990, and every year after that Bush 41 cut the budget requests he sent to congress....budgets for 1991, 1992 1993, so Bill Clinton was just continuing what George Bush sr started...foole.
ReplyDeleteClif, your command of the English language is very "goode."
ReplyDeleteYo FOOLE I prefer George Carlins take on the word...he added the final e just to piss the fooles off, and in youyr case it worked STUPID
ReplyDeleteAnd the congress doe control the purse strings...but the MAIN failures of Intel are people and policies not money and that does lead directly to the idiot, dead eye, dumsfeld, and condi.
ReplyDeleteMy list of the problems is not monetarily based but would require the repugs to quit shoving their collective heads up Roves ass to get him to bless their re-election, and hold REAL hearings where they call this incompetent and corrupt repug clown posse to task for their multitude of failures and crimes while in office.
ReplyDeleteSo Clif, when Clinton was president, he gets gredit for the good things but the Congress gets the blame for the bad things? Pretty lame there. About as lame as your spelling.
ReplyDeleteClif said: "My list of the problems is not monetarily based but would require the repugs to quit shoving their collective heads up Roves ass."
ReplyDeleteWonderful analysis there. Time your MENSA meeting. Run along now.
NO foole lame is you mantra son, congress approiates the MONEY stupid....the president sets policy and calls those who FAIL to account, and if HE does not congress is supposed to hold overstight hearings....got it stupid.....it is not about the money...bvut failed policies the idiot dead eye and dumsfeld advocated...and attacked anybody who pointed out the massive and numerous failures in both the plan and execution of the failed policies.......
ReplyDeleteand your idiot comments about how i choose to spell foole is not a debate topic because it does not change the fact that this incompetent clown posse which the fooles in the white house and civilian leadership of DOD and state have shown themselves to be ARE directaly to blame...NOT Bill (blow job) Clinton
Son Rove has set the election strategy since 2000, and his is the swiftboat ignore the facts strategy...which every repug followed, so the have figuratively shoved their collective heads up his ass.
ReplyDeleteAnd his strategy of Blame Clinton for everything even though he only got a blow job....is being followed by you RIGHT now foole
ReplyDeleteBut I am soon going to enjoy th3e day...so play with your self since Jeff Gannon does not visit the area after Delay CUT AND RAN from congress...just like Newt did in 1998
ReplyDeleteBut they are Never wrong...even when the facts and the majority of the american people see they are...right foole...( BTW what does the inside of Roves ass look like son?)
ReplyDeleteThe reason Rove looks like he is losing weight is because his strategy is losing this year so less and less repugs are shoving their heads uo his ass
ReplyDeleteAt least I don't need to run mmy comments through a spell checker before I post.
ReplyDeleteIf Clinton wasn't so distracted with getting blow jobs in the Oval Office, he might have proposed higher budget levels for the intelligence agencies, and if he wasn't so distracted with those blow jobs, he could have grabbed Osama when Sudan offered him to us on a silver platter. Yeah, that's the fault of the Congress alright. Learn some history and then come back when you have your facts straight.
My factes are straighter than you are boy...Bush has been in charge 6 years and the country is in a lot worst shape than when clinton wqas in office...and THAT is A FACT
ReplyDeleteGet over the fact that BUSH has blown it worst than clinton did by getting a blow job then lying about it boy.
ReplyDeleteClif, an Intenet bubble was false wealth. The country is just fine. Now run along.
ReplyDeleteTalllTexan said...
ReplyDeleteAt least I don't need to run mmy comments through a spell checker before I post.
You should son..........LOL
And Sudan offered Osama if Saudi arabia would be an intermediary...which they would not, Nothiung else has ever been proven...so the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia....you know the guys georgie loves to hold hands with when they visit the crawford dude ranch...blocked the Osama transfer....kind of left those facts out eh son?
ReplyDelete