October 30, 2006
Confession that formed base of Iraq war was acquired under torture
LONDON (AFP) - An Al-Qaeda terror suspect captured by the United States, who gave evidence of links between Iraq and the terror network, confessed after being tortured, a journalist told the BBC.
Iban al Shakh al Libby told intelligence agents that he was close to Al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri and "understood an awful lot about the inner workings of Al-Qaeda," former FBI agent Jack Clonan told the broadcaster.
Libby was tortured in an Egyptian prison, according to Stephen Grey, the author of the newly-released book "Ghost Plane" who investigated the secret US Central Intelligence Agency ( CIA) prisons that housed terror suspects around the world.
US President George W. Bush confirmed the existence of the network of CIA holding facilities overseas during a September 6 speech defending controversial US interrogation practices.
Libby was apparently taken to Cairo, Clonan told the broadcaster, after being captured in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.
"He (Libby) claims he was tortured in jail and that would be routine in Egyptian prisons," Grey said.
"What he claimed most significantly was a connection between ... Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. This intelligence report made it all the way to the top, and was used by (former US secretary of state) Colin Powell as a key piece of justification ... for invading Iraq," he told the broadcaster.
Powell claimed in a UN Security Council meeting in February 2003, weeks before a US-led coalition invaded Iraq, that the country under Saddam Hussein had provided weapons training to Al-Qaeda, saying he could "trace the story of a senior terrorist operative", whom Grey alleges is Libby.
"At the time, the caveats to say this intelligence was extracted under torture were not provided," Grey said.
Grey said that, after being held in Egypt, Libby was transferred to a secret CIA facility in Bagram, just north of Afghanistan's capital Kabul. The journalist said he had also met other people held in that facility who describe the torture that Libby faced at the CIA facility.
Since then, "he disappeared", Grey said.
"Like hundreds of other people arrested after September 11, he's vanished into a sort of netherworld of prisons where astonishingly, President Bush now says the prisons have emptied.
September 28, 2006
Today I burn the Flag!
Letter to the Editor
Today is a sad day for America. The House and the Senate have given Bush the power of Adolf Hitler by legalizing Bush's concentration camps where Americans will be tortured for anything the government wants. In a few years these same senators will be claiming that "I had no idea that Bush would abuse this power when we authorized Bush to set up torture camps" the same way they are presently claiming they had no idea what Bush was going to do when they authorized him to start a war with Iraq. And people will act surprised when America's allies distance themselves even more from us. I can no longer identify myself as an American. We are like Iraq. We are occupied by the enemies of freedom. We are the Nazis of the 21st century.
----
Lieberman voted to give Bush Nazi powers. Imagine a Jew voting to allow Hitler to open concentration camps. McCain was supposedly a POW and he is such a pussy he sold out.
September 08, 2006
Bush / CIA behind ABC's Path to 9/11 Movie?
Is Bush and the CIA behind the controversial ABC News documentary "The Path to 9/11" which blames Clinton for the 9/11 attack? It looks like it might be.
ABC has all but admitted the movie is a lie but is calling it a "docudrama" with the emphasis on "drama" implying that the word means that it is really presented as a fictional piece and therefor is not a lie. However, since it is being played on 9/10 and 9/11 in prime time the fact that it is fiction is hidden from the average viewer.
The movie's director Davin L. Cunningham is an evangelical nutcase and the son of the guy who started the Christian cult Youth with a Mission. The movie producers had unusual access to CIA headquarters to nake this film. There seems to be a lot of people on the web connecting the dots but it looks like this is a CIA propaganda film that was produced by the Bush administration to change the outcome of the upcoming congressional elections. Besides, who came up with the $40 million bucks tp produce this lie? We may never know for sure but it's probably us taxpayers through one of those black budgets that funds projects like this and CIA torture camps.
Personally what pisses me off the most is that it will preemptd reruns of Desparate Housewives which is far more interesting fiction that Christian CIA Bush propaganda. A more likely docudrama of what happened is Loose Change 911 which raises the possibility that the noecons, not Islamic terrorists, were behins 9-11. I think that Loose Change is more accurate that the CIA funded Christian evangelical Clinton hater's movie that is trying to rewrite history.
-----
Here's something I found on this post on Democratic Undeground. The message below:
I am not an expert on religious cults, but my interest in them began in the 70's when my family was thrown into chaos by one member's recruitment into a bizarre and ostensibly Christian cult.
That's why my interest was piqued when I searched "Path to 9-11" director David Cunningham's name and discovered that he is the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the worldwide, evangelical missonary group Youth With a Mission (YWAM).
http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.ph...
Started in 1960, YWAM is an "international, inter-denominational, non-profit Christian missionary organization whose motto is 'To know God and to make Him known.'" They claim to have more than 16,000 full-time workers in nearly 1,100 operation locations in 149 countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_With_A_Mission
The Wikipedia entry limits YWAM criticism to theological sticking points brought up by Calvinists and fundamentalists regarding the doctrine of original sin and the extent of free will (yawn), but I was not surprised to find a link to Rick Ross Institute at the end of the article. Rickross.com is an invaluable resource for information about hundreds, if not thousands, of cults and other controversial groups. Some are relatively benign; some are very destructive.
The Rick Ross YWAM page is pretty lightweight, with far fewer entries than for groups like the Unification Church, Scientology or the FLDS. And even critics and unhappy former members of YWAM acknowledge its good works.
http://www.rickross.com/groups/youth.html
But as Ross notes, the ends do not justify the means. And any group that initiates/brainwashes members through a prolonged and painful "confessional," takes members' money (through training fees and "love offerings") and then controls all aspects of their lives is a cult. The best that can be said is that YWAM doesn't hold members captive or discourage their leaving the group - but if you're stationed in a tiny country halfway around the world where you're being paid $7.00 a week - which is what YWAM pays - you'd better have friends or family willing to pay your way home.
But wait, there's more.
Also disturbing is Loren Cunningham's association with other controversial religious groups and movements, among them Promise Keepers, Campus Crusaders and Benny Hinn. The first two endorse YWAM on its site, and Cunningham has appeared on Hinn broadcasts.
Rick Ross claims that, according to Gary North, Cunningham has been studing Christian Reconstructionism since 1988. (North is R.J. Rushdoony's son-in-law - a writer, publisher and regular contributor to Lew Rockwell's poisonous website).
Finally, there is Rod Parsley, named by American Prospect magazine as a key figure in the 2004 Ohio election results. According to a November 2005 article,
"...Parsley has deliberately reached out to young people. His purpose was plain when he announced the planned formation of a new nonprofit organization, Reformation Ohio, in August. Reformation Ohio’s goals include, among other things, registering 400,000 new voters through its member churches and preaching to 1 million Ohioans over the next four years in an effort to convert 100,000. Many of these sought-after converts will be teenagers, through a $10 million campaign by Youth With a Mission, a nonprofit group that aggressively evangelizes through extreme sports, Christian rock concerts, dance, and performance art."
(Read the whole article about Parsley - very informative)
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=V...
Sooo...
What's all this got to do with David Cunningham?
Well, his familial association raises a few questions, like - why was he chosen to direct it? His only other big credit is a film entitled "To End All Wars," another "true-life" story about a WWII POW's Christian strength and forgiveness of his Japanese tormentors. You'll find it praised on a number of sites like this:
http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2002/t...
But even more, it raises these question: Who funded this movie? What is their agenda? Who is really responsible for this rightwing bilge?
August 28, 2006
One Year Later - Katrina FEMA Trailers still sit at Hope Airport
After a year 10,000 FEMA trailers still sit at the airport in Hope Arkanasa sinking in the mud rotting away where the government pays $25,000 a month rent for the space. Is it deliberate or just stupidity? If this doesn't symbolize the failure of Bush I don't know what does.
May 11, 2006
NSA Illegally Tracking your phone calls - ALL of them!
Here's the Article
he National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans - most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.
For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made - across town or across the country - to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.
The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.
The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.
Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.
The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop - without warrants - on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database.
In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."
As a result, domestic call records - those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders - were believed to be private.
Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.
Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency's operations. "Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide," he said. "However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law."
The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. "There is no domestic surveillance without court approval," said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping.
She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government "are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists." All government-sponsored intelligence activities "are carefully reviewed and monitored," Perino said. She also noted that "all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States."
The government is collecting "external" data on domestic phone calls but is not intercepting "internals," a term for the actual content of the communication, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program. This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it's been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said. The data are used for "social network analysis," the official said, meaning to study how terrorist networks contact each other and how they are tied together.
Carriers uniquely positioned
AT&T recently merged with SBC and kept the AT&T name. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T are the nation's three biggest telecommunications companies; they provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers.
The three carriers control vast networks with the latest communications technologies. They provide an array of services: local and long-distance calling, wireless and high-speed broadband, including video. Their direct access to millions of homes and businesses has them uniquely positioned to help the government keep tabs on the calling habits of Americans.
Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.
Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services - primarily long-distance and wireless - to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.
Created by President Truman in 1952, during the Korean War, the NSA is charged with protecting the United States from foreign security threats. The agency was considered so secret that for years the government refused to even confirm its existence. Government insiders used to joke that NSA stood for "No Such Agency."
In 1975, a congressional investigation revealed that the NSA had been intercepting, without warrants, international communications for more than 20 years at the behest of the CIA and other agencies. The spy campaign, code-named "Shamrock," led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was designed to protect Americans from illegal eavesdropping.
Enacted in 1978, FISA lays out procedures that the U.S. government must follow to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches of people believed to be engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States. A special court, which has 11 members, is responsible for adjudicating requests under FISA.
Over the years, NSA code-cracking techniques have continued to improve along with technology. The agency today is considered expert in the practice of "data mining" - sifting through reams of information in search of patterns. Data mining is just one of many tools NSA analysts and mathematicians use to crack codes and track international communications.
Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn't necessary for government data-mining operations. "FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining," said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C.
The caveat, he said, is that "personal identifiers" - such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses - can't be included as part of the search. "That requires an additional level of probable cause," he said.
The usefulness of the NSA's domestic phone-call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear. Also unclear is whether the database has been used for other purposes.
The NSA's domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer's calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew.
Ma Bell's bedrock principle - protection of the customer - guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. "No court order, no customer information - period. That's how it was for decades," he said.
The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.
The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of "violation." In practice, that means a single "violation" could cover one customer or 1 million.
In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the
American Civil Liberties Union, disagree.
Companies approached
The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.
The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits.
The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.
With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest.
AT&T, when asked about the program, replied with a comment prepared for USA TODAY: "We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law."
In another prepared comment, BellSouth said: "BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority."
Verizon, the USA's No. 2 telecommunications company behind AT&T, gave this statement: "We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers' privacy."
Qwest spokesman Robert Charlton said: "We can't talk about this. It's a classified situation."
In December, The New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that travel to or from the USA. The following month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T. The lawsuit accuses the company of helping the NSA spy on U.S. phone customers.
Last month, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales alluded to that possibility. Appearing at a
House Judiciary Committee hearing, Gonzales was asked whether he thought the White House has the legal authority to monitor domestic traffic without a warrant. Gonzales' reply: "I wouldn't rule it out." His comment marked the first time a Bush appointee publicly asserted that the White House might have that authority.
Similarities in programs
The domestic and international call-tracking programs have things in common, according to the sources. Both are being conducted without warrants and without the approval of the FISA court. The Bush administration has argued that FISA's procedures are too slow in some cases. Officials, including Gonzales, also make the case that the USA Patriot Act gives them broad authority to protect the safety of the nation's citizens.
The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., would not confirm the existence of the program. In a statement, he said, "I can say generally, however, that our subcommittee has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. ... I remain convinced that the program authorized by the president is lawful and absolutely necessary to protect this nation from future attacks."
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., declined to comment.
One company differs
One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the program: Qwest.
According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order - or approval under FISA - to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.
Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.
The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the
FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information - known as "product" in intelligence circles - with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.
The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.
Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.
In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.
The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.
In June 2002, Nacchio resigned amid allegations that he had misled investors about Qwest's financial health. But Qwest's legal questions about the NSA request remained.
Unable to reach agreement, Nacchio's successor, Richard Notebaert, finally pulled the plug on the NSA talks in late 2004, the sources said.
April 09, 2006
Bush says he wants to get to the bottom of the leaks
Remember this?
Q Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
And so I welcome the investigation. I -- I'm absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There's a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year. I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative.
I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.
------
President Bush's chief spokesman said yesterday that the allegation that administration officials leaked the name of a CIA operative is "a very serious matter" and vowed that Bush would fire anybody responsible for such actions.
The vow came as numerous Democratic leaders demanded the administration appoint a special counsel to investigate the charges that a CIA operative's name was divulged in an effort to discredit her husband, a prominent critic of Bush's Iraq policy. The White House rejected those calls, also saying it has no evidence of wrongdoing by Bush adviser Karl Rove or others and therefore no reason to begin an internal investigation.
"There's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the vice president's office, as well," said Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary. He said that "if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."
Justice Department officials said yesterday they have begun a preliminary probe into whether an administration official violated the law by telling journalists that the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a prominent critic of Bush's use of intelligence related to Iraq, worked for the CIA. Wilson has drawn attention for his report on a trip he took to Niger for the CIA that, he said, did not confirm an administration charge that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear materiel in that country.
A senior official quoted Bush as saying, "I want to get to the bottom of this," during a daily meeting yesterday morning with a few top aides, including Rove. Senior intelligence officials said yesterday that the CIA filed what they termed a "crime report" with the Justice Department in late July, shortly after syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, citing two unnamed administration sources, identified Wilson's wife by name. The CIA report pointed to a "possible violation of federal criminal law involving the unauthorized disclosure of classified information."
-----------------
Q: Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q: -- have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him --
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.
Q: Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?
McClellan: They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.
Q: So you're saying -- you're saying categorically those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying?
McClellan: That's correct. I've spoken with them.
Q: But can you confirm that the President would fire anyone on his staff found to have leaked classified information?
McClellan: I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration.
Here is Scott McClellan again on October 7, 2003....
McClellan: If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business.
Carl Cameron insists President Bush never promised to fire over the leak.. McClellan on October 7, 2003...
McClellan: No, no. Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants.
-----------------
Now we know it was Bush who authorized the leak. I'm sure glad we have an honest president.
March 20, 2006
New Video Seriously Questions 9-11 building colapse
Was the world trade center building destroyed by the plane crashes or were they blown up? I just cam across this video that is very pursuasive raising the question if this wasn't yet another Bush plot. The things that got me in particular were:
1) The center support columns sholdn't have collapsed even if the building pancaked.
2) The third building that collapsed that wasn't hit by a jet totally looks like it was being blown up.
3) No other skyscrapers have ever collapsed from fire.
I'm still in denial and the only thing that heeps me from believing it is denial or that I'm somehow being suckered. You watch it and see what you think.
March 09, 2006
Bush's Homeland Security Plan - Pray Nothing Happens
Once churches get hooked on the govrnment money then the government will control the churches. Then when Hillary gets elected we'll see how happy they are after selling their souls to Uncle Sam.
Executive Order: Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet America's social and community needs, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment of a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the Department of Homeland Security.
(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall establish within the Department of Homeland Security (Department) a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (Center).
(b) The Center shall be supervised by a Director appointed by Secretary. The Secretary shall consult with the Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (WHOFBCI Director) prior to making such appointment.
(c) The Department shall provide the Center with appropriate staff, administrative support, and other resources to meet its responsibilities under this order.
(d) The Center shall begin operations no later than 45 days from the date of this order.
Sec. 2. Purpose of Center. The purpose of the Center shall be to coordinate agency efforts to eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the provision of social and community services.
Sec. 3. Responsibilities of the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. In carrying out the purpose set forth in section 2 of this order, the Center shall:
(a) conduct, in coordination with the WHOFBCI Director, a department-wide audit to identify all existing barriers to the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the delivery of social and community services by the Department, including but not limited to regulations, rules, orders, procure-ment, and other internal policies and practices, and outreach activities that unlawfully discriminate against, or otherwise discourage or disadvantage the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in Federal programs;
(b) coordinate a comprehensive departmental effort to incorporate faith-based and other community organizations in Department programs and initiatives to the greatest extent possible;
(c) propose initiatives to remove barriers identified pursuant to section 3(a) of this order, including but not limited to reform of regulations, procurement, and other internal policies and practices, and outreach activities;
(d) propose the development of innovative pilot and demonstration programs to increase the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in Federal as well as State and local initiatives; and
(e) develop and coordinate Departmental outreach efforts to disseminate information more effectively to faith-based and other community organizations with respect to programming changes, contracting opportunities, and other agency initiatives, including but not limited to Web and Internet resources.
Sec. 4. Reporting Requirements.
(a) Report. Not later than 180 days from the date of this order and annually thereafter, the Center shall prepare and submit a report to the WHOFBCI Director.
(b) Contents. The report shall include a description of the Department's efforts in carrying out its responsibilities under this order, including but not limited to:
(i) a comprehensive analysis of the barriers to the full participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the delivery of social and community services identified pursuant to section 3(a) of this order and the proposed strategies to eliminate those barriers; and
(ii) a summary of the technical assistance and other information that will be available to faith-based and other community organizations regarding the program activities of the agency and the preparation of applications or proposals for grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and procurement.
(c) Performance Indicators. The first report shall include annual performance indicators and measurable objectives for Departmental action. Each report filed thereafter shall measure the Department's performance against the objectives set forth in the initial report.
Sec. 5. Responsibilities of the Secretary. The Secretary shall:
(a) designate an employee within the department to serve as the liaison and point of contact with the WHOFBCI Director; and
(b) cooperate with the WHOFBCI Director and provide such information, support, and assistance to the WHOFBCI Director as requested to implement this order.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented subject to the availability of appropriations and to the extent permitted by law.
(b) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 7, 2006.
February 27, 2006
UAE gave $1 million to Bush library
Here's the Story. Why am I not surprised? Now we have a 45 day waiting period so that the UAE can bribe all the right members of Congress to get their blessing too. Somebode track this to see who gets money from the UAE during this period. Here's an exerpt.
A sheik from the United Arab Emirates contributed at least $1 million to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University in College Station.
The UAE owns Dubai Port Co., which is taking operations from London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which operates six U.S. ports. A political uproar has ensued over the deal, which the White House approved without congressional oversight.
The donations were made in the early 1990s for the library, which houses the papers of former President George Bush, the current president's father.
The list of donors names Sheik Zayed Bin Sultan al Nahyan and the people of the United Arab Emirates as one donor in the $1 million or more category.
The amount of the gift grants them recognition on the engraved donor wall in the library entrance or on the paving bricks that line the library's walkways, according to library documents.
January 10, 2006
Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children
You won't see this in the corporate news:
Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children
By Philip Watts
01/08/06 "revcom.us" -- -- John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.
This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.
What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.
It has now come out Yoo also had a hand in providing legal reasoning for the President to conduct unauthorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, "Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the 'war on terror’ than John Yoo."
This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world.
Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
The audio of this exchange is available online at revcom.us
Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children ? As David Cole puts it, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."
What is the position of the Bush Administration on the torture of children, since one of its most influential legal architects is advocating the President’s right to order the crushing of a child’s testicles?
This fascist logic has nothing to do with "getting information" as Yoo has argued. The legal theory developed by Yoo and a few others and adopted by the Administration has resulted in thousands being abducted from their homes in Afghanistan, Iraq or other parts of the world, mostly at random. People have been raped, electrocuted, nearly drowned and tortured literally to death in U.S. run torture centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. And there is much still to come out. What about the secret centers in Europe or the many still-suppressed photos from Abu Ghraib? What can explain this sadistic, indiscriminate, barbaric brutality except a need to instill widespread fear among people all over the world?
It is ironic that just prior to arguing the President's legal right to torture children, John Yoo was defensive about the Bush administration policies, based on his legal memo’s, being equated to those during Nazi Germany.
Yoo said, "If you are trying to draw a moral equivalence between the Nazis and what the United States is trying to do in defending themselves against Al Qauueda and the 9/11 attacks, I fully reject that. Second, if you’re trying to equate the Bush Administration to Nazi officials who committed atrocities in the holocaust, I completely reject that too. I think to equate Nazi Germany to the Bush Administration is irresponsible."
If open promotion of unmitigated executive power, including the right to order the torture of innocent children, isn’t sufficient basis for drawing such a "moral equivalence," then I don’t know what is. What would be irresponsible is to sit by and allow the Bush regime to radically remake society in a fascist way, with repercussions for generations to come. We must act now because the future is in the balance. The world cannot wait. While Bush gives his State of the Union on January 31st, I’ll find myself along with many thousands across the country declaring "Bush Step Down And take your program with you."
Philip Watts - pwatts_revolution@yahoo.com
July 28, 2005
Bush Flips the Bird Again
Check out this new video of Bush flipping the bird. I wonder if Clinton did this, do you think it would get news coverage?
June 20, 2005
Porter Goss Claims He Has Idea Where Bin Laden Is
Letter to the Editor
Porter Goss, Bush's "Intelligence Czar" says he knows where Osama bin Laden is, but he's not saying right now. I know where he's hiding. Or should I say I know where Porter Goss thinks ne's is hiding. It's hardly a secret when you know how the Bush Cult thinks.
Porter Goss thinks bin Laden is hiding in Iran.
Why? How do I know this?
It's simple. Bush is in the process of putting together an invasion of Iran for the 2006 mid term elections (wag the dog) to distract the people again from the gutting of America by the Corporate/Dominion alliance. So in order to help justify this coming war they will need to put bin Laden in Iran. So that's where he is.
The way the intelligence community works in this administration is that the President tells them what he wants reality to be and then they go out and fabricate the story that supports the president's fiction.
Porter Goss is under orders from Bush to find bin Laden in Iran, so that's where he will be. By the time next summer rolls around, Osama bin Laden will have been discovered to be secretly in control of Iran and in control of their nuclear arsenal. And like Iraq, we will be required to go to war over it. I feel a draft coming.
March 08, 2005
How to beat the high price of gas
Rising gas prices cutting into your lifestyle? I have a way to beat the system. Here are my "secrets to success" that you will find only on Marc Perkel's blog. Here's how it works.
What you do is go out and borrow all the money you can and buy oil company stock. The oil company prices go up because they raise the price of gas and the profits go up and you can buy your gas with what you make in the stock market.
But - you might ask - what if prices go up faster than the stock profits? No problem - borrow more money and buy even more stock. The more people who follow this plan - the faster the stock price goes up. So tell all your friends and neighbors to follow this plan.
Some people might put down this idea and call it wreckless and risky. But this idea has the backing of some of the greatest economic minds in America. Because this is the same plan that Bush and the Republican Party have to "save" Social Security.
February 22, 2005
It's the hottest story in the Blogosphere
Blogger John Aravosis of AmericaBlog.org is exposing the truth about former White House "reporter" Jim Guckert, a.k.a. "John Gannon."
The basic question underlying this scandal is simple: How on earth did a $200/hour gay male prostitute get past post-9/11 White House security nearly every day for two years to get within spitball distance of George W. Bush?
Is the Secret Service completely incompetent - or does Guckert have "friends" in the highest places? Who specifically waved Guckert into the White House each day, starting when Guckert worked for the rightwing propaganda site GOPUSA.com?
And how "deep" were Guckert's White House connections? Did he actually see the secret CIA memo outing Valerie Plame? Did he actually know Bush was going to declare war against Iraq on TV 4 hours before anyone else knew? How did Guckert's boss Bobby Eberle get a rare and coveted interview with Karl Rove himself?
Finally, who was actually paying Guckert? Was he paid by the White House out of a propaganda slush fund? Was he paid by the GOP to spread lies about Democrats? Did Guckert's lies cost Tom Daschle his Senate seat?
This hot story was literally right under the noses of the White House press corps, who sat side-by-side with Guckert for two years. Yet none of them ever investigated Guckert - and many continue to defend him and criticize Aravosis for pursuing the truth.
Where will this expose lead? How can progressive bloggers help Aravosis get to the bottom of this scandal? How can we persuade the mainstream media to pursue its own investigations?
February 21, 2005
News Media Knew for 2 Years Jeff Gannon was a Fraud
The news media knew for the last two years the Gannon was a fraud and they covered it up. That's the real story here. They all know who each other are and Gannan was clearly not one of them. For 2 years Gannon pretended to be part of the group of Washington press corps reporters and - more importantly - the Washington press corps pretended Gannon was one of them. This fraud isn't limited to just Bush trying to pull the wool over the reporters eyes here as the "legitimate" news media acts surpirsed as that try to bury this story as fast as they possibly can. They were and active part of the ploy.
Everything you see in television news is staged - it is a lie - and they are all part of the lie. And I am just not going to buy into it.
Bush making out with male prostitute!
This guy is as phony as Bush is!
Welcome to the simulation of a free country
Here's a story that the mainstream press is running from. The guy Bush is making out with here is a gay male prostitute. His fake name is Jeff Cannon and he's a fake White House corrispondent who pretends to be a reporter in Bush's press conferences and asks softball questions.
Check out the details on Comedy Central
This gay male whore visits the Whitehouse on a daily basis - more often than Monica was visiting Clinton. And just look at the way Bush looks at him. Looks to me like they definitely have chemistry going.
What ammuses me is that this has to drive the Christian Right nuts because there's nothing more hated than the gay man - and here he is in the arms of the president.
Here's an example of what the Washington Post says about it. Do you think that would go this easy on Clinton if he were kissing a gay male prostitute? I don't think so.
Jeff Gannon, the former White House reporter whose naked pictures have appeared on a number of gay escort sites, says that he has "regrets" about his past but that White House officials knew nothing about his salacious activities.
"I've made mistakes in my past," he said yesterday. "Does my past mean I can't have a future? Does it disqualify me from being a journalist?"
Gannon chastised his critics, breaking a silence that began last week when liberal bloggers disclosed his real name, James Dale Guckert, and a Web page, which he paid for, featuring X-rated photos of himself. "Why would they be looking into a person's sexual history? Is that what we're going to do to reporters now? Is there some kind of litmus test for reporters? Is it right to hold someone's sexuality against them?"
As for his critics, Gannon said: "People have said some of my writing expressed a hostile point of view" toward gays. "These people are willing to abandon their principles on the basis of trying to make me out to be a hypocrite. These are the same groups that cherish free speech and privacy."
John Aravosis, a gay activist who posted the pictures of Gannon on his Americablog.org, said the issue is not Gannon's right to be a journalist but his "White House access. . . . The White House wouldn't let him in the door right now, knowing of his background."
Aravosis said Gannon is guilty of "what I call family-values hypocrisy. Basically, he's asking the gay community to protect him when he attacks us."
Gannon resigned earlier this month as a reporter for two conservative Web sites, Talon News and GOPUSA, both owned by a Texas Republican activist. Gannon became a target after asking President Bush a question that slammed Senate Democrats and contained false information about Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
In the interview, Gannon did not dispute evidence that he has advertised himself as a $200-an-hour gay escort but would not specifically address such questions.
Dismissing speculation that he had a permanent White House press pass, which requires a full-blown FBI background check that usually takes months, Gannon said he could not get one because he was required to first get a pass from the Senate press gallery, which did not consider him to be working for a legitimate news organization. Instead, he said he was admitted on a day-to-day basis after supplying his real name, date of birth and Social Security number. He said he did not use a pseudonym to hide his past but because his real last name is hard to spell and pronounce.
Gannon said he began covering the White House in February 2003, at least a month before Talon News was created. He said he was then working for GOPUSA. Talon was launched as "a marketing consideration to separate the news division from something that could be viewed as partisan," he said.
Suggestions that White House officials coddled him or gave him special access are "absolutely, completely, totally untrue," Gannon said, adding that he was often among the last to be called on at press briefings and sometimes could not ask a question at all. "I have no friendships with anyone there. . . . The White House, as far as I know, was never aware of the questions about my past."
Asked how recently he was putting his photo on escort sites, Gannon said that "so much of this stuff" was "years in the past. . . . Anything that goes on the Internet is there forever," he said. "Every day I learn about another site where there are allegedly pictures of me."
Gannon says he was questioned by the FBI in the Valerie Plame leak investigation after referring to a classified CIA document when he interviewed the outed CIA operative's husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson.
But he said yesterday: "I didn't have the document. I never saw the document. It was written about in the Wall Street Journal a week before. I had no special access to classified information."
Aravosis and other critics cite several examples of what they view as Gannon's anti-gay writing. Gannon wrote last year that John Kerry "might someday be known as 'the first gay president,' citing his "100 percent rating from the homosexual advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign" for backing a "pro-gay agenda." Gannon said he was just reporting the facts and playing off suggestions that Bill Clinton was the first black president.
In reporting on comments by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) that legalizing gay marriage could lead to judicial approval of bestiality, Gannon made an issue of the fact that the Associated Press reporter who interviewed Santorum was married to a top Kerry aide and described the comments of gay activists as "predictable responses." Gannon said he was not taking a stand on the issue.
Other allegations, meanwhile, keep surfacing.
Aravosis wrote yesterday on his blog that an unnamed television producer says Gannon told him the Iraq war was going to begin four hours before Bush announced it.
Gannon chuckled at that, saying many reporters sensed an attack was imminent because the White House kept delaying the routine announcement that no more news would be made that day. "You could feel it in the air," he said.
Despite the battering he has taken, Gannon hasn't abandoned plans to work in journalism and hopes to generate sympathy by speaking out.
"People criticize me for being a Christian and having some of these questionable things in my past," he said. "I believe in a God of forgiveness."
It's just a week later and the press is defending this guy and running from the story. But here on the internet we aren't censored by the Bush administration like like the official press are. The "ligitimate" news media has all their stories written by the GOP and this guy is the guy who writes the script for the networks.
I remember how they went after Clinton for every little thing. How awful it was that Clinton's fifth cousin was working in the travel office. They went on about that for YEARS! But when one of their Republican owners gets caught with a male whore - well - look how low the liberals are stooping to smear the good name of a great man!
Here's what Accuracy in the Media covers the story!
The Destruction of Jeff Gannon
By Cliff Kincaid | February 10, 2005
The campaign against Gannon demonstrates the paranoid mentality and mean-spirited nature of the political left.
Send this page to a friend
Format this page for printing
Conservative bloggers made a name for themselves by starting the process that led to the "Rathergate" scandal. They questioned the authenticity of some alleged National Guard documents that CBS used in a campaign to smear the President's military service. This was a real scandal, in which CBS backed away from the documents, an investigation was launched, and four people were fired from the network for their work on the story.
Left-wing bloggers have now made a name for themselves, and it is not pretty. They have taken the scalp of an on-line conservative journalist by the name of Jeff Gannon, who was virtually unknown until about three weeks ago. His crimes were that he was too pro-Republican, attended White House briefings, and asked questions unfair to Democrats. This became, for a group called Media Matters, the "White House press room scandal." Never mind that "journalist" Helen Thomas has been giving anti-Bush political diatribes disguised as questions at these briefings for years.
A massive left-wing investigation of Gannon's personal and business affairs was launched and was said to reveal that he was associated with some homosexual-sounding website addresses. Ironically, the Media Matters group is run by former conservative and once-closeted homosexual David Brock.
The Gannon "scandal" would be laughable, were it not for the fact that Gannon's personal privacy has been invaded and his mother, in her 70s, had to endure harassing telephone calls from those on the political left trying to dig up dirt.
The campaign against Gannon demonstrates the paranoid mentality and mean-spirited nature of the political left.
But the mainstream media did their dirty work, too. Liberal journalists at The Boston Globe, using material from Brock, weighed in with their own account of this controversial journalist and his employer, Talon News, owned by a Texas Republican activist named Bobby Eberle. Despite all the innuendo and controversy, the fact remains that Gannon had done some excellent political stories on a wide range of subjects, including the CIA and former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. Gannon could have survived the charge of having a conservative bias but when his personal life and family became targets, he decided to call it quits.
It all started when Gannon's writings were "exposed" for having too many statements taken directly out of White House press releases. Gannon apparently believed that covering the White House meant that he should actually report, in long and complete sentences, what the White House actually said on various public policy issues. He was also accused of tossing softball questions to White House spokesman Scott McClellan and the President himself.
You could see the imaginations working overtime on the left. They suspected that Gannon was another Armstrong Williams¯someone secretly getting federal money to promote the Bush line. Gannon had to be either a paid agent of the Bush administration or a phony journalist or both. In any case, in their view, he had to be exposed and discredited.
Was Gannon a Bush plant? Was he secretly on the White House payroll? The conspiracy theories were fed by the fact that Jeff Gannon wasn't his real name; he used a professional name because he didn't like the sound of his real name¯James Guckert.
"The left's whole focus is wrong in this case," Eberle told AIM. "This is a private company owned by me, with no ties to the Republican Party. We're on no one's payroll, except what I choose to pay people." Eberle has been running Talon News and GOPUSA for over four years. They send out news and commentary and "the conservative message" to about half-a-million subscribers a day.
Despite the Republican-sounding name, GOPUSA, no accusations of direct links to the GOP establishment or President Bush have turned out to be true. Brock and his allies eventually got Gannon's scalp because of the sex charges. These had nothing to do with his work for Talon News and reporting from the White House, and Eberle never conducted an investigation of Gannon's financial or personal business before hiring him. But the charges were embarrassing and apparently concerned some private issues that Gannon didn't want to discuss publicly. And despite what has been implied, he rarely wrote about anything related to the homosexual issue.
Eberle, a major practitioner of the "new media," apparently didn't realize that he was threatening the dwindling power of the old media. Gannon didn't realize that the purpose of the White House press corps is to make Republicans look bad. And when the left-wing media see their power slipping away, they go for blood and nothing is out of bounds. The political left doesn't respect personal privacy when the potential victims are conservatives.
Faced with criticism that the campaign may have had gone "too far" in personally attacking Gannon, as noted by Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz, some of the left-wing bloggers are saying that they were just concerned about security at the White House. How could the White House allow access to news briefings to someone using a pseudonym? Assuming this concern is genuine¯and that's a big "if"¯Eberle says that Gannon used his real name and Social Security number when applying for White House press passes. "There was never a deception," he said.
So the case against Gannon boils down to being too pro-Republican, writing stories with a conservative slant, and being linked to conduct, homosexuality, that is accepted and celebrated by those who were going after Gannon in the first place. The standard of the liberal thought police is evidently that someone's private life should be protected¯except when the accused is a conservative. The old media and their new found friends in the left-wing blogging community will stop at nothing to maintain their political power.
Getting bach to the "straight media" - Microsoft NBC - Newsweek covers the story as follows:
Feb. 28 issue - Jeff Gannon is considering suing liberal interest groups, bloggers and others for a "political assassination" that drove him from his job as a reporter for a conservative news outfit called Talon News, he told NEWSWEEK. Gannon, whose real name is James Guckert, singled out Media Matters—a "well-funded" liberal group headed by longtime "attack dog" David Brock. ("Everything we wrote about him came from the public record," Brock replied.)
It remains unclear how Gannon got routine White House press access for nearly two years; he acknowledged he first began getting clearance to White House press briefings in early 2003 as a representative of GOPUSA, a group headed by Texas GOP activist Bobby Eberle—months before Eberle even created Talon News. Gannon said he had no access to White House aides outside the press room, nor did he try to interview any. When President Bush called on him at a press conference last month—during which he asked a question with false info about Sen. Harry Reid—"nobody was more surprised than myself," said Gannon.
—Michael Isikoff and Holly Bailey
Michael Isikoff - where have we heard that name before? He's the one who invested the Kathleen Willy scandal who was Kenneth Starr's puppet during the Clinton Impeachment. He made life a living hell for Julie Steele who refused to support the lie. And Dsvid Brock is mentioned. David used to be a Republican attack dog until he finally developed a conscience after he got tired of the GOP hating gay people - being that he is one - and now he's cashing in writing books on the other side.
No wonder what they are singling him out to sue. Nothing worse than a Gay Republican turncoat.
November 07, 2004
Bush Election leaves all problems unsolved
Nothing changes. We are still losing the war in Iraq, we are still bankrupting the country, we still have a moron in charge, and we are still heading in the wrong direction.
October 29, 2004
Bush makes deal to let bin Laden go free
This is a repost of a story I ran a year ago that was in the Times of India. The link to the original story is dead but I saved it just in case it vanished.
What relevant is that bin Laden just said that if we don't attack him - he won't attack us. And we know that Bush let bin Laden go to go after Iraq - and America hasn't been attacked. And - Bush has made several statements playing down the importance of going after bin Laden. And - as we know from Fahremheit 9-11 - Bush's family is in business with bin laden's family. So - it looks to me like Bush has given into bin Laden and perhaps is in partnership with him.
So - for those who were looking for the October surprize - here it is.
--------------------
Bush made Osama deal with Musharraf
IANS[ SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 2003 06:49:05 PM ]
LONDON: Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has struck a deal with the US not to capture Osama Bin Laden, fearing this could lead to unrest in Pakistan, according to a special investigation by The Guardian.
The paper reported Saturday that Bin Laden was being protected by three elaborate security rings manned by tribesmen stretching 192 kms in diameter in northern Pakistan.
The paper's information is based on comments made by Mansoor Ijaz, an American of Pakistan origin who, the paper said, knows al-Qaeda better than most people and had close contacts in Pakistan's intelligence agencies.
Ijaz believed an agreement was reached between Musharraf and US authorities shortly after Bin Laden's flight from his stronghold Tora Bora in Afghanistan in December 2001.
The Pakistanis feared that to capture or kill Bin Laden so soon after a deeply unpopular war in Afghanistan would incite civil unrest in Pakistan and trigger a spate of revenge al-Qaida attacks on Western targets across the world.
"There was a judgment made that it would be more destabilising in the longer term. There would still be the ability to get him at a later date when it was more appropriate", Ijaz told The Guardian.
The Americans, according to Ijaz, accepted the argument, not least because of the shift in focus to the impending war in Iraq.
So the months that followed were centred on taking down not Bin Laden but the "retaliation infrastructure" of al-Qaeda.
It meant that Musharraf frequently put out conflicting accounts of the status of Bin Laden, while the US administration barely mentioned his name.
In January last year Musharraf said he believed Bin Laden was probably dead. A year later he said he was alive and moving either in Afghanistan or perhaps in the Pakistani tribal areas.
"Yet Western diplomats say they believe the Pakistani authorities are committed to the hunt for Bin Laden, although they admit that frequently the official accounts of the timing and location of successful arrests do not square with reality," the report stated.
"Pakistan must now end the charade and get Bin Laden... With so much of the retaliation infrastructure gone or unsustainable, Bin Laden's martyrdom does not pose nearly the threat it did a year ago," Ijaz told the paper.
According to Ijaz, Bin Laden is hiding in the "northern tribal areas", part of the long belt of seven deeply conservative tribal agencies which stretch down the length of the mountain ranges that mark Pakistan's winding border with Afghanistan.
The paper said that Ijaz, who recently visited Pakistan, believed that Bin Laden was protected by an elaborate security cordon of three concentric circles, in which he is guarded first by a ring of tribesmen, whose duty is to report any approach by Pakistani troops or US Special Forces.
Inside them is a tighter ring, around 19 km in diameter, made up of tribal elders who would warn if the outer ring were breached.
At the centre of the circles is Bin Laden himself, protected by one or two of his closest relatives and advisers.
Bin Laden has reportedly agreed with the elders' argument that he will use no electronic communications but handwritten notes, and will move only at night and between specified places within a limited radius.
Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat told the daily: "We have been getting reports of his presence across the border inside Afghanistan and along the border area also.
"Not all reports have been credible at times. If others were credible, we would certainly have been able to get near to him but certainly that has not been the position so far."
Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general and security analyst said: "I think the Americans find their reliance on the Pakistanis is now increasing."
Bush wore Device During Debate
Bush wore a device during the debate and he still lost to Kerry showing that those who cheat don't always win.
NASA Photo Analyst says Bush wearing device
"George W. Bush tried to laugh off the bulge. "I don't know what that is," he said on "Good Morning America" on Wednesday, referring to the infamous protrusion beneath his jacket during the presidential debates. "I'm embarrassed to say it's a poorly tailored shirt."
Dr. Robert M. Nelson, however, was not laughing. He knew the president was not telling the truth. And Nelson is neither conspiracy theorist nor midnight blogger. He's a senior research scientist for NASA and for Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and an international authority on image analysis. Currently he's engrossed in analyzing digital photos of Saturn's moon Titan, determining its shape, whether it contains craters or canyons.
For the past week, while at home, using his own computers, and off the clock at Caltech and NASA, Nelson has been analyzing images of the president's back during the debates. A professional physicist and photo analyst for more than 30 years, he speaks earnestly and thoughtfully about his subject. "I am willing to stake my scientific reputation to the statement that Bush was wearing something under his jacket during the debate," he says. "This is not about a bad suit. And there's no way the bulge can be described as a wrinkled shirt."
October 27, 2004
Bush flipping the bird - One Finger Salute - Movie
Here's a Movie of Bush flipping the bird! Now tell me - is this guy really a Christian Conservative or is he just taking advantage of Christian's ability to be easilly fooled? I mean really - between this and Cheney's Fuck You - you would think Christians would figure it out that they had been had.
But - cult thinking conquers all. I'm sure Christians will find a way to explain this to themselves.
Is it the Jesus Loves You secret sign?
So - here's the big questions ...
- Do you think that the Republican owned new media will cover this?
- If this were Kerry - or Gore - or Clinton - would they cover it?
See what I mean?
Lets get this out there and talk about it. If you want the real news - you have to go to the internet blogs. I report the stories that the media won't touch. Why watch ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, or CNN when I'm the one who has the story?
But seriously people - look at the movie and ask yourself - "Is this the kind of guy that you want to order your son to die in a war for? Is this the guy you want to be the most powerful man in the world? Is this the guy that you want to trust America's future to?
We have to get rid of this moron!
So - here's my story. I was thinking about Bush and just about to find Jesus and become a Christian like Bush is and then I saw this as I was getting down on my knees to pray - and - I saw this and decided - if this is what people are like who have Jesus in their heart then I don't see the difference between him and some ignorant redneck cowboy.
Yes - ok - I made up the story - but come on Republicans - look at this and tell me - this is your leader? This represents your religion? Isn't this at least a little about the truth and reality? Yes - Reality - reality is important. Bring a little reality into your life. Let reality fill your soul and ask yourself the sacred question - what is real here?
September 30, 2004
What Conservatives think about the Debate
I'm posting this whole article from the National Review in case they try to pull it or change it. Sure answers the question on who won the debate.
by Jay Nordlinger. National Review Managing Editor.
I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly — much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy — not Joe Political Junkie — I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate.
And I promise you that no one wants this president reelected more than I. I think that he may want it less.
Let me phrase one more time what I wish to say: If I didn't know anything — were a political naïf, being introduced to the two candidates for the first time — I would vote for Kerry. Based on that infernal debate.
As I write this column, I have not talked with anyone about the debate, and I have listened to no commentary. I am writing without influence (which is how I try to do my other criticism, by the way). What I say may be absurd in light of the general reaction — but so be it.
I'd like to share with you some notes I made during the debate. You may recall that I offered similar scribbles from the two conventions.
Bush "won the stride." By that I mean that he crossed the center of the stage first, to shake his opponent's hand. In 1980, Reagan strode over to shake Carter's hand — and utterly surprised him. Carter was sunk almost from that moment.
Kerry must be darned tall — he made Bush look pretty short. Same as the Bush 41-Dukakis gap? Not sure.
As he began, Kerry spoke clearly, and at a nice pace. He was disciplined about the clock. I wasn't nuts about those double fists he made — but he relaxed them as the evening wore on.
Kerry went right to the alliances. He emphasized the importance of such relationships. At least you can't accuse him of succumbing to Republican mockery on the subject, of shucking this core conviction of his.
Bush, throughout the evening, as Kerry spoke, had that pursed and annoyed look. I think it must have driven many people crazy. (I happen to love his whole battery of looks — but I'm weird.) Also, the president did his eye-closing thing, just a little. Could have been worse.
Furthermore, Bush sounded very Texan — I mean, extremely. More Texan, more drawly, more twangy than usual. I think the more tired he is — and, as a rule, the later in the day it is — the more Texan he sounds.
He was right to say that the enemy understands what is at stake in Iraq — bingo. In fact, Bush was never stronger than in the opening rounds of the debate.
Kerry was smart to mention all those military bigwigs who support him. We conservatives roll our eyes when we hear this; sure, Kerry can roll out about ten; we can roll out about ten thousand. But this support for Kerry will be news to many Americans.
The senator seemed to rattle the president, about 15 minutes in — and he stayed rattled. Also, the president was on the defensive almost all the time. Rarely did he put Kerry on the defensive. Kerry could relax, and press.
I was hoping that Bush would put Kerry on trial — make him the issue. Sure, Bush is the incumbent. But it can be done.
Kerry was effective in talking about parents who have lost sons or daughters in the war. Bush was fairly good, later, too — but not quite as good, I thought. (These are all "I thoughts.")
Although the two candidates had the same amount of time, Kerry got many, many more words in. And they weren't rushed words. Kerry spoke at a good, measured pace all through.
Bush said, "We're makin' progress" a hundred times — that seemed a little desperate. He also said "mixed messages" a hundred times — I was wishing that he would mix his message. He said, "It's hard work," or, "It's tough," a hundred times. In fact, Bush reminded me of Dan Quayle in the 1988 debate, when the Hoosier repeated a couple of talking points over and over, to some chuckles from the audience (if I recall correctly).
Staying on message is one thing; robotic repetition — when there are oceans of material available — is another.
When Kerry said that our people in the military didn't have enough equipment, Bush was pretty much blasé. He showed no indignation. He might have said, "How dare you? How dare you contend that I am leaving our fighting men and women defenseless!"
I hate to say it, but often Bush gave the appearance of being what his critics charge he is: callow, jejune, unserious. And remember — talk about repetition! — I concede this as someone who loves the man.
When he talked about Iraq, he ran the risk of sounding Pollyanna-ish — a little head-in-the-sand-ish. Bush is not. But he might have left that impression.
And why didn't he do more to tie the Iraq war to 9/11? To the general War on Terror? Why didn't he remind people that this is a war of self-defense — that, after 9/11, we couldn't go back to the days of episodic strikes, and law enforcement, and intelligence gathering?
And why didn't he shove Kofi Annan down Kerry's throat? "My allegiance is not to Mr. Annan; my allegiance is to the American people. The secretary-general has called our war illegal. Nuts to him."
Kerry kept mentioning Bush's father — how good he was, as compared with 43. Why didn't Bush let loose the significant fact that Kerry voted against the 1991 Gulf War?
When it came time to mention our allies in the Iraq campaign, Bush mentioned only Blair and the Polish premier. That made it seem like a pathetically short list — no Italy, no Spain, no Australia.
In fact, it was Kerry who had to bring up Australia!
When Moderator Lehrer and Kerry were talking about American casualties, Bush might have brought up the 9/11 casualties — and the casualties we might have incurred had we not acted against Saddam Hussein. "We ran the risk of suffering a lot more deaths if we had let Saddam remain in power."
Look, I'm not Monday-morning quarterbacking here. This is not simple esprit d'escalier. This is all basic.
Bush could have mentioned that Saddam was a great harborer and funder of terrorists. He let Kerry get away with saying that Iraq and terror had nothing to do with each other.
Why did Bush keep requesting a special 30 seconds to say the same thing over and over?
Kerry used Secretary Powell against Bush repeatedly, and effectively — same as he used 41 against him. Bush never parried.
I'm thinking that Bush didn't respect Kerry enough. That he didn't prepare enough. That he had kind of a disdain for the assignment — "For gooness' sake, the American people are with me. They know I'm doin' the necessary. They're not going to dump me for this phony-baloney."
Well, they may opt for the phony-baloney.
I had a feeling that, as the debate progressed, Kerry felt very lucky to be hit with so little. To be relatively untouched.
On other occasions, Bush has been extremely persuasive in talking about the "risks of action" versus the "risks of inaction." Could have used that — to remind people of the choices he faced.
I have a feeling that Bush could have done just the same — exactly the same, no better, no worse — with zero preparation. With no practice at all. Just wingin' it.
Kerry said, "I've never wavered in my life." That's ridiculous. Who doesn't waver in his life?
Strangely enough, it was Bush who got bogged down in detail — trying to remember detail — not Kerry, who was good on generalities (as well as details).
So when Bush talks about Iran and North Korea, he gets all ally-loving and anti-unilateralist? He gets all, "Be my guest, Jacques and Gerhard"? Bush may be right; and he may have been trying to show his flexibility; but I think this can confuse the average voter.
And his answer on North Korea is to tout Jiang Zemin, that beast? (At least Scowcroft and Eagleburger should be proud.)
From this debate, you would never know that Kerry is one of the most famous, or infamous, doves and lefties in American politics — lefter than Ted Kennedy, lefter than Hillary. He seemed positively Pattonesque, at times. So now he praises Ronald Reagan! A fabulously disingenuous performance.
Toward the end, Bush mentioned SDI (though weakly). Hurrah.
His pronunciation of "Vladimir" was priceless.
His pronunciation of "mullahs" as "moolahs" was a little less fun — more silly.
Ah, so it's Kerry who mentions George Will! And favorably!
Oh, Bush could have killed Kerry on the Patriot Act. Just killed him. Didn't happen.
Kerry's closing statement was superb — couldn't have made better use of his time. You almost didn't recognize the Massachusetts liberal we have known for 30 years.
Bush was weary — harmfully weary, I think. He let a million opportunities go by. You can't exploit them all, no. We all kick ourselves, after some public performance. But Kerry, it seemed to me, let not one opportunity go by. And he perceived some that I hadn't caught.
Yeah, he screwed up a couple of times: got the "break it, buy it" line wrong; said "Treblinka" instead of "Lubyanka." But that was small beer.
And you know what? The worst thing about Kerry is not that he is inconsistent; not that he is a flip-flopper. The worst thing about him is that he is a reflexive leftist, who has been wrong about nearly everything important his entire career. Nuclear freeze, anybody? Solidarity with the Sandinistas?
This is a man who called the Grenada invasion — carried out by his now-hero Reagan — "a bully's show of force against a weak Third World nation." His view of Grenada was no different from Ron Dellums's.
Friends, I have no doubt that this little reaction column of mine will disappoint many of you. I'm sorry. I have called George W. Bush a Rushmore-level president. I believe history will bear that out; and if it doesn't, history will be wrong. I think that Bush's reelection is crucial not only to this country but to the world at large. I not only think that Bush is the right man for the job; I have a deep fondness — love, really — for the man, though I don't know him.
But tonight (I am writing immediately post-debate) did not show him at his best. Not at all. He will do better — I feel certain — in subsequent debates. I also worry that they count less.
Kerry stood straight - Bush Slumped
Bush is shorter than Kerry - but he was even shorter tonight because Kerry stood straight up and Bush was slumping. Bush was so out of it that he couldn't even stand up - and it was a reflection of where he was emotionally. Kerry hicked his ass and you could see it in how they stood up.
Kerry was strong and decisive - Bush was week and stupid. He studdered - he stumbled - he was clueless. He was fumbling through his notes looking for answers and came across as clueless. Kerry succeded in making Bush look stupid.
Take away the Debate Notes
Letter to the Editor
Having watched the debates I have a problem with the fact that the candidates had prepared notes to read answers from. Several times I saw that Mr. Bush was flipping through what was what we called when I was in school, a cheat sheet, with what seemed to be prepared answers on it, and he was reading from those notes. I didn't see Kerry doing that - but I assume that the rules allow him to do that as well.
I have a problem with that process because it allows other people behind the scenes to participate in a debate that is supposed to be a contest between two men. I would hope that in the upcoming debates that they would change the rules and take away the prepared notes. I want to see these men debate on their own rather than have the ability to read from a script. I want to see how they do on their own without the help of their support staffs.
--------------------
Clarification for the confused. Kerry had a notepad and was scribbling notes as Bush spoke. That's OK. Bush had a cheat sheet with answers written on them - I assume that - because he was writing nothing and reading a lot. If he wrote nothing and read a lot - that means that what he brought in already had things written on it. And he had pages of notes because you could see him filipping through them.
September 29, 2004
Democrats don't Hate Bush
Letter to the Editor
The press has been saying that Democrats hate Bush - but I don't think that's true. I think it's more accurate to say that a lot of people are ANGRY with Bush, but they don't hate him. I'm sure that are some people who hate Bush - like if you lost a child in Iraq who died because Bush lied - then you might hate Bush. Or - if your retirement got wiped out because it was all in Enron stock - you might hate Bush,
But for things like taking away civil liberties with the Patriot Act, people losing their jobs, turning the biggest surplus in the history of the world into the biggest deficit in the history of the world, or the rape, torture, and killings at Abu Ghraib prison - I think people are just angry with Bush about that.
So I don't think it's accurate to portray Democrats as people who hate. You have to take into account issues and real reason people might be angry about personal losses and the direction America is heading. I think the media should look closer to see if people really do hate Bush - or if they are just angry with him.
September 16, 2004
Judge orders US to find Bush Records
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge has ordered the Pentagon to find and make public by next week any unreleased files about President Bush's Vietnam-era Air National Guard service to resolve a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by The Associated Press.
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. handed down the order late Wednesday in New York. The AP lawsuit already has led to the disclosure of previously unreleased flight logs from Bush's days piloting F-102A fighters and other jets.
Pentagon officials told Baer they plan to have their search complete by Monday. Baer ordered the Pentagon to hand over the records to the AP by Sept. 24 and provide a written statement by Sept. 29 detailing the search for more records.
``We're hopeful the Department of Defense will provide a full accounting of the steps it has taken, as the judge ordered, so the public can have some assurance that there are no documents being withheld,'' said AP lawyer David Schulz.
White House officials have said Bush ordered the Pentagon earlier this year to conduct a thorough search for the president's records, and officials allowed reporters to review everything that was gathered back in February.
Through a series of requests under the federal open records law and a subsequent suit, the AP uncovered the flight logs, which were not part of the records the White House released earlier this year.
Both Bush's and John Kerry's service records in Vietnam have become a major issue in the presidential race. New records that have surfaced in recent weeks have raised more questions.
Bush's critics say Bush got preferential treatment as the son of a congressman and U.N. ambassador. Critics also question why Bush skipped a required medical examination in 1972 and failed to show up for drills during a six-month period that year.
Bush has repeatedly said he fulfilled all of his Air National Guard obligations.
The future president joined the Texas Air National Guard in 1968, when he graduated from Yale. He spent more than a year on active duty learning how to fly and then mostly flew in the one-seat F-102A fighters until April 1972.
The pilot logs show a shift to flights in two-seat trainer jets in March 1972, shortly before Bush quit flying. Former Air National Guard officials say that could have been because F-102A jets were not available for Bush to fly or because of other reasons, such as concerns about Bush's flight performance.
Bush skipped his required yearly medical exam in 1972 in the months after he stopped flying in April. Bush has said he moved to Alabama to work on the unsuccessful Senate campaign of a family friend.
Bush never showed up for Guard service between late April and mid-October 1972. He won approval to train with an Alabama Air National Guard unit during September, October and November 1972, but more than a dozen members of the unit at that time say they never saw him there.
The only direct record of Bush appearing at the Alabama unit's base is a January 1973 dental exam performed at that base. Bush's Texas commanders wrote in May 1973 they never saw him between May 1972 and April 1973, a time when his pay records show he trained on 14 days.
Although military regulations allowed commanders to order two years of active duty for guardsmen who missed more than three straight months of drills, that never happened to Bush. Commanders had leeway at the time to allow guardsmen to make up for missed drills.
Vote for Bush - Die in Iraq
Bush will bring back the draft. If you are skilled and between the ages of 18 and 34 you get to go to Iraq to die for Bush's war.
Print this out and post it whereever youth can be found!
Selective Service eyes women's draft
The proposal would also require registration of critical skills
By ERIC ROSENBERG
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The chief of the Selective Service System has proposed registering women for the military draft and requiring that young Americans regularly inform the government about whether they have training in niche specialties needed in the armed services.
The proposal, which the agency's acting Director Lewis Brodsky presented to senior Pentagon officials just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, also seeks to extend the age of draft registration to 34 years old, up from 25.
The Selective Service System plan, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, highlights the extent to which agency officials have planned for an expanded military draft in case the administration and Congress would authorize one in the future.
"In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills," the agency said in a Feb. 11, 2003, proposal presented to senior Pentagon officials.
Brodsky and Richard Flahavan, the agency's director of public and congressional affairs, reviewed the six-page proposal with Pentagon officials responsible for personnel issues. They included Charles Abell, principal deputy undersecretary for personnel and readiness, and William Carr, deputy undersecretary for military personnel policy.
The agency officials acknowledged that they would have "to market the concept" of a female draft to Congress, which ultimately would have to authorize such a step.
Dan Amon, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, based in Arlington, Va., said that the Pentagon has taken no action on the proposal to expand draft registration.
"These ideas were only being floated for Department of Defense consideration," Amon said. He described the proposal as "food for thought" for contingency planning.
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jane Campbell, a spokeswoman for the Defense Department, said the Pentagon "has not agreed to, nor even suggested, a change to Selective Service's current missions."
Nonetheless, Flahavan said the agency has begun designing procedures for a targeted registration and draft of people with computer and language skills, in case military officials and Congress authorize it.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, say they oppose a revival of the military draft, last used in 1973 as the American commitment in Vietnam waned, beginning the era of the all-volunteer force.
Mandatory registration for the draft was suspended in 1975 but was resumed in 1980 by President Carter after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. About 13.5 million men, ages 18 to 25, currently are registered with the Selective Service.
"I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who believes that it would be appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft," Rumsfeld said last month.
At present, the Selective Service is authorized to register only young men and they are not required to inform the government about any professional skills. Separately, the agency has in place a special registration system to draft health care personnel in more than 60 specialties into the military if necessary in a crisis.
Some of the skill areas where the armed forces are facing "critical shortages" include linguists and computer specialists, the agency said. Americans would then be required to regularly update the agency on their skills until they reach age 35.
Individuals proficient in more than one critical skill would list the skill in which they have the greatest degree of competency.
September 15, 2004
Bush Family invests in India
Carlyle group [One of the Bush Family Businesses] set to invest $125 mn in India
The Carlyle Group plans to invest $125 million in India over the next 3-5 years. The venerable private equity investor has floated a $300-million Asia-focused fund, of which around 40% will be invested in India-driven companies.
Carlyle has till date invested around $25 million in India in various ventures like Usha Communications, SSKI, which owns the portal Sharekhan, and Educom.
The $125 million investment will exclusively be in IT and IT-enabled services. Said a Carlyle official, "It's not that we are not interested in other sectors, but the mandate of our fund has a clear focus on technology."
The official also added that the fund would also be cautious about investing in the telecom sector, though it didn't rule out that option.
"Though fewer deals were signed this year, they were big in size," said one VC.
VCs also argued that while most venture capital investment was coming in areas like IT and IT-enabled services, the potential of sectors like retail and media entertainment for attracting VC funding was quite high too. Said Reliance Entertainment's Amit Khanna, "Around $200 million worth of private equity have already been invested in the media and entertainment sector, and $100 million of such funding is expected over the next couple of years." This year's hit movie Saathiya was produced by a VC-funded company called Kaleidoscope Entertainment.
Venture capitalists also felt that given the current economic scenario, it was deemed safer to invest in mature companies in expansion stage, rather than startups. While the rate of return on startups was often 10 times of investment, that of expansion stage companies were around 5 times of investment. However, mature companies obviously had a lower risk profile.
As far as Carlyle is concerned, the group had last year done the final closure of a $600 million venture capital fund, Carlyle Venture Partners II LP in the US. The fund was the largest venture capital fund raised in 2002, according to VentureWire, an industry tracker. Earlier in the US, Prism Venture Partners raised a fund of $421 million and Centennial Ventures of Denver closed a $341 million fund. Carlyle group first raised $210 million in 1997.
September 13, 2004
September 12, 2004
Choice and Terrorism
Letter to the Editor
Vice President Cheney said last week that America will be move vulnerable to attack if we make the wrong choice this election. It's a statement I agree with - but not in the way Cheney thinks.
We were attached by Osama bin Laden who killed 3000 Americans on 9-11. In response - Bush and Cheney decided to attack Iraq that had nothing to do with it and let bin Laden get away. Now they talk about Osama bin Laden as if he doesn't matter.
And - it doesn't help thatBush's family are business partners with Osama bin Laden's family.
So - we have a choice between staying with the leaders who are going after the wrong enemy and someone who will go after bin Laden. The choice is clear. America will be safer with John Kerry as president.
North Korea Sets of Atmospheric Nuclear Test?
On September 9 a mushroom cloud about 3 miles wide appeared over North Korea. While the Bush controlled press await word form the Whitehouse for them to figure out how they are going to spin it - seems to me that there's only one thing that makes a 3 mile wide mushroom cloud. North Korea has tested a nuke by exploding it in the atmosphere.
September 10, 2004
Bin Laden Still Free
Letter to the Editor
It's been 3 years since Osama bin Laden destroyed the World Trade Towers and killed 3000 people. Bush said that bin Laden was wanted "Dead or Alive" he was going to "Smoke him out". But now Bush says bin Laden has been "marginalized" and Bush says. "I truly am not that concerned about him." Bush has let him get away with murdering 3000 people and is no longer pursuing him. Yet America remains in terror of being attacked by bin Laden again.
Seems to me that if Bush were serious about terrorism - he'd be going after the terrorists. We need a president who knows who the real enemy is and will go after those who really did attack us. This is the third anniversary of both a tragedy and Bush's continuing failure to deal with it.
September 05, 2004
Who is the girly man?
Letter to the Editor
Arnold Schwarzenegger told the Republican convention "I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes." and that as a child and that he left a "Socialist" country when he moved away in 1968.
The problem is that while what Arnold said was moving - the problem with it, like most Republican speeches, is that it just wasn't true. When Arnold was in Austria, the area of Styria and the neighboring province of Carinthia belonged to the British zone. The Soviets left Styria in July 1945.
Arnold also said: "As a kid, I saw the Socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left". But when Arnold left in 1968, Austria was run by a conservative government headed by People's Party Chancellor Josef Klaus, a staunch Roman Catholic and a sharp critic of both the Socialists and the Communists ruling in countries across the Iron Curtain.
Arnold is trying to rewrite reality for the purpose of supporting a president who stands for the opposite of everything Arnold believes in. It was clear from the beginning that Arnold didn't want to support Bush but was pressured into it. There's a name Arnold gives people like him who can be pressured into lying. He calls them girly men!
September 03, 2004
September 02, 2004
Bush's Speech was Lame
Letter to the Editor
GOP conventions have sure changed over the years. There's a lot of things you don't hear about anymore that the Republicans used to at least give lip service to. What you don't hear is the words Balanced Budget anymore. They no longer talk of Paying off the National Debt, Where is the Social Security Lock Box. We are not debating what we are going to do with the surplus like we were 4 years ago. The only new idea he introduced was federal funding of churches.
In spite of all the talk of terrorism and 9-11 - not once did Bush mention the name of Osama bin Laden. That tells me that Bush isn't serious about getting the guy who actually attacked America. We have a president who can't identify the enemy.
He talks about our soldiers confronting terrorists - but the terrorists aren't in Iraq and never were. Our soldiers were sent to fight in the wrong country. All in all - Bush's speech was pretty weak compared to the other speaker like Democrat Zell Miller and the pro-choice liberal Republicans who dominated the GOP convention. If this is a poker game - Bush is playing with an empty hand.
Daily Show Clip - Bush Words
Here's a Daily Show Clip in Real format called Bush Words. It covers the lies on the war on terror.
September 01, 2004
The War in Iraq is Wrong
Letter to the Editor
Zell Miller gave a hell of a speech except that it is based on a false set of facts. After all the chest pounding is over, the fact is that America is not safer because we went to war with Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 or terrorism. The 9-11 terrorist was Osama bin Laden and he's still free and safe. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We went to war based on a lie and the rest of the world knows it. Bush and Cheney lied and Americans died because we sent our soldiers to attack the wrong enemy.
It takes more than just raw aggression to win the war on terror. You have to have a little wisdom so that when you start a war - you correctly identify the enemy. I too believe that we need to be aggressive on the war on terror - but - let's not waste out military capital by going to war with the wrong guy. We need a president who isn't more loyal to the Saudi Royal Family than he is to the 9-11 survivors. And I find it amazing that a war hero like Kerry has to defend himself for the attacks of draft dodgers over his military record. We need someone who will fight smart and not just fight hard - and Bush is not smart.
Swift Boat Vet Got $40M Contract From Bush
The Bush White House has denied any connection to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - the group that has been airing factually unsupportable smear ads against Sen. John Kerry's war record. But a new report today shows that one of the key accusers in the smear ads was a lobbyist for a company that recently received a massive federal contract from the Bush administration.
As the Washington Post reports, Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr., the man who claims Kerry was not under fire when he received his first Purple Heart, is a top lobbyist for a defense contractor that recently won a $40 million grant from the Bush administration. According to a March 18 legal filing by Schachte's firm, Blank Rome, Schachte was one of the lobbyists working for FastShip's effort to secure federal contracts. On Feb. 2, FastShip announced the Bush administration had awarded it $40 million.
Schachte has other connections to the Bush administration. The Washington Post notes David Norcross, Schachte's colleague in the Washington office of Blank Rome, is chairman of this week's Republican convention in New York. Records show that Schachte gave $1,000 to Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns. Additionally, Schachte helped organize veterans' efforts against Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and for Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary.
This is not the first member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who has been revealed to be connected to the President. The Bush-Cheney campaign's top outside lawyer was forced to resign after he admitted providing legal services to the veterans group. The Bush-Cheney campaign's veterans adviser was also featured in one of the smear ads.
August 31, 2004
Arnold Speaks of an Alternate Reality
Letter to the Editor
Arnold Schwarzenegger gave a good sounding speech but he seems to be talking about a different reality than the one I remember. He says that we have a strong economy now in spite of the recession we inherited (from Clinton). It reminds me of a sci-fi movie where there's a alternate universe where everything is the opposite of what's happening here. In the reality I remember we had the biggest surplus in the history of the world and now we have the biggest deficit in the history of the world.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is doing California a disservice to go to New York and endorse Bush because the economic future of this state and the rest of the country is to turn this economy around and get back to fiscal responsibility and basic sanity. Bush has gutted America and we need to get rid of him before it's to late to turn things around. If Bush is reselected Arnold Schwarzenegger will have to pay a personal price because he's going to have to keep the California economy going while Bush continues to destroy the national economy. I was hoping Arnold Schwarzenegger was going to join the real world - but I was wrong. In spite of his big immigrant story, he's a Republican first and an American second.
Most RNC Speakers are Pro Choice
I find it amusing that the Republicans are trotting out their pro-choice liberals to try to fake a reasonable face to a party that's trying to take those liberties away. All I see is deception.
August 30, 2004
Republican Convention - A Celebration of Failure and Ignorance
Letter to the Editor
It's interesting that the Republican convention is a celebration of all the failures of the Bush administration. Starting with 9-11 a tragedy that happen because Bush was on vacation and ignored all the warnings of the impending attacks.
They praise Bush's response to 9-11 when his response was to sit there and read a story about a goat to school children rather than scramble fighter jets to take out the terrorists.
Then they celebrate the war in Afghanistan which failed to capture Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden is still free - and we are no longer seriously pursuing him.
They call the surrender of our freedom and liberty the "Patriot Act".
Then they celebrate that war in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9-11 and they found no weapons of mass destruction and he is now stuck there clueless as to what to do. They overthrew a dictator who was torturing and raping the people and replaced them with Americans to torture and rape the people.
They will go on to celebrate the Bush economy which went from the biggest surplus in the history of the world to the biggest deficit in the history of the world.
The problem with the Republicans is - they think failure is success and that success is failure. They think that ignorance and failure is a virtue.
Lipstick on a Pig
As the Republican convention opens the GOP is hiding it's real face from the public. They trot out McCain and Schwarzenegger to put a pretty face on the pig. The neocons are being pushed into the background as they try to pretend to be reasonable.
If the GOP were honest they would be trotting out the real power behind their party. Ken Lay of Enron would be a keynote speaker. The Reverend Sun Mung Moon would be in prime time. Why not have John Ashcroft talk about civil liberties? Lets get Rummy to talk about why torturing prisioners is a good idea. Prince Vandar should speak about why high oil prices is good for America. Where's Tom Delay? Where's Newt? Where's Jerry Falwell? Where's Pat Robbertson? They should have a representative for Haliburton there - oh wait - they do have one. And - some of Bush's business partners in the bin Laden family.
I need to turn this into a letter to the editor.
August 26, 2004
Bush Wears Ribbon he didn't Earn
Not just a deserter - now he's an imposter! But will you see this in the Republican Controlled news? No! They are busy asking if Kerry won his metals. You don't see the media asking where Bush was when he was supposed to be serving in the National Guard.
It's about the Future - not the Past
Letter to the Editor
We have an election coming up that will determine the future of America. I wish the media would shift the focus of the election coverage to where America is going rather than rehashing Vietnam again. I call on the media to reality test the positions of the candidates and try to talk about where we are going rather than where we have been. Vietnam is history. We should be talking about Iraq and what it's going to take to resolve it.
Marine admits role in prisoner murder
Torture - slaughter - murder - rape - America in denial. They beat prisioners to death and turture them to death and Americans are such cowards that we can't admit the truth of what happened. For murder - this guy gets off with a fine and reduction in rank. Look at the language in this article and ask yourself if someone else did this to an American would we look at it the same way.
Iraqi's beating called an act of retribution
By Alex Roth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
August 26, 2004
CAMP PENDLETON – A Marine who admitted spray-painting "Terror Dome" on a jail for Iraqi prisoners testified yesterday that he and Sgt. Gary Pittman gave a fierce beating to a hooded inmate who later died at the lockup.
Pfc. William Roy, the star prosecution witness in Pittman's court martial, also said he and Pittman beat up another Iraqi inmate for reasons of pure retribution. The two decided to "put some pain on him," Roy testified.
On cross-examination, one of Pittman's lawyers suggested that Roy himself may have caused the injuries that killed inmate Nagem Sadoon Hatab, 52, who was found dead June 6, 2003 at the Camp Whitehorse jail near the Iraqi town of Nasiriyah.
Defense lawyer John Tranberg noted that Roy, a reservist who works as a county jail guard in Troy, N.Y., originally faced eight criminal charges that were dropped when he agreed to testify for the prosecution.
Instead of facing court-martial, a possible criminal conviction and potential prison time, Roy, 35, received a fine and reduction in rank from lance corporal to private first class.
Pittman, 40, a reservist employed as a New York federal prison guard, faces up to two years in a military prison if convicted of assault and dereliction of duty.
Both men are members of the 2nd battalion, 25th Marines, a New York-based unit that established the jail at Camp Whitehorse shortly after deploying to Iraq in the spring of 2003.
Many of the jail's prisoners were violent, and temperatures reached 125 degrees during the day and hovered in the 90s even at night.
In his testimony yesterday, Roy described Hatab as an inmate with an attitude problem who resisted attempts to strip-search him and balked when ordered to stand for 50 minutes of the hour.
The so-called 50/10 policy, Roy said, was ordered by a special Marine intelligence unit to soften up prisoners for questioning.
Roy said he assaulted Hatab several times because he refused to stand.
Compliance techniques, Roy said, included applying force to various pressure points, a method he and his other correctional officers in New York used "to get protesters or unresponsive people to rise to their feet."
Prosecutors have suggested that Hatab was singled out for harsh treatment because he was suspected of involvement in the ambush of Army Private Jessica Lynch's convoy.
Roy said he and Pittman began beating Hatab in the early-morning hours of June 4, when Hatab refused to stand and later became entangled in some razor wire inside his cell.
At one point Pittman delivered a kick to Hatab's chest that sent the handcuffed, hooded prisoner tumbling backward to the ground, according to Roy.
Roy also admitted grabbing Hatab by the throat several hours later and commanding the inmate "to do what we tell him to do."
"We were aggravated with him, sir," Roy told the prosecutor, Maj. Leon Francis. "He wasn't cooperating."
Hatab was found dead in a fetal position in an outdoor holding pen less than two days later. An autopsy noted several broken ribs and concluded that a broken bone in his throat caused him to asphyxiate. Pittman's lawyers have questioned the autopsy's accuracy.
In his testimony, Roy admitted that he and another Marine spray-painted "2/25 Terror Dome" on an outside entrance to the jail more than a month before Hatab's arrival. When questioned about the incident by the prosecutor yesterday, Roy said they also painted a smiley face on the other side of the building.
He testified that he, Pittman and a third Marine beat a sheik who was brought into the jail June 5. They did so, Roy said, because the sheik had promised to surrender peacefully but his people resisted when Marines tried to arrest him.
"Pretty much it was retribution for his people putting up a fight against our people," Roy testified.
Roy said it was Pittman, his immediate superior, who decided to give the sheik "the full effect."
"At that time I felt it was part of what was expected of us," Roy said.
Roy's testimony is scheduled to continue today. Two other Marines face hearings next month in the case.
August 22, 2004
Anger as Bush bids to exploit Olympic games
President George Bush stood accused of appropriating the Olympic movement for political means last night, amid reports he was planning to visit Athens later this week to watch some sporting events, including a potential gold-medal winning bid by the Iraqi football team.
According to unconfirmed reports in the US, the White House is examining the logistical and security implications of Mr Bush travelling to the Greek capital in time for Saturday's football final. Iraq, whose progress to the semi-finals of the tournament has been one of the games' most captivating stories, will meet Paraguay tomorrow night for a possible place in the finals.
The Greek foreign ministry confirmed last night that the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, will be in Athens for the closing ceremony.
But it is the potential presidential visit to the games that will fuel a dispute between the election campaign of Mr Bush and his running mate, Dick Cheney, and the US Olympic Committee over an advert which links Iraq's and Afghanistan's participation in the games with the US administration's "war on terror".
The advert, which has been broadcast in the US for the past week, begins with footage from the 1972 Olympic games in Munich, during which 13 Israeli athletes were killed by terrorists, and continues with a narrator saying: "Freedom is spreading through the world like a sunrise. And this Olympics there will be two more free nations and two less terrorist regimes."
As the flags of Afghanistan and Iraq flutter in the breeze, it concludes: "With strength, resolve and courage, democracy will triumph over terror and hope will defeat hatred."
Under American copyright law, only the US Olympic Com mittee has the right to use the Olympic insignia, images and trademarks for marketing purposes.
Initially, the committee reportedly called for the advert to be withdrawn, but its spokesman retreated from that last night.
"We have contacted the president's election campaign team and asked them to forward us a copy of the advert. Once we have reviewed it and determined the type and extent of the use of the Olympic name, we will decide how to progress," a spokesman, Darryl Seibel, said.
The committee might want to avoid a confrontation with Mr Bush, but it appears that the objects of his affections have no such qualms.
To the embarrassment of their media handlers in Athens, members of the Iraqi football team have reacted furiously to the news that their efforts are being used to aid Mr Bush's efforts to win a second term in the White House.
The team's coach, Adnan Hamd, told Sports Illustrated magazine: "My problem is not with the American people. They are with what America has done; destroyed everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the stadium and there are shootings on the road?"
One of the team's midfield players, Ahmad Manajid, accused Mr Bush of "slaughtering" Iraqi men and women. "How will he meet his God having slaughtered so many? I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that make them a terrorist?" he said.
Mark Clark, the spokesman for the Iraqi Olympic squad in Athens, accused journalists of taking advantage of the players. "They are not very sophisticated politically. Whoever posed these questions knew the answers would be negative. It is possible something was lost in translation. The players are entitled to their opinions but we are disappointed," he said.
Mr Bush, not hitherto known as a keen football fan, has made repeated references to the performances of the Iraqi football team in his campaign speeches.
After its unexpected 4-2 victory over Portugal, he told a crowd in Oregon that the fact the team was in Athens was fantastic, adding: "It wouldn't have been free if the United States hadn't acted."
Sad Day for Working People
Letter to the Editor
There are two kinds of people in the world, the corporate owners - and the slaves who work for them. Starting Monday the slaves have to work harder and longer for less money because under new federal regulations - we lose our overtime pay. People work hard and need rest, time to spend with our families or relaxing in front of the tube. It used to be that if we had to work extra - then at least we would get time and a half for it. Now that is gone.
The extra pay also had the advantage of creating new jobs. Because companies didn't want to pay a lot of extra money - they would hire more help. But now they don't have to. They can just work the slaves twice as long. We need to move out from under the thumbs of our corporate oppressors who own the Whitehouse and take back the country for working people. Register to vote - and let the revolution begin.
August 21, 2004
Bush Resume
Past work experience:
* Ran for congress and lost.
* Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
* Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
* Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox .
* With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.
Accomplishments- Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.
* Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.
Accomplishments as president--
*Either lied or used extremely flawed intelligence against the advice of many of our own militiary, most of our allies, and most of the church leaders of America to waste much of our wealth and many of our soldiers lives on an unwise and unjust war.
* Spent the huge surplus left him by the Clinton administration and bankrupted our nation's treasury.
* Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
* Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
* Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
* First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
* First president in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
* First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in U.S. history (25%).
* After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
* Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in U.S. history.
* In just two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.
* Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in U.S. history.
* Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.
* Presided over a 45% increase in the loss of home ownership in America since the year 2000.
* Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in U.S. history.
* Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
* Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in U.S. history.
* Presided over the biggest energy crises in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
* Presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
* Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
* Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest against any person in the history of mankind (15 million people). http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/
* Dissolved more international treaties than any president in U.S. history.
* The most secretive and un-accountable of any administration in U.S. history.
* The wealthiest cabinet ever in U.S. history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice had a Chevron oil tanker named after her).
* Presided over the biggest corporate stock market frauds of any market in any country in the history of the world.
* Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
* Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in U.S. history.
* First president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the human rights commission.
* Withdrew from the World Court of Law.
* Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in U.S. history.
* Made the United States the least, rather than most, respected member of the entire United Nations.
* Refused to allow independent inspectors access to U.S. prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
* First president in U.S. history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. elections).
* All-time U.S. (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
* George W. Bush's biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
* Yet tried to claim that he didn't know Lay that well and that Lay had actually supported the Democratic opponent for Governor, whom he defeated with the help of Lay's money!
*Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in U.S. history.
* First president in U.S. history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
* First president to run and hide when the U.S. came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
* First U.S. president to establish a secret shadow government.
* Took the biggest world sympathy for the U.S. after 911, and in less than a year made the U.S. the most detested country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in U.S. and world history).
* With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
* First U.S. president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
* First U.S. president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the U.S. than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
* Changed U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
* Led the defeat of changes in U.S. policy that would have denied government contracts to U.S. companies moving their headquarters off-shore, so as to avoid paying income taxes to our country.
* Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated U.S. law by not selling huge investments in corporations that bid for government contracts.
* Failed to fulfill pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.
* Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capital building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.
* In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
* Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in U.S. history.
* In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the U.S. has ever been since the civil war.
* Entered office with the strongest economy in U.S. history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
Records and References
* At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available)
* AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.
* Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
* All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
* All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
* All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
* Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.
* For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)
August 05, 2004
Terrorists Like Bush!
Letter to the Editor
Bush made an amusing statement today that I think many in America agree with. But what he said probably isn't what he meant. "Our enemies," says Bush "are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Bush is more right than he thinks. Apparently his idea of winning the "war on terror" is to do more damage to this country than the terrorists are doing - and in that frame of reference he is definitely winning. Clearly no terrorist could have done the kind of damage to America that Bush has done in the four years since he stole the election. Sometimes I think the reason that the terrorists haven't attacked again is because they can just sit back and watch Bush destroy America. If I were a terrorist - I wouldn't want to do anything that would interfere with Bush's reelection.
--------------------
With enenies like Bush - who needs friends?
Another Bush slip of the tounge
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Our Moron in Chief
July 31, 2004
Bush Flip Flop List
OK - Bush likes to talk about Kerry Flip Flops - so - let's list Bush flip flops. I want to build a collection and create a web site about it.
Here's one to start with. Bush was going to hunt bin Laden down and get him. Now he's not that interested in him. This a hell of a flip flop.
America is safer - but we might have to suspened elections for the first time in history.
Please list ohers.
July 30, 2004
Nancy Reagan won't Support Bush
The widow of former President, and Republican icon, Ronald Reagan has told the GOP she wants nothing to do with their upcoming national convention or the re-election campaign of President George W. Bush.
Nancy Reagan turned down numerous invitations to appear at the Republican National Convention and has warned the Bush campaign she will not tolerate any use of her or her late husbands words or images in the President’s re-election effort.
“Mrs. Reagan does not support President Bush’s re-election and neither to most members of the President’s family,” says a spokesman for the former First Lady.
Nancy Reagan
Reagan’s son, Ron, spoke at the just-concluded Democratic National Convention and writes in next month’s Esquire magazine that “George W. Bush and his administration have taken normal mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. They traffic in big lies.”
Ron Reagan is joined by his sister Patty in opposing Bush’s re-election effort. Only brother Michael Reagan, a conservative talk show host, supports the President and claims Ron is manipulating his mother.
Unlike the other Reagan children, Michael is not Reagan’s biological child. He was adopted by Reagan during the actor’s first marriage to actress Jane Wyman and often complains that his stepmother, Nancy, likes Ron best.
“He is her favorite,” Michael Reagan told Fox News. “Ron can do no wrong. I mean, basically that's it, Ron can do no wrong.”
Ron, however, claims George W. Bush has destroyed the Republican Party his father helped build.
“My father, acting roles excepted, never pretended to be anyone but himself,” Reagan writes in Esquire. “His Republican Party, furthermore, seems a far cry from the current model, with its cringing obeisance to the religious right.”
The Reagans’ split with Bush and the party centers around stem cell research which many believe can help find a cure for Alzheimer’s, the disease that crippled President Reagan in his final years. Bush and the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party oppose use of new stem cells. The Reagans, with the exception of Michael, support such use.
There’s more to the feud than that, however. Nancy Reagan has told close followers she believes Bush and the current Republican leadership have divided America with their extreme views. She has told Republican leaders she wants nothing to do with the party or Bush.
During the week of Reagan’s funeral, the former First Lady “went ballistic” when she learned the Bush campaign was test marketing new ads that used Reagan’s photos and speeches in an effort to show he supported Bush and his re-election. She personally called Republican Party Chief Ed Gillespie to demand the ads be destroyed.
Republican strategists admit the ads were produced but never ran. They were pulled after scoring poorly with focus groups where viewers found them in “poor taste.”
“Mrs. Reagan doesn’t care why the ads were pulled. She just wanted to make sure they never went on the air,” says a spokesman for the First Lady. “She does care about whether or not the memory of President Reagan is used for political purposes.”
July 28, 2004
Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
Bush Leagues
Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
By TERESA HAMPTON
Editor, Capitol Hill Blue
Jul 28, 2004, 08:09
President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.
The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President’s mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.
“It’s a double-edged sword,” says one aide. “We can’t have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally.”
Angry Bush walked away from reporter's questions.
Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.
“Keep those motherfuckers away from me,” he screamed at an aide backstage. “If you can’t, I’ll find someone who can.”
Bush’s mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President’s wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.
Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a “paranoid meglomaniac” and “untreated alcoholic” whose “lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad” showcase Bush’s instabilities.
“I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed,” Dr. Frank said. “He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated.”
Dr. Frank’s conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.
The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas governor and his first campaign for President.
“President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies,” Dr. Frank adds.
The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment on this article.
Although the exact drugs Bush takes to control his depression and behavior are not known, White House sources say they are “powerful medications” designed to bring his erratic actions under control. While Col. Tubb regularly releases a synopsis of the President’s annual physical, details of the President’s health and any drugs or treatment he may receive are not public record and are guarded zealously by the secretive cadre of aides that surround the President.
Veteran White House watchers say the ability to control information about Bush’s health, either physical or mental, is similar to Ronald Reagan’s second term when aides managed to conceal the President’s increasing memory lapses that signaled the onslaught of Alzheimer’s Disease.
It also brings back memories of Richard Nixon’s final days when the soon-to-resign President wondered the halls and talked to portraits of former Presidents. The stories didn’t emerge until after Nixon left office.
One long-time GOP political consultant who – for obvious reasons – asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush.
“We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony tunes,” he says sadly. “That’s not good for my candidates, it’s not good for the party and it’s certainly not good for the country.”
July 26, 2004
Fuck the News Media
I was talking to Bartcop about the debate as to if blogs like mine are more accurate that the news media - and clearly I get it right more often than they do. And that's not hard. I made the point that if I had a blank page I could win that battle.
Now they are talking about the next first lady telling some right wing rag to "Shove it" and it has already gotten more coverage that Vice President Dick Cheney telling a fellow senator to "Get Fucked". Lets see if the news media at the Republican convertion in their coverage runs a grawl at the bottom referring to Cheney's remark to get fucked. But you won't see anything like that happen.
July 23, 2004
9/11 Report Misses Real Problem
Letter to the Editor
The 9/11 report fails to address the real problem that lead to the disaster. The real problem isn't just the CIA and FBI - it's the president. Bush was told and he ignored it. Even after the attack had begun and he was told the second time - he just kept reading a story about a goat. What the American people need is a president who will put down the goat book and deal with a crisis. Bin Laden is still free. So - I'm voting Bush out for the safety of the country.
July 16, 2004
Formal Request for UN Election Observers
As a citizen of the United States of America - a nation that is supposedly "of the People, by the People, and for the People" and as a former candidate for the US House of Representatives (1998) and as a former candidate for United States Senate (2000) I - on behalf of the People of the United States request that the United Nations request that the United Nations formally observe the U.S. elections on Nov. 2.
I ask that I be recognized as a proxy voice for the people of the United States because the US House of Representatives passed a measure barring any federal official from requesting United Nations elections observers. If federal officials are prohibited from requesting UN observers then it is the right and the duty of the People to do so. And the prohibition itself should be justification for the UN to act.
Bush stole the 2000 election and was illegally appointed president by the Supreme Court who had no constitutional authority to do so. Since then Bush has defied the UN's authority by waging an illegal war in Iraq and has violated International Law by issuing orders to torture, rape, and murder prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. In short - our president is a war criminal and is intent on doing whatever it take to hold onto power. Our president is a threat to the security of the world and the sovereignty of all nations.
Additionally - the president of Diebold - the largest maker of electronic voting machines used in America promised at a Republican fund raiser to deliver the election to Bush this year. These voting machines are known to have "back doors" that allow people to change the results of an election after the votes are cast.
I therefore - and on behalf of the People of the United states of America - formally request all interested nations to send election observers to monitor the November 2nd US elections.
References:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=703&e=4&u=/ap/20040716/ap_on_go_co/house_florida_fight
http://marc.perkel.com/pdf/torture.pdf
http://blackboxvoting.com/
Bush rapes young boys
Secret film shows Iraq prisoners sodomised
Young male prisoners were filmed being sodomised by American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, according to the journalist who first revealed the abuses there.
Seymour Hersh, who reported on the torture of the prisoners in New Yorker magazine in May, told an audience in San Francisco that "it's worse". But he added that he would reveal the extent of the abuses: "I'm not done reporting on all this," he told a meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union.
He said: "The boys were sodomised with the cameras rolling, and the worst part is the soundtrack, of the boys shrieking. And this is your government at war."
He accused the US administration, and all but accused President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney of complicity in covering up what he called "war crimes".
July 11, 2004
Bush Moves to Steal Another Election
Letter to the Editor
The Bush administration is moving to steal the election again by postponing the election in case of an attack around election day. If this passes and Bush is behind in the polls - there will be an attack to delay the election.
A president who is crooked enough to go to war with Iraq based on lies is crooked enough to fake a terrorist attack to usurp the election process. Bush has already stolen one election when he got the Supreme Court to halt the vote count and appoint him president. This time the people should choose our own president.
Keeping us safe from terrorism is a test of the presidency and if Bush can't figure out how to keep America safe then he doesn't deserve to be president. The Constitution is clear on the subject and it doesn't provide an exception to move the election if Bush decides to create a fake attack. We need to resist tempering with the election process and prevent Bush from stealing the election again. Bush can not be trusted with any process to delay the election for any reason. And we sure don't need to give Bush a reason to blow up buildings if he's behind in the polls.
July 10, 2004
A FlyBoy's Story - Over and Over and Over again!
It's the story of Bush's father being shot down in WWII and CNN is playing it over and over again. It's bad enough that they are running this propaganda in the first place - but now they are showing it several times a day - every day - over and over.
Bush is in real trouble politically and CNN is trying to prop up his sagging poll numbers by showing what a hero he father supposedly was like 50 times. Never in the history of CNN have they repeated a single story so many times. You'd think that Bush Sr. was the greatest hero of all times.
Some day Americal will have a free press again. but for now it's all Bush ads - all the time.
July 01, 2004
What are War Crimes?
Here's a little something I snagged off of CBS News - what are War Crimes? Their story is in reference to Saddam - but look at the list and see how many of these apply to Bush. Look to me like Bush has committed most of these crimes himself. No wonder Bush was so interested in trying to get the US to pass a resolution excusing Americans of War Crimes in Iraq. Glad they didn't pass that! Now Bush might some day be put on trial for his criminal acts.
Saddan is a bad man and deserves to be pout on trial. Bush is far worse and is the most dangerous terrorist on the planet.
The following definitions of these crimes were taken from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:
Genocide
This crime occurs when "the perpetrator killed one or more persons" who "belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group," if the perpetrator "intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group."
Genocide can involve any of the following acts: killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births, by forcibly transferring children.
Crime Against Humanity
This crime involves conduct that "was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population." The possible elements of crimes against humanity are:
- apartheid
- deportation or forcible transfer of population
- enforced disappearance of persons
- enforced sterilization
- enslavement
- extermination
- forced pregnancy
- imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty (Abu Ghraib - Guantanamo Bay Cuba)
- murder (Abu Ghraib)
- persecution (Abu Ghraib)
- rape (Abu Ghraib)
- sexual slavery or enforced prostitution (Abu Ghraib)
- sexual violence (Abu Ghraib)
- torture (Abu Ghraib - Guantanamo Bay Cuba)
War Crimes
War crimes cover offenses against soldiers as well as civilians that take place in the context of armed conflict. In addition to the elements listed under crimes against humanity, the possible elements of war crimes are:
- attacking civilian objects (Fake War with Iraq)
- attacking civilians (Fake War with Iraq)
- attacking objects or persons using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions
- attacking personnel or objects involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission
- attacking protected objects
- attacking undefended places (Fake War with Iraq)
- biological experiments
- compelling participation in military operations (Fake War with Iraq)
- compelling service in hostile forces (Fake War with Iraq)
- cruel treatment(Abu Ghraib- Guantanamo Bay Cuba)
- denying a fair trial(Guantanamo Bay Cuba - Patriot Act)
- denying quarter
- depriving the nationals of the hostile power of rights or actions (Fake War with Iraq)
- destroying or seizing the enemy’s property (Fake War with Iraq)
- destruction and appropriation of property (Fake War with Iraq)
- displacing civilians (Fake War with Iraq)
- employing poison or poisoned weapons
- employing prohibited bullets (Uranium Shells)
- employing prohibited gases, liquids, materials or devices (Uranuim Shells)
- employing weapons, projectiles or materials or methods of warfare listed in the Annex to the Statute
- excessive incidental death, injury, or damage (Fake War with Iraq)
- improper use of a flag of truce (Tricked into disarming - then attacked)
- improper use of a flag, insignia or uniform of the United Nations (Falsely Claims Justification by UN Resolution)
- improper use of a flag, insignia or uniform of the hostile party
- inhuman treatment (Abu Ghraib - Guantanamo Bay Cuba)
- killing or wounding a person hors de combat
- medical or scientific experiments
- murder (Abu Ghraib)
- mutilation (Abu Ghraib)
- outrages upon personal dignity (Abu Ghraib)
- pillaging (Fake War with Iraq)
- sentencing or execution without due process (Fake War with Iraq)
- starvation as a method of warfare (Fake War with Iraq)
- taking hostages
- treacherously killing or wounding (Fake War with Iraq)
- unlawful confinement (Guantanamo Bay Cuba- Abu Ghraib)
- unlawful deportation and transfer (Guantanamo Bay Cuba - Patriot Act)
- using protected persons as shields
- using, conscripting and enlisting children
- willfully causing great suffering (Abu Ghraib)
- willful killing (Abu Ghraib)
Price of Freedom Fries keeps going up
When France opposed the illegal war in Iraq and led the coalition of the unwilling against being suckered - Bush started calling them "Old Europe" and renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries. Now he goes crawling on his hands and knees begging the French to forgive him and give him money and troops to help bail him out in this important election year.
Now Americans are hated everywhere. He has empowered our enemies and alienated our friends. And his stunts like Freedom Fries will cost the lives of more Americans because he hasn't figured out that if you piss people off they aren't going to do you any favors.
June 20, 2004
Americans view Iraqis/Muslims as Subhuman
It pretty clear that the government of America views Iraqis and Muslims as subhuman. For example - it was announced that a civilian contractor was going to be put on trial for "Assult" for his role in the "Abuses" at Abu Ghraib Prison.
This guy didn't "abuse" or "assult" the prisoner. He tortured the prisoner by beating him, kicking him, and punching him till he dies. This guy tortured the man to death.
If that happened to an American - it would be murder. We would be calling it a war crime and we would seek the death penalty. But because he is an Iraqi - a beating to death becomes "abuse" rather than a horrific murder. You see - hilling an Iraqi and killing an American are two different things entirely. Killing an Iraqi doesn't even generate the kind of outrage that someone abusing an American dog or cat would get.
Now - how is this different the beheadings of Americans? Well - beheadings are more grusome to look at when pictures are released. But a beheading is actually a lot less painful than being kicked to death. If I were the prisoner and I was given a choice between beheading and being kicked to death - I'd have to go with the beheading.
My point is - I'm not justifying the beheadings - I'm unjustifying the "abuses" of Iraqis that are really grusome murders. The American contractor is a war criminal and her should be turned over to the Iraqis for trial in Iraq for torture and murder. Not only should he face thise charges - but everyone who commanded him all the way up the chain of command should be put on trial for international war crimes - including General Sanchez - Rumsfield, and Bush. These are the people who ordered the rapes, torture, and murders.
Memo Authorizing Torture Released
Here is the full version of the Memo Authorizing Torture that Bush passed out creating the excuse to torture the prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison. This memo was written by a lawyer working for John Ashcroft named Jay S. Bybee who has been appointed as a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
This memo is an act of treason and this guy should be in jail - not serving as a judge. I intend to file a judicial complaint against him - as if it would do any good. I hope some prosecutor files criminal charges against this mother fucker.
This memo however is the perfect defense for those at the bottom who are being court martialed for torture. All that have to do is point to the memo and say - "Hey - how I supposed to know it was illegal? A federal judge on the court of appeals thinks it's legal? Am I - someone who was flipping burgers at McDonalds supposed to know the law better than the Justice Department?"
You see - the responsibility is at the top.
Here's what really went down. Bush and Rumsfield decided they wanted to torture people. So they said - we need a legal memo to cover our asses - so we can justify this if we get caught. So - Ashcroft gets ByBee to torture the law and write the memo. They were so impressed with his legal twistings that they appointed him to be a federal judge.
June 15, 2004
Bush Planting WMD in Iraq?
U.S. Trucks Carrying Radioactive Materials Intercepted In Iraq-Kuwait Border
TEHRAN (MNA) -– The UAE-based daily Al-Khaleej reported on Monday that Kuwaiti tariff officials have intercepted a truck loaded with radioactive materials in the Iraq-Kuwait border.
The daily quoted informed sources as saying that the radioactive control team from Kuwait’s Health Ministry discovered that one of the trucks belonging to the U.S.-led coalition forces was carrying heavy radioactive materials trucks. The trucks were headed for Iraq.
The daily said that such materials could only enter a country when there is permission from related bodies while the materials were secretly being carried to Iraq.
Security forces stressed that no contamination had been caused by the material.
The MNA reported for the first time the coalition forces’ suspicious transfer of WMD parts from Kuwait to Southern Iraq by trucks.
The possible presence of WMD in Iraq and its likely nuclear programs were the main U.S. pretext for attacking the country.
However, their failure to find weapons of mass destruction in the country and the continuing turmoil in Iraq questioned the legitimacy of the U.S. war against Iraq and their presence in the country.
June 12, 2004
Bush's idea of a full and open investigation
Bush promised a "full accounting" for "cruel and disgraceful abuse of Iraqi detainees." He said the treatment is an "insult to the Iraqi people" and an "affront to the most basic standards of morality and decency." He said those involved will "answer for their conduct in an orderly and transparent process."
Document warns Guantanamo employees not to talk
By Toni Locy, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Military and civilian employees at the U.S. prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were warned recently not to talk with attorneys who represent detainees held there, according to a document prepared by the legal office of the Army-led task force that runs the facility.
The document, obtained by USA TODAY, says that soldiers and interrogators are not required to give defense attorneys statements about the "personal treatment of detainees" or any "failure to report actions of others." It also says that refusing to cooperate with defense attorneys "will not impact your career."
The warning — titled "Interaction with Defense Counsel" — has surfaced at a time when the treatment of the nearly 600 detainees at Guantanamo is under scrutiny because of the abuse and sexual humiliation of Iraqis in U.S. custody at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, former commander at Guantanamo, went to Iraq last year to share interrogation techniques used in Cuba.
A Defense Department spokesman said the document was aimed at ensuring that Guantanamo employees "know what their rights are." The spokesman said the references to detainee treatment are "relevant examples that make such training better."
Military law analysts and human rights advocates agree that Guantanamo employees should be advised against making incriminating statements. But they say the advice should be neutral.
The document "suggests that there is something that needs to be hidden" about how detainees are being treated, says Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor and a former Air Force lawyer. "It suggests that the default should be: Don't talk."
Gary Solis, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel, says he gave similar advice to witnesses when he was a military prosecutor. "There's no impropriety," says Solis, who teaches law at Georgetown University. But "the context of this advice gives the appearance of encouraging (people) to be less than forthcoming."
The Pentagon has been secretive about interrogation tactics at Guantanamo, where suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives have been held for more than two years.
President Bush has designated six Guantanamo detainees for trial by military tribunal. Four have been assigned military defense lawyers, who want to question interrogators, soldiers and other detainees. The lawyers want to explore whether evidence against their clients was gathered through abusive tactics. Three of the six detainees have been charged.
-------
Here's the investigation that Bush promised:
Third, because America's committed to the equality and dignity of all people, there will be a full accounting for the cruel and disgraceful abuse of Iraqi detainees. Conduct that has come to light is an insult to the Iraqi people and an affront to the most basic standards of morality and decency.
One basic difference between democracies and dictatorships is that free countries confront such abuses openly and directly. In January, shortly after reports of abuse became known to our military, an investigation was launched.
Today, several formal investigations led by senior military officials are under way. Secretary Rumsfeld has appointed several former senior officials to review the investigations of these abuses. Some soldiers have already been charged and those involved will answer for their conduct in an orderly and transparent process.
Bush no longer talks about the RAPE ROOMS
Bush doesn't talk about the rape rooms any more now that it turns out that US forces were raping Iraqi men, women, and children.
Rape Rooms, A Chronology
by William Saletan, Slate
May 6, 2004
"The Iraqi people are now free. And they do not have to worry about the secret police coming after them in the middle of the night, and they don't have to worry about their husbands and brothers being taken off and shot, or their wives being taken to rape rooms. Those days are over."Paul Bremer, Administrator, [Iraq] Coalition Provisional Authority, Sept. 2, 2003
"Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers."President Bush, remarks to 2003 Republican National Committee Presidential Gala, Oct. 8, 2003
"There was an announcement by the Iraqi Governing Council earlier this week about the tribunal that they have set up to hold accountable members of the former regime who were responsible for three decades of brutality and atrocities. We know about the mass graves and the rape rooms and the torture chambers of Saddam Hussein's regime. We welcome their decision to move forward on a tribunal to hold people accountable for those atrocities."Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan, White House press briefing, Dec. 10, 2003
"One thing is for certain: There won't be any more mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms."Bush, press availability in Monterrey, Mexico, Jan. 12, 2004
"On 19 January 2004, Lieutenant General (LTG) Ricardo S. Sanchez, Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Seven (CJTF-7) requested that the Commander, US Central Command, appoint an Investigating Officer (IO) in the grade of Major General (MG) or above to investigate the conduct of operations within the 800th Military Police (MP) Brigade. LTG Sanchez requested an investigation of detention and internment operations by the Brigade from 1 November 2003 to present. LTG Sanchez cited recent reports of detainee abuse."Report by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, senior U.S. military official in Iraq, describing a formal inquiry launched on Jan. 19, 2004
"Sources have revealed new details from the Army's criminal investigation into reports of abuse of Iraqi detainees, including the location of the suspected crimes and evidence that is being sought. U.S. soldiers reportedly posed for photographs with partially unclothed Iraqi prisoners, a Pentagon official told CNN on Tuesday."Barbara Starr, CNN, Jan. 21, 2004
"Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell, and Iraqi men and women are no longer carried to torture chambers and rape rooms"Bush, remarks on "Winston Churchill and the War on Terror," Feb. 4, 2004
"Seventeen U.S. soldiers have been suspended of duties pending the outcome of the investigation into alleged allegations of abuse of Iraqi prisoners, a U.S. officer said Monday."Associated Press, Feb. 23, 2004
"[B]etween October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force. The allegations of abuse were substantiated by detailed witness statements (ANNEX 26) and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence. I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:
a. Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
b. Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;
c. Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;
d. Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;
e. Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear;
f. Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
g. Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;
h. Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
j. Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture;
k. A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;
l. Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee
These findings are amply supported by written confessions provided by several of the suspects, written statements provided by detainees, and witness statements.
In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):
a. Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;
b. Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;
c. Pouring cold water on naked detainees;
d. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;
e. Threatening male detainees with rape;
g. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick."
Executive summary of Taguba report, finalized Feb. 29, 2004, briefed to superiors on March 3, 2004, and submitted in final form on March 9, 2004
"Every woman in Iraq is better off because the rape rooms and torture chambers of Saddam Hussein are forever closed."Bush, remarks on "Efforts to Globally Promote Women's Human Rights," March 12, 2004
"There's still remnants of that regime that would like to take it back. They could torture people and have rape rooms, and the world would turn their head from that and let it happen. But they can't do that anymore."Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, BBC interview, March 16, 2004
"There are no more rape rooms and torture chambers in Iraq."National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, CBS Early Show, March 19, 2004
"As you know, on 14 January 2004, a criminal investigation was initiated to examine allegations of detainee abuse at the Baghdad confinement facility at Abu Ghraib. Shortly thereafter, the commanding general of Combined Joint Task Force Seven requested a separate administrative investigation into systemic issues such as command policies and internal procedures related to detention operations. That administrative investigation is complete; however, the findings and recommendations have not been approved. As a result of the criminal investigation, six military personnel have been charged with criminal offenses to include conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment, assault, and indecent acts with another."--Brigadier Gen. Mark Kimmitt, Deputy Director for Coalition Operations, Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing, March 20, 2004
"Correspondent Brooke Hart: But in a 53-page secret report, Army Major General Antonio Taguba says an investigation found a disturbing pattern of sadistic, blatant, wanton criminal abuses. The report was completed in February, but the Pentagon said Defense Secretary Rumsfeld hadn't read it. Democratic lawmakers are frustrated. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.: This is an unacceptable response. That's not the level of concern the American people would expect of their military commanders for this type of conduct.""Pentagon officials to answer tough questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding Iraqi prisoner abuse," CNBC, April 4, 2004
"SFC Snider grabbed my prisoner and threw him into a pile.. I saw SSG Frederic, SGT Davis and CPL Graner walking around the pile hitting the prisoners. I remember SSG Frederick hitting one prisoner in the side of its [sic] ribcage. The prisoner was no danger to SSG Frederick. I saw two naked detainees, one masturbating to another kneeling with its mouth open."Testimony of Military Police Specialist Matthew Wisdom, hearing on charges of prisoner abuse, April 9, 2004; according to The New Yorker, "After the hearing, the presiding investigative officer ruled that there was sufficient evidence to convene a court-martial."
"The investigation started after SPC Darby got a CD from CPL Graner. He came across pictures of naked detainees."Testimony of Special Agent Scott Bobeck, Army Criminal Investigation Division, same hearing, April 9, 2004
"Two weeks ago, 60 Minutes II received an appeal from the Defense Department, and eventually from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, to delay this broadcastgiven the danger and tension on the ground in Iraq."CBS News statement on its broadcast of photographs of Iraqi prisoner abuse, April 29, 2004, referring to a DOD appeal received on or near April 15, 2004
"Our military is performing brilliantly. See, the transition from torture chambers and rape rooms and mass graves and fear of authority is a tough transition. And they're doing the good work of keeping this country stabilized as a political process unfolds."Bush, remarks on "Tax Relief and the Economy," Iowa, April 15, 2004
"We're facing supporters of the outlaw cleric, remnants of Saddam's regime that are still bitter that they don't have the position to run the torture chambers and rape rooms. They will fail because they do not speak for the vast majority of Iraqis who do not want to replace one tyrant with another. They will fail because the will of our coalition is strong. They will fail because America leads a coalition full of the finest military men and women in the world."Bush, remarks on the USA Patriot Act, Pennsylvania, April 19, 2004
"We acted, and there are no longer mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms in Iraq."Bush, remarks at Victory 2004 Reception, Florida, April 23, 2004
"The pictures show Americans, men and women, in military uniforms, posing with naked Iraqi prisoners. There are shots of the prisoners stacked in a pyramid, one with a slur written on his skin in English. In some, the male prisoners are positioned to simulate sex with each other. And in most of the pictures, the Americans are laughing, posing, pointing, or giving the camera a thumbs-up."Dan Rather, 60 Minutes II, April 28, 2004
"A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier, saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we'd accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein. And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq."Bush, remarks in the Rose Garden, April 30, 2004
"There are those who seek to derail the transition to democracy because they want to return to the days of mass graves and torture chambers and rape rooms. But that's not going to happen."McClellan, White House press briefing, April 30, 2004
"A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba listed some of the wrongdoing: 'Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.' "Seymour M. Hersh, "Torture at Abu Ghraib," The New Yorker, posted April 30, 2004
"Because we acted, torture rooms are closed, rape rooms no longer exist, mass graves are no longer a possibility in Iraq."Bush, remarks at "Ask President Bush" event, Michigan, May 3, 2004
"I'm not a lawyer. My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture. I don't know if it is correct to say what you just said, that torture has taken place, or that there's been a conviction for torture. And therefore I'm not going to address the torture word."Rumsfeld, Defense Department Operational Update Briefing, May 4, 2004
"It's very important for people, your listeners, to understand in our country that when an issue is brought to our attention on this magnitude, we actand we act in a way where leaders are willing to discuss it with the media. And we act in a way where, you know, our Congress asks pointed questions to the leadership. Iraq was a unique situation because Saddam Hussein had constantly defied the world and had threatened his neighbors, had used weapons of mass destruction, had terrorist ties, had torture chambers"Bush, interview with Al Arabiya Television, May 5, 2004
William Saletan is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.
June 11, 2004
Syung Mung Moon Crowned King in US Senate Building
Well - apparently America really is a Christian Nation - but it's the Moonies who have officially been chosen by the US Government to be the official state religion. On March 23rd 2004 Moon was officially crowned messiah by Congress in the Senate Dirksen Office Building.
What's scary is - why don't you see this in the news media? Maybe this is why it feels like America is one big cult - because it is! America is being run by the Moonies and they own a lot of Americas press uncluding United Press International (UPI) and The Washington Times. When the government crowns Sun Myung Moon king, (Moon spokesman explains moon corination cerimony - windows media format) recognizes Moon as messiah, and supports his campaign to replace the Cross with the Crown - don't you think that Christians would want to know that?
If this isn't a reason to support the separation of church and state I don't know what is. There are those out there who believe that America is a Christian nation. Well - apparently from this they are right. But the dominate flavor of Christianity is the Moonies. It's the Unification Church that is the brand of Christianity that is pulling the governments strings.
You see - the idea of a Christian Nation is very appealing to Christians until the Moonies get control. But when the Moonies get it - I suppose the Christians would want some sort of separation of the State and Denominations. Would it be any different if the Baptists were in control? Or if the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Seventh Day Adventists, or the Church of Scientology was in control? After all - from the perspective of the only true religion, The Church of Reality all these Christian denominations are just as crazy as the Moonies. Especially if they had the kind of power that the Moonies have.
I challenge all Christians to look into this and find out how much influence the Moonies have in your church and in your denomination. If you only knew it would shock the hell out of you. Now that the government wants you to Take Down the Cross and put up the Crown - how do you feel about the separation of church and state now?
Why are some of the capital’s most influential power players hanging out with a bizarre Korean billionaire who claims to be the Messiah?
by John Gorenfeld, Contributor
6.09.04
Should Americans be concerned that on March 23rd a bipartisan group of Congressmen attended a coronation at which a billionaire, pro-theocracy newspaper owner was declared to be the Messiah – with royal robes, a crown, the works? Or that this imperial ceremony took place not in a makeshift basement church or a backwoods campsite, but in a Senate office building?
The Washington Post didn't think so. For a moment on April 4, a quote from the keynote speech was in the Web version of its "Reliable Sources" column. The speaker: Sun Myung Moon, 84, an ex-convict whose political activities were at the center of the 1976-8 Koreagate influence-peddling probe. That's when an investigation by Congress warned that Moon, after having befriended Richard Nixon in his darkest hour, was surrounding himself with other politicians to overcome his reputation: as the leader of the cult-like Unification Church, which recruited unwary college students, filled Madison Square Garden with couples in white robes, wed them in bulk and demanded obedience.
That was before he launched the Washington Times – "in response to Heaven’s direction," as he would later say – and a 20-year quest to make his enemies bow to him. He has also claimed, in newspaper ads taken out by the Unification Church, that Jesus, Confucius, and the Buddha have endorsed him. Muhammad, according to the 2002 ad, led the council in three cries of "mansei," or victory. And every dead U.S. president was there, too – because Moon's gospel is inseparable from visions of true-blue American power.
Now, this March, Moon was telling guests at the Dirksen Senate Office Building that Hitler and Stalin, having cleaned up their acts, had, in a rare public statement from beyond the grave, called him "none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."
But not long after it appeared on the Post's web site, the paper erased the quote. Columnist Richard Leiby told me via e-mail that it shouldn't have gone out in the first place. The paper replaced it with breaking news about "Celebrity Jeopardy!" with Tim Russert.
The Return of the King
So no one covered this American coronation, except Moon's own Times, which skipped the Messiah part. It wasn't in other newspapers, which only wink at the influence of Moon's far-right movement in Washington, when they cover it at all.
In fact, the only place you could read about the new king, unless you bookmarked Moon's Korean-language website, was in the blog world. There, dozens of the most CSPAN2-hardened cynics reacted to the screenshots with a resounding "WTF," the sound of dismay and confusion at a scene that news coverage hadn't prepared them for. The images might as well have come from Star Trek's Mirror Universe.
First, we're shown a rabbi blowing a ram's horn. Most Jews would hold off on this until the High Holy Days, but it probably counts if the Moshiach shows up in a federal office building at taxpayer expense. Then we see the man of the hour, Moon, chilling at a table at the Dirksen in a tuxedo, soaking all this up. He claps. He's having a ball.
Cut to the ritual. Eyes downcast, a man identified as Congressman Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) is bringing a crown, atop a velvety purple cushion, to a figure who stands waiting austerely with his wife. Now Moon is wearing robes that Louis XIV would have appreciated. All of this has quickly been spliced into a promo reel by Moon's movement, which implies to its followers that the U.S. Congress itself has crowned the Washington Times owner.
But Section 9 of the Constitution forbids giving out titles of nobility, setting a certain tone that might have made the Congressional hosts shy about celebrating the coronation on their websites. They included conservatives, the traditional fans of Moon's newspaper: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA.), Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah), Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Republican strategy god Charlie Black, whose PR firm represents Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress. But there were also liberal House Democrats like Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) and Davis. Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn.) later told the Memphis Flyer that he'd been erroneously listed on the program, but had never heard of the event, which was sponsored by the Washington Times Foundation.
Rep. Curt Weldon's office tenaciously denied that the Congressman was there, before being provided by The Gadflyer with a photo depicting Weldon at the event, found on Moon's website. "Apparently he was there, but we really had nothing to do with it," press secretary Angela Sowa finally conceded. "I don't think it's quite accurate that the Washington Times said that we hosted the event. We may have been a Congressional co-host, but we have nothing to do with the agenda, the organization, the scheduling, and our role would be limited explicitly to the attendance of the Congressman."
The spokeswoman for one senator, who asked that her boss not be named, said politicians weren't told the awards program was going to be a Moon event. The senator went, she said, because the Ambassadors promised to hand out awards to people from his home state, people who were genuinely accomplished. When the ceremony morphed into a platform for Moon, she said, people were disconcerted.
"I think there was a mass exodus," she said. "They get all these senators on the floor, and this freak is there."
A new world order
The last time someone declared himself Emperor of the United States, it was the Gold Rush's Joshua Norton, a sort of failed dot-commer of the 1850s. But he was broke, whereas a random sampling of Moon's properties might include a healthy chunk of the U.S. fishing industry, the graphic tablet company Wacom, and swaths of real estate on an epic scale. The money-losing Times is paid for by the $1 billion he's sunk into it, along with untold funding for conservative policy foundations like the American Family Coalition.
George Soros has recently gotten lots of coverage as a supposedly eccentric billionaire influencing U.S. politics. But Soros is no Moon. In Moon's speeches, a "peace kingdom" is envisioned, in which homosexuals – whom he calls "dung-eating dogs" – would be a thing of the past. He said in January: "Gays will be eliminated, the three Israels will unite. If not, then they will be burned. We do not know what kind of world God will bring, but this is what happens. It will be greater than the communist purge but at God's orders."
And ignoring every mainline Christian denomination's rejection of the idea of Jewish collective guilt, Moon's latest world tour calls on rabbis to repent for betraying Christ, the Jerusalem Post reported last week. Speaking in Arlington, VA in 2003, Moon said Hitler killed six million Jews as a penalty for this rejection. And he's frank about calling for democracy and the U.S. Constitution to be replaced by religious government that he calls "Godism," calling the church-state separation the work of Satan. "The church and the state must become one as Cain and Abel," he said in the same sermon.
Towards this end, Moon's "Ambassadors for Peace" have been promoting his goal of a "Religious United Nations" organized around God, not countries. In the June 19, 2003 Congressional Record, Rep. Davis joins Rep. Weldon in thanking Moon and the Ambassadors for "promoting the vision of world peace." He praises their plan to "support the leaders of the United Nations" through interfaith dialogue. Much of the dialogue has consisted of getting Moon's retinue of rabbis, ministers and Muslim clerics to hug each other, and be photographed handing out awards to politicians. The Ambassadors have addressed the United Nations and the British House of Lords. They have also honored at least one neo-Nazi, William Baker, former chair of the Holocaust-denying Populist Party.
And far from the free lunches that Emperor Norton received in San Francisco, Moon's groups have taken home grant money from the Bush Administration, which has given his anti-sex missionaries $475,000 in Abstinence-Only dollars to bring Moon's crusade against "free sex" to both black New Jersey high-schoolers and native Africans. The Centers for Disease Control briefly announced that another Moon foundation was the only group qualified to receive another, no-bid grant for HIV education in Africa. Only after a competitor raised objections did the CDC cancel the grant program entirely. Meanwhile, one of Moon's top political movers, David Caprara, has been appointed by George W. Bush to head AmeriCorps VISTA; and another former church VIP, Josette Shiner, was given a senior trade position.
Friends in high places
In the early stages of the Reagan Revolution that embraced the Washington Times and Moon's anti-Communist movement, it was embarrassing to be caught at a Moon event. Until George H.W. Bush appeared with Moon in 1996, thanking him for a newspaper that "brings sanity to Washington," famous guests often spoke at front groups that concealed ties to the Unification Church. Bill Cosby was horrified to discover he'd agreed to speak at one. The reputation of future "Left Behind" author Tim LaHaye suffered after his wife accidentally gave Mother Jones a recording of him dictating a fond letter to Moon's lieutenant Bo Hi Pak, plotting to replace Vice-President Bush with Jerry Falwell on the 1988 ticket. To many Christians, Moon was offensive, preaching that Jesus failed and that he would clean up the mess.
But now that he's forged unbreakable ties with conservative Christians, Moon has moved on to African-American ministers, and, through them, allies in the Democratic Party. This has been below the radar of the press, but not for lack of outlandishness. Moon celebrated Easter Sunday, 2003 by launching a coast to coast series of "tear down the cross/Who is Rev. Moon?" events, targeting pastors in poor neighborhoods. From the Bronx to L.A., Moon's people were convincing pastors to pull the crosses off their walls and replace them with his Family Federation flag. An old hymn was invoked: "I'll trade the old cross for a crown."
To Congressmen attending earlier stops in this roadshow, all this mysticism may have seemed too murky and exotic to understand. But the storyline is simple enough, if you take a step back.
Moon's newest followers were invited to tear down the traditional symbol of Christianity, told they could swap it for a crown. But unlike the crown in the hymn, it wasn't for them. It was the one that Congressmen gave, March 23 at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to a wealthy right-wing newspaper owner, one described by Time magazine in 1976 as "megalomaniacal," not much of an exaggeration for someone who claims to be the Second Coming. Unless of course he actually is.
The next day, according to a speech posted to a Moon mailing list and Usenet by a Unification church webmaster, Damian Anderson, Moon said he was leaving the country. "True Father spent 34 years here in America to guide this country in the right way," he told followers. "Yesterday was the turning point." But you can't buy Moon's high opinion of your country so easily (he's called the U.S. "Satan's harvest").
America, he said, was on the road to its doom. Why? "Homo marriage."
Here's a link that will shoch the fuck out of you - especially if you are a Christian. Democrat, Republican push Moon's dreams on the floor of Congress
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my commitment to world peace and to stress the importance of establishing dialogue and understanding among all people. It is in recognition of this need that on Tuesday, June 24, at 6:30 p.m. in the Rayburn Room B338-340, the American Leadership Initiative will hold a special awards ceremony to honor great Americans from all 50 States who have demonstrated a commitment to peace. Many of my colleagues will join me and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), co-chair, in giving tribute to some of the outstanding Americans from our districts. Members of the clergy, legislators, educators, business and community leaders will be among those honored with the ``Ambassadors for Peace Award-Excellence in Leadership.'' These committed citizens have been working to renew and strengthen our families and marriages, restore our communities, and rebuild our Nation and indeed our world. We are grateful to the founders of Ambassadors for Peace, the Reverend and Mrs. Sun Myung [Moon], for promoting the vision of world peace, and we commend them for their work.
These Ambassadors for Peace have become increasingly effective and relevant in their communities since the tragedy of 9-11. They have been working together to promote understanding among all faiths, particularly with Muslim, Jewish, and Christian leaders. With the realization that many of the tensions currently facing the world cannot be addressed without consideration of the religious implications involved, the Ambassadors for Peace have formed an American Interreligious Council. This council seeks to support and advise our Nation's leaders concerning the issues and challenges of seeking lasting peace. The American Interreligious Council is also part of the effort to create an international council of religious leaders. The members of this council will support the leaders of the United Nations as they work to resolve conflicts throughout the world. This body will provide a direct link between international leaders and the various religious peoples in their constituencies.
Republicans have a plan to take power if they lose the elections
If there comes a point where the Republican Party realizes that they can not win in the election - they will try to take America by force. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is a coup in the works as a backup plan should Republicans lose the election.
If the Republicans lose - they will not just walk away and hand over power. They will make a move to take America by force. And - we have to figure it out first and stop it before they succeed.
We must be prepared to defent America against a Reoublican coup. Right now the best way to do that is to try to out think them - to figure out the plan and expost it before they can use it. I suspect that they are still figuring it out and that they are putting the pieces in place now. And - these people are sloppy.
If we watch carefully enough we should be able to figure it out in time. But we have to start looking now - looking hard - and making the right moves. If anyone doubts that the Republicans are ruthless enough to do this - just look at what they've done so far. It's pretty obvious to be the direction they are heading based on what they have done already.
Bush and his ilk are a threat to the entire civilized world and is a greater threat that bin Laden or any other terrorist. He attacks countries without provocation. He wanted to use nuclear weapons in Iraq. He authorized the use of torture and under his command children were raped in Abu Griab prison in front of their parents. (Video of that coming soon)
There is nothing that Bush and the GOP won't do to hold onto power. And - I don't know what to do except sound the alert and hope that the alert spreads to the point where when the time comes and the shit goes down that we will be ready for it.
Like I said - if this sounds tin foil hat to you - I say - lok at what they have done so far and you tell me - is this not a serious possibility that is at least worthy of discussion and being alert? Bush puts out fake terror alerts all the time and there's not doubt at all that this alert is a lot more real than his alerts are.
So - I say to you - join me in my paranoid delusion so that maybe America will wake up from the nightmare that we call reality and restore the dignaty of America as the leader in peace and freedom. I say it's time for America to get off the "war footing" and get on a "peace footing". But that's not going to happen until we get rid of our unelected dictator and take the firture of our planet from armegeddon and towards a better future where we move in a positive direction.
US government faked Bush news reports
TV news reports in America that showed President George Bush getting a standing ovation from potential voters have been exposed as fake, it has emerged.
The US government admitted it paid actors to pose as journalists in video news releases sent to TV stations intending to convey support for new laws about health benefits.
Investigators are examining the film segments, in which actors pretending to be journalists praise the benefits of the new law passed last year by President Bush, to see if they could be construed as propaganda.
Two of the films are signed off by "Karen Ryan", who was an actor hired to read a script prepared by the government, according to production company Home Front Communications.
Another video, intended for Hispanic viewers, shows a government official being interviewed in Spanish by a actor posing as a reporter with the name "Alberto Garcia".
One segment shows a pharmacist telling an elderly customer the new law "helps you better afford your medications".
"It sounds like a good idea," the customer says, to which the pharmacist replies, "A very good idea."
And in some scenes President Bush is shown receiving a standing ovation from a crowd cheering him as he signed the Medicare law, which is designed to help elderly people with prescriptions.
The government also prepared scripts to be used by news anchors. "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare," the script reads.
"Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details." The "reporter" then explains the benefits of the new law.
Lawyers from the investigative arm of Congress discovered the tapes as part of an investigation into federal money that was used to publicise the new law.
They will be keen to ascertain whether the government might have misled viewers by failing to reveal the source of the videos, which were broadcast in Oklahoma, Louisiana and other states.
"Video news releases" of this sort have been used in the US since the 1980s, but the way they blur the lines between news and advertising troubles many media experts and campaigners.
The government defended the videos, which Democrats described as "disturbing". "The use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector," a health department spokesman told the New York Times.
VNRs are also used in Europe but a furore surrounding a Greenpeace video package about its campaign to prevent the dumping of Shell's Brent Spar oil platform sent to British broadcasters some years ago led to new rules clamping down on their use.
Greenpeace's sophisticated media offensive - including the provision of emotive film footage of its occupation of the platform - resulted in one-dimensional coverage by BBC and ITN, news chiefs admitted at the time.
Guidelines were subsequently drawn up to label video news releases as such - a category which the regular Osama bin Laden videos now fall.
June 09, 2004
Are our soldiers heros - or just sex perverts?
You think you've seen the worst of it - and then you find more. Here's an Article from the New York Times where it turns out that stripping prisoners nake and having them perform homosexual sex acts with each other in order to create religious shame was going on all the time.
For some reason the American press likes to use the term "sexual humiliation" instead of "homosexual rape" which is the real term when prosoners were forced to give oral sex and butt fuck each other.
I remember learning about the Nazi prison guards in the concentration camps and wondering how people could do such inhumane things to each other. And then I see this where we are not only doing similar things - but the guards who are doing it are so clueless that they have no concept that this is even wrong. When you see the pictures you see everyone smiling and laughing as if it's one big party. And that's the scary part - that these "heros" are to totally oblivious that they have no moral compass whatsoever.
-----------------------
Forced Nudity of Iraqi Prisoners Is Seen as a Pervasive Pattern, Not Isolated Incidents
By KATE ZERNIKE and DAVID ROHDE
Published: June 8, 2004
In the weeks since photographs of naked detainees set off the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, military officials have portrayed the sexual humiliation captured in the images as the isolated acts of a rogue night shift.
But forced nudity of prisoners was pervasive in the military intelligence unit of Abu Ghraib, so much so that soldiers later said they had not seen "the whole nudity thing," as one captain called it, as abusive or out of the ordinary.
While there have been reports of forced nakedness at detention facilities in Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the practice was apparently far more aggressive at Abu Ghraib, according to interviews, reports from human rights groups and sworn statements from detainees and soldiers. The detainees said leaving prisoners naked started as far back as last July, three months before the seven soldiers now charged and their military police company arrived at the prison. It bred a culture, some soldiers say, where the abuse captured on film could happen.
Detainees were paraded naked past other prisoners and guards; some were ordered to do jumping jacks and sing "The Star-Spangled Banner" in the nude, according to a several witnesses. Also, a father and his grown son were stripped, then forced to stand and stare at each other. The International Committee of the Red Cross, visiting in October, found prisoners left naked in their cells for days, modestly trying to shield themselves behind cardboard from meals-ready-to-eat boxes.
It is not clear how the practice emerged and, if it was official policy, exactly who authorized it. Col. Thomas M. Pappas, the military intelligence officer in charge of interrogations at the prison, told Army investigators that detainees might be stripped and shackled for questioning, but not without "good reason." When Red Cross monitors expressed alarm about prisoners being left in their cells or forced to move about naked, they said military intelligence officials "confirmed that it was part of the military intelligence process."
"It was not uncommon to see people without clothing," Capt. Donald J. Reese, the warden of the tier where the worst abuses occurred, told investigators in a sworn statement in January. "I only saw males. I was told the `whole nudity thing' was an interrogation procedure used by military intelligence, and never thought much of it."
An analyst from the 205th Military Intelligence Battalion, who asked not to be identified for fear of being punished for speaking out, said: "If you walked down through the wing of the prison where they were being held, they would have them strip down naked. Sometimes they would stand on boxes and would hold their arms out. That happened almost every night — having them naked. I wouldn't say it's abuse. It's definitely degrading to them."
Soldiers said at least one civilian interrogator, Steven Stefanowicz, had been so alarmed by the use of nudity that he reported a military intelligence interrogator after she made a detainee walk naked down a cellblock to humiliate him. His lawyer said Mr. Stefanowicz, who an Army report said might have been "directly or indirectly" responsible for abuses, had not thought stripping detainees was an appropriate interrogation technique, and had worried that doing so would incite more unrest at a time when guards were fending off rioters with live bullets.
Nudity is considered particularly shameful in Muslim culture, a violation of religious principles. While nudity as a disciplinary or coercive tool may be especially objectionable to Muslims, they are hardly the only victims of the practice. Soldiers in Nazi Germany paraded naked prisoners in daylight, and human rights groups have documented the use of nudity during conflicts in Egypt, Chile and Turkey, and in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. Central Intelligence Agency training manuals from the 1960's and 1980's taught the stripping of prisoners as an interrogation tool. Nudity and sexual humiliation have also been reported in American prisons where a number of guards at Abu Ghraib worked in their civilian lives.
June 08, 2004
New Enron Tapes
Here's something I snagged from CBS. More Enron tapes gloating about shutting down California. People died in these power outages. These people should be prosecuted for manslaughter. These are the people who put Bush in office and who Bush and Ashcroft are trying to protect. Ashcroft took $57,000 bucks from Enron when he ran for US senate against me in 2000.
-------
(CBS) The Department of Justice reportedly has thousands of hours of Enron employees recorded during the West Coast power crisis. Now, some in Congress want all the tapes released.
"I want to make sure that no federal agency suppresses this information, makes the case harder for us to get relief," says U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.
After CBS broadcast the voices of Enron energy traders gloating over the crisis they helped create, more tapes were released.
In one tape, an employee says, "You gotta think the economy is going to f------g get crushed, man. This is like a recession waiting to f-----g happen."
The tapes show Enron tried to bring California to its knees.
Elsewhere on the tapes, another employee says, "This is where California breaks."
"Yeah, it sure does man," says another.
And they proposed to do that by exporting energy out of the state so the company could drive up prices even more.
"What we need to do is to help in the cause of, ah, downfall of California," an employee is heard saying on the tapes. "You guys need to pull your megawatts out of California on a daily basis."
"They're on the ropes today," says another employee. "I exported like a f------g 400 megs."
"Wow,'' says another employee, "f--k 'em, right!"
Traders can be heard manipulating the market, using now-infamous schemes with names like death star, ricochet and fat boy.
One employee is heard asking, "You want to do some fat boys or, or whatever, man, you know, take advantage of it."
In fat boy, Enron traders used fake power sales to hide megawatts, shrinking the supply of energy and driving up prices. They also used the oldest trick in the book: lies.
"It's called lies. It's all how well you can weave these lies together, Shari, alright, so," an employee is heard saying.
The other employee says, "I feel like I'm being corrupted now."
The first employee adds, "No, this is marketing,"
"OK.''
The tapes could affect dozens of cases already filed against the company by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
"If these are ever heard by a jury, they're going get strung up," says Lockyer.
After hearing the tapes, the state's two U.S. senators demanded an immediate $8.9 billion refund.
At a recent hearing Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. said, "All I can tell you is you have to listen to what's happening out there to ordinary people who you are responsible to help through this."
With Enron and other major energy companies in bankruptcy, big refunds are unlikely. But the tapes could provide the evidence states and cities need to break contracts they were forced to sign at the height of the energy crisis.
Republicans insensitive ro Reagan's Death
Letter to the Editor
I'm somewhat disturbed by the lack of sensitivity of Republican comparing Bash and Reagan. I was never a Reagan fan - but I don't see the comparison. Reagan would never have fabricated a fake war and got over 800 American killed. Reagan would never have allowed rape, torture, and murder at Abu Griab Prison and then try to cover it up. Reagan didn't have contempt for law and honesty the way Bush does. And - Reagan was a whole lot smarter than Bush. Why Republicans want to disgrace Reagan in this time of national morning by comparing him to Bush is a mystery to me.
Ashcroft Torture Memo Coverup
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Attorney General refused to give lawmakers copies of a Justice Department memo that allegedly advised the White House that torture during 'war on terror' interrogations could be justified.
The Washington Post said an August 2002 memo sent by the Justice Department in response to a Central Intelligence Agency request for legal guidance said international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in the war on terrorism.
But Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to provide the memo to lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"We believe that to provide this kind of information would impair the ability of advice-giving in the executive branch to be candid, forthright, thorough and accurate at all times," Ashcroft said.
Ashcroft told lawmakers that while "this administration rejects torture," he said he could not provide specific details of communications between his office and the White House.
"Congress has the right to ask whatever questions it wants," Ashcroft continued.
But, he said, "there are certain things that in the interest of the executive branch operating effectively that I think it's inappropriate for the Attorney General to say."
Democrats expressed outrage at Ashcroft's refusal to provide the document.
Bush approved the Torture
Of cource it's not like he directly said - go torture those people. That's not how these kind of orders are given. The president has to have his deniability, He has to be able to claim that - "I didn't know they were torturing people. I am like so shocked!"
So here's how this sort of thing works. The Bush legal team produces a memorandum that creates a justification for torture. And this happened. Under this memorandum "A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security." According to an Article in the New York Times.
Basically - this says that Bush can throw out the Geneva Convention with merely a national security excuse.
It then creates cover of lower ranking officers. A reason would be if military personnel believed that they were acting on orders from superiors, the lawyers said.
"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign," the lawyers wrote in the 56-page confidential memorandum, the prohibition against torture "must be construed as inapplicable to interrogation undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority."
Then - they go about trying to redefine what torture is. The March 6 document about torture provides tightly constructed definitions of torture. For example, if an interrogator "knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith," the report said. "Instead, a defendant is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his control."
So - what this means is - if your primary objective is to get information or to obey your commanding officer respecting the chain of command - then what you are doing isn't really torture. It's only torture if you have no better reason than to cause pain.
And - buy saying "severe pain" they create another loophole as to what is severe. And - if the person causing the severe pain doesn't know it's severe - they would be immune.
And then where you torture is also significant. Accouding to the Times, "The March memorandum also contains a curious section in which the lawyers argued that any torture committed at Guantánamo would not be a violation of the anti-torture statute because the base was under American legal jurisdiction and the statute concerns only torture committed overseas. That view is in direct conflict with the position the administration has taken in the Supreme Court, where it has argued that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay are not entitled to constitutional protections because the base is outside American jurisdiction."
So - Gitmo is outside American jurisdiction? What a load of crap! Bet if I shot a general there that they would find plenty of jurisdiction to prosecute me. Or - would they? They'd just turture me without a trial.
The point - getting back to the main subject - is that this memorandum was circulated and only the extremely stupid would get the idea that this is an order from the president to start torturing prisoners. And - it is constructed in such a way that the further you go down the chain of command the more torture is required. It creates levels of willful ignorance so that if they are caught that combinations of "I didn't know what was happening" and "I was just following orders" could be used as a defense.
But putting aside the obuscations what is really happening here is that Bush and Rumsfield are war criminals and should be hauled in front of an international tribunal and tried for war crimes. Bush and Rumsfield didn't do anything that was substantially different that Saddam Hussein did. Saddam beats Bush only in quantity.
Of course we'll never see this happen because Bush is above the law. But being above the law doesn't make what you do legal. It merely means that you have a way of escaping justice. If anyone else on the planet did what Bush did they would be on trial as a war criminal. And even though Bush can escape justice doesn't mean that we can't at leat try him in the court of public opinion.
And for those who say that "Bush is innocent till proven guilty" I say that when someone is in a position of being above the law - then they can be guilty without being proven guilty bcause they are immune from the process of law.
I therefore declare Bush guilty was crimes against humanity because the evidence that he ordered the illegal tortures and violated International law is obvious.
There is no doubt in my mind that the turture hasn't stopped. I has just been moved to places where there are no cameras to take pictures and into countries where these kind of things go on. If we take a prisoner to Egypt to be tortured - it's no different in any way than if we are doing the torture ourselves.
June 07, 2004
US will give Iraq Sovereignty
As long as we control it. Iraq can be free as long as they are under our control. As long as they do want we say. After all - they don't know how to be free. Their just Muslims. We have to teach them freedom and in order for them to learn it - they have to do what they are told.
New Iraq Timeline Site - Incredable Information!
This guy Max Black has posted a new web site outlining in detail everything leading up to the War in Iraq. Some of it goes back to Prescott Bush's Nazi days. I just can't stop reading it!!
If you like what you see - please link to http://www.iraqtimeline.com
Here's a sample"
The 1980s:
1980
Osama bin Laden provides help for the Afghan Mujaheddin and the CIA. Iran-Iraq War. The GOP's "October Surprise" leads to the election of Ronald Reagan as president.
1981
Hostages released. Reagan shot. Egypt's Anwar Sadat assassinated.
1982
US covert support of Iraq in its war with Iran. Sun Myung Moon becomes a media mogul and an ally of the GOP. Arbusto Oil and Spectrum 7.
1983
Promis/Inslaw scandal. 241 Marines die in Lebanon. Reagan envoy Donald Rumsfeld meets with Hussein to shore up US-Iraqi relations.
1984
Rumsfeld gives US approval for Iraqi chemical warfare. Osama bin Laden peddles arms and opium with CIA approval. Iran-Contra scandal brewing.
1985
CIA recruits radical Muslims to fight in Afghanistan. US swaps arms to Iran for hostages.
1986
The Clintons extricate themselves from Whitewater. Reagan illegally funds Nicaraguan Contras. Chernobyl. Harken Oil. Iran-Contra scandal breaks; Dick Cheney protects Vice President Bush. Reagan administration successfully blunts Iran-Contra investigation.
1987
Reagan admits involvement in Iran-Contra. USS Stark attacked by Iraq; US blames Iran. Robert Bork blocked from US Supreme Court, raising ire of conservatives.
1988
Rush Limbaugh begins broadcasting nationally. Operation Anfal in Iraq kills thousands of Kurds. Iran-Contra indictments. Halabjah massacre. Soviets begin withdrawing from Afghanistan. US directly attacks Iranian forces. Echelon launched. Al-Qaeda founded. Iran-Iraq war ends. Pan Am plane bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Islamic terrorists. George H.W. Bush becomes President.
1989
Prescott Bush ties with Japanese crime lords. Bush escalates secret support of Iraq. BCCI investigation. George W. Bush buys into Texas Rangers. Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing. Newt Gingrich successfully forces Jim Wright out of power. Berlin Wall falls. Noriega regime in Panama overthrown by US.
The 1990s:
1990
Harken Oil contracts to drill in Persian Gulf. US government gives Saddam Hussein green light to invade Kuwait. US falsifies evidence that Iraq is preparing to attack Saudi Arabia. Iraq invades Kuwait; Bush responds with "Operation Desert Shield." US falsifies evidence that Iraqi troops murdered Kuwaiti babies; the global outcry legitimizes US military escalation in Kuwait. Rabbi Meir Kahane assassinated.
1991
US invades Iraq: "Operation Desert Storm." US destroys Iraqi water supply, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis. Iraqi forces set oil fields ablaze. Entire invasion and "liberation" of Kuwait carefully stage-managed by GOP-hired public relations firms. After invasion, Hussein crushes Kurdish rebellion, which was encouraged by US. SEC investigates Harken Oil; investigation derailed by friends of Bush family. Coup in Russia leads to deposing of Mikhail Gorbachev and dissolution of USSR. Clarence Thomas named to Supreme Court. US military presence in Saudi Arabia infuriates Islamic radicals and leads to "jihad" against US.
1992
"Defense Planning Guidance" article lays out GOP foreign policy for next twenty years; primarily authored by Paul Wolfowitz, with input from Dick Cheney and other hawks. Bush sends troops to Somalia. Bill Clinton becomes President. George H.W. Bush pardons a number of convicted Iran-Contra figures.
1993
Clinton administration buries "October Surprise" evidence. Clinton is asked by Bush to back off on Iraq/BCCI investigation and agrees. WTC bombing. US foils assassination attempt on former president Bush. Branch Davidian debacle. White House travel office imbroglio demonstrates that conservatives are determined to destroy Clinton no matter what. Suicide of Vince Foster becomes a cause celebré among Clinton conspiracy mongers. A US military raid in Somalia goes awry, causing the deaths of 18 soldiers. Communist resistance to change in the former USSR is defeated. Whitewater investigation begins. "Troopergate," a bogus scandal concocted by right-wing media, hits the US press.
1994
Pentagon derails investigations into Gulf War syndrome. Donald Rumsfeld's firm supplies North Korea with uranium and nuclear technology; blame for North Korea's nuclear program will later be shifted onto Clinton. Paula Jones accuses Clinton of sexual impropriety. Robert Fiske finds nothing to Whitewater allegations, and is replaced by GOP hardliner Kenneth Starr. FBI buries evidence of Saudi involvement with Islamic terror groups. Taliban takes power in Afghanistan. George W. Bush becomes governor of Texas.
1995
Clinton administration continues to stonewall investigations into US connections to Iraq. White supremacist Timothy McVeigh bombs a federal building in Oklahoma, killing 168. Two congressional investigations find no evidence of criminal activity on the Clintons' involvement in Whitewater; Starr continues to investigate. BCCI investigation concludes. False offer of al-Qaeda information from Sudan. Dick Cheney's Halliburton Oil fined for doing business with terror sponsor Libya. Clinton-Lewinsky affair. Israel's Yitzhak Rabin assassinated. Newt Gingrich engineers shutdown of federal government. GOP Senator Orrin Hatch stonewalls investigation into FBI mistakes leading to 1993 WTC bombing. RTC clears Clintons of wrongdoing in Whitewater.
1996
Clinton launches aggressive anti-terrorism initiatives; GOP fights every step. Meeting between Osama bin Laden and Saudi Arabia. Khobar Towers bombing. Failed attempt by CIA to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Olympic bombing. FBI stymies investigation into Muslim terror fronts in US.
1997
Halliburton deals extensively with Iraq, in violation of US law. Project for New American Century founded. IAEA concludes that Iraq possesses no nuclear weapons program. Taliban negotiates with Unocal for pipeline construction in Afghanistan.
1998
Investigation into Clinton-Lewinsky affair mounts. Starr illegally redirects Whitewater investigation to encompass Lewinsky investigation. Paula Jones lawsuit against Clinton fizzles; judge rebukes "perjury trap." PNAC advocates military overthrow of Iraqi government. Starr commission proves to leak information to press to influence investigation. US missile attacks on terrorist groups in Tanzania and Afghanistan. Clinton authorizes assassination of bin Laden. CIA gives Clinton officials evidence of upcoming attacks by al-Qaeda on US targets involving hijacked airplanes. Starr Report. House impeaches Clinton over lying about Lewinsky affair. Gingrich resigns over marital affairs. "Operation Desert Fox."
1999
US payoffs to Taliban in order to secure oil pipeline rights. Anthrax mailings begin, with little media notice. Senate fails to vote to impeach Clinton. Iraq ambassador visits Sudan; the visit will later trigger false accusations that Iraq purchased uranium from Niger. Vice President Al Gore's comments about his sponsorship of Internet leglislation, and his comments on toxic spills and Love Canal, are misquoted, becoming source of allegations of Gore's "serial lying." Columbine High School massacre. GOP refuses to support Clinton administration's peacekeeping efforts in Balkans. George W. Bush presidential campaign whitewashes his military records. CIA plans to assassinate bin Laden fail. Starr resigns as head of investigation. Plethora of terror warnings.
June 05, 2004
1000 days since 9-11 bin Laden still free
Letter to the Editor
On Monday June 7th 2004 will be 1000 days since Osama bin Laden blew up the World Trade center on September 11th 2001. Bin Laden is still free and I can't help to think that he's not seriously being pursued. It seems to me that if America was REALLY focused on capturing bin Laden that he would be caught by now. Makes you wonder if Bush cut a deal with bin Laden and this war on terror is phony!
June 04, 2004
Bush Dirties Christiian Identity
The biggest losers in the Bush culture revolution are the ones who back him the strongest - Christians. Bush has done more to hurt the image of Christianity than anyone since the Crusades.
Bush identifies himself as a Christian in every move he makes and thus hold himself out as an example of Christian behavior. Although the American media downplays American war atrocities - the rest of the world isn't nearly as blind.
The rape and torture at Abu Griab Prison wasn't just "humiliation" as Americans describe it - it was religious persecution. Besides sleep deprivation and pain, Americans raped the women prisoners, brought in their teenage children and raped them with the prisoners watching, forced male prisoners to have homosexual sex with each other, and several prisoners were just beaten to death.
But - the torture went beyond that. They focused on their religious beliefs. Prisoners were forced by their Christian captors to renounce their faith and their god and were forced to accept Jesus literally at gunpoint. They were forced to eat pork - something hat is prohibited in their religion. This is the same sort of thing that happened during the Crusades where people were mass slaughtered for not accepting Jesus.
Although Americans try to brush it off - one of the things that are clear in the pictures of torture is that the American prison gauds were truly enjoying it. They are all smiling - giving the thumbs up - drinking and laughing - and making porn videos in front of the prisoners. Those pictures haven't yet surfaced but have been described numerous times in the press. When they come out we'll get to see Ms. England actually getting pregnant.
And this was all done with the knowledge and approval of everyone up the chain of command all the way to Bush. It started with Bush openly advocating torture. The White House described the Geneva Convention as "quaint" and "outdated" and they along with Ashcroft make it clear that the restrictions on torture don't apply to Americans.
Then there is mounting evidence of secret orders being given by Rumsfield to torture prisoners. Prisoners were hidden from the Red Cross. Military Intelligence took control of the prison and gave the orders to torture. Pictures are showing that they are clearly in control. There is absolutely no doubt at all in the minds of everyone who is outside the zone of denial that what happened at Abu Griab was Christians gone Wild! It was literally done in the name of Jesus!
American bigotry is obvious on all levels and it is clear that the Bush administration considers Iraqis to be subhuman. When combat deaths are reported they only report Americans killed and the official casualty count is how many Americans were killed. Iraqi deaths are kept as a separate number and are not talked about in the same way. And the numbers are kept segregated. We don't add Americans killed to Iraqis killed to come up with the total number of people killed. To the Bush administration - Iraqis are not people - in fact to them - adding Muslim and American casualties together is a dishonor to the Americans.
These atrocities are being carried out by Bush and his neo con backers. When I say "Americans" that isn't accurate because "Americans" wouldn't do anything like this. What is happening in Iraq is being done by a Christian cult who stole the election and is running America into the ground. And this Christian cult does not reflect mainstream American Christian thinking, but they are stealing the Christian identity and are committing atrocities under the banner of Christianity. And that is why this article is titled the way it is.
To the outside world who lives beyond the zone of denial what is happening is pretty obvious. George W. Bush acting as a Christian and as the leader of a Christian nation - is on an imperialist mission to attack Muslim nations without provocation - using lies and deception - in order to force Muslim nations to accept Christianity at the point of a gun. Muslims are put into prisons and are raped and tortured and kicked to death for not renouncing their faith and accepting Jesus. This is the way the Muslim world sees us - and the interpretation is largely correct. Bush really does intend to convert Muslims at gunpoint.
Let us assume that Bush didn't know the details of the rape and murder at Abu Griab Prison - and he probably didn't. But he sure knows them now. So what is he doing about it? Running for political cover. He is trying to whitewash it with more lies. "It was just a few bad apples" they say and he talks about Rumsfield as the finest Secretary of State in the history of the world. What he is really saying is - Iraqi's and Muslims and non-christians are subhuman and that he retroactively approves of everything that had happened that he now knows about. These war atrocities don't rise to the level of politics.
Of course Muslims aren't any better than Christians when it comes to rape, torture, and murder. One need look no farther than the Telaban to see Muslims gone wild. But American Christians like to think of themselves as being more enlightened than suicide bombers and people who stone women to death - and the bottom line is - this puts Christians on the same level as Muslims - and Bush is the one who took Christians there.
The Bush Administration is a religious cult based small group of Christian Neo cons who are under the control of the Reverened Sun Myung Moon (yes - the moonies) who have usurped Christian identity and who are pulling the strings behind right wing Christian America. Moon was crowned the king in a crowning at a ceremony in the Dirkson Office Building by a group of Republican senators and is busy trying to get Christians to get rid of the cross and replace it with his crown. Papa Bush is often a Featured Speaker at Moon Mass Weddings. But that's another scandal - and I'll save that for another blog entry.
June 02, 2004
Media Coverage of Enron Ripoff
I want to thank CBS for airing the Enron tapes - but I can't help to notice that the rest of the media is virtually ignoring the issue. I remember the coverage of President Clinton where the employment of a 5th cousin was front page news for 2 months - but under Bush when they have tape recordings of Enron employees bragging about shuting down power to the entire west coast - and then doing so - and bragging about what a friend they have in Bush - well - Bush and his buddy "Kenny-boy" barely gets talked about.
This is what happens when Republicans own the press. Thankfully there is the Inernet where you can read the trurh from people like me.
Here's some of what Enron Employees said about California:
"He just fucks California," says one Enron employee. "He steals money from California to the tune of about a million.""Will you rephrase that?" asks a second employee.
"OK, he, um, he arbitrages the California market to the tune of a million bucks or two a day," replies the first.
The tapes, from Enron's West Coast trading desk, also confirm what CBS reported years ago: that in secret deals with power producers, traders deliberately drove up prices by ordering power plants shut down.
"If you took down the steamer, how long would it take to get it back up?" an Enron worker is heard saying.
"Oh, it's not something you want to just be turning on and off every hour. Let's put it that way," another says.
"Well, why don't you just go ahead and shut her down."
Officials with the Snohomish Public Utility District near Seattle received the tapes from the Justice Department.
"This is the evidence we've all been waiting for. This proves they manipulated the market," said Eric Christensen, a spokesman for the utility.
That utility, like many others, is trying to get its money back from Enron.
"They're fucking taking all the money back from you guys?" complains an Enron employee on the tapes. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"
"Yeah, grandma Millie, man"
"Yeah, now she wants her fucking money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her asshole for fucking $250 a megawatt hour."
And the tapes appear to link top Enron officials Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling to schemes that fueled the crisis.
"Government Affairs has to prove how valuable it is to Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling," says one trader.
"Ok."
"Do you know when you started over-scheduling load and making buckets of money on that?
Before the 2000 election, Enron employees pondered the possibilities of a Bush win.
"It'd be great. I'd love to see Ken Lay Secretary of Energy," says one Enron worker.
That didn't happen, but they were sure President Bush would fight any limits on sky-high energy prices.
"When this election comes Bush will fucking whack this shit, man. He won't play this price-cap bullshit."
Crude, but true.
"We will not take any action that makes California's problems worse and that's why I oppose price caps," said Mr. Bush on May 29, 2001.
Employee 1: "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?
Employee 2: "Yeah, Grandma Millie man.
Employee 1: "Yeah, now she wants her fucking money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her ass for fucking $250 a megawatt hour."
Employee 3: "This guy from the Wall Street Journal calls me up a little bit ago…"
Employee 4: "I wouldn't do it, because first of all you'd have to tell 'em a lot of lies because if you told the truth…"
Employee 3: "I'd get in trouble."
Employee 4: "You'd get in trouble."
"I'm just -- fuck -- I'm just trying to be an honest camper so I only go to jail once," says one employee.
------------------------
Ashcroft is investigating Enron - but Enron gave $50,000 to Ashcroft in 2000 when he was running for US Senate in Missouri. Ashcroft got the money in the Republican Primary to defeat his Republican challenger and win the Republican primary and go on to lose the race to a dead man - Gov. Mel Carnahan - and his widow became the Senator.
For 100 brownie points and the "attaboy" award - name the republican challenger who lost to Ashcroft in the Missouri Republican Primary! Be the first to leave a comment naming that person! Who did Enron donate $57,000 to Ashcroft to defeat?
May 31, 2004
Real Torture, Real Sex, Real Electrodes at US Prisons in Iraq
Here's and Interesting Article from MoveLeft that make you wonder why the American media is calling the sex acts with Iraqi prisoners "simulated sex" when it turns out the sex was quite real. What actually happened is rape and forced homosexual sex. For an administration who is so anti-gay - it seems they really like the butt fucking and cock sucking when it comes to torturing prisoners.
You have to wonder if Saddam is having the last laugh ....
---------
Real Torture, Real Sex, Real Electrodes at US Prisons in Iraq
by Eric Jaffa, May 30, 2004
The prisoners of the US in Iraq weren't just forced to simulate sex with each other, but forced to have homosexual sex with each other.
The electrodes weren't only used to threaten prisoners, but to electrically shock prisoners.
News reports have misleadingly said that Iraqi prisoners were forced to simulate sex acts. For example, the passage below from Time Magazine, uses the term “simulating” (“The Scandal's Growing Stain,” May 17, 2004, bold added).
Haider Sabbar Abed al-Abbadi kept his shame to himself until the world saw him stripped naked, his head in a hood, a nude fellow prisoner kneeling before him simulating oral sex. " That is me," he claims to a Time reporter, as one of the lurid photographs of detained Iraqis suffering sexual humiliation at the hands of U.S. soldiers scrolls down a computer screen. "I felt a mouth close around my penis. It was only when they took the bag off my head that I saw it was my friend." In the nine months he spent in detention, al-Abbadi says he was never charged and never interrogatedA careful reading of the above passage shows that the Iraqi prisoners were forced to have sex with each other. The reporter's use of the word "simulating" doesn't fit with the actual testimony of the former prisoner.
The 1600 photos which Senators and Congresspersons were allowed to view, but not the public, provide further evidence that prisoners were forced to have sex with each other ("Seattle Post Intelligencer," "New images 'disgust' Congress," May 13, 2004):
But the private images showed objects and behavior that were more graphic and diverse, including corpses, military dogs snarling at cowering prisoners, women commanded to expose their breasts, and sex acts, including forced homosexual sex.
The Taguba report tells of an American "sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick" and "a male MP guard having sex with a female detainee," which is of course, rape.
Additionally, "the International Occupation Watch Centre, an NGO which gathers information on human rights abuses under coalition rule, said one former detainee has told of the alleged rape of her cellmate."
The forced sex between prisoners and rapes by guards, were real, not simulated.
The electrodes weren't just for show, either. They were used to electrically shock prisoners.
Amnesty International uses the term "war crimes" to describe the US treatment of Iraqi prisoners, writing:
Last July, the organization raised allegations of torture and ill-treatment of Iraqi detainees by US and Coalition forces in a memorandum to the US Government and Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq. The allegations included beatings, electric shocks, sleep deprivation, hooding, and prolonged forced standing and kneeling. It received no response nor any indication from the administration or the CPA that an investigation took place.A man named Saleh who is currently in Michigan was arrested by the US in Iraq and electrically shocked as a prisoner at Abu Ghraib.
Saleh was an opponent of Saddam Hussein who was tortured over a decade ago at Abu Ghraib under Saddam's rule, left Iraq and became a Swedish citizen, returned during the US occupation, and was randomly arrested by the US and again tortured at Abu Ghraib, this time by the US.
Saleh refers to being electrically shocked by the US while a prisoner at Abu Ghraib at the 2:42 mark of this mp3:
NPR report of May 20, 2004 in which Saleh describes being tortured by Americans at Abu Ghraib
Execution excuse handed out before execition - Whoops!
Than New York Times printed a Very Interesting Article about the cease-fire between occupation forces and the militia of Moktada al-Sadr, the 31-year-old radical cleric
Apparently in spite of this cease file - American troops attacked a police station where there was heavy fighting. At some point they were passing out flyers containing two different excuses on why Moktada al-Sadr was killed in fighting. But - Moktada al-Sadr was not killed at all. They already had the flyers printed with the excuse before the planned killing but the killing never happened and someone screwed up and passed out the excuse anyhow.
The only thing I hate worse than liars is bad liars. BushCo needs to get his lying right. Here's the story:
---------------------------
Iraqi officials have said the Americans were persuaded to compromise with Mr. Sadr last week by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most influential cleric. Ayatollah Sistani lives close to the Shrine of Ali, and he had been growing increasingly concerned over the battles near that shrine and two other shrines in Karbala. On May 21, days after residents of Karbala protested in the streets at the urging of Ayatollah Sistani, American forces and insurgents withdrew from the city's center.
The cease-fire reached in Najaf on Thursday did not require Mr. Sadr to disband his militia or to submit to an arrest warrant that an Iraqi judge had issued in connection with the killing in April of Abdul Majid al-Khoei, an American-backed cleric who had returned from exile to Najaf.
Meanwhile on Sunday, people in the streets of Najaf were handed mysterious fliers with Mr. Sadr's picture that said "Moktada (al Sadr) was followed by the Iraqi police for his ties to the slaying of Khoei, and due to violent actions he was killed during an attempt to arrest him."
Another flier had a photo of Iraqi policemen and the words "The Justice Ministry tried to arrest Mr. Sadr, but he and his followers resisted fiercely, which drove the Iraqi police to defend themselves."
The fliers appeared to have been made by Iraq's Justice Ministry or its allies to be handed out in case Iraqi policemen killed Mr. Sadr. Somehow, they were distributed prematurely. There were no reports of Mr. Sadr's death.
Mr. Sadr's office also issued a conciliatory statement to Sadr al-Din al-Kubanchi, a prominent cleric linked to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri, an influential Shiite party. On Friday, gunmen shot at Mr. Kubanchi outside the Shrine of Ali, but he was unhurt. Members of Mr. Sadr's militia captured one of the attackers, but did not turn him over to the Badr Organization, Sciri's armed wing.
That led Sciri officials to accuse Mr. Sadr and his militia of organizing the attack and then trying to cover it up. Mr. Kubanchi has denounced both Mr. Sadr and the occupation forces in recent sermons.
In his statement, Mr. Sadr denied any role in the attack. "I send my greetings and my willingness to meet you and my brothers in Sciri and the Badr Organization," he said. "You can hold your weekly Friday Prayer, and I am ready to attend it hand in hand with you to ensure your safety."
May 29, 2004
Ashcroft issues fake terror warning.
John Ashcroft's terror warning this last week was fake and no more than a political stunt to attempt to distract attention away from the administrations incompetence. Interestingly enough - it only highlighted the incompetence.
According to MSNBC Ashcroft's sources were know to not be credible. It came from a group that claims responsibility for everything.
John Ashcroft is putting Americans at risk issuing these fake warnings because once people know he's doing that then people are likely to ignore a real warning. John Ashcroft's actions serve the goals of our enemies and not Americans.
-----------
Terror threat source called into question
Ashcroft cites al-Qaida plan, but how credible is the information?
By Lisa Myers
Senior investigative correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 6:57 p.m. ET May 28, 2004
WASHINGTON - Earlier this week Attorney General John Ashcroft warned of an attack planned on America for sometime in the coming months. That may happen, but NBC News has learned one of Ashcroft’s sources is highly suspect.
In warning Americans to brace for a possible attack, Ashcroft cited what he called “credible intelligence from multiple sources,” saying that “just after New Year's, al-Qaida announced openly that preparations for an attack on the United States were 70 percent complete.… After the March 11 attack in Madrid, Spain, an al-Qaida spokesman announced that 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack in the United States were complete.”
But terrorism experts tell NBC News there's no evidence a credible al-Qaida spokesman ever said that, and the claims actually were made by a largely discredited group, Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, known for putting propaganda on the Internet.
“This particular group is not really taken seriously by Western intelligence,” said terrorism expert M.J. Gohel of the Asia-Pacific Foundation, an international policy assessment group. “It does not appear to have any real field operational capability. But it is certainly part of the global jihad movement — part of its propaganda wing, if you like. It likes to weave a web of lies; it likes to put out disinformation so that the truth is deeply buried. So it is a dangerous group in that sense, but it is not taken seriously in terms of its operational capability.”
The group has claimed responsibility for the power blackout in the Northeast last year, a power outage in London and the Madrid bombing. None of the claims was found to be credible.
May 26, 2004
Bush's Uncle Caught Laundering Money to Terrorists
Fed Orders Riggs Bank Over Laundering
Fri May 14, 5:12 PM ET
By MARCY GORDON, AP Business Writer
WASHINGTON - The Federal Reserve (news - web sites) ordered Riggs Bank's parent company Friday to take steps to prevent money laundering after the bank was fined $25 million in connection with a probe into possible links to terrorism financing.
The action came a day after Treasury Department (news - web sites) regulators levied the record-setting fine against Riggs for its handling of millions of dollars in foreign-held accounts.
In a cease-and-desist order issued by the central bank, Riggs will have to take actions such as hiring an independent consultant to conduct a review. Its operation in Miami — which Riggs plans to close — will be required to retain an outside consultant to review previous account transactions for suspicious activity.
The Federal Reserve has jurisdiction over bank holding companies. The Atlanta Fed had previously advised Riggs's Miami-based subsidiary of deficiencies in its compliance with laws to prevent money laundering, the order noted.
Riggs is a midsize Washington bank with a near-exclusive franchise on business with the capital's diplomatic community.
Credit-rating agency Standard & Poor's said that the fine, combined with anticipated restructuring charges of $15 million to $21 million in the April-June quarter, "should result in a large loss in the second quarter and prevent Riggs from being profitable for the year."
Standard & Poor's and other agencies have recently downgraded their ratings of Riggs, reflecting what S&P on Friday called "continued profitability pressures and regulatory uncertainty."
Treasury's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued the fine in an order made public late Thursday, after weeks of negotiations between Riggs officials and banking regulators.
----------------------------
Dudley Elected Chairman of Riggs Investment Management Subsidiary; Bush to Serve as President & CEO
Washington, D.C., May 31, 2000 - Riggs Bank N.A. today announced that the Board of Directors of RIMCO, a wholly owned investment management subsidiary, has elected Jonathan J. Bush President & Chief Executive Officer and a Director, replacing Philip Tasho who resigned. In addition, Henry A. Dudley, Jr. was elected Chairman.
Mr. Bush will continue as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of J. Bush & Co., an investment management company he founded in 1970, which Riggs acquired in 1997. Mr. Dudley, a 24-year veteran of Riggs, will continue to be responsible for all of Riggs Bank's investment management, trust and private banking business.
Located in the nation's capital, Riggs Bank has 53 branches in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, as well as banking offices in Miami, London and Berlin.
----------------------
Jonathan J. Bush (Jonathan James Bush) (1931- ) is an uncle to President George Walker Bush.
A Wall Street financier, Jonathan Bush pulled together two dozen investors to raise $3 million to help launch Arbusto. Among the investors was Dorothy Bush, George W.’s grandmother. At the same time, Jonathan Bush was lining up investors for Arbusto, he also was raising money for George H.W. Bush’s presidential explorations. Many of the funders were the same.
Bush is a Trustee of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation.
More on Democratic Underground
Tearing Down Abu Ghraib Prison
Letter to the Editor
Bush wants to waste taxpayers money by tearing down Abu Ghraib Prison because of the US torture scandal and build a new prison at our expense. I find it amazing that Bush thinks that rape, torture, and murder problem can be solved by tearing down a building. If that kind of reasoning made sense them maybe we should tear down the Whitehouse to solve the national debt.
May 23, 2004
Tough choices for Republicans
Letter to the Editor
Republicans are facing tough choices this election year. More pictures and videos are surfacing that document atrocities at prisons in Iraq. We are seeing rape, sodomy, torture, and the murdering of prisoners in US custody. It is now believed that the orders to commit these war crimes came directly from the White House.
So what do Republicans do? Do they stick with the President and try to downplay these extremely graphic pictures? Or do they put the interests of Americans first and get to the bottom of this? Will Republicans like John McCain do what's right - or will he sell out to election year politics? Time for McCain to put his money where his mouth is. I challenge McCain's honesty.
May 21, 2004
Berg Video - SMOKING GUN?
OK - we may have the smoking gun in the Berg video that proves the Nick Berg was killed by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison. In addition to all the other evidence that I posted on my blog, I have been seeing some messages that if proved to be so answers the question as to who really killed Berg.
There has been a semi-secret government initiative to add digital signatures to various digital consumer products. Photocopiers and digital cameras store an encrypted signature to identify the unit that made the video. This digitial signature is totally inique to each device and is more unique than a fingerprint.
Today new pictures were released of prison torture at Abu Ghraib prison. But not just still pictures. Today video was released showing prisoners being tortured by Americans. Aparently Kodak film experts are Kodak Park in Rochester New York have compared the digital watermarks of the turture video and the beheading video and have determined that one of the cameras used in the Nick Berg beheading is THE SAME CAMERA that took the prison torture video.
If this turns out to be true then there is NO DOUBT that Berg was killed by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison.
I urge all of you to press to find out if this story is actually true, and if so - HOLY SHIT !!!
May 19, 2004
Arabs aren't buying Berg Execution
http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/article.php?id=2785
It would appear that I am not the only one wearing a tin foil hat. A lot of other people are raising the same questions I've been raising about the Nick Berg beheading. This article doesn't go as for as I did to conclude Americans did it - but they take you right up to the edge of that conclusion.
---------
The video of execution of American hostage Nick Berg in Iraq is threatening to develop into a major scandal. During a press conference the father of the beheaded American accused Bush and Rumsfeld of killing his son. There are more and more suspicions that Nick Berg was really executed not by Arab militants, but by the US intelligence services in order to divert the attention from the scandal about the tortures in Baghdad prison.
First there was a report that a video showing an execution of an American expert captured in Iraq was shown on a so-called 'Islamic extremist' website. It was reported that the execution was carried out by a group of guerillas tied to Al-Qaeda in order to take revenge for the tortures that the American soldiers did to Iraqi inmates.
The video shows five men, whose faces are hidden behind black masks and traditional Arab scarves. They all are standing around a tied-up man with an orange suit on, the kind of suit inmates wear. The victim says to the camera: «My name is Nick Berg, my father’s name is Michael, my mother’s name is Susan. I have a brother and a sister, David and Sarah. I live in Philadelphia».
After these words they got him down on the floor, put a big knife to his throat and cut his head off, while screaming 'Allah Akbar' ('God is Great'). The video footage was called «Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi shows killing of an American». A day before the video was shown, Mr. Berg’s parents were told that their son’s body was found near a highway in Baghdad. The scene of the execution and the comments on it were the number one news in the world’s mass media for some time.
Then the CIA experts released a statement saying that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was the man in mask who beheaded the US citizen Nick Berg in front of a camera. Then Western commentators and moralists took over and launched a campaign to vindicate the Americans exposed for torturing Iraqi inmates.
Compared to the brutal murder of an American with cutting his head off, the tortures of Iraqis in prisons started looking like minor pranks of undisciplined soldiers. Another factor was that the beheaded victim was a Jew, which was picked up by the Zionists immediately to justify their actions and to show what kind of enemy they have to be dealing with.
However, so many questions arose about the videotape that all accusers of so-called 'Islamists' got quiet right away and the subject disappeared from the agenda in the world’s media.
Many questions came up, and they are all pointing out that the accusations by Mr. Berg’s father against the US authorities on killing his son have very serious grounds.
The first suspicion was caused by a video where Berg was wearing an orange American jail suit. Berg was arrested by the Americans and had time to tell his friend that he was in an American prison. Intelligence services were denying this and were saying that Berg was arrested by the Iraqi police for Israeli stamps in his passport. But later on it turned out that he was questioned by Americans, and FBI agents came to his parents’ house to find out whether he was involved in any terrorist activities.
Berg’s e-mail showed that he was held in custody by the Americans. Turned out that an American was held in an American prison and beheaded right after he was presumably released.
In this connection there is a question whether the American was released from prison at all. If he was, and if he was late for his flight because of the arrest, as his parents first claimed, then why he ended up being captured by 'terrorists' and dressed in an American jail suit? How would militants even get a suit like this in the first place, and why would they make their hostage put it on?
The experts who saw the video say that the man posing as Jordanian native Zarqawi does not speak the Jordanian dialect. Zarqawi has an artificial leg, but none of these murderers did. The man presented as Zarqawi had a yellow ring, presumably a golden one, which Muslim men are banned from wearing, especially so-called fundamentalists.
The experts mentioned that the man calls Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) 'Gracious Prophet', while it is only Allah, Whom Muslims call 'Gracious'.
More and more questions are coming up about Mr. Berg’s murder and some of them have already been presented to the country’s leadership by the American public.
But major American mass media, which support the war in Iraq, are ignoring this information.
Infowars.com published the material titled «This is a 98 % secret US operation». The chair that Nick Berg was sitting on before the execution was the same as the chairs in Abu-Ghraib prison, where tortures were being committed. These chairs were brought by the US army. It was also reported that even though Nick Berg was a civilian, for some reason his body was delivered to a US Air Force base in Dover, where the dead servicemen are brought.
Meanwhile more and more new circumstances are being revealed when the video is being studied. The doctors are saying that there is almost no blood shown during the beheading, while normally a lot of blood would have been gushing if the person were alive. No blood was seen around it or on the hands of the one who cut the head off. Then it must have been a dead person who was beheaded.
All militants filmed on the video footage are too fat for the Iraqi standards, especially for militants, and they all had white palms of their hands. When the video was studied it turned out that the scream shown in this footage was recorded earlier and it was probably a woman’s scream.
The weapons that the murderers were holding in their hands resemble AKs, but the experts claim that this is a modified AK-47, Israeli-made Halil.
All Islamic organizations, including the ones accused of terrorism, have condemned this act. Nothing has been heard about Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi for the past few months, and there has been a rumor going on that he died in a bombing.
If he did take part in beheading the American and wanted to make it known this way (even the video was called «Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi shows killing of an American»), then why did he need to put a mask on or close his face with a scarf?
But if he has nothing to do with it, and somebody decided to use his name, then it would be quite natural to expect Zarqawi to deny the allegations about his involvement in Mr. Berg’s execution. But no denials have been heard. Especially when such a denial would have been appropriate after all Islamic organizations and the Iraqis condemned this murder.
This fact means that Zarqawi may not be alive. Those who put on that show knew that Zarqawi could no longer deny whatever they accuse him of.
Will the US government be able to deny what Mr. Berg’s parents and the public are accusing it of? Probably, the experts, who manage to find Arab passports and the Holy Koran under a tumbled-down and melted skyscraper, will make something up this time as well? If they don’t, they you should expect some new movies and new terrorist acts to be made by the joint effort of Hollywood and the CIA.
May 16, 2004
White House Authorized Torture
Why did the tortue occur? Because Bush and Rumsfield ordered it - stating:
The United States recognizes that the Geneva Conventions outlawing prisoner abuse apply to the war in Iraq. But it has said al Qaeda "terrorism" suspects do not qualify as prisoners of war under the terms of the treaty.
Newsweek on Sunday disclosed a memorandum by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales written in Jan. 25, 2002, that said "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war."
"In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions," he said.
Does Torture Work?
We are hearing a lot of doublespeak about whether or not torture works. The media has trotted out many "experts" that claim that torture doesn't work. Millitary people who denounce the turtore as the Abu Ghraib prison keep saying - torture doesn't work.
On the other hand they are making the opposite argument that "torture is necessary" in order to get information to save lives. They still want to be able to use torture stating that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to everyone. They create classifications of people who they can torture. They also ship certian prisoners to countries who haven't signed the Geneva Convention so they can be tortured for us.
So - if torture doesn't wwork - then why does the Bush administration continue to pursue it.
It's the same sort of doublespeak about does America torture people or not. "Of course we don't torture people! We are civilised Americans - not barbarians!" But on the other hand American have black ops programs that do things we don't want to think about so that the government can pretend that they don't do the things they are really doing. And this is supposed to be a lie that we are all supposed to accept and believe.
May 13, 2004
It's the same chair !!!! OMFG !!
Here's where you really need the tin foil hat. Look at this pic that was released today of the latest prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. Notice the white chair in the lower left corner. Now - look at the chair Nicholas Berg is sitting in!! It's the same fucking chair!!
I have some more pics but the walls are the same yellow color and the baseboard is the same color as Abu Ghraib prison. Then - as I've said before - what is Nicholas Berg doing in an orange prison jump suit? The orange jump suit is the same color as the ones used at the prison!!! Terrorists don't put the people they kidnap in orange prison jump suits!
Now - put that together with the fact that these "terrorists" are WHITE and FAT and they are wearing BULLET PROOF VESTS!! So who goes around wearing bullet proof vests all the time? People like CIA - Prison guards!
This is enough to scare the shit out of you but - Nicholas Berg was murdered by AMERICANS at Abu Ghraib prison. They staged it so as to make it look like terrorists murdered Berg.
If you have a different opinion then you tell me why they have the same plastic furniture - the same walls - the same floorboard color - and the same orange jump suit. You tell me why these terrorists are fat white guys wearing bullet proof vests. You tell me why they speak bad Arabic. You tell me why they yell like Americans when they kill Berg. I suppose the terrorist picked up those chairs at the local WalMart!
There is a dispute as to if Berg was in US custody. He was arrested by Iraqi police but they claim they turned him over to American custody. America however denies that they had him.
CNN said initially that they were sure the voice was NOT al-Zarqawi. The CIA however confirms that it is. Isn't that amazing! I listen to the voices and it doesn't sound like the voices of someone who speaks Arabic as their first language.
But you see - it's not about the voices that make you think it's not al-Zarqawi. In May 2002 Zarqawi traveled to Iraq. He had his leg amputated and had a prosthetic limb to replace it. So - for a guy with ONE LEG al-Zarqawi is VERY NIMBLE on his feet! So - make you wonder how well the CIA thought things through when they decided to play terrorist?
This is what a REAL terrorists look like. This is the picture of Daniel Pearl who was also killed by terrorists. Notice the thin brown hands - the grabbing of the hair - and the gun to the head. The guy is mean - angry. Pearl has on ordinary clothes and his hands are chained. When you look at the picture you can feel the wildness of a true terrorist. You can tell Pearl looks like he knows he is in big trouble. The clothes on the terrorists look normal for the region - but on the photos of the Berg terrorists - they look like they are in a costume.
Now look at the Berg terrorists. These guys look like the 5 stooges! They are FAT and WHITE. Check out the guy on the right. Do I see WHITE SHOES? Wonder how he keeps them clean running around the Iraqi desert?
When he reads the statement - does he sound angry? I don't hear it. He's reading a script.
As to can see on terrorists 2, 4, and 5 - the BULLET PROOF VESTS. American MPs wear them all the time. To them it's like putting on their underwear. hey wear them so that if a prisoner tries to make a knife and stab them in the heart - they are protected. I guess they never thought they would show up under the terrorist costume.
Berg has no idea what it about to happen. He looks comfortable - perhaps to comfortable. I think they probably told him that they wanted him to pretend to be a hostage in order to get out of prison. Berg knew he was back at Abu Ghraib prison and that his "captors" were Americans - and that he was playing a role. Notice the orange prison garb in the picture.
The beheading changed the mood of the nation. Several lawmakers commented that after the beheading that it reminded them what the real issues were. So the beheading had the intended effect - that is - to inflame Americans and get them to think that torture is something that can be acceptable.
What we are seeing here people scares me beyond belief. I sit here stunned. I want to call someone but don't know who to call. If this turns out to be true - the world will experience a moment of horror unlike anything the world has ever experienced - except maybe the nuking of Japan.
WHAT YOU NEED TO DO: What I've posted here isn't an absolute conclusion but asks a lot of questions that need to be answered. I need you to get everyone possible to link to this web page - or - copy it and post it on other sites. I need you to call your members in the US House and Senate. I need you to call your local radio and TV stations and get them to look at this.
Even though exposing this is bad for America - what is really bad for America is if we do this and get away with it. We can not allow America to become like NAZIs. The integrity of who we are and what we believe in must be preserved. We are a people of TRUTH and the only thing that's important is to find out WHAT REALLY HAPPENED HERE.
More strange stuff:
The link below is a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) documentary called Convoy of Death documenting the slaughter of 3000 Afgan POWs in December of 2001.
Afgan POWs Killed - 55mb Quicktime Format
A Message from the Management:
If you are a loyal patriotic American who believe in American values and you find this article to be offensive then Click Here to complain about it.
I've closed the comments on this. There are already too many comments and just about everything that can be said has been said dozens of times.
Addressing other issues and comments
A lot of you have left comments about what I wrote that should be addressed. There are many who agree - many who disagree - and many who are confounded. Some people have posted other reasons to support or not support my assessment. I'm not going to address everything - but try to hit the main points.
First - I tried to stick with what I though was the most solid questions abut the beheading. There are other less solid ones - but I wanted to be focused.
Then - one of my goals is to raise these questions so that they get answered. There may be a reason that the terrorists dressed Berg in the same garb used in the prison. There may be reasons for everything I raised. I want to hear those things explained. I want to hear the questions asked - if nothing else - but to give satisfaction to those who disagree with me to gloat. Let's ask the questions and get the answers.
Yes - every single item taken by itself can be explained as an amazing coincidence. But when you out it all together - it crosses the line into something else. It's like if you tell me you once won the state lottery I'd say - wow - you must be very lucky. But then you tell me you won the lottery twice and I say - "er - really?" Then you say - I won the lottery 5 times in a row ..... Now you're lying - even though each single instance is barely believable.
In this case we have the same situation. The prison garb - maybe. The chair - maybe. The two legs instead of one - maybe. They were all white and fat - maybe. But - put it all together - I'm not buying it.
Furthermore - for those of you who haven't made the leap to the conclusion I came to - that Americans dressed as terrorists did it - you at least have to admit that serious questions are raised that need to be answered. And I'm hoping you all will help me get the questions asked.
- No Blood - I only watched it once but it was a blur to me. There may be a reason that there is blood (has to be blood) but we don't see it. The reality is - Berg really is dead - and his head really was cut off. So - whatever doesn't make sense about the blood is just generally confusing.
- The Gold Ring I'm told this is against Islamic law. And - that contributes to the argument. I personally don't find it persuasive by itself, but it contributes a little.
- The Tape was Edited - Yes - there are wo time lines on the tape. What does that mean? Does it mean it was faked? Again - Nick Berg is really dead. So - I believe he was actually killed by the guys on the tape. But - what it does indicate is that the terrorists have what seems to be two cameras and digitial video editing equipment. Other tapes from bin Laden are not as high tech. Generally a physical copy is delivered to a TV station rather than a two camera production that is digitally edited and uploaded to a web site.
- Why cover his face and then give his name? - Yes - this is a good point. That is what you would do if you weren't who you say you are. And it's one of those add on reasons that supports my conclusion.
- Political Timing and Motives - I've avoided this because I don't want to get distracted by a political debate. That debate is there - but I'm trying to focus on the facts that are not in dispute. I draw my information from the published pictures. Motive do need to be considered - but I'm not going there in this article.
- The CIA couldn't be that stupid - Yes - they can. This murder looks like the kind of short term bad thinking that the Bush administration is known for. The prison sex abuse pics we are seeing shows that - yes - they really can be that stupid.
- Orange Prison Garb - This is what I consider the strongest red flag that he was at the prison. Americans put prosiners in orange so that if they escape they are easier to spot. The last thing a kidnapper is going to do is put a hostage in orange. Orange is what you put on people who you want to attract attention to.
Berg was in custody of the US. Something the US is still lying about. So - when he was released do you think they are going to send him out on the streets of Iraq wearing orange? Not hardly! Orange means pick this guy up and bring him back to prison. They would have taken the prison garb away and gave him his clothes back.
Even if for some reason he got out with prison grab on - the first thing he would have done is get regular clothes. You just would not walk around Iraq wearing orange.
So - then if he's abducted again by terrorists - and lets say that they somehow had clothing just like the prison garb - are they going to put him in it? Not hardly. If you are a terrorist kidnapper the last thing you want to do is draw attention your way. So - orange prison outfit - no way!
May 12, 2004
Is the voice that of al-Zarqawi?
According to CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/12/iraq.berg/index.html
"The voice on the tape could not be verified as that of al-Zarqawi. CNN staff members familiar with al-Zarqawi's voice said the voice on the tape did not sound like him."
However - many in the news media and US generals are still stating that the executioner is al-Zarqawi. It would seem that those who are perpatrating this fraud wants very much to link it to al-Zarqawi.
"U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the person shown on a video beheading an American civilian in Iraq, based on an analysis of the voice on the video, a CIA official said Thursday."
Rape and Torture is Wrong!
Letter to the Editor
The Pentagon showed lawmakers the remaining photos of prisoner abuse. These new photos are so graphic that senators concluded that releasing the photos would put our troops in danger. They stated that even to fully describe everything would offend the sensibilities of any rational person.
Of what they could describe they stated that saw the raping of prisoners - both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Other pictures depicted "crewel and sadistic torture" and obscenities with corpses. "I don't know how the hell these people got into our army," said Colorado Republican Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell after viewing what he called a fraction of the images. We can only imaging what they can't describe.
I want to say for the record that rape and torture is wrong and that there is absolutely no way to justify this. We can not ignore this and try to cover it up. We need to get to the bottom of this no matter how high up the ladder this goes. This is about who we are as a country and we can not allow ourselves to be defined this way. The absolute worse thing that can happen is that we allow people to get away with this. We need to make it absolutely clear to the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Military, and the people of the world that it is never ok to do this and those who are doing this will be punished. America will be judged by our integrity and we must show the world that we are an honest people and can be trusted.
----------------------
PS: OK - tin foil hats on.
I look at the beheading and I see that the terrorists are WHITE and FAT. They are wearing BULLET PROOF VESTS and the guy on the right has WHITE SHOES.
The prisoner is wearing an ORANGE JUMPSUIT that is the same color and style used in the American run prison. The Arabic is bad and CNN has determined that it is not the guy who the web site says it is.
You look at the pictures and you tell me what you see. When you play "what's wrong with this picture" - it scares the hell out of you.
May 11, 2004
Freepers List Berg as Anti-war Activist
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092851/posts
This is amazing!!! Several disturbing things. This Michael Berg is the father of guy beheaded. Nick Berg was arrested by US FORCES. Father filed suit against US for sons arreast and was anti-war.
Local news piece:
http://kyw.com/Local%20News/local_story_128173423.html
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/8621773.htm
WEST CHESTER, Pa. - Nick Berg was on his way out of Iraq. He had been released from the prison where he had been held for 13 days by Iraqi police for reasons he said he did not know. He had made his way from Mosul to his Baghdad hotel. He was finished with being an independent civilian contractor and was coming home to West Chester.
That was April 9. A month later, Berg's parents, Michael and Suzanne, still haven't heard from him. They've gone from concerned to frantic.
"Our hopes are that he's still in hiding or en route and traveling in a very slow manner," Michael Berg said.
A spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq who tracks the number of civilians missing in that country was unavailable for comment. But in mid-April, coalition spokesman Dan Senor said during a news briefing in Baghdad that about 40 people from 12 countries were missing and presumed hostages.
Nick Berg, 26, owns a business called Prometheus Methods Tower Service Inc. He climbs communications towers to inspect the antennas, the electrical connections and the structure. He first went to Iraq on Dec. 21.
He stayed until Feb. 1, making contact with a company that indicated there would likely be work for him later. But he returned on March 14 and there was no work, so he began traveling. He usually called home once a day and e-mailed several times; Michael Berg is his business manager, and they needed to stay in touch.
They spoke on March 24, and Nick Berg told his parents he was coming home on March 30. Then the communications stopped, and he wasn't on the plane on March 30.
When FBI agents arrived at the Berg's West Chester home on March 31, they were relieved to know their son was alive, but in jail. The agents questioned them about various details that only they and their son would know about.
Jerri Williams, spokeswoman for the Philadelphia FBI office, said the agency was "asked to interview the parents regarding Mr. Berg's purpose in Iraq."
On April 5, the Bergs filed suit in federal court in Philadelphia, contending that their son was being held illegally by the U.S. military in Iraq.
The next day, April 6, Nick Berg was released. He told his parents he had been riding in a taxi on March 24 when he was arrested by Iraqi officials at a checkpoint in Mosul. He told his parents he had not been mistreated.
Nick Berg said he would come home through Jordan, Turkey or Kuwait. But by then, hostilities in Iraq had escalated, and Michael Berg said they have not heard from their son since.
The Bergs have hounded the State Department, the FBI and the International Committee of the Red Cross, seeking information. Michael Berg said the State Department sent an official to Nick Berg's hotel, where an employee told the official they had not heard of him.
The Bergs hired a private investigator, who talked to an American hotel guest who said he remembered Nick Berg.
Sometimes, they tell themselves their son "is a resourceful fellow who can take care of himself," Michael Berg said.
"Other times we think perhaps he was dead on April 10," he said. "My worst fear is that I'll never hear anything."
American Beheaded
An American was beheaded today in retaliation for Bush's failed policy of torturing prisoners. I cal it Bush's policy because as soon as 9-11 happened Bush started talking about when torture can be used and tried to distinguish various of war so as to justify torture. Then Bush had secret prisons set up like the one in Cuba so as to keep away anyone who would supervise them. So - when torture is exposed - are we really surprised?
Getting back on subject - seeing the pictures of the video supposedly of terrorists executing an American - the terrorists seem to be taller - stockier - and fatter that most Islamist terrorists are. It looks to me like these could be Americans posing as Islamic terrorists to create an event to justify our use of torture.
Furthermore - if you look at the video you can see that Nick Berg is wearing an orange prison jump suit. When you look at the Iraqi POW abuse pictures one of them - the one with prisoners tied and laying on the floor - shows the same type of orange prison jumpsuit. The man is executed in a concrete building with yellow walls and floresent lighting - the same yellow walls and lighting as the abuse pictures. Am I crazy? Or - was this man executed at Abu Ghraib prison.
Also - these guys are wearing bullet proof jackets. That's very American. And - when they yelled before they cut the head off - they sounded like Americans yelling at a football game.
According to CNN the voices don't match al-Zarqawi. From CNN:
The Web site said the killing had been carried out by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of an Islamist terrorist group that has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks on coalition forces in Iraq.
The voice on the tape could not be verified as that of al-Zarqawi. CNN staffers familiar with al-Zarqawi's voice said the voice on the tape did not sound like him.
Torture and execution benifit both Osama bin Laden and Bush. The greater the hate the better Bush and the terrorist do. Considering that Americans ordered the execution of survivors of an Afgan Massacure of 3000 POWs it is not outside what Bush would do to cover up this scandal. And - like I said - these terrorists look a little too big and too fat to be Islamist terrorists.
I have seen the video - I was going to post it - but I'm leaning against it. If you get a change to download it and view it - I strongly recommend that you don't. Lets just say that knowing that they guy had his head sawed off with a knike while still alive is enough information to know what happened. I'm still in shock over what I saw and I'm still in a stunned state. Seeing it doesn't add any information to what you already know.
I may post the video because it is what happened. It is the price we pay for having Bush as president. But I'm not ready to do that right now.
May 09, 2004
Bush Solution to Torture
Letter to the Editor
The Bush solution to the prisoner torture and rape scandal will probably be something like this: "To ensure that America's reputation is never again tarnished by pictures of rape and torture - cameras in prisons are hereby banned."
May 08, 2004
Bush ordered the Torture
Letter to the Editor
The torture of prisoners in Iraq is not entirely surprising. The Bush administration has been actively advocating the use of torture ever since 9-11. Many statements have been made floating the idea that torture might be used is special circumstances. Prisoners were given new classifications other that Prisoner of War in order to avoid the restrictions of international law. These prisoners were deliberately reclassified into a legally murky area where no rules exists for one and one reason only - so that they could break the rules.
The abuse of prisoners in Iraq was not the acts of a few individuals. It was in fact the real policy of the military and those soldiers were operating on orders from the top.
What the President creates lawless and encourages it and advocates breaking of the rules then it comes as no surprise when the rules are broken. Bush is responsible for the torture of prisoners in Iraq because he is the one who has made it known that the rule of international law does not apply to what America does. I therefore call on the entire Bush administration to take responsibility and step down from power. This is the kind of thing that happens when America allows a president to take power who was never elected in the first place.
SIDE NOTE:
I found yet another site that has the movie of the execution of 3000 Afgan POWs. Apparently the 17 minute movie I send you a link to was edited dowm. This link has a version with more details and is 59 minutes long. It is also in Real format instead of Quicktime.
The video is a Candaian Broadcasting Corporation documentary detailing the execution of 3000 prisoners by suffocation and the survivors shot and buried in mass graves. It's far bigger that the Iraqi story.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3267.htm
Call your Congressman
I can see by my log files that it's not just the military who is looking at my video. I see that there are some ".gov" hosts as well that have accesses this movie. The CIA has read it and one hit from the US house of representatives.
At this point I want everyone who reads this to call the house and the senate members to let them know.
http://www.house.gov
http://www.senate.gov
Don't just email. Make a phone call and talk to a person about it.
And - it's time to call for the entire Bush administration to step down.
May 07, 2004
Who knew what when? The next scandal
Please link to this page and this video
Congress and Bush are complaining that they didn't know - that they were never told until they saw it on the news. They promise that this won't happen again. Well - lets put that to the test.
48 hours ago I posted a video produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) that documents a mass murder of 3000 Afgan prisoners in 2001 after the American Telaban was captured. Here is that video:
Afgan POWs Killed - 55mb Quicktime Format
Here's another link:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3267.htm
Looking at my log files I can see that out of over 7000 downloads that about 100 of them came from military installations. Specifically from an army base in Fort Leonardwood and the Navy Base in San Deigo, so - the army knows about this. The question is - now that they have seen it - will the military cover this up?
I just had a discussion with my girlfriend about this. She contends that there are honorable people in the military who will do the right thing and make it public and come clean and face the music. I have the opposite opinion that there is in fact not a single honest person in the military and that they will do everything in their power to cover it up and conceal it.
Time will tell which one of us is right. Quite frankly - I hope she is.
So you ask - what good does this do to expose American atrocities? Doesn't that help the enemies of freedom? The short answer is - no - what hurts America is that it happened in the first place. But there's something even worse than that it happened in the first place - that we get away with it.
If this is something that is occurring we can not get away with this because if we get away with it then we will do it again and again. We won't stop doing it until we are seriously busted and pay the price and put systems in place to ensure that we never do this again.
I think about how Hitler started. He committed similar atrocities and he got away with it. The more he got away with the more he committed till they got to the point where it was unstoppable. Now it is us who are starting down that path of torture, rape, and murder.
The reality is - what's happening in Iraq is in part a result of the fact that they got away with a far greater abuse of power in Afghanistan. We stuffed 3000 POWs in trucks and allowed them to suffocate. We left them there in the hot sun for a week. Then we shot the survivors and burred them in a mass grave. And - we got away with it.
Who are we and what are we becoming? Is this who we want to be? I'll answer that - no it is not. So - I say to you in the military who find this web site and see this video and who sit back and do nothing. I say to you - you are fucking cowards - no better than Nazis. I say to you - Fuck you! I have no respect for cowards who sit back with your mouth shut and let it happen. It doesn't take courage to fight and die. Nazis did that just fine. The ones who truly have courage are the ones who stand up for what is right.
There is no difference morally between those soldiers who commit atrocities because they are ordered to and soldiers who lie and cover up atrocities because they are told to. If you see this video and you keep your mouth shut - you are as bad as those who did it. Is there no soldier who has the guts to stand up and say, "This is wrong and I am not going to participate in this!" We know about what happened in Iraq because someone had the courage to do what is obviously the right thing to do. So - I say to the military - who's side are you on? Do you serve the People or do you cover your own sorry butt?
So - are you brave enough to stand up for what is right? Tell me who is going to win the bet - me or my girlfriend?
Are we any better than Saddam?
Letter to the Editor
First America went to war to liberate Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. That turned out to be a lie. Then it was because Saddam was an oppressive dictator who tortured, raped, and murdered his people. Now it turns out that Americans are now torturing, raping, and murdering the Iraqi people. And Rumsfield has said the pictures we haven't seen include guards sodomizing young boys, female prisoners raped, sadistic torture, and indecent acts with dead bodies. Today the Statue of Liberty is standing on a box with a bag over her head.
May 04, 2004
3000 Prisoners Slaughtered in Afganastan
If you think that prisoner abuse in Iraq is bad - you haven't seen anything yet. I snagged this video off the Internet about a year ago and I think it's finally time I posted it.
Convoy of Death
There's only one war on our television screens now - that other war, the one from just a year ago, has been forgotten - but not by everyone. In Afghanistan, filmmaker Jamie Doran has uncovered evidence of a massacre: Taliban prisoners of war suffocated in containers, shot in the desert under the watch of American troops.
After screening the videotape last fall, the European Parliament called for an investigation. The United Nations has authorized an official investigation into the film's allegations, but only if the security of its members can be guaranteed. And security is hard to find in northern Afghanistan. Since this documentary was filmed, eyewitnesses have been tortured. Others have disappeared or been killed.
This video is about how the US slaughtered 3000 Afgan prisoners of war. The video is big - 55 megs download and it is shocking. It makes the Black Hole of Calcutta look like a picnic. These prisoners were left in sealed truck containers to suffocate and fry in the hot sun. The few that survived a week were taken out and shot an buried in mass graves.
The video is EXTREMELY disturbing and it will give you nightmares. If you are not ready to see this footage - DO NOT WATCH IT !!! This is NAZI level stuff.
Afgan POWs Killed - 55mb Quicktime Format
Read about the making of this video on Buzzflash:
Once you've seen this - call your congress critter and let them know about this. The only thing scarier that the fact that this happened is that fact that Bush is covering it up.
Action speak louder than words
Letter to the Editor
We don't know what Bush said at the 9-11 hearing but his actions speak louder than his words. Bush resisted creating the commission, then he resisted testifying before it. When he did testify he insisted on doing it behind closed doors, with Cheney there to guide him, and with no recording device or transcripts allowed.
Obviously Bush isn't very proud of his 9-11 conduct because he's doing everything he can to hide it. The way I see it - if he's hiding it - it's because he knows he has something to hide.
April 26, 2004
Kerry War Medals
Letter to the Editor
It's amusing seeing the press go after Kerry about the details of his
many Vietnam combat medals. At least Kerry had medals for serving. Bush
on the other hand got a pass on Vietnam. He was in the national guard -
he was AWOL - and he spent the Vietnam era drunk and high on cocaine.
But - you don't see that in the Republican owned press. Kerry is a hero
- Bush is a zero.
April 22, 2004
Saddam to return to power!
You heard it here first. Having realized that Saddam - a fierce oppressor of his people - created stability and kept the terrorists at bay. So Bush has decided to put Saddam back in power. Saddam will resume shipping oil and contract with Halliburton to manage reconstruction.
Election Terrorism
Letter to the Editor
Most people believe that there will be some sort of terrorist attack against the United States before the election. And there probably will be because Bush wasted all our resources going after Iraq when he should have gone after Osama bin Laden. Now the real terrorists are not only free but stronger than ever. If we are attacked it will be a result of another failure of leadership of the Bush administration. This is the sort of thing that happens when we have a president who just isn't smart enough to do the job.
------------------
Osama bin Laden is stronger than ever. We are the most feared and hated nation on the planet right now. Even our alies like France, Germany, Russia, and even Canada think we've gone mad.
April 20, 2004
Election Gas Price Fixing
Letter to the Editor
It's no surprise that there is a Saudi plan to reduce gas prices to help Bush get elected. After all - they owe Bush big time. 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and they were funding Osama bin Laden. Bush and the Sandi's are so close that the Saudi ambassador knew Bush was going to war with Iraq before Secretary of State Colin Powell was told. Saudi Arabia is getting quite rich this summer at the expense of the American people.
April 17, 2004
Don't renew Patriot Act
Letter to the Editor
Bush wants the Patriot Acts renewed because of the "war on terror". But why should we surrender our freedom when Bush sacrifices the war on terror to go after Iraq instead? What's the point of having more government spying when the FBI comes to the president and tells him that bin Laden is about to attack and he doesn't act on it? America doesn't need more spies - it needs a leader. The first step in the war on terror will be when we get rid of Bush and take our freedom back.
April 16, 2004
Spain did the Right Thing
Letter to the Editor
The Bush administration complains that Spain is giving into terrorism because Spain is pulling out of Iraq. But this is not the case. When Spain was attacked by Bin Laden they realized that they were making an error supporting Bush's phony war in Iraq. That they could no longer waste their resources on Iraq and that they should go after the real terrorists instead. I just hope that someday we in America figure out that it's more effective to go after the real enemy - Bin Laden - rather than fake enemies like Iraq.
April 02, 2004
Working on a new web site
I'm building a new web site bushreelected.com. I use that name for rearch engine purposes only and its about what will happen in the future if Bush is reelected or reselected - or just steals another election.
I'm looking for some authors to write verious sections of this and create a fairly massive amount of dire predictions and hope to draw some attention to it.
Bush knew about 9-11 in Advance
Whistleblower the White House wants to silence speaks to The Independent
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.
She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".
Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".
She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."
She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers."
The accusations from Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who speaks Azerbaijani, Farsi, Turkish and English, will reignite the controversy over whether the administration ignored warnings about al-Qa'ida. That controversy was sparked most recently by Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism official, who has accused the administration of ignoring his warnings.
The issue what the administration knew and when is central to the investigation by the 9/11 Commission, which has been hearing testimony in public and private from government officials, intelligence officials and secret sources. Earlier this week, the White House made a U-turn when it said that Ms Rice would appear in public before the commission to answer questions. Mr Bush and his deputy, Dick Cheney, will also be questioned in a closed-door session.
Mrs Edmonds, 33, says she gave her evidence to the commission in a specially constructed "secure" room at its offices in Washington on 11 February. She was hired as a translator for the FBI's Washington field office on 13 September 2001, just two days after the al-Qa'ida attacks. Her job was to translate documents and recordings from FBI wire-taps.
She said said it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. "Most of what I told the commission 90 per cent of it related to the investigations that I was involved in or just from working in the department. Two hundred translators side by side, you get to see and hear a lot of other things as well."
"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.
To try to refute Mr Clarke's accusations, Ms Rice said the administration did take steps to counter al-Qa'ida. But in an opinion piece in The Washington Post on 22 March, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."
Mrs Edmonds said that by using the word "we", Ms Rice told an "outrageous lie". She said: "Rice says 'we' not 'I'. That would include all people from the FBI, the CIA and DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency]. I am saying that is impossible."
It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However, some senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went public with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption within the FBI's translation department.
March 31, 2004
Clinton should Testify
Letter to the Editor
The issue has been raised about what Clinton did or didn't do to fight terrorism. I say - let's call Clinton to testify to the 9-11 commission - in public - and under oath. In the interest of getting to the bottom of the problem so that 9-11 never happens again - I think Clinton could shed important light on the topic and can address issues that have been raised.
Additionally - when Bush testifies it should also be in public and under oath. The fact that he won't take the oath makes it look like he intends to be less that fully truthful. I say - let's get this all out in the open.
National Security
Letter to the Editor
If the Bush administration went after al Qaeda the way Bush is going after Richard Clarke for saying that Clinton did a better job on terrorism than Bush did, there wouldn't be a terrorist threat to worry about.
March 28, 2004
Condi Won't Talk
Letter to the Editor
I find it amazing that Condoleezza Rice won't testify to the 9-11 commission referencing "constitutional issues " and "separation of powers". Seems I don't remember these issues being a problem back when the Republicans were dragging President Clinton and everyone in his administration before congressional panels. The way the Bush administration is hiding things make one wonder if they have something to hide? The more Ms. Rice says she won't talk - the more interested I am in hearing what she's not saying.
March 26, 2004
US Vetos Condemnation of Assassination
Letter to the Editor
Its an interesting dilemma when it comes to condemning assassinating terrorists. Sort of a no win situation. Certainly someone who terrorizes can't complain when the victims strike back. But in a culture of war and mutual terrorism to we condone or condemn such acts? What is the right way to end the cycle of violence? Every time you kill a terrorist - it causes them to breed. But to not kill them inspires them as well. And there are those who use such violence for political posturing and personal profit. If Bush is going to posture as the "War President" then he's going to need a lot of war to divert attention away from a collapsing economy.
America has always been the voice of peace - not war. We are making too many enemies in the world and its time we changed direction and start making friends. We have a lot of work to do to rid the world of terrorism and we can no longer afford to support a political opportunist who feeds on war. What we need is a "Peace President" - not a "War President". A president who has good judgment and can figure out who the enemy is.
March 23, 2004
Widow with child says Bush lied!
Woman and baby lose husband/father in Iraq for nothing!
Wouldn't it piss you off if Bush killed a member of your family? I guess Bush lost 2 votes - the soldier who would have voted for him - the the widow left behind. Here's her story.
CENTER POINT, Texas (Reuters) - At a ceremony on Tuesday marking the one-year anniversary of the Iraqi attack on Pvt. Jessica Lynch's Army unit, the widow of a soldier who died in the fight blasted President Bush (news - web sites) for "lying to America" to justify the Iraq (news - web sites) war.
In bitter comments beside the grave of Army Specialist James Kiehl, widow Jill Kiehl accused Bush of fabricating reasons to launch the invasion that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
"The evidence that's starting to come out now feels like he (Bush) was misleading us," Kiehl said, holding the couple's 10-month-old son Nathaniel, born seven weeks after his father died.
"It's almost as though he had things fixed so it would look like he needed to go to war," she said.
James Kiehl, a 22-year-old computer engineer, was one of 11 members of the 507th Maintenance Company killed when their convoy took a wrong turn at Nassiriya in southern Iraq on March 23, 2003 and were attacked by Iraqi fighters.
Seven others were captured, including Lynch, who was held for nine days before U.S. troops rescued her from a hospital.
Several members of the unit, not including Lynch, attended the ceremony in Center Point, 35 miles northwest of San Antonio.
Jill Kiehl described herself as "bitter" about Bush's decision to declare war on Iraq.
"It's upsetting that he (Bush) would have lied to America to get what he wanted," Kiehl said.
"In a way, it's like he used people. That's how I feel. I think the reasons for going over there were bogus and misleading."
Bush justified the invasion on grounds that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to Al Qaeda, the Islamic extremist group blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. So far, no such weapons have been found and little evidence of Al Qaeda connections has turned up.
March 21, 2004
Help America get rid of Bush
Letter to the Editor
An open letter to the citizens of the world. Even though Bush is president of the United States Bush affects every person on the planet - and not for the better. Bush has become a global menace and I call on the people of the world to do everything in their power to stop him. I would remind you that Bush has no problem with the idea of influencing other countries and way he sees fit.
I am concerned that if Bush isn't removed from office that we are going to end up in World War III but the end of this decade. We are the most powerful nation on the planet and we are controlled by madmen who were never elected in the first place. A year ago today Bush was talking about using nuclear weapons against Iraq in a war we now know he faked. I would ask you - what will the world look like 4 years from now if Bush isn't removed?
For years America has been the beacon for freedom and democracy and has come to the aid of countries who's liberties were threatened. Today it is us who are coming to you because our liberty is threatened. And - we are a very dangerous nation - to dangerous to be in the wrong hands. Please help us.
--------
Nuclear weapons on the table in a Iraqi war
By Lance Gay
- The Bush administration won't take nuclear weapons off the table as military planners sketch out a war in Iraq and weigh whether Saddam Hussein would likely lash back with chemical or biological weapons if cornered.
In a policy publicly unveiled in December, the White House said America's strategy is to consider all options against any use of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons on American troops or U.S. allies.
"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including through resort to all of our options - to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, or forces abroad, and friends and allies," it says.
Critics say the new policy removes nuclear weapons from their special classification, and makes the Pentagon consider wider use of them. The Pentagon has already studied the possibility of using low-yield nuclear bombs to destroy underground bunkers or buried stockpiles or chemical or biological weapons.
In a report sent to Congress last year, the military concluded that new generations of laser-guided conventional weapons were so accurate they could do a better bunker-busting job than nuclear weapons, which aren't as accurate. Furthermore, nuclear explosions could create so much damage they might spread chemical or biological weapons to surrounding civilian areas, and make it more difficult to clean up contaminated areas once the war is over, the military concluded.
Some military analysts say the Bush administration is forcing a shift in how the military would use nuclear weapons.
"There is a greater willingness to entertain a nuclear response," said Michael Levi, deputy director of the strategic security project at the American Federation of Scientists. Levi contended that it's possible under the new doctrine that the U.S. military could respond to a chemical weapons attack with nuclear weapons, although he expects that any decision would hinge on how many people were killed in an Iraqi attack.
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, and also has used the weapons against Iraqi Kurds. But he did not use them during the Persian Gulf War, or install chemical weapons on Scud missiles he sent to Israel.
Levi said he expects Saddam will use chemical weapons, both against U.S troops and Israel, this time. "It is difficult to deter someone who has nothing to lose," he said.
Francois Boo, an analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington think tank, said a new war with Iraq would be different because President Bush has repeatedly declared his intention this time to depose Saddam and his regime. U.N. weapons inspectors say they have not yet had an accounting for vast stocks of VX nerve gas, chemicals used to make mustard gas, or stockpiles of anthrax that Iraq has hidden.
"The restrictions are gone, and he will try to create as many casualties as possible," Boo said. Boo said he also expects Saddam would order the use of chemical weapons in a last-ditch effort to blunt an American attack.
But responding to a chemical attack with nuclear weapons "would cause more harm than good," and would send a message to other countries that the nuclear threshold has been lowered. "It's very unlikely we would turn Iraq into a giant glass bowl," he said.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said using nuclear weapons in Iraq would also cause a backlash against the United States in the Arab world, and be a recruiting tool for terrorists. "Our nation, long a beacon of hope, would overnight be seen as a symbol of death, destruction and aggression."
March 16, 2004
Question for those who support same sex marriage
Letter to the Editor
I have some questions for those who support same sex marriage - should I be allowed to marry my brother? If not - why not?
I would point out that the reason for not marrying my sister is that if we reproduced - then we would likely have birth complications. However - that doesn't apply if I marry my brother because I can't get him pregnant. For that matter - should I be allowed to marry my sister of one or both of us are not capable of reproducing? - If not - why not?
Should I be allowed to marry more than one person? Why limit marriage to only 2 people? Why not 3 or 4? Why have a limit?
Should I be allowed to marry my cat - especially when a cat is much more likely to make a lifelong commitment that a human. In fact - I would bet that if someone compared the average number of years an owner and their pet stay together and a man and wife stay together - the pets would win.
For those who want to move the line on what people should and shouldn't marry - where do you want to move the line to? And - why should the line be there?
----------------------------------
If it were up to me - I would move the line back the other way to include only couples with children. To me marriage is about families - reproducing - creating new generations. I would therefore - if I were King - grant civil unions to same sex couples and non-reproducing heterosexual couples.
All marriages are really civil unions in the eyes of the state because all states have no fault divorce laws. Therefore the state doesn't really recognize the "relationship" part of a marriage and marriage is really just a bad property agreement where if the relationship fails then two lawyers get to keep your property. From someone who has been chewed by the courts I say to same sex couples - be careful what you ask for - you might get it!
March 14, 2004
Iraq - One year Later
Letter to the Editor
Its been one years since the war started - are we better off today? I think not. Saddam has been replaced by chaos. No weapons were found. We may be stuck over there forever. America is hated and feared by countries that were our allies. Tens of thousands of lives lost for nothing. The deficit is 500 billion a year and climbing. Schools are closing. Gas prices at record highs and Greenspan talks of rationing Social Security.
Clearly America did not win this war. The only one who seems better off today than they were a year ago is Bin Laden because America is far weaker and world opinion has turned against us. I think America needs a regime change.
March 13, 2004
Bush Can't be Reelected
Letter to the Editor
In spite of administration hopes it will be impossible for Bush to be reelected this year for one simple reason - Bush was never elected in the first place.
US Funding Venezuela Overthrow
Washington has been channelling hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund the political opponents of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - including those who briefly overthrew the democratically elected leader in a coup two years ago.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that, in 2002, America paid more than a million dollars to those political groups in what it claims is an ongoing effort to build democracy and "strengthen political parties". Mr Chavez has seized on the information, telling Washington to "get its hands off Venezuela".
The revelation about America's funding of Mr Chavez's opponents comes as the president is facing a possible recall referendum and has been rocked by a series of violent street demonstrations in which at least eight people have died. His opponents, who include politicians, some labour leaders, media executives and former managers at the state oil company, are trying to collect sufficient signatures to force a national vote. The documents reveal that one of the group's organising the collection of signatures - Sumate - received $53,400 (£30,000) from the US last September.
Jeremy Bigwood, a Washington-based freelance journalist who obtained the documents, yesterday told The Independent: "This repeats a pattern started in Nicaragua in the election of 1990 when [the US] spent $20 per voter to get rid of [the Sandinista President Daniel] Ortega. It's done in the name of democracy but it's rather hypocritical. Venezuela does have a democratically elected President who won the popular vote which is not the case with the US."
The funding has been made by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) a non-profit agency financed entirely by Congress. It distributes $40m (£22m) a year to various groups in what it says is an effort to strengthen democracy.
But critics of the NED say the organisation routinely meddles in other countries' affairs to support groups that believe in free enterprise, minimal government intervention in the economy and opposition to socialism in any form. In recent years, the NED has channelled funds to the political opponents of the recently ousted Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide at the same time that Washington was blocking loans to his government.
"It the sort of stuff that used to be done by the CIA," said Mr Bigwood. "I am not particularly interested in Mr Chavez - I am interested in what Washington is doing." In Venezuela, the NED channelled the money to three of its four main operational "wings": the international arms of the Republican and Democratic parties - the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs respectively - and the foreign policy wing of the AFL-CIO union, the American Centre for International Labour Solidarity.
These groups ran workshops, training sessions and provided free advice to three political parties in Venezuela - Democratic Action, Copei and First Justice - the leaderships of which have been at the forefront of efforts to recall Mr Chavez.
Chris Sabatini, the director of the NED for Latin America, claimed the organisation's aim is to promote democracy and "build political space". He told the New York Times that the endowment had been working with civic groups in Venezuela with no political ties and human rights groups.
Relations between the US and Venezuela have not been so tense since April 2002 when Mr Chavez was briefly ousted by opponents who had been supported by the US in the run-up to the coup. At the time, Washington blamed Mr Chavez for his own downfall.
Washington's antipathy towards Mr Chavez is fuelled by his friendship with Cuba's Fidel Castro and his open criticism of Washington-backed free market policies. But Venezuela is also America's fourth largest supplier of oil - something that gives Mr Chavez a degree of leverage but, at the same time, makes him vulnerable to those who would like to see a more pro-American leader in power.
In recent days, Caracas and other cities have been rocked by demonstrations in support of the recall vote. Those intensified after the supposedly independent elections council ruled that government opponents lacked enough total signatures to force the vote. There have also been large and vociferous marches by thousands of supporters of the president who oppose the vote.
Medicare Analyst Muzzeled
WASHINGTON - The nation's top Medicare cost analyst confirmed yesterday that his former boss had ordered him to withhold from lawmakers unfavorable cost estimates about the Medicare prescription-drug bill. He said the estimates exceeded what Congress seemed willing to accept by more than $100 billion.
Richard Foster, chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said that in early June he received a written note from Thomas Scully, then the centers' administrator, ordering him to ignore information requests from members of Congress who were drafting the drug bill.
The Inquirer Washington Bureau reported the episode in an exclusive published yesterday, but Foster's comments were his first on the matter. Yesterday, House and Senate leaders called for investigations into the alleged muzzling. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) said the allegations justified reopening the vote on the drug benefit. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D., Mass.) wrote President Bush demanding to know what cost estimates he used in pushing the new drug benefit, which Congress passed in November and which Bush signed into law Dec. 8.
Scully's note, Foster said, "was a direct order not to respond to certain requests and instead to provide the responses to him and warn about the consequences of insubordination."
The note was Scully's first threat in writing, according to Foster, and came after at least three less formal threats.
They "came in different forms," he said. "Sometimes he would make a comment that 'I think I need another chief actuary,' or, 'If you want to work for the Ways and Means Committee, I can arrange it.' It was that sort of thing." Ways and Means was drafting the bill.
Efforts to reach Scully at his office and home yesterday were unsuccessful. In a recent interview, he denied closing off Foster's lines of communication with Congress. On only one occasion, Scully said, did he block Foster's contacts with lawmakers, in this case Democrats, saying their motives were purely political.
Foster said Scully insisted on a pattern of withholding of information.
"Estimates that were supportive of the legislation were generally released, and estimates that could be used to criticize the legislation were generally not released," Foster said.
He said he believed that higher-ranking members of the administration than Scully knew of the higher cost estimates his office had computed.
"Did the President know? Did Secretary Tommy Thompson know? I don't know," Foster said. Thompson heads the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the Medicare office.
The White House press office did not respond to requests seeking comment.
The Inquirer reported yesterday that Foster's office had suggested that the drug benefit would cost at least $100 billion more than the $395 billion estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, whose job it is to project costs of legislation.
One projection prepared in early June by Foster's office and obtained by the Inquirer Washington Bureau concluded that a Senate version of the bill might cost as much as $551 billion.
At the time of the estimate, the House was sharply divided on the proposed new Medicare drug benefit, which the administration strongly backed. Ultimately, the House passed the measure, 216-215, on June 27. In November, it endorsed a House-Senate compromise version, 220-215; the yes votes included 13 Republican fiscal conservatives who had said they would vote against the bill if it cost more than $400 billion for its first 10 years.
When Bush signed the bill, the drug benefit was touted as costing $395 billion. In January, Bush's budget director, Joshua Bolten, raised the estimate to $534 billion.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) noted yesterday that Foster's estimates were based on different and costlier assumptions than those of the Congressional Budget Office.
Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson added: "If an individual's job was threatened and if they were trying to shield information from Congress, that could be an issue of concern."
Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R., Iowa), chairman of the Finance Committee, said Foster's estimates "should not have been withheld. Government analysts with relevant information should never be muzzled."
In a floor speech yesterday, Daschle called for reopening the vote on the drug benefit. He also called for an investigation into the firing threat and assertions that the administration had withheld its cost estimates from Congress.
"Whether this is criminal or not is a matter we will certainly want to clarify," Daschle said. "But if not criminal, it was certainly unethical. And I think we need to know the facts."
A group of House Democrats concurred, asking that the HHS inspector general investigate.
Foster, a senior civil servant, remains on his job. He said he had new and strong support from Thompson and from Medicare's newly confirmed chief, Mark McClellan.
Bush ads confuse me
Letter to the Editor
Bush's TV ads confuse me. He seems to be pointing out all his failures as if they were accomplishments. He uses 9-11 but is running from the investigating panel as if he were hiding something. He touts the economy but the economy is in the worst shape ever. Taxes are the highest ever - gas is at record high - government spending at record highs and increasing - record deficits - and state economies pushed to the verge of collapse. Schools are shutting down. Hospitals are closing. Greenspan is talking about rationing social security and medicare. Government spying on people. 2 million jobs lost. The country is falling apart. His ads are reminding us of his failures.
March 05, 2004
Martha Steward Convicted
Letter to the Editor
A jury has convicted Martha Stewart of lying to the government and she will probably go to prison for it. However her lie isn't nearly as serious as the lie Bush told the nation to trick us into going to war with Iraq. Does the government go to prison when it lies to the people?
March 04, 2004
Bush ad I'd like to see
Letter to the Editor
Here's a Bush style ad I'd like to see: "Kerry voted for Bush's Patriot Act! Kerry voted for Bush's tax cuts for the rich! Kerry voted for Bush's illegal war in Iraq! Now he's changed his mind. Can you trust someone who votes with a slimeball like Bush? NO! -- Vote Bush!"
---------
Yes - it is stolen from a Simpsons epasode - but when the Republicans started criticizing Kerry for voting with Bush - it was the same logic.
February 26, 2004
Republicans Killing Social Security
Letter to the Editor
Allan Greenspan has just confirmed what many people have already known for years - that the Republicans are out to destroy Social Security. We can't touch the big tax breaks for the super rich - says Greenspan. So the next generation of Americans should be preparing to eat dog food when they turn 65. There is no doubt now that 4 more years of Bush and Republicans will end Social Security. America is a nation in decline and denial. It may be already too late to stop the bleeding.
February 21, 2004
Nader Running to Elect Bush
Letter to the Editor
Ralph Nader - who managed to split the anti-republican vote and get Bush selected as president is running again for the same reason. Nader gives Republicans a chance to donate twice in this year's election. They can give once to Bush - and once to Nader to draw people away from the Democratic nominee. When Nader posts his contributions I'll bet you'll see that the majority of his big contributors will be the same people who are also big contributors to Bush. Nader knows he can't possibly win. The only thing Nader can accomplish is to make sure Bush wins. Nader is very dishonest.
February 15, 2004
More Fun with Google
Letter to the Editor
A few months ago there was a story in the news - that if you searched for "miserable failure" on Google, you got Bush's biography. I've been playing with Google to see what other words return what results and its quite a lot of fun. Micheal Moore's site talking about Bush now replaces the first spot for "miserable failure" Bush is now second. Same results if "miserable" and "failure" are used separately. But anti-bust sites take #1 for the words "AWOL", "chimp" and "worst president ever". If you type in "budget surplus" however - you get a story about Clinton.
February 03, 2004
Bush to try again to overthrow Venezuela
Sources in Washington D.C. have revealed that Bush 2 administration officials are again seeking to "stimulate" a regime change in Venezuela after a USA-backed coup d'etat against democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez Frias failed when US puppet dictator Pedro Carmona Estanga moved to dissolve parliament, the judiciary and the constitution in one fell swoop.
Our sources (which must remain confidential, but have been verified) say that Venezuelan nationals, recruited on the promise of fast-track US citizenship and benefits, have been trained in the arts of USA terror tactics at the US Army School of Americas-SOA (renamed 3 years ago as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation-WHISC) at Fort Benning (Georgia) were relocated to training camps at Iquitos in the northern jungles of Peru under the direction of US Southern Command (Latin America & Caribbean) regional HQ at Fort Buchanan (San Juan, Puerto Rico).
SOA/WHISC commanders are said to be "smarting" over their failure to impose a US-backed military/civilian dictatorship in Venezuela in April 2002 when democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez Frias was swiftly returned to power after US-puppet dictator Pedro Carmona Estanga dissolved parliament, the judiciary and Venezuela's constitution in one fell swoop. Carmona Estanga was not able to control the massive surge against him as millions of Venezuelans took to the streets repudiating his imposition and demanding the return of reformist Chavez Frias.
Covert US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives are already in place in Venezuela as the SOA/WHISC prepares for what it is calling "a second bite at the cherry." Bush 2 Latin America 'enforcer' Otto Reich has been holding top level meetings with strategists from the Venezuelan political opposition in Washington D.C. who also had meetings there last week with shadowy Venezuelan billionaire Gustavo Cisneros and former US White House insider Henry Kissinger.
Corrupt Venezuelan Confederation of Trade Unions (CTV) president Manuel Cova and Coordinadora Democratica (CD) representative Timoteo Zambrano have met with senior US State Department officials, including Reich, although both are attempting to whitewash their visit to D.C. as simply a round of information meetings they could equally have held with anti-Venezuelan US Ambassador Charles S. Shapiro at the Colinas de Valle Arriba bunker in Caracas. Cova and Zambrano were also meeting with Organization of American States (OAS) Secretary General, former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria and US congressmen, including Massachussetts Democrat Frank Barney, a member of the secretive US Select Committee on Homeland Security, where he serves on the Subcommittee on Infrastructure & Border Security and the Subcommittee on Intelligence & Counterterrorism.
While, on the face of it, US State Department spokespersons are calling on all side in Venezuela's tumultuous electoral process to respect established norms and procedures, radical opposition meetings with USA-OAS Roger Noriega and Senator Charles E. Shannon have led IC operatives in D.C. to dig deeper into Beltway motives while senior diplomat Peter DeShazo (who recently visited Caracas to speak personally with President Chavez Frias) is seen as having a more mediative role in alliance with former US Ambassador and Latin America expert John Maisto.
Meanwhile, SOA/WHISC troops are hunkered down ready to be drafted into Venezuela as soon as opposition-inspired violence breaks out. US Air Force and Navy contingents are being made ready at a Southern Command base on the Caribbean island of Aruba (Dutch Antilles) to provide logistic and material back-up to an invasion force. A US Navy hospital ship is also said to be on standby to sail to a position off the Venezuela's northern coastline at first signal of "the balloon going up."
The remaining question is no longer IF, but WHEN!
From VHedline.com
January 26, 2004
Surplus to Deficits
Letter to the Editor
Just 3 years ago the Congressional Budget Office was projecting 10 years of surpluses. Under Clinton we dreamed about paying off the national debt by the end of the decade. Now they are projecting 10 years of deficits with this year's deficity setting another record - one half trillion dollars on the red. Cheney says that deficits don't matter. Having gone from the biggest surplus in the history of the world to the biggest deficit in the history of the world in just 3 years make me wonder what Bush is even running again. I'm scared to think what America will be like with 4 more years of Bush.
---
It does make you wonder - with America falling apart and governments on the verge of collapse - what will America be like with 4 more years of Bush. Will he succeed in totally destroying this country? Will he start World War 3? Will the deficit rise to 2 trillion dollars a year? The idea is too scary to think about. Maybe I need to plan to move out of the country but in this day and age there's no place that's safe anymore.
January 24, 2004
Blair's Wife says - Bush Stole the Election
From this article in the Times of India.
Bush 'stole' the presidential election: Cherie
PTI[ SATURDAY, JANUARY 24, 2004 08:20:21 PM ]
LONDON : In a forthright view that is likely to embarrass her husband, Cherie Blair, wife of Prime Minister Tony Blair, is reported to have observed that George W Bush "stole" the US presidential election from Al Gore.
"Cherie Blair still believed that Bush had stolen the White House from Gore," author Philip Stephens wrote in his book "Tony Blair: The Making of a World Leader. "
Although Tony Blair was pragmatic about Bush's victory, Mrs Blair was far less sanguine about the Supreme Court decision that gave him the keys to the White House.
She believed Al Gore had been "robbed" of the presidency and was hostile to the idea of her husband "cosying" up to the new President.
Even as they flew to Washington for their first meeting with the presidential couple, Mrs Blair was in no mood to curry favour, the book stated.
The book's disclosures of Mrs Blair's forthright views will cause embarrassment in Downing Street, because of Blair's good working relations with Bush, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, although they will not surprise officials or ministers who know her well.
January 21, 2004
Bush Serves Troops Fake Turkey
|
As if this would surprize anyone - the turkey Bush served the troops for Thanksgiving is FAKE! Everything about Bush is fake. What you're looking at is Bush serving the troops a PLASTIC turkey. But - its consistent. A fake turkey for a fake war served buy a fake president.
We live in a fake democracy with fake freedom. This is an example of what the Bush government is trying to feed us.
The picture is from the FAKE NEWS MEDIA who is trying to get us to believe the fake news. And if you believe any of what Bush is saying then you'll probably believe in the fake economic recovery and we're going to send a man to Mars!
January 20, 2004
America is not safer!
Letter to the Editor
Its interesting to listen to Bush claim that we are fighting a war on terror when he fails to mention Osama bin Laden. Today is 861 days since 9-11 and it would appear that he got away with it. He is free and America is not free. We no longer seem to be investigating the Anthrax attack either.
The war on terror is a sham if we do not pursue those who actually did it. A victory over a fake enemy from a war that was a fraud does not make America safer or more secure. We are living a lie. I say its time to face reality as it really is.
----
Fake war - fake security - fake economy - fake news - fake religion - fake election - fake presidency - its all one big fraud!
Bush Says - Whoopie! we're all going to Mars!
Letter to NASA
Dear NASA,
As a government agency controlled by the Bush Administration I understand that you are obligated to put the Bush Ad up on your web site. However - the reality is - we are not going to Mars. Bush has absolutely no intension of going there. This is nothing more than a political ploy to win the votes of NASA supporters so that Bush can get reelected and gut the space program.
Surely you people aren't stupid enought to believe this - are you?
Thanks for listening - please pass this email around.
Marc Perkel
First One
Church of Reality
"If its real - we believe in it!"
January 18, 2004
Free Speech Zones - or Speech Free Zones?
Letter to the Editor
Any time Bush goes out in public the police remove all the protesters to "Free Speech Zones" - which are in a location where they can not be heard. These are not really "Free Speech Zones" but rather they create "Speech Free Zones" around Bush where free speech is prohibited.
I ask the question - can we really call America a free country when the right to speak is prohibited any place the president goes? Who would have thought that our liberties would be so suppressed and that Americans would stand by - doing nothing - and allow it to happen. Americans are unwilling to fight for the freedom to speak. Lady Liberty is dead - and Bush spits on her grave.
-----
Freedom is an illusion - no more than a slogan. America is not a free country. We have become the enemy of freedom.
January 11, 2004
Bush orders settlement to conservative GOP website by City of Fresno
Settlement funnels money to local conservative website on orders of president George Bush. Rightwing website "FreeRepublic" to recieve large settlement from City of Fresno.
This is urgent-read and call the attorney general's office as soon as you can. We must stop this criminal give-away to GOP activists at taxpayer expense.
The City of Fresno has announced it is paying a large settlement to the "FreeRepublic", a right wing conservative website/forum to settle a lawsuit filed by Freerepublic alledging defamation and damage of reputation. Some background on the case:
The case FreeRepublic vs. City of Fresno stems from a bulletin sent to Fresno Police by Fresno Human Relations Commissioner Debbie Reyes regarding an event planned on sept. 13th by the Fresno chapter of FreeRepublic Network. This event, billed by Freerepublic as a picnic/rally was a subject of concern to Reyes as she had been made aware of possible counter-protests to the picnic/rally by activists critical of FreeRepublic Network's harrassment of anti-war activists and general right-wing extremist nature. Ms. Reyes faxed a notice to police that there might be possible conflicts at the event and notified them that FreeRepublic was well known as an organized hate group disguising themselves as patriotic americans. This notice and resulting publicity resulted in the lawsuit naming City of Fresno, Debbie Reyes, and Mayor Alan Autry as defendants. They alledged Reyes fax resulted in defamation and filed suit seeking $1,000,000 compensation.
The very very strange thing in all this is George Bush met with Fresno Mayor Alan Autry on 10/15/2003 and there is good reason to believe this lawsuit by the FreeRepublic Network was the main topic of conversation between the two. The FreeRepublic online forum is a darling centerpiece of the GOP party, the largest and most highly trafficked GOP oriented website in existence. Progressive activists have long suspected FreeRepublic receives under the table covert funding directly or indirectly from the GOP party. So it is quite likely and plausible that when Autry met with Bush and discussed this with him Bush told him to pay off these good old-boy conservatives and get some funds into their hands so they can continue their fight against the left and all things progressive.
It is clear that before any settlement is paid to FreeRepublic an investigation into ties between Mayor Alan Autry and FreeRepublic should be undertaken. He has been supportive of their activitys to a suspicious degree and it is apparent he was very interested in arranging for the city to settle out of court on the lawsuit and quickly get some money into the hands of his fellow patriots at FreeRepublic.
Did Fresno Mayor Alan Autry work at the suggestion of George Bush to supply a large cash settlement to FreeRepublic at taxpayer's expense? Demand an investigation.
Contact:
California State Attoney General
(916)322-3360
Bush and Blair behind Khadaffy's WMD sham
From the Toronto Sun. You won't see this in the American Press.
By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor
MIAMI -- Just before New Year, President George Bush and Britain's PM Tony Blair staged what French call a "coup de theatre."
That's Gallic for pulling a political rabbit from one's hat.
The rabbit in question was none other than Libya's Col. Moammar Khadaffy, once reviled as the world's most dangerous man and America's Enemy Number One.
After eight months of secret negotiations with Washington and London, the eccentric Libyan strongman grandly proclaimed his nation was abandoning its weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Bush, his neo-conservative supporters, and the U.S. media crowed that Khadaffy's surrender confirmed the wisdom of invading Afghanistan and Iraq. The evil Khadaffy had been cowed into giving up his arsenal of deadly WMD.
Other "rogue" states would hasten to follow Libya's lead.
But on closer inspection, there was much less to this drama than met the eye. Khadaffy, in fact, had no viable WMD, contrary to fevered claims by neo-con propagandists.
According to UN inspectors and European intelligence sources, Libya had only small amounts of World War I technology mustard gas, a primitive battlefield weapon.
It had no biological or nuclear weapons. Libya had no means of delivering WMD beyond some rusting Scud-B missiles with only a 180-mile range.
Libya possessed an assortment of nuclear junk: a small research reactor, some lab equipment, and a few inoperative, third-hand centrifuges bought from Pakistan or Malaysia.
There is no sign, at least so far, of any capability to make or deliver WMD.
When I was in Libya interviewing Col. Khadaffy, I found there was not a single elevator repairman in the country.
Bakers had to be imported from Egypt to make bread. Seventy percent of Libya's military equipment was broken down. In short, tiny, backward Libya, with a population of only five million, had no military capability.
However, in the 1980s, Libya certainly did fund all sorts of violent revolutionary groups and was implicated in the bombings of French and U.S. airliners.
After 17 years of punishing sanctions against Libya, Khadaffy sought to improve relations with the West by paying reparations for the airliners, and handing over for trial two agents involved in the 1988 Pan Am bombing.
Now, by pretending to eliminate WMD he does not possess, the colonel has given a huge political bonus to Bush and Blair, a way for them to evade censure for shamelessly lying their nations into the Iraq war. They will reward Khadaffy by halting efforts to overthrow him, slowly lifting sanctions, and allowing U.S. and British oil firms to resume exploiting Libya's high-grade oil. That's politics.
The CIA helped Khadaffy into power in 1969. In the 1980s, the U.S., Britain and France each tried to assassinate him.
Now, it seems the flamboyant colonel with nine lives is slated to be reborn as a good Arab and U.S. ally.
Right after the Libyan charade, Washington opened a major new campaign to deprive Pakistan of its nuclear arsenal. The U.S. media trumpeted leaked government reports alleging Pakistan had secretly supplied Iran, North Korea, and Libya with nuclear technology. These reports blurred the lines between exports of civilian and military nuclear technology.
Washington accused Pakistan of being a major nuclear proliferator. Pakistan nervously admitted some of its nuclear scientists may have privately aided neighbour Iran, which has sought nuclear weapons for the past 28 years.
So far, accusations that past or current Pakistani governments were involved with covert nuclear weapons exports remain unproven. A director general of Pakistan's intelligence agency, ISI, once told me Iran had offered to pay Pakistan's entire defence budget for 10 years in exchange for nuclear technology, but Islamabad refused.
Whatever the case, this whole business is worthy of Alice in Wonderland. Who came down from the mountain to ordain that only the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, China, North Korea, India and Israel are allowed to possess nuclear weapons or sell nuclear technology?
The U.S. is about to build a new generation of earth-penetrating nuclear weapons. China and Russia are working on new nuclear systems.
India is building a very powerful nuclear arsenal and developing intercontinental missiles.
Israel has sold India advanced nuclear warhead and missile technology.
Muslim nations, it appears, are the only ones not allowed to possess WMD.
India used to rightly call this "nuclear apartheid" until President Bush allowed Delhi into the nuclear club.
Now that Iraq has been crushed, the White House's next targets are clearly Iran and Pakistan.
Neither pose any threat to the U.S.
Political and economic pressure on Pakistan will intensify.
President Pervez Musharraf, who has been unfailingly responsive to U.S. demands, may soon be asked to place Pakistan's nuclear weapons under joint U.S.-Pakistani control, a prelude to the total elimination of its nuclear arsenal, scientists, and weapons manufacturing capability.
If Bush were really serious about reducing nuclear weapons, as he claims, instead of building more nukes, he should slash America's still huge, quite useless arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads.
That would be called leading by example.
One Hell of a Site for 9-11 Info
This site http://www.complete911timeline.org has everything. Not just the 9-11 timeline but info about the fake Anthrax scare that was created to pass the Patriot Act. Advance warning on 9-11, Afgan oil pipelines, Bin Laden Saudi and Bush connections. A must read for any patriot who loves America and despises what Bush is doing to it.
January 08, 2004
No Weapons - No Bin Laden Ties
Letter to the Editor
Secretary of State Colin Powell finally admitted that there's no link between Saddam Husein and al-Qaida. And Bush has quietly withdrawn a 400-member military team it sent to Baghdad to scour Iraq for evidence of weapons of mass destruction. It was all a lie. We went to war and sent our troops to die for nothing. Their lives continue to be wasted for absolutely no reason at all. Republicans complain about Democrats trying to compare Bush to Hitler. Well - the comparison is not entirely unfounded. This war is a fraud!
America is living a lie. The question that we really have to face is - is the American public really that blind. Are we really that clueless that we actually believe everything Bush says? Well - if you're fool enough to believe we have a reason to be in Iraq then you'll probably believe Bush's next story that we're sending a man to Mars!
Listen to this Audio Clip I made about how sorry the American Press is.
And Another One comparing Mars to Iraq.
Bush calls off search for weapons in Iraq
Had to go to the Irish Times to find this. You won't see this in the Bush controlled American Press.
US calls off search for weapons of mass destruction
The Bush administration has quietly withdrawn a 400-member military team it sent to Baghdad to scour Iraq for evidence of unconventional weapons, write Conor O'Clery in New York & Deaglán de Bréadún in Dublin.
The move indicates that the US does not now expect to find illegal weapons, the main reason given by President Bush for the war last year that toppled Saddam Hussein.
At the same time, a prestigious Washington-based research foundation, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has published a scathing report on President Bush's case for war.
The US weapons team, whose withdrawal was reported yesterday by the New York Times, is the key unit of a 1,400-member US survey group sent to find weapons of mass destruction. Head of the group Mr David Kay is in Washington with his deputy, Gen Keith Dayton, and may quit his post soon, the paper also reported.
Most of the dozens of linguists and intelligence analysts assigned to the team, known as the Joint Captured Material Exploitation Group, have been transferred to anti-insurgency duties, a senior US Defence Department official said.
The newspaper said that, according to a senior official, the search for Iraqi weapons remains "the primary focus" of the survey group. But the official acknowledged that most of the new linguists and intelligence analysts to join the team had recently been given assignments combating the Iraqi insurgency rather than searching for weapons of mass destruction.
US analysts are still wading through a "10-mile high" cache of Iraqi documents stored in Qatar for evidence of weapons programmes, according to US officials.
The Carnegie report, WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications, which the endowment regards as the "first comprehensive review of everything we knew" said that President Bush's case for war was "deeply flawed" and compromised the intelligence community.
"Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programmes," said the report. They lumped nuclear, chemical and biological weapons together as a single threat, despite the "very different" danger they posed, which distorted the cost/benefit analysis of the war, it said.
Senior EU security sources expressed grave concern over the findings. "It is very dangerous to manipulate the intelligence community." They added that it would be very unhelpful: "If people get the impression that the intelligence community is being used politically." The Carnegie Endowment analysts were "serious" people and what they were saying was "very, very troubling".
The findings come when the EU-US relationship has been going through a relatively positive phase with all sides trying to put disagreements behind them.
US Secretary of State Mr Colin Powell acknowledged yesterday that he had seen no "smoking gun, concrete evidence" of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, but responding to questions about the Carnegie report insisted that Iraq had had dangerous weapons and needed to be disarmed by force.
Meanwhile, nine people, all believed to be US soldiers, died yesterday when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed near Falluja which has been the centre of sustained resistance to the US occupation. The US also disclosed that one soldier was killed and 34 others were wounded in a mortar attack on a US military base west of Baghdad late on Wednesday.
Earlier yesterday, around 60 Iraqi prisoners were freed from the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad, in a goodwill gesture by the US army.
January 07, 2004
December 30, 2003
New Year's Resolution - Get Rid of Bush!
Letter to the Editor
I'm making it a new years resolution to be more patriotic this year by doing whatever I have to do to get Bush out of the Whitehouse and restore freedom and democracy to America.
It's been almost 4 long years since Bush stole the election. Since then we went from the biggest surplus in the history of the world to the biggest deficit in the history of the world. Peace and prosperity turned into war and poverty. Liberty and Freedom gave way to Homeland Security and the government spying on everything we do. We not send our sons to die in a war in Iraq that has turned out to be a fraud. Freedom and Patriotism are merely marketing slogans and America is shunned in the world community.
America used to be a great nation. We can restore it to the way it used to be. We can go back to the days where the president is elected by the people and not appointed by the supreme court. I want all of you to make it a new year's resolution to rebuild our nation and make America a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people.
December 21, 2003
Saddam's Capture Faked!
Letter to the Editor
As with so many other events in the Bush administration - it turns out that the capture of Saddam Hussein was in fact faked. Yes - Saddam is in custody - but it was the Kurds who had captured him - drugged him - and stuck him in the hole waiting for the Americans to show up in a made for television event. The revelation of this phony story as revealed by a Yahoo news story caused the Bush administration to raise the political threat level to Orange.
This phony capture is just the latest in a string of phony events to justify Bush's phony war - the hunt for phony weapons of mass destruction - and going all that way back to Bush's phony 2000 election. If you believe any of these phony stories then I have a story about a phony economic recovery for you to listen to.
December 20, 2003
Will they prosecute Saddam's Partners?
This is a real picture of our current Secretary of Defense, Donnald (Rummy) Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. The picture was taken during the Reagan Administration after Saddam supposedly gassed the Kurds. Back then we didn't care about that because Saddam was on "our side" and - after all - we gave him the gas. So - isn't it a little late for us to get moralistic about that issue when Rummy has his hands dirty?
Saddam is a bad guy and he deserves to die. But the real threat to the world right now is Bin Laden, Ariel Sharon, and George W. Bush.
December 17, 2003
Getting Saddam to Talk
Bush wants Saddam to talk - but about what is the question. He also wants Saddam to get the death penelty. But still hasn't found any weapons of mass destruction.
So - they make Saddam a deal. He admits to weapons of mass destruction and Bush plants some there and they find them and Bush can retroactively justify his fake war. Look for such a deal to occur.
December 14, 2003
Saddam Captured - One Down - Two to Go
With the capture of Saddam Hussein a tyrant has finally been brought down. But there are still two tyrants left that we need to rid the world of - Osama bin Laden - and the most menacing tyrant of them all - George W. Bush.
It's been 824 days since 9-11. Bin Laden is still free - are you?
-----
Capturing Saddam is a good thing. He is a mass murderer who gassed his own people with the gas we gave him to gas Iranians. America doesn't take kindly to mass murderers who murder people other than the ones we want them to.
But seroiusly - Saddam was only a local threat to the people of his own country. The real threat to the world is George W. Bush who stole the election and is now occupying the United States. We too need to be liberated before he continues to spread war and poverty around the world.
There is no honor in the defeat of Iraq. We disarmed them and at the end suckered them into giving up their few remaining weapons. What honor is there when the strongest nation beats an unarmed country?
December 09, 2003
George W. Bush = Miserable Failure says Google
If you go to Google and type in "misreable failure" it lists Bush's Biography as the first hit. And it's not something Google indented to do deliberately.
Bush actually is a miserable failure. And that's being generous. I would compare him more to the man his grandfather financed to lead Germany in the 1930s.
November 18, 2003
Futures Market for War and Terror is Back!
Terror futures market back in business
Web site says trading will open in March 2004, free of U.S. government influence.
November 17, 2003: 4:26 PM EST
By Mark Gongloff, CNN/Money Staff Writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - A U.S. government plan to create a market allowing traders to bet on the likelihood of terror attacks and other events in the Middle East has been revived by the private firm that helped develop it.
The market, called the Policy Analysis Market (PAM), will allow traders to buy and sell contracts on political and economic events in the Middle East, including assassinations, the overthrow of regimes and terrorist attacks. The market is scheduled to start trading next spring.
It originally was developed and funded with the assistance of the Defense Department, where officials cited the uncanny ability of other futures markets to predict election results, weather patterns and other complex events.
This should be interesting. Let's see = if I bet that the US Economy is going to collapse, can I get paid in some other currency than dollars?
Or - maybe we should privatize Social Security and bet the money on the terror futures market?
This kind of policy even makes Republicans miss Clinton!
Heated public criticism forced the Pentagon to end its association with the project, but its Web site, which was idle for several months, now has an announcement saying it will be open for business in March 2004.
The Pentagon's partners in the venture would have been San Diego-based market technology firm Net Exchange and the Economist Intelligence Unit, publisher of the Economist magazine. The Economist is no longer involved, and Net Exchange is pursuing the venture alone, according to its president, Charles Polk.
In response to the highly charged criticisms that ended the Pentagon's association with the project, Polk noted the market is designed mainly as a research tool, not unlike the Iowa Electronics Markets, which have done a pretty good job of predicting the outcomes of presidential elections.
"It is potentially an interesting alternative to Gallup polls or to specialists reporting from the region," Polk said. "It's a way of going directly to individuals in the region or outside who have knowledge or interest in the political and economic events in the area."
Polk said Net Exchange would initially limit the amount of money traders could invest in the market, so that people won't be profiting from violence or upheaval in the region.
What's more, the futures contracts would be based on general questions, such as the likelihood that the King of Jordan will be overthrown at some point during the second quarter of 2004, for example, rather than on specific acts or events, which could lend themselves to manipulation by terrorists.
"There are no financial incentives for nefarious activities," Polk said.
These were the kinds of concerns that drove much of the criticism of the project this summer. Democrats expressed moral outrage at the prospect of a "betting parlor on atrocities and terrorism," in the words of Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, while Republicans -- including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz -- acknowledged the project subjected the Bush administration to charges of callousness.
But after the project was shelved, some observers expressed disappointment, saying the market could be useful and citing the accuracy of the Iowa futures markets, TradeSports' Saddam Hussein futures market and others. Net Exchange said "many individuals" encouraged it to start the project up again.
Former Admiral John Poindexter, who was forced to leave the Pentagon in part because of his association with the project, will not be involved in the market, Polk said.
November 16, 2003
November 11, 2003
President Bush Library
Here's a greal link to President Bush Library. I've been sitting on this link for years and finally found a way to put it to use. I hope to make it a library of all kinds of Bush corruptions.
Time Magazine Rewites History
Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, by George Bush Sr.
Fairly recently, Time pulled the essay off of their site. It used to be at this link, which now gives a 404 error. If you go to the table of contents for the issue in which the essay appeared (2 March 1998), "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" is conspicuously absent.
Here's what Time doesn't want you to know.
George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft
Time (2 March 1998)
The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose.
We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan--just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border--and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; Safwan was waiting.
As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid.
The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.
What's significant here is two things. One is the idea that Time Magazine is going back and retroactively taking out articles from past published magazines. Time is trying to pretend this article never happened. I have a problem with the idea of rewriting history retroactively.
The second problem is specifically why they pulled this article. Obviously Time is covering up for Bush Jr. - but - what is the process behind the sceens that caused this to occur? Whatever it is - it's clear that Bush controls Time - and that causes me to question whether or not anything in Time is worth reading.
It also makes me wonder what other articles that Time has pulled and what articles other publications pull in order to alter the past.
This article is printed in full. I cliam a fair use right to it because I'm writing about a coverup and this is the jubject of what I'm writing about - so - if Time doesn't like it - then see you in court.
November 09, 2003
Bush Nazi Connection Continued
BUSH-NAZI DEALINGS CONTINUED UNTIL 1951 - FEDERAL DOCUMENTS
By John Buchanan and Stacey Michael
Exclusive to The New Hampshire Gazette, Vol. 248, No. 3, November 7, 2003
(Note - the author email this directly to me for posting)
Founded in 1756, The New Hampshire Gazette is The Nation's Oldest Newspaper
After the seizures in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, failed to divest himself of more than a dozen "enemy national" relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal.
Furthermore, the records show that Bush and his colleagues routinely attempted to conceal their activities from government investigators.
Bush's partners in the secret web of Thyssen-controlled ventures included former New York Governor W. Averell Harriman and his younger brother, E. Roland Harriman. Their quarter-century of Nazi financial transactions, from 1924-1951, were conducted by the New York private banking firm, Brown Brothers Harriman.
The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Although the additional seizures under the Trading with the Enemy Act did not take place until after the war, documents from The National Archives and Library of Congress confirm that Bush and his partners continued their Nazi dealings unabated. These activities included a financial relationship with the German city of Hanover and several industrial concerns. They went undetected by investigators until after World War Two.
At the same time Bush and the Harrimans were profiting from their Nazi partnerships, W. Averell Harriman was serving as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's personal emissary to the United Kingdom during the toughest years of the war. On October 28, 1942, the same day two key Bush-Harriman-run businesses were being seized by the U.S. government, Harriman was meeting in London with South African Field Marshall Smuts to discuss the war effort.
Denial and Deceit
While Harriman was concealing his Nazi relationships from his government colleagues, Cornelius Livense, the top executive of the interlocking German concerns held under the corporate umbrella of Union Banking Corporation (UBC), repeatedly tried to mislead investigators, and was sometimes supported in his subterfuge by Brown Brothers Harriman.
All of the assets of UBC and its related businesses belonged to Thyssen-controlled enterprises, including his Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart in Rotterdam, the documents state.
Nevertheless, Livense, president of UBC, claimed to have no knowledge of such a relationship. "Strangely enough, (Livense) claims he does not know the actual ownership of the company," states a government report.
H.D Pennington, manager of Brown Brothers Harriman and a director of UBC "for many years," also lied to investigators about the secret and well-concealed relationship with Thyssen's Dutch bank, according to the documents.
Investigators later reported that the company was "wholly owned" by Thyssen's Dutch bank.
Despite such ongoing subterfuge, U.S. investigators were able to show that "a careful examination of UBC's general ledger, cash books and journals from 1919 until the present date clearly establish that the principal and practically only source of funds has been Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart."
In yet another attempt to mislead investigators, Livense said that $240,000 in banknotes in a safe deposit box at Underwriters Trust Co. in New York had been given to him by another UBC-Thyssen associate, H.J. Kouwenhoven, managing director of Thyssen's Dutch bank and a director of the August Thyssen Bank in Berlin. August Thyssen was Fritz's father.
The government report shows that Livense first neglected to report the $240,000, then claimed that it had been given to him as a gift by Kouwenhoven. However, by the time Livense filed a financial disclosure with U.S. officials, he changed his story again and reported the sum as a debt rather than a cash holding.
In yet another attempt to deceive the governments of both the U.S. and Canada, Livense and his partners misreported the facts about the sale of a Canadian Nazi front enterprise, La Cooperative Catholique des Consommateurs de Combustible, which imported German coal into Canada via the web of Thyssen-controlled U.S. businesses.
"The Canadian authorities, however, were not taken in by this maneuver," a U.S. government report states. The coal company was later seized by Canadian authorities.
After the war, a total of 18 additional Brown Brothers Harriman and UBC-related client assets were seized under The Trading with the Enemy Act, including several that showed the continuation of a relationship with the Thyssen family after the initial 1942 seizures.
The records also show that Bush and the Harrimans conducted business after the war with related concerns doing business in or moving assets into Switzerland, Panama, Argentina and Brazil - all critical outposts for the flight of Nazi capital after Germany's surrender in 1945. Fritz Thyssen died in Argentina in 1951.
One of the final seizures, in October 1950, concerned the U.S. assets of a Nazi baroness named Theresia Maria Ida Beneditka Huberta Stanislava Martina von Schwarzenberg, who also used two shorter aliases. Brown Brothers Harriman, where Prescott Bush and the Harrimans were partners, attempted to convince government investigators that the baroness had been a victim of Nazi persecution and therefore should be allowed to maintain her assets.
"It appears, rather, that the subject was a member of the Nazi party," government investigators concluded.
At the same time the last Brown Brothers Harriman client assets were seized, Prescott Bush announced his Senate campaign that led to his election in 1952.
Investigation Investigated?
In 1943, six months after the seizure of UBC and its related companies, a government investigator noted in a Treasury Department memo dated April 8, 1943 that the FBI had inquired about the status of any investigation into Bush and the Harrimans.
"I gave (a fellow investigator) a memorandum which did not say anything about the American officers of subject," the investigator wrote. "(The other investigator) wanted to know whether any specific action had been taken by us with respect to them."
No further action beyond the initial seizures was ever taken, and the newly-confirmed records went unseen by the American people for six decades.
What Does It All Mean? So why are the documents relevant today?
"The story of Prescott Bush and Brown Brothers Harriman is an introduction to the real history of our country," says L.A. art publisher and historian Edward Boswell. "It exposes the money-making motives behind our foreign policies, dating back a full century. The ability of Prescott Bush and the Harrimans to bury their checkered pasts also reveals a collusion between Wall Street and the media that exists to this day."
Sheldon Drobny, a Chicago entrepreneur and philanthropist who will soon launch a liberal talk radio network, says the importance of the new documents is that they prove a long pattern of Bush family war profiteering that continues today via George H.W. Bush's intimate relationship with the Saudi royal family and the bin Ladens, conducted via the super-secret Carlyle Group, whose senior advisers include former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III.
In the post-9/11 world, Drobny finds the Bush-Saudi connection deeply troubling. "Trading with the enemy is trading with the enemy," he says. "That's the relevance of the documents and what they show."
Lawrence Lader, an abortion rights activist and the author of more than 40 books, says "the relevance lies with the fact that the sitting President of the United States would lead the nation to war based on lies and against the wishes of the rest of the world." Lader and others draw comparisons between President Bush's invasion of Iraq and Hitler's occupation of Poland in 1939 - the event that sparked World War Two.
However, others see an even larger significance.
"The discovery of the Bush-Nazi documents raises new questions about the role of Prescott Bush and his influential business partners in the secret emigration of Nazi war criminals, which allowed them to escape justice in Germany," says Bob Fertik, co-founder of Democrats.com. "It also raises questions about the importance of Nazi recruits to the CIA in its early years, in what was called Operation Paperclip, and Prescott Bush's role in that dark operation."
Fertik and others, including former Justice Department Nazi war crimes prosecutor John Loftus, a Constitutional attorney in Miami, and a former Veterans Administration official, believe Prescott Bush and the Harrimans should have been tried for treason.
What Next?
Now, say Fertik and Loftus, there should be a Congressional investigation into the Bush family's Nazi past and its concealment from the American people for 60 years.
"The American people have a right to know, in detail, about this hidden chapter of our history," says Loftus, author of The Secret War Against the Jews. "That's the only way we can understand it and deal with it."
For his part, Fertik is pessimistic that even a Congressional investigation can thwart the war profiteering of the present Bush White House. "It's impossible to stop it," he says, "when the worst war profiteers are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who operate in secrecy behind the vast powers of the White House."
---
John Buchanan is a journalist and magazine writer based in Miami Beach. He can be reached by e-mail at jtwg@bellsouth.net.
Stacey Michael is a New Orleans-based journalist and the author of Religious Conceit. His most recent book is Weapons of Mass Dysfunction: The Art of "Faith-Based" Politics, due in early 2004. He can be reached by email at staceymichael@religiousconceit.com.
November 02, 2003
Bush claims God Chose him
President George W. Bush stood before a cheering crowd at a Dallas Christian youth centre last week, and told them about being 'born again' as a Christian.
'If you change their heart, then they change their behaviour. I know,' he said, referring to his own conversion, which led to him giving up drinking.
Behind Bush were two banners. 'King of Kings', proclaimed one. 'Lord of Lords', said the other. The symbolism of how fervent Christianity has become deeply entwined with the most powerful man on the planet could not have been stronger.
Few US Presidents have been as openly religious as Bush. Now a new book has lifted the lid on how deep those Christian convictions run. It will stir up controversy at a time when the administration is keen to portray its 'war on terror' as non-religious.
The book, which depicts a President who prays each day and believes he is on a direct mission from God, will give ammunition to critics who claim Bush's administration is heavily influenced by extremist Christians.
-- snip --
The book also shows that in the lead-up to announcing his candidacy for the presidency, Bush told a Texan evangelist that he had had a premonition of some form of national disaster happening.
Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'
-- snip --
Amazingly - when Bush became president - I and millions of other people also had a preminition of a national disaster happening. What an amazing coincidence!!
Did God want Bush to be president? hmmmmmm .... If he did - then this isn't a democracy and we don't really have free choice because God is working behind the seens to fix elections. I'm begining to wonder if God wrote the software for electronic voting machines because in places where the republican backed companies have installed their machines - miracles have happened where Republican's have unexpectedly won elections. And - as we know - only God can create miracles.
So - if God picked Bush then is God responsible for the results? Is God going to pay Bush's national debt? Is God going to create jobs?
The problem with God is that God just isn't very good with money. That's why God is always having to panhandle. Similarly, God picks people who are fiscally irresponsible. God doesn't do well picking presidents - if Bush's claim is true. Now God has us mired down in a religious war with Iraq leving us stuck with the results.
I say that if God wants to pick the president - then he should be required to at least register to vote.
Amen!
October 28, 2003
Bush lies about "mission accomplished" banner
Bush Disavows Mission Accomplished Banner - Link
WASHINGTON - Six months after he spoke on an aircraft carrier deck under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," President Bush (news - web sites) disavowed any connection with the war message.
The phrase has been mocked many times since Bush's carrier speech as criticism has mounted over the failed search for weapons of mass destruction and the continuing violence in Iraq (news - web sites).
When it was brought up again Tuesday at a news conference, Bush said, "The `Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished."
"I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff — they weren't that ingenious, by the way."
That explanation hadn't surfaced during months of questions to White House officials about proclaiming the mission in Iraq successful while violence continued.
The president's appearance on the Abraham Lincoln, which was returning home after service in the Persian Gulf, included his dramatic and much-publicized landing on the ship's deck.
-- snip --
But a Whitehouse.gov web page tells a different story.
I am happy to see you, an so are the long-suffering people of Iraq. America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished. (Applause.)
-----
It turns out that the Whitehose DID have the sign made and now Bush has caught lying about it. So - not only is the mission not accomplished - but Bush is trying to rewrite history, on the 777th day that Bin Laden is still at large.
October 26, 2003
Bush sucks up to Israel - CNN
CNN gave Bush the Political Play of the Week for sucking up to the Jewish vote. It started when Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said, "The Europeans killed six million Jews out of twelve million, but today these Jews rule the world by proxy, "Mahathir said. "They get others to fight and die for them."
After 4 days of silence on the subject, according to CNN, Bush met with the prime minister "privately" (if it was private - then why do we all know about it?) denouncing his remarks about Jews "wrong and divisive."
According to CNN, "The White House made sure the president's private comments got plenty of attention."
CNN goes on to award Bush the Political Play of the Week stating:
Republicans see an opening with Jews.
"There is a big bid afoot in the Jewish community to make the case that President Bush is the best president for Israel ever," Kessler said.
The GOP saw a payoff in last year's midterm elections.
Nationwide, Jewish support for Republican House candidates had mostly been in the 30 percent range during the 1980s.
In the 90s, GOP support among Jewish voters fell.
Then suddenly last year, the Jewish Republican vote went back up to 35 percent.
Jews make up only 3 percent of voters nationwide. But, they are a major source of campaign money for Democrats.
Republicans are not as dependent on Jewish contributions. But they may have another motive. "It's about peeling off money that might go to the Democrats," Kessler said.
Especially now that Bush has spoken out against an outrageous, anti-Semitic slur.
"Whether you want to say he did it too late or he did not do it loud enough or whatever, he did it," concluded Kessler.
And it was the political Play of the Week.
-----
So - let me see if I understand this. Muslims accused Jews of ruling the world by proxy, and Bush gets political play of the week by showing Jews that he is willing to act as their proxy by denouncing the very statement that his own actions are proving to be true.
hmmmmmmmmm ......
I sure hope that Jews aren't foolish enough to buy this.
Furthermore - what Israel is doing to the Palistinians is wrong. I've given this a lot of thought and the excuse that "they did it to us first" or "they are more guilty" just doesn't cut it. Here's why:
First - let's assume the above two statement are true - so what? Israel is not just targeting enemy combatants. They are targeting innocent civilians who are just trying to live their lives in peace. They are knowingly killing innocent men, women, and children, bulldosing their homes, bulldozing their medical clinics, bulldosing their crops, all in order to terrorize them. Is there any chance that this behaviour will lead to peace? None! Will it make Israelies safer? Absolutely not! Is there any upside to Israel's behaviour that will help anyone on either side? No!
Therefore what the government of Israel is doing is wrong regardless of any other factors and it is the duty of the good peace loving people of the planet to resist this and say No to the right wing government of Israel. This is wrong and I speak out against it.
War and the slaughtering of innocent people is always a thing to be ashamed of. War is always a result of the failure of peace. And for those who would call my coments anti-semitic - well - I challenge you then to explain how what I say is worse for Jews than the actions of the Israeli government who is playing the Holocaust card as an excuse for murder and doing so in the name of Judiasm.
I ask you this question - are Jews a people of Peace or a people of War? Is it beyond the ability of Jews to live in peace with Palistinians? Or - is driving Pailistinians from their homes and killing innocent people the only solution? And - do you really think that you are the chosen people and that God supports this kind of behaviour? Well - if you do then God is pretty fucked up.
I'm not the one who's anti-semitic here - the right wing Israeli government is. Judiasm is a religion in denial - and it's time to wake up and join the real world!
It's what I don't hear in the news that's scary
Letter to the Editor
I am somewhat puzzled not by what I hear in the news - but by what I no longer hear in the news. Are we no longer going after Bin Laden? Are we no longer going after Saddam Husein? Are we no longer trying to find the anthrax killer? Are we no longer pursuing the 9-11 money trail to find those who financed the hijackers?
I don't understand why the government and the media are no longer talking about these unsolved mysteries of great national importance. It make me wonder - did we give up? Are we beaten? Or - have deals been made. The silence on these issues is scarier than the issues themselves.
-----
My take on it - deals have been made. We already know from this article in the Times of India that Bush made a deal with Pakistan not to go after Bin Laden. So - we start 2 wars and the guy who is actually behind 9-11 gets to go free. Bin Laden is free - are you?
Then there's Saddam. We were pursuing him - hot on the trail. Closing in on him - and then - silence. What the hell happened? I don't remember Saddam being captured or killed - so - what is the status of the chase?
Then there's the anthrax killer - who I believe was the government itself. Some covert CIA operation to keep Congress and the public scared long enough to pass the Patriot Act. And the thing that makes me believe that the most is that we are no longer going after whoever did it.
And then - 9-11. Usually after a national tragety where lots of people are killed it is investigated ad nauseam. They want to know every detail to ensure that it never happens again. But in 9-11 - the Bush administration is actively blocking the investigation. Why would they block it rather than want to get to the bottom of it? We haven't hear anything about who's behind 9-11 since Bush redacted 28 pages of the report that exposed or "allies" in Saudi Arabia as the ones whoi funded it.
What's even scarier is that the press is totally under Bush's control because they are the ones who are actually doing the "not talking". When Clinton got a haircut on a runway in LA - they talked about it for 2 months. The only thing that filally shut them up about it was when they found out their story never happened. But Bush lets Saddam and Bin Laden go - and the press goes along with it. What does that tell you?
We are a country in denial and if we don't come out of denial our future will follow that of Hitler's Germany - the kind of nightmare that George Bush's grandfather Prescot Bush Financed. A story that is finally surfacing only 60 years later.
Bin Laden still free - Day 775 since 9-11.
October 25, 2003
Off to Protest
Heading to downtown San Francisco to protest. Will have pictures up afterwards. Bet the news media will deliberately underestimate the crowd by a factor of 10 like they do with every protest.
Cheney has millions in Halliburton
Another article you won't see in the mainstream press. This one from The Populist. It appears that Cheney has millions invested in Halliburton who got the lion's share of the no bid contract awarded in Iraq.
-----
On Meet the Press Sept. 14, Cheney disavowed any present connection to Halliburton: "And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years." The statement was subsequently reinforced by spokespersons for both Cheney and Halliburton, who pointed out that Cheney's contract protects his benefits even if the company loses money.
The disclosure form paints a somewhat more nuanced picture. The Vanguard Group holdings are easily among Cheney's largest holdings. Assets are given in ranges (from $100,000 to $1M; from $1M to $5M; etc). Cheney's statement includes two holdings in the $500,000-$1M range; two holdings in the $1M-$5M range; and three holdings in the $5M-$25M range. Thus Cheney's assets invested with Vanguard Group total $18M to $87M. Given the size of Vanguard's stake in Halliburton, it is hard to imagine a mathematical possibility that Cheney's assets are unconnected to Halliburton's fortunes.
Probable return on assets is obviously hard to quantify. Some estimate can be provided by George W. Bush's own financial disclosure statement (see www.opensecrets.org). Bush had relatively piddling assets of $68,766 invested in Vanguard in 2001, on which he declared a quite respectable capital gain of $4,735, or about 6%.
Interestingly, the previous list of top Halliburton shareholders included Texas' Wylie brothers, known as the Maverick Group. The privately owned Maverick Capital last surfaced in headlines back during campaign 2000, when the billionaire Wylies turned out to be behind a group called "Republicans for Clean Air." The group, little known before the campaign, ran a blitz of pro-Bush ads praising Bush on the environment and attacking John McCain, just before the March primaries in 2000, when McCain had been beating Bush, and was credited with damaging McCain's candidacy.
Among other holdings, Maverick also owns millions of shares of the rightwing Liberty Media Corporation and Clear Channel Communications, which sponsored a series of war-boosting rallies around the nation in spring 2003. To these influences can be attributed much of the quality of public discourse about Iraq.
-----
Now - coinsidering how the press hounded Al Gore for years over making an improper phone call, do you thnk there's any chance they would have let Gore get away with this? Of course not. And you can see how the investment in Clear Channel Communications resulted in media sponsored pro-war rallies. So - when you hear the mainstream media talk about the "liberal press" - it's because their conservative owners made them say it.
David Letterman-style, the Top Ten shareholders for Halliburton Company, Inc., are as follows: Link
#10: The Vanguard Group, with 7.6 million shares of Halliburton stock, worth about $176 million. Vanguard, also 10th largest mutual-fund shareholder in Halliburton, is a huge owner in ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. It moved onto this list recently when Dallas-based Maverick Capital, privately owned by the Wylie family, moved off. Vice President Cheney's disclosure statement (above) shows millions of his retirement money invested through Vanguard.
#9: Lord Abbett & Co., with about 8 million shares of Halliburton. Lord Abbett's trustees, who manage billions controlled by this investment firm, include Bush uncle William H. T. Bush. Lord Abbett is also one of Halliburton's top ten mutual fund holders (another 4.7 million shares).
#8: Deutsche Bank, with 8.3 million shares of Halliburton. Deutsche Bank was home to Alvin B. Krongard, now Bush's number-three man at the CIA. Krongard, whom the CIA web site lists as a longtime consultant, was a director at Alex Brown Bankers Trust, which got a multi-million management contract with FMR (see #7).
#7: FMR Corporation (Fidelity Management & Research), with 10 million shares. FMR, the world's largest mutual fund company, and Wellington (see #2, below) are by far the biggest shareholders in TB Woods Corp., where presidential cousin Craig Stapleton was a director before becoming ambassador to the Czech Republic. FMR also owns big in United Defense/Carlyle, connected to former President George H. W. Bush, and Fresh Del Monte, where presidential brother Marvin P. Bush is back on the board. Interestingly, FMR also owns about 50,000 shares of Harken Energy, George W. Bush's old stomping grounds (current value: about $20,000). Fidelity's Magellan Fund is also the second largest mutual fund holder in Halliburton.
#6: Putnam Investment Manage-ment, LLC, with more than 12.5 million shares. Putnam also owns stock in United Defense/the Carlyle Group and in Fresh Del Monte. Putnam is another top mutual fund holder in Halliburton.
#5: State Street Corporation, with 13 million shares. State Street, which reportedly controls $6 trillion in investments, recently revealed plans for a multi-million deal with (#8) Deutsche Bank, and owns $4.5B worth of Morgan Stanley (#3, below). State Street is also hugely invested in ExxonMobil, one of Saddam's biggest customers, and BP, which started life as "Iraq Petroleum." Also owns big in United Defense/Carlyle.
#4: Barclays Bank PLC, with 17.5 million shares of Halliburton. Barclays is also into United Defense and Fresh Del Monte, and has successfully hung on to 85,000 shares of Harken Energy.
#3: Morgan Stanley, with over 20 million shares. Morgan Stanley, among other connections on this list, is also a shareholder in United Defense and Fresh Del Monte, as well as in #8 Deutsche Bank.
#2: Wellington Management Co., LLP: Headquartered in Boston, Wellington calls itself one of America's oldest investment firms. It holds about 23 million shares, or more than half a billion dollars' worth, of Halliburton, and is linked with most of the rest of this list.
#1: Capital Research and Manage-ment Company, with 25 million shares, also worth over half a billion dollars. Los Angeles-based Capital Group is also a major investor in military contractors Lockheed and Raytheon, and is linked with FMR and Wellington in other large holdings.
Preemptive War Is the Wrong Weapon
By Stan Crock Link
If you want to see how cynical President Bush growing legion of critics are about the Administration's Iraq policy, take a gander sometime at the electronic newsletter sent out by Chuck Spinney, a retired Pentagon analyst. He starts out with a quote from the late journalist H. L. Mencken: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed [and hence clamorous to be led to safety] by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
Spinney then quotes Nazi Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering, who explained at his Nuremberg trial how easy it is for leaders to get the people to do their bidding. "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger," Goering said. "It works the same way in any country."
-----
There's no doubt in my mind that the Anthrax scare was an act of US sponsored terrorism whose sole purpose was to ensure the passage of the Patriot Act. Why do I say that? How do I come to that conclusion? Because we are no longer going after the person responsible for it. When there's an extremely serious crime and the investigation stops - the investigator are the ones behind it.
October 18, 2003
Wounded US Troops live in Squalor
Letter to the Editor
Sick and wounded US Troops are being held in squalor at Fort Steward GA languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait for months to see doctors. These troops - many who served recently in Iraq live in the sweltering heat with no bathrooms. They have to hobble on crutches through the dirt and mud to a communal bathroom where they have to actually buy their own toilet paper. A fine thank you from the Bush administration to the troops he sent to fight his war.
October 17, 2003
Do Jews Rule the World?
Letter to the Editor
It an interesting question raised recently by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia. Do Jews rule the world? Or - more specifically - does the right wing Israeli government rule the world? Israel has been a militant obstacle to peace and is trying to use economic genocide to drive the Palestinians out of the area and steal their land. And - they are getting away with it. When I look at Israel's new "Berlin Wall" - it sends chills down my spine. Did the Jews learn nothing from the Holocaust?
Just as Tony Blair is Bush's poodle - it seems that Bush is the poodle of Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. When Ariel Sharon says frog - Bush says how high. So - I think the President of Malaysia was on target with his remark and it's time the world woke up to the fact that the right wing governments of Israel, the United States, and England are in fact a threat to the peace and prosperity of the planet.
-----
What is control and how do you detect it. For instance - I am raising he question here about Jewish control and you are reading it. What is the first thing that comes to mind? Is this anti-sematism? And why does that come to mind? Well - because you can't say anything critical about the Jews or they play the holocaust card and make you a Nazi. Criticizing Jews is worse than talking sexual politics with militant lesbians. Not every critical remark about Jews is anti-jewish. And - in the long run - supressing critism results in prejudice. The Jewish religion and culture is no better than any other religion or culture except to the extent that they behave as better people. And what the Jews are doing in the Middle East does not reflect any sign of a superior culture.
The reality is - sometimes the Jews really are wrong. Sometimes the Jews really are the bad guys - and the right wing government of Israel really is a threat to peace on the planet and they really are pulling America's strings. This really is happening and we really do need to talk about it without the censorship.
The Jews are not God's chosen people and Israel was not given to the Jews by God. The Jews got Israel out of an act of compassion of the United Nations and they should thank the world community for their gift of land rather than to act like God gave them an entitlement.
October 11, 2003
US soldiers bulldoze farmers' crops
Americans accused of brutal 'punishment' tactics against villagers, while British are condemned as too soft
By Patrick Cockburn in Dhuluaya
12 October 2003
US soldiers driving bulldozers, with jazz blaring from loudspeakers, have uprooted ancient groves of date palms as well as orange and lemon trees in central Iraq as part of a new policy of collective punishment of farmers who do not give information about guerrillas attacking US troops.
The stumps of palm trees, some 70 years old, protrude from the brown earth scoured by the bulldozers beside the road at Dhuluaya, a small town 50 miles north of Baghdad. Local women were yesterday busily bundling together the branches of the uprooted orange and lemon trees and carrying then back to their homes for firewood.
Nusayef Jassim, one of 32 farmers who saw their fruit trees destroyed, said: "They told us that the resistance fighters hide in our farms, but this is not true. They didn't capture anything. They didn't find any weapons."
Other farmers said that US troops had told them, over a loudspeaker in Arabic, that the fruit groves were being bulldozed to punish the farmers for not informing on the resistance which is very active in this Sunni Muslim district.
"They made a sort of joke against us by playing jazz music while they were cutting down the trees," said one man. Ambushes of US troops have taken place around Dhuluaya. But Sheikh Hussein Ali Saleh al-Jabouri, a member of a delegation that went to the nearby US base to ask for compensation for the loss of the fruit trees, said American officers described what had happened as "a punishment of local people because 'you know who is in the resistance and do not tell us'." What the Israelis had done by way of collective punishment of Palestinians was now happening in Iraq, Sheikh Hussein added.
The destruction of the fruit trees took place in the second half of last month but, like much which happens in rural Iraq, word of what occurred has only slowly filtered out. The destruction of crops took place along a kilometre-long stretch of road just after it passes over a bridge.
Farmers say that 50 families lost their livelihoods, but a petition addressed to the coalition forces in Dhuluaya pleading in erratic English for compensation, lists only 32 people. The petition says: "Tens of poor families depend completely on earning their life on these orchards and now they became very poor and have nothing and waiting for hunger and death."
The children of one woman who owned some fruit trees lay down in front of a bulldozer but were dragged away, according to eyewitnesses who did not want to give their names. They said that one American soldier broke down and cried during the operation. When a reporter from the newspaper Iraq Today attempted to take a photograph of the bulldozers at work a soldier grabbed his camera and tried to smash it. The same paper quotes Lt Col Springman, a US commander in the region, as saying: "We asked the farmers several times to stop the attacks, or to tell us who was responsible, but the farmers didn't tell us."
Informing US troops about the identity of their attackers would be extremely dangerous in Iraqi villages, where most people are related and everyone knows each other. The farmers who lost their fruit trees all belong to the Khazraji tribe and are unlikely to give information about fellow tribesmen if they are, in fact, attacking US troops.
Asked how much his lost orchard was worth, Nusayef Jassim said in a distraught voice: "It is as if someone cut off my hands and you asked me how much my hands were worth."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=452375
Bush-Nazi Link Confirmed
by John Buchanan
Documents in National Archives Prove
George W. Bush's Grandfather Traded
with Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor
WASHINGTON -- After 60 years of inattention and even denial by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his "enemy national" partners.
The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, tried to conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s, personally funded Adolf Hitler's rise to power by the subversion of democratic principle and German law.
Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George Herbert Walker, President Bush's maternal great-grandfather, continued their dealings with the German industrial tycoon for nearly a year after the U.S. entered the war.
No Story?
For six decades these historical facts have gone unreported by the mainstream U.S. media. The essential facts have appeared on the Internet and in relatively obscure books, but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes. This story has also escaped the attention of "official" Bush biographers, Presidential historians and publishers of U.S. history books covering World War II and its aftermath.
The White House did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.
The Summer of '42
The unraveling of the web of Bush-Harriman-Thyssen U.S. enterprises, all of which operated out of the same suite of offices at 39 Broadway in New York under the supervision of Prescott Bush, began with a story that ran simultaneously in the New York Herald-Tribune and Washington Post on July 31, 1941. By then, the U.S. had been at war with Germany for nearly eight months.
"Hitler's Angel Has $3 Million in U.S. Bank," declared the front-page Herald-Tribune headline. The lead paragraph characterized Fritz Thyssen as "Adolf Hitler's original patron a decade ago." In fact, the steel and coal magnate had aggressively supported and funded Hitler since October 1923, according to Thyssen's autobiography, I Paid Hitler. In that book, Thyssen also acknowledges his direct personal relationships with Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Rudolf Hess.
The Herald-Tribune also cited unnamed sources who suggested Thyssen's U.S. "nest egg" in fact belonged to "Nazi bigwigs" including Goebbels, Hermann Goering, Heinrich Himmler, or even Hitler himself.
Business is Business
The "bank," founded in 1924 by W. Averell Harriman on behalf of Thyssen and his Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V. of Holland, was Union Banking Corporation (UBC) of New York City. According to government documents, it was in reality a clearing house for a number of Thyssen-controlled enterprises and assets, including as many as a dozen individual businesses. UBC also bought and shipped overseas gold, steel, coal, and U.S. Treasury bonds. The company's activities were administered for Thyssen by a Netherlands-born, naturalized U.S. citizen named Cornelis Lievense, who served as president of UBC. Roland Harriman was chairman and Prescott Bush a managing director.
The Herald-Tribune article did not identify Bush or Harriman as executives of UBC, or Brown Brothers Harriman, in which they were partners, as UBC's private banker. A confidential FBI memo from that period suggested, without naming the Bush and Harriman families, that politically prominent individuals were about to come under official U.S. government scrutiny as Hitler's plunder of Europe continued unabated.
After the "Hitler's Angel" article was published Bush and Harriman made no attempts to divest themselves of the controversial Thyssen financial alliance, nor did they challenge the newspaper report that UBC was, in fact, a de facto Nazi front organization in the U.S.
Instead, the government documents show, Bush and his partners increased their subterfuge to try to conceal the true nature and ownership of their various businesses, particularly after the U.S. entered the war. The documents also disclose that Cornelis Lievense, Thyssen's personal appointee to oversee U.S. matters for his Rotterdam-based Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V., via UBC for nearly two decades, repeatedly denied to U.S. government investigators any knowledge of the ownership of the Netherlands bank or the role of Thyssen in it. Brown Brothers Harriman sent letters to the government seeking reconsideration of the seizures by using false information.
UBC's original group of business associates included George Herbert Walker, President Bush's maternal great-grandfather, who had a relationship with the Harriman family that began in 1919. In 1922, Walker and W. Averell Harriman traveled to Berlin to set up the German branch of their banking and investment operations, which were largely based on critical war resources such as steel and coal.
The Walker-Harriman-created German industrial alliance also included partnership with another German titan who supported Hitler's rise, Friedrich Flick, who partnered with Thyssen in the German Steel Trust that forged the Nazi war machine. For his role in using slave labor and his own steel, coal and arms resources to build Hitler's war effort, Flick was convicted at the Nuremberg trials and sentenced to prison.
The Family Business
In 1926, after Prescott Bush had married Walker's daughter, Dorothy, Walker brought Bush in as a vice president of the private banking and investment firm of W.A. Harriman & Co., also located in New York. Bush became a partner in the firm that later became Brown Brothers Harriman and the largest private investment bank in the world. Eventually, Bush became a director of and stockholder in UBC.
However, the government documents note that Bush, Harriman, Lievense and the other UBC stockholders were in fact "nominees," or phantom shareholders, for Thyssen and his Holland bank, meaning that they acted at the direct behest of their German client.
Seized
On October 20, 1942, under authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act, the U.S. Congress seized UBC and liquidated its assets after the war. The seizure is confirmed by Vesting Order No. 248 in the U.S. Office of the Alien Property Custodian and signed by U.S. Alien Property Custodian Leo T. Crowley.
In August, under the same authority, Congress had seized the first of the Bush-Harriman-managed Thyssen entities, Hamburg-American Line, under Vesting Order No. 126, also signed by Crowley. Eight days after the seizure of UBC, Congress invoked the Trading with the Enemy Act again to take control of two more Bush-Harriman-Thyssen businesses - Holland-American Trading Corp. (Vesting Order No. 261) and Seamless Steel Equipment Corp. (Vesting Order No. 259).
The documents from the Archives also show that the Bushes and Harrimans shipped valuable U.S. assets, including gold, coal, steel and U.S. Treasury bonds, to their foreign clients overseas between 1931-33, as Hitler engineered his rise to power.
Still No Story?
Since 1942, the information has not appeared in any U.S. news coverage of any Bush political campaign, nor has it been included in any of the major Bush family biographies. It was, however, covered extensively in George H.W. Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, by Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin. Chaitkin's father served as an attorney in the 1940s for some of the victims of the Bush-Harriman-Thyssen businesses.
The book gave a detailed, accurate accounting of the Bush family's long Nazi affiliation, but no mainstream U.S. media entity reported on or even investigated the allegations, despite careful documentation by the authors. Major booksellers declined to distribute the book, which was dismissed by Bush supporters as biased and untrue. Its authors struggled even to be reviewed in reputable newspapers. That the book was published by Lyndon LaRouche's organization undoubtedly made it easier to dismiss, but does not change the facts.
The essence of the story has been posted for years on various Internet sites, including BuzzFlash.com and TakeBackTheMedia.com, but no online media seem to have independently confirmed it.
In the 1990s, former U.S. Justice Department Nazi war crimes prosecutor John Loftus, now honorary president of the Florida Holocaust Museum, wrote a book and launched a web site (<>www.john-loftus.com) which did breakthrough reporting, including establishing the link between Prescott Bush, Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation and forced labor at Auschwitz. Although the widely-respected Loftus established a successful international speaking career with his information, no U.S. newspaper or major TV news program acknowledged his decade of work, nor did he ever see many of the recently released documents.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media have apparently made no attempt since World War II to either verify or disprove the allegations of Nazi collaboration against the Bush family. Instead, they have attempted to dismiss or discredit such Internet sites or "unauthorized" books without any journalistic inquiry or research into their veracity.
Loyal Defenders
The National Review ran an essay on September 1 by their White House correspondent Byron York, entitled "Annals of Bush-Hating." It begins
mockingly: "Are you aware of the murderous history of George W. Bush - indeed, of the entire Bush family? Are you aware of the president's Nazi sympathies? His crimes against humanity? And do you know, by the way, that George W. Bush is a certifiable moron?" York goes on to discredit the "Bush is a moron" IQ hoax, but fails to disprove the Nazi connection.
The more liberal Boston Globe ran a column September 29 by Reason magazine's Cathy Young in which she referred to "Bush-o-phobes on the Internet" who "repeat preposterous claims about the Bush family's alleged Nazi connections."
Poles Tackle the Topic
Newsweek Polska, the magazine's Polish edition, published a short piece on the "Bush Nazi past" in its March 5, 2003 edition. The item reported that "the Bush family reaped rewards from the forced-labor prisoners in the Auschwitz concentration camp," according to a copyrighted English-language translation from Scoop Media (<>www.scoop.co.nz). The story also reported the seizure of the various Bush-Harriman-Thyssen businesses.
Still Not Interested
Major U.S. media outlets, including ABC News, NBC News, CNN, The New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times and Miami Herald, as well as Knight-Ridder Newspapers, have repeatedly declined to investigate the story when information regarding discovery of the documents was presented to them beginning Friday, August 29. Newsweek U.S. correspondent Michael Isikoff, famous for his reporting of big scoops during the Clinton-Lewinsky sexual affair of the 1990s, declined twice to accept an exclusive story based on the documents from the archives.
Aftermath
In 1952, Prescott Bush was elected to the U.S. Senate, with no press accounts about his well-concealed Nazi past. There is no record of any U.S. press coverage of the Bush-Nazi connection during any political campaigns conducted by George Herbert Walker Bush, Jeb Bush, or George W. Bush, with the exception of a brief mention in an unrelated story in the Sarasota Herald Tribune in November 2000 and a brief but inaccurate account in The Boston Globe in 2001.
http://www.rense.com/general42/bshnazi.htm
October 08, 2003
Arnold may be bad sign for Bush
Letter to the Editor
One would normally think that Arnold Schwarzenegger's victory would be a good sign for Bush and Republicans. But that may not be the case. Voters in California are fed up with business as usual and politicians who are under performers. The time has come to throw the bums out and that applies to all incumbents of both parties. America it tired of crap and are willing to vote for the "anyone else" candidate. Bush and Congress better figure out the reason we are in Iraq and why the economy has gone from record surpluses to record deficits before they face the voters in 2004.
---
Maybe I'll run for state representative on the platform of limiting parking tickets to $25.
September 21, 2003
New Election 2000 Bombshell?
Interesting series of messages from a web site I came across. Apparently Al Gore got NEGATIVE 16022 votes in Precinct 216 of Seminole county Florida. Bush and the Supreme Court committed treason and the United States is occupied by a hostile force - the Bush Administration.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lana Hires [mailto:lhires@co.volusia.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 8:07 AM
To: jmglobal@earthlink.net; Glanca@ges.com
Cc: Deanie Lowe
Subject: 2000 November Election
Hi Nel, Sophie & Guy (you to John),
I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have
been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216
gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded. Will someone please
explain this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of
standing here "looking dumb". I would appreciate an explanation on why the
memory cards start giving check sum messages. We had this happen in several
precincts and one of these precincts managed to get her memory card out of
election mode and then back in it, continued to read ballots, not realizing
that the 300+ ballots she had read earlier were no longer stored in her
memory card . Needless to say when we did our hand count this was
discovered.
Any explantations you all can give me will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks bunches,
Lana
* To: Support
* Subject: Memory card checksum errors (was: 2000 November Election)
* From: Guy Lancaster
* Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:41:08 -0800
* Organization: Global Election Systems Inc.
* References:
This is an overview on what memory card checksum errors are. Exactly what causes them is a separate question.
The memory card is very simply a programmable memory device with a battery backup. The Accu-Vote accesses this memory directly. If something goes wrong when the Accu-Vote is writing new data to the memory card or if the Accu-Vote crashes (as computers have been known to do) and writes to random memory locations, then the data on the memory card may be corrupted (nasty word I know but it fits). All this means is that the data is modified in an unintentional manner. This could also happen without an Accu-Vote through static discharge or some types of radiation (i.e. old airport scanners, cosmic rays???).
There are several mechanisms that we could use to detect this. We use the simplest of these which is to treat the data as a series of numbers and store totals of sets of those numbers as separate data known as checksums. If the data has been modified without updating the checksums, then the checksums will fail to add up.
The Accu-Vote keeps three different types of checksums for three different classes of data. These are text, counters, and precinct. The text checksums cover all the titles and names that are used mostly just for printing reports. Since the text data does not affect the other operations, we check it only occasionally and we allow most operations to continue after a warning.
The counters and precinct data are considered critical and the Accu-Vote is largely inoperable when these checksums fail. We do support the option to clear the counters if only they have been affected and then counting may be restarted. However there is no way to recover from corruption of the precinct data other than to clear and re-download the memory card.
All checksums are validated upon insertion of a memory card or at power on. Thus this is the most common time to detect problems. However the counter and precinct checksums are validated every time a new ballot is scanned. If an error is detected, counting is aborted.
Now to Lana's questions. The above should answer everything other than why erroneous data managed to upload. I see two possible explanations. One is that the data was corrupted after the checksums were validated. In this case the errors would show the next time the checksums were checked. The other possibility is the miniscule chance that the erroneous data managed to add up to the correct checksum. The checksums are stored as totals ranging from 0 to 65535 so the chance of this happening are less than 60,000 to 1 just based on that. Other factors add to this to make it extremely unlikely. However in this case the card would not later show checksum errors.
So John, can you satisfy Lana's request from this? I can't without more details.
Guy
* To:
* Subject: RE: Memory card checksum errors (was: 2000 November Election)
* From: "John McLaurin"
* Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:56:15 -0500
* Importance: Normal
* In-reply-to: <3A6746D4.6D7B0E4B@gesn.com>
Thanks Guy, - the pollworker did restart the unit and eventually put the unit back in election mode. It did not require redownloading the card. Am I missing something in your explanation to understand this?
John
* To: support@gesn.com
* Subject: Re: Memory card checksum errors (was: 2000 November Election)
* From: Guy Lancaster
* Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:23:47 -0800
* Organization: Global Election Systems Inc.
* References:
John McLaurin wrote:
You're probably missing the same details that I am. >From Lana's description she is referring to several checksum error events. One of them sounds like a simple counter error that could be cleared and restarted. I don't think this is the same event as the bad upload.
Guy
* To:
* Subject: RE: Memory card checksum errors (was: 2000 November Election)
* From: "Ian S. Piper"
* Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:35:01 -0600
* Importance: Normal
* In-reply-to:
Steve Ricke has been running tests on a specific unit from Seminole. He had a checksum error occur and had the same result of the card resetting to pre-election mode and being able to reset for election mode and continue. After that one error, he has since run thousands of ballots through without a repeat of the error. The original audit report for the Seminole corrupted memory card showed that it had experienced the same error when Mickey Martin and company were recounting ballots on November 9, 2000. Still testing.
Below is the sequence of events for this error. Hope it helps.
Ian
1. Ran test using memory card and accu-vote (Ser.# 71586) which had been corrupted in Seminole County, Florida.
2. Ran three 2000 ballot tests in election mode in McKinney.
3. Unit failed only once which was during the second 2000 ballot test (at about 1300 ballots),
4. Message on display "Corrupt count see official",
5. Pressed YES and NO buttons several seconds each with no change of message,
6. Turned unit OFF, then ON- resulted in "Please reinsert memory card" message,
7. Repeated turning unit OFF then ON with the same message result,
8. Reinserted card (Power ON) message displayed now "counter error ok to continue?",
9. if answered NO, returns to "Please reinsert memory card" message,
10. If answered YES, then message displayed is "Clear counters and recount?",
11. If answered YES, card is reset to pre-election mode and displays "Test ballots?",
12. We set card back into election mode. Ran another 2000 ballots without failure.
Will continue to try with other cards and accu-votes from other counties.
Steve Ricke
* To:
* Subject: RE: Memory card checksum errors (was: 2000 November Election)
* From: "Ian S. Piper"
* Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:55:06 -0600
* Importance: Normal
* In-reply-to:
I agree. Steve Ricke's sequence of events only relates to item 1 and how the memory card may have been reset. I thought it might shed some light on the subject.
Ian
* To:
* Subject: RE: Memory card checksum errors (was: 2000 November Election)
* From: "Ken Clark"
* Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:13:46 -0600
* Importance: Normal
* In-reply-to: <3A6746D4.6D7B0E4B@gesn.com>
From: owner-support@gesn.com [mailto:owner-support@gesn.com]On Behalf Of Guy Lancaster
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 1:41 PM
Now to Lana's questions. The above should answer everything other than why erroneous data managed to upload. I see two possible explanations. One is that the data was corrupted after the checksums were validated. In this case the errors would show the next time the checksums were checked. The other possibility is the [60k to 1] chance that the erroneous data managed to add up to the correct checksum.
My understanding is that the card was not corrupt after (or before) upload. They fixed the problem by clearing the precinct and re-uploading the same card. So neither of these explainations washes. That's not to say I have any idea what actually happened, its just not either of those.
So John, can you satisfy Lana's request from this? I can't without more details.
The problem is its going to be very hard to collect enough data to really know what happened. The card isn't corrupt so we can't post-mortem it (its not mort). Guy if you can get the exact counter numbers that were uploaded into the races (not just president) perhaps you could guess the nature of the corruption at least, but if I had to bet the numbers were just garbage and you won't be able to tell.
About the only constructive suggestion I have is to insert a line in the AV upload code to check that candvotes + undervotes = votefor*timescounted. If it happens, punt. That would have at least prevented the embarrassment of negative votes, which is really what this is all about. Then John can go to Lana and tell her it has never happened before and that it will never happen again.
Ken
* To:
* Subject: RE: Memory card checksum errors (was: 2000 November Election)
* From: "John McLaurin"
* Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:45:54 -0500
* Importance: Normal
* In-reply-to: <01d101c0818e$2218be80$3c03a8c0@obrien>
PS – this was not the same precinct causing both problems if my memory is correct – Sophie? Tab?
* To:
* Subject: Re: Memory card checksum errors (was: 2000 November Election)
* From: "Talbot Iredale"
* Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:31:04 -0800
* References:
John,
Here is all the information I have about the 'negative' counts.
1. Only the presidential totals were incorrect. All the other races the sum of the votes + under votes + blank votes = sum of ballots cast.
2. The problem precinct had two memcory cards uploaded. The second one is the one I believe caused the problem. They were uploaded on the same port approx. 1 hour apart. As far as I know there should only have been one memory card uploaded. I asked you to check this out when the problem first occured but have not heard back as to whether this is true.
3. When the precinct was cleared and re-uploaded (only one memory card as far as I know) everything was fine.
4. Given that we transfer data in ascii form not binary and given the way the data was 'invalid' the error could not have occured during transmission. Therefore the error could only occur in one of four ways:
1. Corrupt memory card. This is the most likely explaination for the problem but since I know nothing about the 'second' memory card I have no ability to confirm the probability of this.
2. Invalid read from good memory card. This is unlikely since the candidates results for the race are not all read at the same time and the corruption was limited to a single race. There is a possiblilty that a section of the memory card was bad but since I do not know anything more about the 'second' memory card I cannot validate this.
3. Corruption of memory, whether on the host or Accu-Vote. Again this is unlikely due to the localization of the problem to a single race.
4. Invalid memory card (i.e. one that should not have been uploaded). There is always the possiblity that the 'second memory card' or 'second upload' came from an un-authorised source.
If this problem is to be properly answered we need to determine where the 'second' memory card is or whether it even exists. I do know that there were two uploads from two different memory cards (copy 0 (master) and copy 3).
Tab
* To:
* Subject: RE: Memory card checksum errors (was: 2000 November Election)
* From: "John McLaurin"
* Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:56:06 -0500
* Importance: Normal
* In-reply-to: <011801c08195$f6781930$1404a8c0@gesn.com>
Tab,
I will be visiting with Lana on Monday and will ascertain the particulars related to the second memory card. One concern I’ve had all along is “if” we are getting the full story from Lana.
I’ll be back in touch and thanks for all of y’alls (that’s southern for all of you) help.
John
* To:
* Subject: RE: Memory card checksum errors Seminole Cty.
* From: "John McLaurin"
* Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:08:28 -0500
* Importance: Normal
* In-reply-to:
John Haranzo of Seminole reports that the unit Ian has in hand had two memory card failures during the recount of one precinct. (Mickey Martin was operating the unit which may explain everything) The third downloaded card was successful at completing the count at which point they shelved the unit. Because this seems site specific to the ration of card failures 7 in 130 precincts and in general we had few across Florida and Georgia. Could the AV download unit cabled to the Host be problematic and if so should that be sent to McKinney for testing.
John
* To:
* Subject: RE: Memory card checksum errors Seminole Cty.
* From: "Ian S. Piper"
* Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:14:31 -0600
* Importance: Normal
* In-reply-to:
I believe that Steve Ricke has already made that request to John Haranzo.
Ian
* To:
* Subject: Re: Memory card checksum errors Seminole Cty.
* From: "Steve Knecht"
* Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:41:08 -0800
* References:
The Marin unit cabled to their main computer was the culprit of a majority of their failures as well. I just assumed the AV unit was bad and we sent it back to McKinney. Could it have something to do with a signal coming in from the DigiBoard or some voltage associated with a signal??
* To:
* Subject: RE: Memory card checksum errors Seminole Cty.
* From: "John McLaurin"
* Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:36:23 -0500
* Importance: Normal
* In-reply-to: <003601c081b8$e66c59c0$72d8fc9e@default>
In Marin, did it sporadically corrupt cards?
* To:
* Subject: Re: Memory card checksum errors Seminole Cty.
* From: "Steve Knecht"
* Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:08:04 -0800
* References:
Yes. During the primary in March, there were times on uploads where they would recount a precinct using a feeder in one room on a memory card, bring it to the computer room for upload - and it would corrupt when they brought it in (about 7 precincts I believe) and inserted it into the machine connected to the computer - on one precinct 3 times.
* To: support@gesn.com
* Subject: Re: Memory card checksum errors Seminole Cty.
* From: Guy Lancaster
* Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:54:05 -0800
* Organization: Global Election Systems Inc.
* References:
Steve Knecht wrote:
> The Marin unit cabled to their main computer was the culprit of a majority of their failures as well. I just assumed the AV unit was bad and we sent it back to McKinney. Could it have something to do with a signal coming in from the DigiBoard or some voltage associated with a signal??
>
No, it would take a lightning strike or similar coming across the serial cable from the DigiBoard to corrupt the memory card. ;-)
However there are things that can go wrong inside an Accu-Vote that can cause it to corrupt memory cards and/or crash (ISR, lockup*, random jump to a different prompt, etc). Thus I recommend a procedure of recording such events and if any single machine experiences 2 or more occurances over the course of an election, it's grounds for requiring service. Don't worry about a single occurance on a machine unless there is other evidence to suggest problems with that machine.
* Note that there are 2 different types of lockup. The most common seems to be that the older scanner units would lockup during operation but the AV itself is working fine. Recent firmware (since 1.94p/1.94f<) will display an error message if you hold the NO button for more than 3 seconds while the AV is waiting for another ballot in a count mode. If this works, the AV is working and it's the scanner unit itself that has locked up. I don't believe that scanner lockups can affect the memory card. Ian, when do scanner lockups indicate a need for service?
Guy
* To:
* Subject: RE: Memory card checksum errors (was: 2000 November Election)
* From: "Ken Clark"
* Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:42:50 -0600
* Importance: Normal
* In-reply-to: <011801c08195$f6781930$1404a8c0@gesn.com>
From: owner-support@gesn.com [mailto:owner-support@gesn.com]On Behalf Of Talbot Iredale
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 3:31 PM
Given that we transfer data in ascii form not binary and given the way the data was 'invalid' the error could not have occured during transmission. Therefore the error could only occur in one of four ways:
(2) Invalid read from good memory card. This is unlikely since the candidates results for the race are not all read at the same time and the corruption was limited to a single race. There is a possiblilty that a section of the memory card was bad but since I do not know anything more about the 'second' memory card I cannot validate this.
Not necessarily. We grab a pointer to the head of the candidate counters for a race and then keep that pointer as the base for the current race. If that base was bogus (pointing at code say) because of some hardware glitch, then we would just happily walk the race looking at garbage. Next race the pointer base is changed and everything is okay. Now, this is still all "unlikely", but then again this has never happened before.
(4) Invalid memory card (i.e. one that should not have been uploaded). There is always the possiblity that the 'second memory card' or 'second upload' came from an un-authorised source.
If this problem is to be properly answered we need to determine where the 'second' memory card is or whether it even exists.
Heh. Second shooter theory. All we need now is a grassy knoll.
Ken
September 10, 2003
Bush open for Suggestions
Letter to the Editor
Bush claims he is "open for suggestions" as to what to do about Iraq. Ok - I have a suggestion. Why don't we get out of Iraq and go after Bin Laden in Pakastan and go after the Saudi's who are backing him. But Bush isn't going to do that because he made a deal not to go after Bin Laden. Seems to me that if you are going to fight terror you should go after the real enemy rather than trying to pass laws taking away rights from Americans. That's my suggestion.
Reference: Times of India
September 07, 2003
Identify the Enemy
Letter to the Editor
It's amazing what the public will believe. Bush wants 87 billion dollars more to fight "terrorism" in Iraq but Bin Laden remains free in Pakistan and no one is going after Saudi Araiba who funded the 9-11 terrorists. Bush is ignoring the real enemies who were behind the WTC plane crashes and going after a false enemy who had nothing to do with it. Still having found no weapons of mass destruction it raises the question - what the hell are we doing in Iraq anyhow? Before we continue the attack - maybe we should try to identify who the enemy is.
Reference: Times of India
September 04, 2003
Bush Grovels before United Nations
Letter to the Editor
Now that the Bush administration is groveling before the United Nations begging them to take over in Iraq for his messed up war, (Still no weapons of mass distruction - Still no Saddam Hussein) makes we wonder if we are going to rename "Freedom Fries" back to "French Fries". As it turns out - they were right and we were wrong. Maybe Bush's rich friends should give back that upper class tax break to pay for this war.
------
It's going to be interesting to watch Bush crawl back on his hands and knees begging the UN to forgive him. This is the price America will have to pay for allowing the Supreme Court to appoint a president other than the one elected by the people. Bush is a miserable failure.
September 01, 2003
War with Venezuela Next?
Letter to the Editor
It would appear that the Bush Administration is positioning itself for an invasion of Venezuela next in it's phony war on terrorism. According to United Press International - a press organization controlled by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon (Moonies) - the FBI is accusing the oil rich nation of Venezuela of harboring al-Qaida terrorists. In the summer of 2000 Bush made an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the elected president and install one of his oil cronies in his place.
It interesting to note that although Bush talk tough on terrorism, that he is not going after Bin Laden. Only 2 months after 9-11 Bush struck a deal with Pakistan to let Bin Laden go free and get away with murdering 3000 Americans. We have already invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in a fake war on terror and now we are going to start a third fake war. I am ashamed to call myself an American.
References:
Bush Deal to let Bin Laden go Free
This is what the MOONIES (UPI) is saying about Oil Rich Venezuela!
United Press International like the Washington Times is owned and controlled by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon who is the spiritual leader of the Moonie Cult.
---------
Analysis: Venezuela's Islamic links
By Martin Arostegui
Published 9/1/2003 4:11 PM
CARACAS, Venezuela, Sept. 1 (UPI) -- Intelligence agencies are investigating links between Islamic terrorist networks and the Venezuelan government. While U.S. counter terrorist efforts in Latin America have until now tended to concentrate on the "tri border area" of Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina, it's believed that al-Qaida suicide bombers could also be hiding in Venezuela.
Investigators name two Venezuelan based al-Qaida suspects: Hakim Mamad Al Diab Fatah who was deported from the U.S. on suspicion of involvement with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and Rahaman Hazil Mohammed Alan who is jailed in the U.K. for smuggling an explosive device onto a British Airways flight. American and British officials complain that their investigations are stymied because the government of President Hugo Chavez has dismantled U.S.-trained intelligence units which tracked terrorist connections among the half-million strong Venezuelan Arab community.
Chavez has instead brought in Cuban and Libyan advisors to run his security services according to American, British and other European diplomatic officials in Caracas.
Although the U.S. State department does not yet consider Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism, FBI officials express concern over "a lack of cooperation on the part of Venezuelan authorities." Despite repeated requests, U.S. law enforcement agencies have received no satisfactory explanation on the whereabouts of Diab Fatah, Venezuelan ID 16104824, who is associated with Hani Hanjour, the hijacker of American Airlines flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon.
Fatah attended the same New Jersey flight school as the suicide team and talked about blowing up airliners. He was arrested in the U.S. shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks but was deported when official inquiries through the Venezuelan government turned up nothing on him other than psychiatric records.
The U.S. legal attaché in Caracas at the time, Hector Rodriguez, informed the Venezuelan Interior Ministry of Fatah's flight number and 8 March 2002 arrival time to request that he be detained for questioning. But to the amazement of American authorities, the Venezuelan government says that there is no record of Fatah ever re-entering the country.
Venezuelan National Guard General Marcos Ferreira, who headed the interior ministry's border control department and forwarded the FBI request to Deputy Interior Minister Luis A. Camacho on 5 March 2002, believes that Venezuela's security service or Directorate for Intelligence Security and Prevention is protecting Fatah.
"DISIP fetched him directly from the plane and took him to a safe house," Ferreira tells UPI.
There is no independent confirmation of this account and the Chavez government discredits Ferreira by claiming that the general was involved in a May 2002 coup plot against the government. But the Fatah mystery appears to fall into a developing pattern of Venezuelan state involvement with terrorism.
British law enforcement officials are similarly perplexed about a fragmentation grenade which got smuggled on board a British Airways flight in the luggage of another Venezuelan Arab as the plane stopped off in Caracas last February 13 on it way to London. Mohammed Alan who boarded the plane with Venezuelan passport BO974970 was arrested upon arrival at London's Gatwick airport when X ray machines detected the device in one of his bags.
Britain's main airports had been on a high security alert all that week following tip offs that a major terrorist attack was being planned.
"The Venezuelans can't explain how the grenade got past security screening but the fact of the matter is that it got on the plane," says a British diplomatic official in Caracas. Chavez has since turned down an offer by the British ambassador to provide counter terrorist experts to assist Venezuela's security services.
According to intelligence sources, the smuggled hand grenade's serial number corresponds to weapons stocks of the Caracas based 3rd army Division and could have been the detonating system for a larger bomb. An unconfirmed report says that a thin sheet of plastic explosive was embedded within the box containing the grenade which Mohammed took on board the aircraft.
An account of the incident published in the Venezuelan magazine Tal Cual maintains that the alleged kamikaze carried the device in a backpack which he brought on board as hand luggage. An air disaster was only averted because the flight crew transferred the bag to the plane's luggage hold when it proved too bulky to fit into the passenger section's overhead compartments.
"He could no longer detonate the bomb in midair as may have been the original plan," says a source quoted in the magazine.
Britain's Scotland Yard cannot officially comment on the case until Mohammed Alan's trial opens. There is still no scheduled date. But members of a detective team sent to Caracas are reported to be "less than satisfied" with information which Venezuela's interior ministry has provided on the terrorist suspect.
Venezuelan police officials speaking on condition of anonymity say that Mohammed's identity is manufactured and that members of his supposed family have connections with Chavez government circles. They could also be connected with a Hizbollah money laundering operation centred around the Banco Confederado on the resort island of Margarita which channels money into the establishments of several Arabs in Venezuela with known radical ties,
A U.S. trained Venezuelan intelligence officer who formed part of the disbanded counter terrorist unit, Section 11, tells UPI that Chavez has been withholding key intelligence from U.S. authorities about the head of Hizbollah's financial operation, Mohammed Al Din, a contributor to Chavez's presidential campaign.
The source says that his unit was eliminated while it was investigating suspicious cash transfers between the Banco Confederado and Lebanon during 2001. A Section 11 undercover agent was killed in Margarita where Diab Fatah has been recently spotted according to Intelligence officers. The island is considered a stronghold of Chavez's state sponsored militias, the Circulos Bolivarianos.
Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International
August 31, 2003
He Kills Reporters - Yet they still suck up to him
What amazes me is that the press is still sucking up to Bush even after having so many of their own murdered in Iraq by the US military. They deliberately kill reporters as a way of using terrorism to intimidate them - and yey they keep silent and say "Bush is a good ol' boy!" We are a nation of cowards. And the press has no tongue.
August 24, 2003
Bush strikes deal to let Bin Laden get away
Letter to the Editor
Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf struck a deal in December of 2001 with the US not to capture Osama Bin Laden, fearing this could lead to unrest in Pakistan. So - it turns out that the hunt for Bin Laden was all a sham and Bush has again sold out America by deciding to let the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center to go free. We went to war with Iraq supposedly because of terrorism and it turns out that Bush had given the terrorists a pass. Now we can't seem to find Saddam Hussein. Makes you wonder what kind of deal they made with him? For all we know Saddam and Osama might be living on Bush's ranch!
Reference: Times of India
Bush made Osama deal with Musharraf
IANS[ SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 2003 06:49:05 PM ]
LONDON: Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has struck a deal with the US not to capture Osama Bin Laden, fearing this could lead to unrest in Pakistan, according to a special investigation by The Guardian.
The paper reported Saturday that Bin Laden was being protected by three elaborate security rings manned by tribesmen stretching 192 kms in diameter in northern Pakistan.
The paper's information is based on comments made by Mansoor Ijaz, an American of Pakistan origin who, the paper said, knows al-Qaeda better than most people and had close contacts in Pakistan's intelligence agencies.
Ijaz believed an agreement was reached between Musharraf and US authorities shortly after Bin Laden's flight from his stronghold Tora Bora in Afghanistan in December 2001.
The Pakistanis feared that to capture or kill Bin Laden so soon after a deeply unpopular war in Afghanistan would incite civil unrest in Pakistan and trigger a spate of revenge al-Qaida attacks on Western targets across the world.
"There was a judgment made that it would be more destabilising in the longer term. There would still be the ability to get him at a later date when it was more appropriate", Ijaz told The Guardian.
The Americans, according to Ijaz, accepted the argument, not least because of the shift in focus to the impending war in Iraq.
So the months that followed were centred on taking down not Bin Laden but the "retaliation infrastructure" of al-Qaeda.
It meant that Musharraf frequently put out conflicting accounts of the status of Bin Laden, while the US administration barely mentioned his name.
In January last year Musharraf said he believed Bin Laden was probably dead. A year later he said he was alive and moving either in Afghanistan or perhaps in the Pakistani tribal areas.
"Yet Western diplomats say they believe the Pakistani authorities are committed to the hunt for Bin Laden, although they admit that frequently the official accounts of the timing and location of successful arrests do not square with reality," the report stated.
"Pakistan must now end the charade and get Bin Laden... With so much of the retaliation infrastructure gone or unsustainable, Bin Laden's martyrdom does not pose nearly the threat it did a year ago," Ijaz told the paper.
According to Ijaz, Bin Laden is hiding in the "northern tribal areas", part of the long belt of seven deeply conservative tribal agencies which stretch down the length of the mountain ranges that mark Pakistan's winding border with Afghanistan.
The paper said that Ijaz, who recently visited Pakistan, believed that Bin Laden was protected by an elaborate security cordon of three concentric circles, in which he is guarded first by a ring of tribesmen, whose duty is to report any approach by Pakistani troops or US Special Forces.
Inside them is a tighter ring, around 19 km in diameter, made up of tribal elders who would warn if the outer ring were breached.
At the centre of the circles is Bin Laden himself, protected by one or two of his closest relatives and advisers.
Bin Laden has reportedly agreed with the elders' argument that he will use no electronic communications but handwritten notes, and will move only at night and between specified places within a limited radius.
Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat told the daily: "We have been getting reports of his presence across the border inside Afghanistan and along the border area also.
"Not all reports have been credible at times. If others were credible, we would certainly have been able to get near to him but certainly that has not been the position so far."
Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general and security analyst said: "I think the Americans find their reliance on the Pakistanis is now increasing."
August 15, 2003
Arnold was involved in causing California Blackouts
It turns out that Arnold Schwarzenegger met with Enron's Kenny Boy Lay and other Republican superstars to help plan the fake energy crisis and drive up utility costs. Now he wants to be governor. Arnold should be in jail.
From Salon Magazine:
Exerpt:
Joe Conason's Journal
When Arnold Schwarzenegger gets around to attacking Gov. Gray Davis for the state's energy fiasco, someone should ask why he appointed Pete Wilson his campaign chairman.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Aug. 11, 2003 | Arnold's secret meeting with Kenny Boy
If you're compiling a list of public figures even less popular in California than Gray Davis, one name is likely to top it: former Enron chairman Kenneth "Kenny Boy" Lay. Voters in the Golden State are behaving like sheep these days, but even the dimmest of them can probably remember how Enron and the other corporate vultures descended on them during the electricity "crisis" of 2001.
What California voters may no longer remember, however, is that after the third wave of rolling blackouts hit their state, Kenny Boy quietly summoned a select group to the Beverly Hills Hotel on May 11, 2001. And they may also have forgotten that one of the prominent Republicans who showed up at Lay's request was Arnold Schwarzenegger.
On June 21, 2001, the Associated Press reported that "Lay met secretly with California Republicans at the Beverly Hills Hotel and pushed a plan that called for ratepayers to pay the billions in debt racked up by the state's public utilities. The plan contended that federal investigations of price gouging are hindering the situation." According to William Bradley, the L.A. Weekly's sharp political columnist who wrote about Enron for the American Prospect, the meeting revolved around Lay's plans to "preserve deregulation" in California. The L.A. Times noted that Lay was seeking the support of Schwarzenegger and the other GOP luminaries for even greater deregulation. Apparently Lay wanted help in saving a lousy system, squeezing the unfortunate Californians even more, and avoiding accountability for their plight.
August 11, 2003
Good time to Sell your Stock?
Should you sell your stock or hang on to it? Well - that depends on if you think the economy is going up or down. Are we really in a "recovery"? Is the economy on the rebound? I think not.
America is living a lie and it's just a matter of time before we can no longer fake it. Interest rates are on the rise. Unemployment is increasing. Taxes are going up, especially on the middle class as states raise taxes on everything to fix their own deficits. And - the national deficit for 2003 is currently projected at 455 billion, and that's not including the social security ripoff that bumbs it up to 650 billion.
So - if you want to stat in the market - good luck! The only mystery here is - how long can they keep the lie going? America is a nation in deep denial. Reality is going to catch up to us some day soon.
August 06, 2003
Comparing the Presidents on Job Creation
What a difference a president makes. This chary outlines the number of jobs created (or lost) under the last three presidents. Each president is started at sero at the beginning of their term.
For those who say that it doesn't matter who is president and that the president doesn't make a difference - here's the chart. Looks to me like who the president is makes a difference. I remember when Clinton was president Greenspan was hiking the interest rates to slow down the economy that was "overheating" and that the jobless rate was too low. Now look where we are. That's what happens when America accepts a pathetic loser as president who was never elected in the first place.
August 02, 2003
We want Full Disclosue on 9-11
Letter to the Editor
It now appears the government of Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, was behind the 9-11 attack. According to an article in the LA Times, people who have read the 28 pages that were blacked out are saying that "the Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts." The sources quoted say there was "direct involvement of senior (Saudi) government officials in a coordinated and methodical way directly to the hijackers, as well as very direct, very specific links that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental."
If Saudi Arabia was behind this then the people of America have a right to know. We can not allow the Bush administration to conceal the identities of the people what are truly behind the worst terrorist act in the history of America.If we don't find out what happened - then how can we prevent a 9-11 from happening again? I call on everyone to demand full disclosure. We have a right to know.
Link to Source:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-saudi2aug02,1,4474000.story?coll=la-home-headlines
July 31, 2003
Bush's Parade of Corpses
Letter to the Editor
It's very disturbing that the leader of our country - and in the name of America - parades around the dead bodies of Saddam Hussein's sons. Let's even assume that they are truly evil men - does that sound like what the leader of a "civilized" country is supposed to do? I think not. It's more the kind of thing that terrorists themselves do.
The problem is that it sets an example that this kind of behavior is ok. It inspires the other terrorists in the world to do the same thing. It escalates the hate - especially the hate directed at Americans. And it puts us all in danger.
For example - I sure wouldn't want to be Bush's daughters because after you kill two sons of you enemy and parade their corpses around and brag about cutting off the bloodline - you just invited every terrorist nut out there to kill your kids and parade the corpses around. Of course - Bush doesn't think that far ahead. But Bush's kids will never be free to just live their lives in peace because Bush sacrificed their peace for a cheap publicity stunt.
Now that his daughters are voting age - make you wonder who they are going to vote for for president. Bet it ain't daddy!
July 30, 2003
Now we can't afford Marshals on Planes
Letter to the Editor
Despite renewed warnings about possible airline hijackings, the Transportation Security Administration has told federal air marshals that starting August 1st they will no longer be protecting any cross-country or international flights, The decision to drop coverage on flights that many are the highest risk of attack is to save the expense of staying overnight in hotels. Update training for marshals was also suspended. The reason - no money.
I sure hope that the rich are enjoying their tax cut because now we don't have any money to fly the rich around safely. They got their big tax cut - but at the price of putting our nation at risk. And Bush better pray no planes without marshals are hijacked because if they are it's going to look like he deliberately allowed it to happen.
-------
Bush says the he sees a "real threat" of another plane attack according to This Yahoo Story. The info for the letter came from This MSNBC Story. So - if Bush blows up another plane - you heard it hear first.
Bush is slipping in the polls. He needs some terrorism to boost his numbers. Too bad he shut down plans for his terrorism futures market - a pentagon project where people bet on future terrorism and assassinations. I think I could have made some $$$ on this one. And if it does happen - you heard it here first.
Seriously though - I send these letter to about 1200 newspapers and it makes me wonder if Bush is planning a terrorist attack and at the last minute they see one of my letters printed and decide - oh shit - we can't do it now - Perkel has already published it. I have this fantasy that by seeing what appears to be a setup and calling it before it happens that I am actually preventing it from happening.
Like in this case for example. We have a ruthless dictator for a president who stole the election and will stop at nothing to maintain power. He is falling in the polls because the country is going to hell and people are beginning to wake up a little from their denial and are saying "Oh FUCK!" So bush needs a distraction and terrorism is his theme.
Think abou this - which is worse? Here are the facts: We have a terrorism aleart that planes are about to be attacked. Bush is talking like it's a very credible threat. And at the same time they pull the sky marshals off the very planes that are the most prime targets for the attack. What does that tell you?
A) The entire administration is incredibly stupid.
B) This is a deliberate government sponsored terrorist event being set up.
Whichever one it is - it is bad new for America. But what scares me even more - where is the news media? Am I the only person that's figured this out? Is this a country of fucking morons? This is a country in really deep denial and we are in a lot of trouble.
July 29, 2003
Blacked out pages in 9-11 report
Letter to the Editor
I'm not sure which is more disturbing - the fact that Saudi Arabia bankrolled the 9-11 attack - or that the Bush administration wants to conceal that Saudi Arabia was behind the attack by blacking out pages in the 9-11 report. 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, None were from Iraq. Did we go to war with the wrong country?