Larry Craig vs. David Vitter - There is a difference

Even though Liberals / Democrats / Homosexuals want to put a homophobic spin on the issue that Craig was kicked out and Vitter wasn't, I'm not sure I can agree entirely.

Yes - Republicans hate gays. So a gay trist is different than a straight trist in the Republican party. So because Republicans hate gays then they have to toss their gay members.

Having said that, Vitter did is deed in private, behind closed doors. Craig was in a public rest room and the difference is that do we want gay guys cruising public rest rooms for sex? Rest rooms are a plact to go for the bathroom. It's not a gay bar. I don't want people looking at me through the cracks in the stalls trying to make eye contact with me.

Public sex is different than private sex in that you are subjecting people to your sex acts who don't want to be involved. That includes heterosexual public sex as well. So if you get caught by police having public sex then that's a crime and as long as it is a minor crime and just something involving a fine I don't have a problem with law enforcement protecting our restrooms.

Having said that, Republicans claim that they clean up their party and have superior morals. Vitter admitted that he had contact with a prostitute. Craig pleaded guilty. To me that's the same thing because if a senator admits to a crime that's politically the same as pleading guilty. So the Republicans should either kick out Vitter or they should quit bragging about their superior morals. By keeping David Vitter on board they are saying that sex with prostitutes is acceptable to the Republican Party.

Problems with the Larry Craig Story

There are a number of problems with Senator Larry Craig's story even if you believe what he admitted to in the police interview and other Larry Craig statements.

1. Craig admitted to touching the foot of the cop in the next stall with his foot. I'm my years of going to the men's room I've never come close to touching the foot of the guy in the next stall. That just doesn't happen accidentally.
2. Craig says he has a wide stance. But if his pants were down around his ankles then his wide stance is limited to the width of his pants.
3. If Craigs legs were spread so wide that he was touching the foot of the cop in the next stall then he wouldn't have been able to lower his pants.
4. If I were in a stall I wouldn't want the guy in the next stall reaching under the divider to pick up a piece of toilet paper on my side.
5. Craig admitted he wears his wedding ring on his left hand. The cop was in the stall to his right. So if he were picking up toilet paper off the floor in the cop's stall with his left hand, he would have had to get down on his hands and knees to reach it. The idea of getting down on your hands and knees to reach under the stall divider to get a piece of toilet paper off the floor in another stall is creepy.
6. Craig raised the issue of entrapment indicating that he might have been doing the act he was being entrapped by.
7. When Craig pleaded guilty he swore under oath that he was guilty. If he is not guilty then he lied under oath in front of a judge. That's the same thing that he accused Clinton of when he voted to impeach him.
8. When Craig said that "it is my intent to resign" he knew at the time he said that that he was lying to the public.

Then according to the police report Craig was peering at the cop through the crack in the door trying to make eye contact. Craig didn't reach for toilet paper on the floor but had his palm up and touching the bottom of the divider. The cop indicated that he established foot tapping communication with Craig and that they exchanged pickup signals that gay men use to signal they want sex.

Even though the standard of criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt", if Craig's story is impossible and it's clear he's lying then that undermines reasonable doubt. So a jury conclued Craig is lying and the officer is truthful the Craig goes to jail.

Democrats need Punishment

Dear fellow political radicals,

I don't know if you all all as livid as I am about last week's vote to suspend the Constitution and allow the government to spy on us without a warrant as I am. If you are, I have a proposal. I call it operation political starvation and it's a commitment to refuse to donate any money to any politician until our rights are restored.

The law that was passed was like the Patriot Act where it was rushed through without and discussion as to what they were doing. This was done this time by the Democrats who could have just told Bush to go fuck himself but instead voted to give him powers for 6 months that are clearly unconstitutional. Two weeks ago they were talking about impeaching Gonzales for the very thing they just legalized. It's a level of insanity that just makes my skin crawl.

This law will last at least 6 months after which there will be a push to make it permanent. And the Democrats have already demonstrated that they are total pussies when it comes to asserting anything. They talk like they are against what Bush is doing yet all they have to do to stop Bush is to stop voting for things Bush wants.

What they say means absolutely nothing. It's how they vote that counts. Since this law lasts 6 months none of them, and I mean NONE will get a dime from me as long as my rights are suspended. If the law expires without being renewed then I will contribute again. However, we need to make a very strong statement and they have to feel it and this is 2007 and not an election year and I don't see where withholding money is going to make the difference in next years election. Except that what would be the point of electing Democrats if they are going to vote like Republicans.

What I'm looking for is to start a movement and call it "Operation Political Starvation" (unless someone has a better name) where people of all parties refuse to make any political contribution while our rights are suspended. In particular Democrats need to feel it.

I had someone call me yesterday from the DSCC wanting me to give them money to elect Democrats to the Senate. I told her NO FUCKING WAY and made it clear why. She admitted that she was hearing that a lot so there is support out there for this kind of idea.

Yes - it is weird for me to advocate hurting Democrats when the Republicans are pure evil. However if the Republicans control the Democrats which appears to be the case based on HOW THEY VOTE, what is the difference. This is 2007, not 2008 and we have some time here to turn the Democrats around and they best way I can think of is if it makes the news that Democrats are withholding funds until Democrats vote with the voters. When we elected them in 2006 we sent a message that we want change and all we are getting is lip service. That isn't good enough. We need to put the hurt on them. So I'm advocating that we stop giving for 6 months and see how they vote when it comes time to renew this law.

There is a level of insanity that I can not support and the Democrats have reached it. It is time that use who have blogs take a stand for civil liberties while we still have them.

What I have in mind is to boycot and save any contributions to any Democrat. Starve them out. If they don't renew the law in 6 months and protect the Constitution then we can give them the money. If they don't then we can give the money to the ACLU or EFF.

There is an old saying in the news business. "Never pick a fight with a guy who buys ink by the barrel. I have a new version of that. "Never pick a fight with a blogger who buys data by the terabyte." I'm using about 8 terabytes a month and I want to dedicate some of it to turning this insanity around.

So - who likes this idea?

We can only afford Bridges to Nowhere

Senator Ted Stevens had no trouble getting 250 million approved to build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. What do you want to bet that getting 250 million to replace the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota will be far more difficult.

Haggard Foley Joke

So one day Mike Foley and Ted Haggard are on horseback inspecting the fence between the US and Mexico when Foley sees a sheep with his head stuck in the fence.

Foley gets off his horse and has sex with the sheep. After he gets done he says to Haggard, "You want some of this?" Haggard says, "Sure", and he snorts some Meth and sticks his head in the fence.

Rush Limbaugh says, "I'm full of Crap!"

Tell us something we don't already know! Rush admitted today that he was full of crap, seriously!

The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high! Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat [sic] Party does and liberalism.

What Rush doesn't get is that he is a liar and only morons listen to him that think that if they just believe hard enough that reality is going to magically change to suit them. But it's all so much bullshit. Just like Mark Foley was supposed be in charge of exploited children. Just like Rev. Ted Haggard who preached hatred of gays was caught having sex with a gay hooker while high on Meth.

BTW Rush - thanks for helping Claire McCaskil win in Missouri. The Deomcrats wouldn't have the Senate without you!

Well, I voted - I think

At least I have the illusion of voting. Lat election we had optical scan pater ballots where you connected lines on a paper ballot and fed them into a machine that scanned the ballot and stored it securely. I'm in San Mateo county in California. Poll location is:

Bethany Presbyterian Church
Church Hall
2400 Rosewood Dr
San Bruno, CA

But this time it was different. There were paper ballots but no optical scan machine and a single electronic voting machine that was out in the open and had a person - an old lady - helping to work it for you. In front of the machine was an old lady voting who was totally confused and complaining that she didn't understand how to work it.

The paper ballot seemed simple enough but after voting I was supposed to drop it in a plastic unsecured box that anyone can open and replace the ballots with whatever they want.

I used to live in Missouri and they had punch paper ballots. After voting you dropped the ballot into a big steel box with a lock on it. That at least gives you the illusion that it was sealed until it made it to the county clerk's office where it would be opened. But today I have no idea who might remove my ballot and replace it with something else. Although the old ladies at the polls don't look like crooks I have no idea who will pick up the ballots and if they can be trusted.

I live in a Democrat area so I'm not that worried about republicans but there are several ballot measures that include massive spending and borrowing that would benefit local officials. I don't know that they might rig the election to pass those measures.

Is it too much to ask that a paper ballot be put into a locked box? I don't think so. An insecure election is an unfair election and voting on an insecure machine is not voting at all.

Red Cross Wants Cluster Bomb Ban

One of the reason we need to oust the Republicans is to get a ban on cluster bombs like the ones used in Lebanon. If you are tired of your tax dollars going to fund murdering children then vote Democrat.

Here's The Article

Red Cross urges cluster-bomb ban

Civilian deaths outweigh possible military advantages, body says

GENEVA - The international Red Cross demanded Monday that the world immediately stop using cluster bombs because the indiscriminate civilian deaths caused by the weapons far outweigh any possible military advantages.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said it was stepping up its campaign against the weapons because of Israel's unprecedented use of the scattershot bombs during its monthlong war with Lebanon, the first major organization to do so since the fighting this summer. Russia and the United States also have resisted moves to eliminate the weapons.

"The problems associated with cluster munitions are not new," said Philip Spoerri, director of international law for the ICRC, guardian of the Geneva Convention on the conduct of war. "In nearly every conflict in which they have been used, significant numbers of cluster munitions have failed to detonate as intended and have instead left a long-term and deadly legacy of contamination."

The U.N. Children's Fund has so far only called for "a freeze on the use, transfer and sale of the weapons," spokesman Michael Bociurkiw said.

Annan statement
However, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is expected to issue a statement Tuesday to countries meeting in Geneva to discuss reducing conventional weapons stockpiles. Officials declined to say whether Annan would map out a new policy for the global body.

Cluster bomb projectiles — or submunitions about the size of an orange or a soft-drink can — are packed into artillery shells or bombs dropped from aircraft. A single cluster-bomb container fired to destroy airfields or tanks and soldiers typically scatters some 200 to 600 of the explosives over an area the size of a football field.

Human rights groups have estimated that Israel dropped cluster bombs containing as many as 4 million tiny bombs in Lebanon. Around 30 to 40 percent of the submunitions failed to explode on impact, U.N. officials have said.

Usually 10 to 15 percent — but in some cases up to 80 percent — of the devices fail to explode immediately. Those that do not explode right away may detonate later at the slightest disturbance, experts say. The impact on children is especially bad because the tiny bombs are usually an eye-catching yellow with little parachutes attached.

Lebanese casualties said to continue
Spoerri said the small bombs were continuing to kill innocent Lebanese civilians every week. Much of the suffering, he added, could have been avoided had more accurate weapons been chosen.

"It is simply unacceptable that (civilians) should return to homes and fields littered with explosive debris," he said. "The ICRC believes that the time has come for strong international action to end the predicable pattern of human tragedy associated with cluster munitions."

The neutral agency previously called for a ban on the weapons’ being used in cities and villages after gauging the effects of the 1999 NATO air war against Serbia over the separatist province of Kosovo. Its call in 2000 for a moratorium on their general use has since been ignored by the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Complicating the problem is the growing risk that militant groups pose. Human Rights Watch also has cited cluster bomb use by Hezbollah against targets in northern Israel, spurring fears that the weapons are becoming more easily accessible for rogue militias and terrorists.

The bombs, a descendant of the "butterfly bomb" dropped by Nazi Germany on Britain in World War II, were first used by the U.S. in Vietnam. Similar weapons were used by Soviet and Russian troops in Angola, Afghanistan and Chechnya, where leftover duds also continue to inflict casualties.

The use of such weapons is not explicitly banned under international law, but an increasing number of human rights groups think it should be.

Kerry - shut the fuck up!

Jesus! This election isn't about you you dumb fuck! Stay the hell out of this.

Diebold Added Secret Patch to Georgia E-Voting Systems in 2002, Whistleblowers Say

By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, Atlanta Progressive News (September 28, 2006)

(APN) ATLANTA – Top Diebold corporation officials ordered workers to install secret files to Georgia’s electronic voting machines shortly before the 2002 Elections, at least two whistleblowers are now asserting, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

Former Diebold official Chris Hood told his story concerning the secret “patch” to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for Kennedy’s second article on electronic voting in this week’s Rolling Stone Magazine.

Hood’s claims corroborate a second whistleblower who spoke with Black Box Voting and Wired News in 2003.

Whistleblower Accounts

“With the primaries looming, [Chief of Diebold’s Election Division] Urosevich was personally distributing a ‘patch,’ a little piece of software designed to correct glitches in the computer program,” Rolling Stone Magazine reported.

"We were told that it was intended to fix the clock in the system, which it didn't do," Hood told Rolling Stone. "The curious thing is the very swift, covert way this was done."

"It was an unauthorized patch, and they were trying to keep it secret from the state," Hood told Rolling Stone.

"We were told not to talk to county personnel about it. I received instructions directly from Urosevich. It was very unusual that a president of the company would give an order like that and be involved at that level,” Hood told Rolling Stone.

The “patch” was applied to about 5,000 polling places in Fulton and DeKalb Counties in 2002, Rolling Stone reported.

Hood did not immediately return a text message from Atlanta Progressive News and his voicemail was not operational.

The second whistleblower, Rob Behler, was contracted to work with Diebold in the lead up to the 2002 Elections.

Two patches were applied in June and July 2002 respectively while Behler worked in the Diebold warehouse; another patch was applied in August 2002 after Behler left the warehouse, Wired News reported.

“Behler said Diebold programmers posted patches to a file-transfer-protocol site for him and his colleagues to apply to the machines,” Wired News reported.

Diebold officials first denied any patches were applied in an interview with Salon in 2003, according to Wired News.

"We have analyzed that situation and have no indication of that happening at all," Joseph Richardson, Diebold spokesperson, is reported to have told Salon at the time.

This story later changed.

Activists Speak Out

Elections integrity activists are outraged by the relevations, although they say the apparent secretive nature of “the patch” has only confirmed the things they already suspected and feared.

“The fact that they were doing any patch of any kind is very disturbing,” Garland Favorito of VoterGA, an organization that is suing the State of Georgia over the meaningless nature of elections here, told Atlanta Progressive News.

“It raises the distinct possibility the machines might have counted [in a] different [manner] on Election Night than when certified,” Favorito said.

“It corroborates two of our key points of the suit. One, machines can count differently on Election Night than when certified. So, the only way is to verify on Election Night. Two, it’s another example of how people have been removed from the counting of the votes,” Favorito said.

“I’m not surprised people are playing tricks. As far as the patch, I say ‘time out’ for that,” Donzella James, who is contesting her purported loss in the Democratic Primary in Georgia’s 13th Congressional District to US Rep. David Scott (D-GA), told Atlanta Progressive News.

“I’m definitely going to look into it. I’m glad there’s a credible person–Kennedy–who has brought this information forward,” James said.

An outspoken advocate for a voter verified paper trail since her days in the Georgia State Senate, James said she is getting ready to run again in 2008 whatever the outcome of her lawsuit.

“It immediately shows Diebold has not been telling the truth, has been covering up facts, in state after state, year after year. This is someone who knows. He has insider knowledge,” Brad Friedman of BradBlog told Atlanta Progressive News.

“These are things people suspected. He confirmed it. Diebold never gave a damn about security, accuracy, or transparency,” Friedman said.

What is worse, the use of last-minute patches on electronic voting machines are routine, Friedman said.

“It has happened all over the country. Because they find out about security issues at the last minute and apply them without going through the proper procedures,” Friedman said.

At a recent press conference called by Donzella James, poll watchers say one county official locked herself in a room with the machine for three unexplained minutes during the recent Primary.

Cathy Cox’s Role

Where was Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox during all this?

Apparently, Diebold leadership asked employees to not let her office know about the patch or patches.

And Diebold first alleged this application of patches wasn’t going on.

However, Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox appears to have found out anyway.

And Diebold appears to have at some point acknowledged the patches existed.

At least one patch was approved by Kennesaw State University, who got a state contract to do so, according to Wired News.

And Diebold admitted to the Elections Assistance Commission about the “0808" patch, Garland Favorito said.

Cox wrote a letter after the 2002 Elections, asking Diebold to address a total of 29 problems with the functioning of their E-voting machines, technology, and procedures, Rolling Stone reported.

This list of 29 items was also brought up in a press conference by US Rep. Cynthia McKinney, her first major press conference on electronic voting.

Cox referred to the item of the mysterious patch as “The application/implication of the 0808 patch.”

“The state was seeking confirmation that the patch did not require that the system ‘be recertified at national and state level’ as well as ‘verifiable analysis of overall impact of patch to the voting system,’” Rolling Stone Magazine reports.

But shouldn’t they be seeking her confirmation and not the other way around?

Diebold’s reply to Cox’s letter, if one exists, has not been made publicly available, according to Rolling Stone.

“She [Cox] should be the one confirming it, not the vendor. She’s the one responsible for running elections in Georgia,” Favorito told Atlanta Progressive News.

“She appears to be trying to privatize the election system to the point where she’s trying to ask the vendor to determine if they’re in compliance, rather that using their own resources,” within the Office of the Secretary of State, Favorito said.

“They claim [as an excuse] to have changed the operating system and not the tabulating software. We believe the law says the systems have to be re-certified with a patch of any kind. The State did not certify those patches. The State took Diebold’s word,” Favorito said.

“However, State Law does not seem to support Diebold’s testimony,” Favorito said.

Atlanta Progressive News will be looking more into how Diebold was, or was not, able to satisfy Cox’s 2002 concerns.

“Atlanta Progressive News is the only media outlet in Georgia that’s covering this story,” Garland Favorito of VoterGA said.

About the author:

Matthew Cardinale is the News Editor for Atlanta Progressive News. He may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com

Syndication policy:

This article may be reprinted in full at no cost where Atlanta Progressive News is credited.

Now Lieberman is stealing bandwidth from YouTube

I went to check on the Liebernan web site and it's back up. It's a one page site and it has a Joe Lieberman video on it - but the video isn't being fed from his web site. It's being fed from the You Tube servers. So instead of paying for his own bandwidth Lieberman is ripping off someone else. I wonder if Youtube knows that they are making a donation to Joe Lieberman?

Yet Another Terror Alert

With less than 100 days till elections the Republicans need to shake the boggie man and try to create some terror. Republican need terror and rigged votimg machines to win elections. With Lieberman losing it's Red Alert, new plot to blow up planes.

Lets see what this plot looks like next week. I remember the last two plots that fizzeled out into nothing. Lets see where this one goes. Expect a lot more trror as we get close to the election. Maybe they can even fet Bush's buddy Osama to make an election eve endorsement like he did in 2004.

I want to be the person at the airport who's supposed to inspect the breast milk.

More Details Emerge on Lieberman's Web Site Hacking Lie

New details are coming out about Lieberman's lie about the site hack. This Yahoo Story has some interesting new details.

The campaign spends about $100 to $150 a month on Web hosting services with MyHostCamp, said Dan Geary, who administers the site for the campaign. Geary said that MyHostCamp, which is owned by a friend of Geary's, gave the site more than enough bandwidth — 200 gigabytes a month — to handle a crush of visitors.

200 gigs a month? Is that all? If that's a hard limit it's no wonder it's down. This server that this blog is on puts out about 6000 gigs of data a month. Two years ago during the last 2 weeks of the 2004 election we put data out at a rate of 32000 gigs/month. That's over 100 times the capacity that Lieberman had, and I'm not running for Senate.

If Lieberman ran into his bandwidth caps wich considering the national attention he should have then the issue isn't an attack, but that he was just tyring to be cheap.

Additionally the tech admitted something important.

Geary acknowledged that he has no idea who hacked into the site. Lamont's campaign has denied any involvement.

So if Lieberman's tech guy admits he has no idea who is behind the attack then why is Lieberman shooting off his mouth accusing Lamont of doing it. For all he knows it could be Hezbollah or Republicans. Or most likely there wasn't an attack. They just didn't buy the bandwidth to handle the traffic. I'd say that there's no way 200 gigs a month is enough for Lieberman when 200 gigs a day is barey enough for me.

Lieberman continues lie about his web site attack

From Lieberman's web site.

UPDATE ON THE ATTACK ON THE LIEBERMAN CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

"We call on Ned Lamont to make an unqualified statement denouncing this kind of dirty campaign trick and to demand whoever is responsible to cease and desist immediately. Any attempt to suppress voter participation and undermine the voting process on Election Day is deplorable and has no place in our democracy."

The problem is that it's just not true. Lieberman doesn't have a dedicated server. He shares his server with hundreds of other sites that are all working fine. I tested his email and it appears to be fine as well. For more information about Lieberman's server, Click Here. I just sent an email to postmaster@joe2006.com and according to my logs it to 5 seconds to deliver it.

Of course Lieberman has called on Lamont to stop it as if Lamont has something to do with it or can control it. This is just a political ploy. Nothing More.

Tin Foil Hat - World War 3

I remember from the first day of this war that the Bush people was saying things about this was about Syria and Iran - both of which aren't involved. They also used the term "proxy war". Generally one of the Neocon signature traits is to accuse the other side of exactly what you are up to. Israel is fighting a proxy war for America, or maybe we are Israel's proxy.

I know one thing for sure - what they are telling us to believe isn't true. But what is true is sort of a puzzle for us to solve. But without knowing who and how it's happening the intent is clear. The players involved want a far wider regional war and perhaps even a world war. I believe that Israel and America are trying to start World War 3. We have to put a stop to it.

Here's the Article from Consortium News

Three days after the May 23 summit between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and U.S. President George W. Bush, a car bomb killed two officials of Islamic Jihad in the Lebanese city of Sidon.

Immediately, Lebanese officials, including Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, denounced the murder of brothers Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub and pointed the finger at Israel as the prime suspect. On June 10, a man named Mahmoud Rafeh was arrested for the car bombing and, according to the Lebanese army, confessed that he was a Mossad agent.

Rafeh, a 59-year-old retired police officer, belonged to a “terror network working for the Israeli Mossad,” which had smuggled a booby-trapped door into Lebanon from Israel for use in the assassination, the Lebanese army said.

In retrospect, the Majzoub assassination looks to have been part of a larger U.S.-Israeli strategy – following the Olmert-Bush summit – to encourage a tit-for-tat escalation of violence that would ratchet up pressure on Palestinian and Lebanese militants – and through them their allies in Syria and Iran.

That violence also set the stage for the current Israeli-Lebanese war, which now has raged for almost one month and has claimed the lives of nearly 1,000 Lebanese and 100 Israelis.

A Year for War

According to Israeli sources, Olmert and Bush agreed at the May 23 summit to make 2006 the year for neutralizing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while deferring a border settlement with the Palestinians until 2007.

Provoking a wider regional conflict also revived hopes among Bush’s neoconservative advisers that they might yet create a “new Middle East” that would be amenable to U.S. and Israeli desires and interests.

In this context, the Israeli-Lebanese war was a confrontation looking for a pretext, not an ad hoc response to Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12. That so-called “kidnapping” has been sold to the American people and many world leaders as the precipitating event for the conflict, but it now appears only to have been a trigger for a prearranged scheme.

Israeli sources indicate that Bush gave Olmert a green light for the conflict at the May 23 summit. The sources said Bush has even encouraged Israel to expand the war by attacking Syria, although Israeli leaders balked at that recommendation because they lacked an immediate justification.

One Israeli source said some Israeli officials considered Bush’s interest in an attack on Syria “nuts” since it would have been viewed by much of the world as an act of overt aggression. Bush, however, is said to still hold out hope that reactions by Syria or Iran – such as coming to the aid of Hezbollah – could open the door to a broader conflict.

In an article on July 30, the Jerusalem Post hinted at Bush’s continued interest in a wider war involving Syria. “Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria,” the newspaper reported.

Bush pursued a similar “pretext” war strategy in 2003 when he sought a provocation by Iraq that would give legal cover for invading that country.

A leaked British document recounted an Oval Office meeting between Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair on Jan. 31, 2003. Even as Bush was publicly telling the American people that he viewed war with Iraq as a “last resort,” he had already made up his mind and was scheming to find excuses for justifying an attack on Iraq.

According to minutes written by Blair’s top foreign policy aide David Manning, “the U.S. was thinking of flying U-2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.”

Regardless of whether a casus belli could be provoked, Bush already had “penciled in” March 10, 2003, as the start of the U.S. bombing of Iraq, according to the memo. “Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning,” Manning wrote.

As it turned, Bush brushed aside Blair’s worries about the legality of an unprovoked invasion of Iraq and went ahead with the assault on March 19, 2003. Though Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein was ousted after a three-week U.S.-led assault, Iraqi insurgents have battled the American occupying army since then in a war that has claimed the lives of almost 2,600 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis.

New Ambitions

Many American observers believed that the disaster in Iraq would tamp down Bush’s ambition to remake the region. However, with Olmert’s ascension to power in Israel in 2006, Bush saw a kindred spirit who believed that military force was the only way to get Islamic adversaries to make necessary concessions.

After the May 23 meeting with Bush, Olmert declared that “this is a moment of truth” for addressing Iran’s alleged ambitions to build a nuclear bomb.

In a speech to a joint session of Congress on May 24, Olmert called the possibility of Iran building a nuclear weapon “an existential threat” to Israel, meaning that Israel believed its very existence was in danger.

Two days later, the car bomb killed the Majzoub brothers in Sidon and a new cycle of escalation began. In reaction to the assassinations, Islamic militants fired rockets into Israel, which, in turn, counter-attacked killing one Hezbollah fighter.

Tensions rose further when fighting between Israelis and Palestinians resumed in Gaza. On the night of June 23, Israeli commandos crossed into Gaza and seized Osama and Mustafa Abu Muamar, two sons of Hamas activist Ali Muamar. [BBC, June 24, 2006]

Early on the morning of June 24, Hamas militants snuck into Israel via a tunnel from Gaza and attacked an Israel patrol, killing two soldiers and capturing Corporal Gilad Shalit as a part of a demand for a prisoner exchange. Israel is reported to hold about 10,000 Palestinian prisoners.

On June 27, as these tensions mounted, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was still working to advance a possible peace settlement with Israel. Abbas coaxed the more radical Hamas, which controls the Palestinian parliament, into endorsing a document proposing a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Abbas’s success represented a potential breakthrough in a border settlement with Israel, since Hamas implicitly was accepting Israel as a neighbor next to an independent Palestinian state.

But the next day, June 28, Olmert sent the Israeli army crashing into Gaza to avenge the “kidnapping” of Shalit, a phrasing that the U.S. news media immediately adopted in blaming Hamas for instigating the crisis.

As the Israeli army overwhelmed scattered Palestinian resistance and began “detaining” – not “kidnapping” – Hamas legislators, tensions were also mounting on the Israeli-Lebanese border. On July 12, Hezbollah forces attacked an Israeli border outpost, killing three soldiers and capturing – or “kidnapping” – two others, also seeking a prisoner exchange.

The July 12 incident opened up the floodgates of violence. Israel launched a broad air-and-ground offensive aimed at crushing Hezbollah by blasting apart its strongholds in south Lebanon and destroying much of Lebanon’s economic infrastructure, from roads to communications. Hezbollah launched hundreds of Katyusha rockets into northern Israel.

Besides the almost 1,000 Lebanese who have died, an estimated one million – or about one-fourth of Lebanon's population – were displaced from their homes. The Israeli death toll, both military and civilian, stood at about 100.

While many international leaders called for an immediate cease-fire to stop the bloodshed in July, Bush staunchly defended Israel’s actions as a legitimate act of self-defense against “terrorists.”

In an unguarded moment during the G-8 summit in Russia on July 17, Bush – speaking with his mouth full of food – told Blair “what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit.”

Not realizing that a nearby microphone was turned on, Bush also complained about suggestions for a cease-fire and an international peacekeeping force. “We’re not blaming Israel and we’re not blaming the Lebanese government,” Bush said, suggesting that the blame should fall on others, presumably Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

Meanwhile, John Bolton, Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations, suggested that the United States would only accept a multilateral U.N. force if it had the capacity to take on Hezbollah's backers in Syria and Iran.

“The real problem is Hezbollah,” Bolton said. “Would it [a U.N. force] be empowered to deal with countries like Syria and Iran that support Hezbollah?” [NYT, July 18, 2006]

‘Cease-Fire’

By early August, as rage throughout the Middle East rose to a boil, the Bush administration finally put forth a cease-fire plan. But it read as if it were designed to further stir Arab anger and extend the conflict.

While demanding that Hezbollah stop fighting and effectively disarm, it would allow Israeli forces to remain in south Lebanon and only require Israel to cease “offensive” operations. A multinational force would then replace the Israeli army and police a buffer zone carved entirely out of south Lebanon.

Bush said his cease-fire goal was to strike at the “root cause” of the conflict, the existence of Hezbollah as an armed militia inside Lebanon.

“By taking these steps, it will prevent armed militias like Hezbollah and its Iranian and Syrian sponsors from sparking another crisis,” Bush said at an Aug. 7 news conference in Crawford, Texas.

“The loss of life on both sides of the Lebanese-Israeli border has been a great tragedy,” Bush said. “Millions of Lebanese civilians have been caught in the crossfire of military operations because of the unprovoked attack and kidnappings by Hezbollah. The humanitarian crisis in Lebanon is of deep concern to all Americans, and alleviating it will remain a priority of my government.”

But the reality appears to be quite different. Much as Bush told the American people that he considered war with Iraq “a last resort” long after he had decided to invade, Bush is now saying his goal is to relieve a humanitarian crisis when he actually hopes to expand the conflict and force a showdown with Syria and Iran.

While U.S. officials have been careful not to link the Lebanon conflict to any possible military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, they have spoken privately about using the current conflict to counter growing Iranian influence.

Only days after the Lebanon-Israel conflict began, Washington Post foreign policy analyst Robin Wright wrote that U.S. officials told her that “for the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East. …

“Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants – with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike.” [Washington Post, July 16, 2006]

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

It's all about Lieberman - nothing else matters

Lieberman doesn't care about archane concepts like the will of the people through democratic elections. He's smarter than us and he can't let the election results stand. "I can not and will not let that result stand," he declared. Nothing else matters to Joe because the rest of us don't matter. The only thing that's important is what he wants. It's all about Joe and what he wants.

Lieberman Site Still Down

Joe Lieberman's web site that he claimed was hacked by Lamont is still down today. When you go to his web page at http://joe2006.com it redirects you here:

http://server1.myhostcamp.com/suspended.page/

Notice the URL is called "suspended.page" which implies that this is not a hacked site, it's a suspended page. That supports the theory that Lieberman got suspended for not paying his bill. So if he called the cops and the FBI in over this he filed a false police report. We need to call the bastard on this lie.

Also - this site is on a shared server with hundreds of other sites. All the other sites are still online. So there's no server damage or denial of service attack. So - think about it - all the other sites are up and Lieberman's site is redirected to a "suspended" page. And - after 40 hours it's still not back up? What does that tell you?

I only support anti-war anti-bush Democrats

Now that we have defeated Lieberman it's time that the Democrats get the message that we are against the war, against Bush, and against sucking up to the right wing. We aren't going to support Democtats who are in the pockets of big oil, tobacco companie, and vote for tax breaks for the rich.

Our valuse are important and our resources are limited. So we should only support those Democratic candidates who are worthy of support. We should contribute to candidates of our choosing and not to organizations who just fund incumbent dems regardless of their position on important issues like the war. So if the DCCC doesn't take an anti-war stand and Move-on does then give to Move-on. We also need to give to the Democratic organizations who helped defeat Lieberman and to make it clear that Democrats aren't going to get our support unless they are more than just not being a Republican.

Lieberman lies about his site being hacked

Here's the site I've been looking for that has the Real Story about Lieberman's web site.

"Update: DailyKos points out that none of the other 73 sites hosted on that same server are down. That really kills the credibility of the Lieberman campaign claiming it was a DoS attack."

If there was an attack all the web sites on that server would be down. And if someone copied over Liebermans site it only takes a few minutes to restore from backups.

I don't know what's really happening but I know what's not happening and that's Lieberman's version. Someone needs to ask the hosting company for an explanation.

I'm not buying the Lieberman's site was hacked story

Being a web host myself I'm not buying this story that Jieberman's site was hacked story. His site has been down far too long for that excuse. Unless he is totally incompetent all you have to do is restore from backups and put it back online. If someone hacked any site on my servers it would take me less that 10 minutes to restore.

The other version, that he didn't pay his bill is more likely. Many vendors get stiffed by politicians during elections. If the vendor wasn't paid and thought he was going to get screwed then he might pull the site. There are blogs out there that captured the original message that his site was pulled for not paying his bill.

Lieberman's accusation that he seems to know that Lamont did it is just an election day ploy. Even if he were hacked, how whould he know who did it?

The WHOIS data on the joe2006.com site is interesting.

Friends of Joe Lieberman
P.O. Box 231294
Hartford, CT 06123
US

Domain Name: JOE2006.COM

Administrative Contact:
Diana Fassbender fassbenderdw@yahoo.com
Friends of Joe Lieberman
P.O. Box 231294
Hartford, ct 06123
US
Phone: 203-449-7365
Fax:
Technical Contact:
Domain Administrator hostmaster@securesites.com
Friends of Joe Lieberman
PO Box 3895
Englewood, CO 80155
US
Phone: +180.14370220
Fax:
Billing Contact:
Diana Fassbender fassbenderdw@yahoo.com
Friends of Joe Lieberman
P.O. Box 231294
Hartford, ct 06123
US
Phone: 203-449-7365
Fax:

Record updated on 2005-09-03 13:33:00
Record created on 2002-06-23
Record expires on 2007-06-23
Database last updated on 2006-08-08 16:23:29 EST

Domain servers in listed order:

NS1.THEPLANET.COM 207.44.128.228,207.44.128.229,70.86.61.133,70.86.61.134,70.87.7.70,70.87.7.71
NS2.THEPLANET.COM 207.44.128.230,207.44.128.231,70.86.61.135,70.86.61.136,70.87.7.72,70.87.7.73

TransferGuard LOCK Status => DISABLED

Notice the transfer lock as disabled. That's just a little sloppy for a political candidate.

I'm tired of CNN/Lou Dobbs racist let's hate the wetbacks bullshit

TV news is becoming totally worthless. Case in point CNN. It's the let's hate the wet backs channel. There's two kinds of people, us and them, and we need to build a wall to keep them out. As if illegal immigrants is a serious issue as compared the the Iraq Occupation that CNN helped sell. There's just no point in tuning in anymore because hating hispanics is all they talk about and I'm not into hating hispanics. Mexicans are generally hard working law abiding citizens and they deserve respect. Shame on CNN.

Is Ken Lay really Dead?

Or is this an elaborate hoax? This guy has enough money and connections to fake his death as a way to get out of prison. Lets watch and see if there's anything funny at the funeral. I think that he's living on Bush's ranch with Osama bin Laden.

Today I wish I weren't an Atheist

I wish I weren't an Atheist today because Ken Lay died. If I weren't an Atheist I could have the satisfaction of believing he was in Hell right now paying for all the hell he caused in this world. but unfortunately he got away with it. I was looking forward to him spending some time in prison.

Call Arlen Spector and Tell him he's getting Suckered

I see in the news that Bush is trying to sucker Arlen Spector into a deal on domestic spying.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060625/ap_on_go_co/eavesdropping_2

The idea is that congress will pass a new law that will somehow solve the problem of Bush's illegal wiretapping. However this would be a serious mistake. Last Friday I was in Federal District Court in Northern California in the Electronic Frontier Foundation vs. AT&T case. In this case as you might have read the Bush administration is trying to block the lawsuit on the basis that the domestic spying is a military secret.

I was there in court and this is something you won't see in the news because most of the reporters left early but the Justice Dept. lawyers told the judge that if Congress passes any law restricting domestic spying that they would ignore the law and threatened the judge with a constitutional crisis if he ruled against them. So Arlen is going to get screwed because no matter what law they pass Bush will not follow it.

What's important here is to get a lot of people to call Alren Spector ASAP (Monday) and let him know that he's about to get screwed because bush lawyers told the judge that they will refuse to obey the law. The number for his office is 202-224-4254. Please do whatever it takes, posting on your web sites, on other's web sites, and do a special mailing to your lists to get the word out. We need to get Arlen's attention and make him understand that he's being suckered.

Coverage of cynthia McKinney extremely racist

Every network is featuring Cynthia McKinny's remarks calling someone a fool. As if that is some kind of news or something. why is calling someone a "fool" even interesting? because she's a blak woman and the news media is trying to put the nigers in the back of the bus. CNN has had the story on their front page for almost a week now.

They're monitoring Everyone's Banking Activities Now

From the town where I used to live, Springfield Missouri, the home of the Patriot Act, is this report from TV station KY3 abut bank spying. I call Springfield Missouri the home of the Patriot Act because that's where John Ashcroft and Roy Blunt are from and the headquarters of the Assembly of God Church who all want total government control of everything. Here's the story:

SPRINGFIELD -- The revised Patriot Act just passed by Congress has provisions that might bring your banking practices under scrutiny. The checks you write and the deposits you make are all are under a microscope as a way to try to keep America safe from terrorists.

"We're automatically at high risk,” said Empire Bank vice president Cindy Harding, a fraud investigator.

Banking with a federally insured bank means you're now being monitored under the Patriot Act.

"Everybody in southwest Missouri, in Springfield, in Christian County, is considered high risk because it’s designated like that by the feds for drug trafficking,” said Harding.

Under the new Patriot Act, Harding says, most banks will have to have one person working full time to monitor customers and their money.

"They risk assess all of our customers as to what is the likelihood they could be involved in terrorist financing and money laundering,” she said.

Each and every customer will be classified based on his or her perceived risk threat: low, medium or high risk.

"Then we have to monitor everybody’s accounts to make sure they stay within the bounds of what was determined would be normal activity,” said Harding.

Certain companies and certain people will draw more scrutiny.

"Any cash intensive business, restaurant, convenience store, gas station," she said. "Doctors, lawyers, Accountants."

If a large amount of cash appears in an account, or a large amount of money is moving through an account, that could trigger concern

"If we can't determine why, we're required to fill out a suspicious activity report," said Harding.

That report contains a customer’s personal information and what he or she is suspected of doing. The bank is also forbidden under the Patriot Act to tell a customer that he or she was flagged. The information is then turned over to federal investigators.

In this monitoring, you can look at banks as the middlemen. They're being monitored, too.

"The feds look at us,” said Harding. “They’re monitoring everyone's activity."

Next Step for running for Congress - I have a domain nae

I have registered the domain name unnameddemocrat.com and I'm in the process of building a web site there. It's about 7 weeks before I can register so if I get enough interest in the next 7 weeks I'll change my name legally to Unnamed Democrat and see how I do. The purpose of this web site is to light a fire under the asses of the Democratic Party. If major Democrats aren't denouncing me soon I'm not doing my job.

So - who wants to get in on this with me?

Should I run for Congress?

I'm thinking about running for Congress again. I ran in 1998 against Roy Blunt and ran for Senate in 2000 against John Ashcroft. I think I'm ready to light a fire under the asses of the Democrats and make the party stand for something.

I keep seeing polls of races where an "unnamed democrat" can beat just about anyone. So I'm thinking about changing my name legally to "Unnamed Democrat" and running against Tom Lantos here in California. I'll be the kind of Democrat people imagine of an unnamed democrat would be. My platform would be something like:

I'm not on of THEM!
Get the hell out of Iraq.
A vote for me is a vote to impeach Bush.
Clinton was one of America's greatest presidents ever.
Let's return to peace and prosperity.
No Patriot Act - a return to freedon and constitutional values.
Legalizing personal freedom. Pot, Prostitution, Dying with Dignity, Abortion, Stem Cell Research, religious rights for Atheists.

The Primary is on June 6th 2006 - Elect and Atheist on 666 - I think it's a sign from God that I should run!

The Democrats have to have more of a platform than "we aren't Republicans!" We need to either be the opposition party or we need to get out of the way so an opposition party can rise up. Either way - I can no longer sit here and take it. The only thing that pisses me off more than the Republicans is the defening silence from the Dems that give them cover. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. I probably won't win - but I will be heard.

Who is with me on this?

New Iraq Poll

71% of Iraqies believe that Americans just make up statistics about Iraq.

GOP Planning Terror Attack on US?

GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Nov 10, 2005, 06:19

A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."

The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could “validate” the President’s war on terror and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow.”

The memo says such a reversal in the President's fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.

GOP insiders who have seen the memo admit it’s a risky strategy and point out that such scenarios are “blue sky thinking” that often occurs in political planning sessions.

“The President’s popularity was at an all-time high following the 9/11 attacks,” admits one aide. “Americans band together at a time of crisis.”

Other Republicans, however, worry that such a scenario carries high risk, pointing out that an attack might suggest the President has not done enough to protect the country.

“We also have to face the fact that many Americans no longer trust the President,” says a longtime GOP strategist. “That makes it harder for him to become a rallying point.”

Bush to install Ahmad Chalabi as Iraq President

Wondering what Ahmad Chalabi (curveball) was doing in Washington last week meeting with top Whitehouse officials? He was auditioning for president of Iraq. Ahmad Chalabi is a man who understand how the system really works and he knows that you don't get elected in Iraq by the people. He knows that the US will install a puppet government there and he wants to be that puppet. So he's doing what you really need to do to get "elected" in Iraq. He's pitiching a deal to the oil company representatives who control America. Condi Rice, Rumsfield, Cheney etc.

This is the same guy who help generate the lies that led us to war in the first place.

US Denies use of Phosphorus Shells in Fallujah

The US official Government Propaganda Site denies use of phosphorus shelles in Fallujah. Here's part of their statement.

Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

Check out the movie in the previous message and see pictures of people who were "illuminated".

From the Geneva convention:

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air delivered incendiary weapons.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

More on US use of Chemical Weapons in Fallujah

Here's a BBC Report on the US using phosphorus weapons in Iraq.

Here's a Quicktime Movie showing the attack. it's a big file (91 megs) so don't download it unless you're on something fact.

California Elections Today

I'm voting against the governor.

Yes on 79,80

No on everything else.

Democrats compare Watergate to Libby Probe Leak and Iraq

Here's a good video that the DCCC produced. I think they really nailed the issues.

Meiers Nomination is Dead

When it comes down to it the real reason that this nomination failed is because she was a totally incompetent, inexperienced, unqualified, and a Bush cronie - so much so that even Republicans couldn't stomach it. Especially after the Michael Brown FEMA disaster. I was looking forward for a longer process before it failed. Amazingly enough Meiers is going to be the one who picks the next nominee.

Of course we're going to have to listen to the Christian pound their chests as if they had something to do with it but what they don't realize is that Bush doesn't need them anymore. Besides if the Christian Right wants to take credit for their control of the government then they can take credit for the deficit, the price of gas, tortue, lies, murder, that failed war in Iraq. In fact whenever I see a Bush supporter at the gas station filling up his gas guzzler and forking over $100, I just have to grin.

One of the things I think is disturbing is that Democratic Senate Minority leader Harry Reid supported Meiers. Just as Bush is the Republican moron who brings stupidity to his party, Harry Reid is almost as stupid as Bush is. What he's doing as a leader of the Democrats is a mystery to me.

I'm still waiting to see ig Jesse Ventura will run for president. I'm ready to stick it to both parties.

Judge Screws Tom Delay without him knowing it!

Tom Dalay pranced into court demanding the judge recuse himself because he's a Democrat. In Texas judges are elected and all of them are either Democrats or Republicans. So the fact that the judge is a Democrat in Texas doesn't mean the same thing as other states that prohibit judges from being involved in politics.

What Delay screwed himself is that the judge ruled that another judge should make the decision about his recusal. What this means is that he will eventually get a hearing and have to wait maybe 90 days and if Delay wins then he'll get a new judge that may also be a Democrat. Similarly, if a Republican is appointed then the Prosecutor in theory could also ask for a new judge.

In the mean time the charges sit there and Delay is hobbled. Delay won't be back at his job at least until this is resolved and it's not going to proceed while they are arguing about who the judge is going to be. In the mean time my pld buddy Roy Blunt will get used to having Delay's job and is unlikely to hand it back to him if Delay wins down the line. The bottom line is Delay has already lost no matter what the outcome is at this point.

Corporate Distain for Human Life

Bush would use the military to enforce a quarenteen in the case of a bird flu pandemic that could cost the lives of hundreds of millions of people. It would be like declaring martial law in order to stop the spread of a disease. But Bush refuses to infringe on any corporate pharmaceutical patents that would allow other companies to manufacture a cure or a vaccine. We are expected to be contained by the military until we die in order to protect corporate profits.

I have a different idea. Should such and event happen then it would be the duty of every citizen to start slaughtering pharmaceutical company executives until they get the idea that the lives of people come before company profits. Maybe after they start dying would the get the idea that life is more important than money. We the people will never become the slaves of international corporations and we are not going to die or be killed to protect corporate profits.

You know - as of right now this pandemic is mostly theoretical. It did happen in 1918 but it is not happening now. So why is everyone going nuts over this as if it's already here? Not to sound to tin foil hat but are they manufacturing a plauge? Would Bush start a plauge merely for political purposes? He started a war for political purposes. It will be more than a coincidence if there just happen to be an outbreak just after this idea is being introduced. And that Bush already has plans to use the Military to contain it.

One of the articles about this is in the extended section. That is what I'm responding to. If I sound like I'm nuts - read this!

Politics behind bird flu
Lawmakers grapple on how to handle potential spread of deadly virus

David Shuster
MSNBC Correspondent

It’s a disease that has already killed millions of birds in Southeast Asia and is spreading to humans across Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia and Indonesia. U.S. health officials fear the contagious and deadly Asian flu may be mutating, making it immune to antidotes, creating an international catastrophe.

According to Dr. Frederick Leung at the University of Hong Kong, “You would be surprised how fast that virus can travel from a Third World backward country farm into New York City.”

The flu spreads easily from birds to humans, like by eating infected chicken, and there are worries that it could spread human to human, through something as simple as kissing. Airline passengers in places like Hong Kong are being scanned for the fever, but officials, including some in the United States, warn the Asian flu could end up killing tens of millions of people.

“The world is obviously unprepared, or inadequately prepared, for the potential of a pandemic,” says Secretary Mike Leavitt of Health and Human Services.

One reason is because of poor monitoring overseas. Another is because there are not enough doses available of the main anti-virus drug known as Tamiflu. President Bush recently brought CEOs of six vaccine companies to the White House to address expanding the American stockpile.

President Bush said, “The people of the country ought to rest assured that we are doing everything we can.”

But in the United States, experts say there are less than 10 million doses of the vaccine and manufacturing millions more will take time. Democrats argue the administration is moving too late. They say the administration should relax patent issues, so dozens of companies can make the drug. Something the pharmaceutical industry and the Bush administration oppose.

The other political flash point is over government plans for containing an outbreak. The president suggests using U.S. troops, one of the first ever been proposals for domestic health crisis.

“Who best to be able to effect a quarantine? One option is the use of a military that’s able to plan and move,” said Bush, addressing the issue. “That’s why I put it on the table."

The military was dispatched to help keep people out of cities along the Gulf following Hurricane Katrina, but the potential reliance on trained warriors in a fully-populated city instead of police startles some on the political right.

“When you put them in a role that is more appropriate to domestic peace officers, who ideally are trained to respect the constitutional rights of the citizens they’re protecting — if you put soldiers in that role, if you put the 82nd Airborne in that role, you run the risk of collateral damage to civil life and liberty,” said Gene Healy of the Cato Institute.

It’s a debate in part between scenarios. Imagine being kept in your hometown and forced at gunpoint to stay in a quarantine. But also imagine the chaos if you and millions of other Americans in the face of a pandemic are on your own. As one observer noted, while the political fight over the Asian flu may be getting intense, just wait.

California Special Election

So - we have a governor who was elected with a special election who has initiated another special election to change the election rules.

Not with my vote!

I'm voting against everything Schwarzenegger wants. And I'm voting for everything he doesn't want.

Big Oil Gets another 14 Billion of our tax money

At a time when oil companies are swimming in money showing the highest profits in the history of the world, and at a time when we have record deficits and the government is asking people to sacrifice their children's lives for a fraudulent war, Congress just gave away another 14 billion dollars to big oil. As they say, America has the finest democracy that money can buy. We are a nation that is living the lie.

al-Qaeda is Fiction - The organization doesn't exist as a large terrorist organization

I came across three films produced by the BBC called "The Power of Nightmares" which explain how various groups use the fear of terrorism to advance their political power. I've spent all day converting them to a smaller format so that they can be ea silly downloaded. But they are an hour long each and are about 75 megs each. They are however extraordinary and it's quite an education into the history of Islamic Terrorism and American neo conservatives. Here are the links:

Baby it's Cold Outside
The Phantom Victory
The Shadows in the Cave

Sorry for the windows (WMV) format but it allowed me to shrink the video to 1/10 it's original size. I don't think there's a copyright issue but if there is I'll wait till someone screams about it. I think the BBC would want people to see these films. I think that something as important as faking the existence of a terrorist organization that started two wars is more important that someone's copyright.

It appears however that might have gotten it wrong on the claim that Al Qaeda was and invented term by New York Prosecutors. The article in The Nation seems to refute that premise. However the size and scope of the organization has been greatly exagerated.

On the other hand I had someone do a Lexis-Nexis search that shows the term appearing first in late 1998 at the New York trial. Nothing before that. That would indicate that the term might have been invented there. The word Al Qaeda translates into "the base" which is a generic term and because of that this issue might never be completely resolved.

Here's the BBC Link that talks about the 3 films. I edited off the front part of the last two because it was identical to the first one and I wanted to save bandwidth.

Transcript of Third Film Follows:

THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES

Episode 3 - The Shadows in the Cave

Originally aired on BBC 2, 3 November 2004, 9 pm

Written and produced by Adam Curtis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3970901.stm

VOICE OVER:
In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed. And today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism. A powerful and sinister network, with sleeper cells in countries across the world. A threat that needs to be fought by a war on terror. But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It's a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media.

VOICE OVER:
This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives, and the radical Islamists. Last week's episode ended in the late '90s with both groups marginalized and out of power. But with the attacks of September 11th, the fates of both dramatically changed. The Islamists, after their moment of triumph, were virtually destroyed within months, while the neoconservatives took power in Washington. But then, the neoconservatives began to reconstruct the Islamists. They created a phantom enemy. And as this nightmare fantasy began to spread, politicians realized the newfound power it gave them in a deeply disillusioned age. Those with the darkest nightmares became the most powerful.

[OPENING TITLES: THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES / THE RISE OF THE POLITICS OF FEAR / THE SHADOWS IN THE CAVE]

[TITLE: AFGHANISTAN 1998]

VOICE OVER:
At the end of the 1990s, Osama bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan. He was accompanied by Ayman Zawahiri, the most influential ideologist of the Islamist movement. For 20 years, Zawahiri had struggled to create revolutions in the Arab world, but all attempt had ended in bloody failure.

[EXCERPT, CNN EXCLUSIVE VIDEO]

INTERVIEWER (in Arabic, English subtitles):

We haven't had any information about your whereabouts for some time. Where were you?

AYMAN ZAWAHIRI:
{?} I was just home and clubs.

INTERVIEWER:
Not in Afghanistan? Somewhere else?

ZAWAHIRI:

Everywhere, everywhere.

INTERVIEWER:
Everywhere?

ZAWAHIRI:
I am a Muslim. Being a Muslim, you are wanted everywhere. Because if you -- just if you say no to the superpowers, this immediately in itself is a crime you are wanted for.

INTERVIEWER:

{?} Yes, but isn't what you do not to do with arms?

ZAWAHIRI:
{?} It's aggressive but ask Allah, and he is greater than superpower.

VOICE OVER:
Zawahiri was a follower of the Egyptian revolutionary, Sayyed Qutb, who had been executed in 1966. Qutb's vision had been of a new type of modern state. It would contain all of the benefits of Western science and technology, but it would use Islam as a moral framework to protect people from the culture of Western liberalism. Qutb believed that this culture infected the minds of Muslims, turning them into selfish creatures who threatened to destroy the shared values that held society together. Throughout the 80s and 90s, Zawahiri had tried to persuade the masses to rise up and topple the rulers who had allowed this corruption to infect their countries.

[EXCERPT, VIDEOTAPE OF SADAT ASSASSINATION]

[CUT TO AYMAN ZAWAHIRI IN EGYPTIAN COURTROOM CELL]

ZAWAHIRI [haranguing courtroom]:
We want to speak to the whole world. Who are we?

VOICE OVER:
But the revolutionaries became trapped in a horrific escalation of violence, because the masses refused to follow them. Islamism failed as a mass movement, and Zawahiri now came to the conclusion that a new strategy was needed.

GILLES KEPEL, HISTORIAN OF ISLAMIST MOVEMENT:
They had no revolution at all. I mean, they had failed in their takeover, they had failed to topple the powers that be, and, you know, they became more and more interested in this idea that only a small vanguard could be successful. I mean, they had lost confidence in the spontaneous capacity of the masses to be mobilised. Then they decided to change strategy completely, and instead of striking at what they called the ''near enemy'' -- i.e., the local regimes -- they decided that they could strike at the ''far away enemy'' -- i.e., at the West, at America -- and that would impress the masses, and the masses would be mobilised.

[TITLE: NAIROBI, AUGUST 1998]

VOICE OVER:
Zawahiri and bin Laden began implementing this new strategy in August, 1998. Two huge suicide bombs were detonated outside American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more than 200 people. The bombings had a dramatic effect on the West. For the first time, the name ''bin Laden'' entered the public consciousness as a terrorist mastermind.

[CUT TO AFGHANISTAN]

VOICE OVER:
The suicide bombers had been recruited by bin Laden from the Islamist training camps in Afghanistan. But his and Zawahiri's operation was very much on the fringes of the Islamist movement. The overwhelming majority of the fighters in these camps had nothing at all to do with bin Laden or international terrorism. They were training to fight régimes in their own countries, such as Uzbekistan, Kashmir, and Chechnia. Their aim was to establish Islamist societies in the Western world, and they had no interest in attacking America. Bin Laden helped fund some of the camps, and in return was allowed to look for volunteers for his operations. But a number of senior Islamists were against his new strategy, including members of Zawahiri's own group, Islamic Jihad.

[EXCERPT, CNN EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: BIN LADEN, SURROUNDED BY ARMED, MASKED SOLDIERS]

VOICE OVER:
Even bin Laden's displays of strength to the Western media were faked. The fighters in this video had been hired for the day and told to bring their own weapons. For beyond this small group, bin Laden had no formal organisation -- until the Americans invented one for him.

[CUT TO MANHATTAN CITYSCAPE]

[TITLE: MANHATTAN, JANUARY 2001]

VOICE OVER:
In January, 2001, a trial began in a Manhattan courtroom of four men accused of the embassy bombings in east Africa. But the Americans had also decided to prosecute bin Laden in his absence. But to do this under American law, the prosecutors needed evidence of a criminal organisation because, as with the Mafia, that would allow them to prosecute the head of the organisation even if he could not be linked directly to the crime. And the evidence for that organisation was provided for them by an ex-associate of bin Laden's called Jamal al-Fadl.

JASON BURKE, AUTHOR, ''AL QAEDA'':
During the investigation of the 1998 bombings, there is a walk-in source, Jamal al-Fadl, who is a Sudanese militant who was with bin Laden in the early 90s, who has been passed around a whole series of Middle East secret services, none of whom want much to do with him, and who ends up in America and is taken on by -- uh -- the American government, effectively, as a key prosecution witness and is given a huge amount of American taxpayers' money at the same time. And his account is used as raw material to build up a picture of Al Qaeda. The picture that the FBI want to build up is one that will fit the existing laws that they will have to use to prosecute those responsible for the bombing. Now, those laws were drawn up to counteract organised crime: the Mafia, drugs crime, crimes where people being a member of an organisation is extremely important. You have to have an organisation to get a prosecution. And you have al-Fadl and a number of other witness, a number of other sources, who are happy to feed into this. You've got material that, looked at in a certain way, can be seen to show this organisation's existence. You put the two together and you get what is the first bin Laden myth -- the first Al Qaeda myth. And because it's one of the first, it's extremely influential.

VOICE OVER:
The picture al-Fadl drew for the Americans of bin Laden was of an all-powerful figure at the head of a large terrorist network that had an organised network of control. He also said that bin Laden had given this network a name: ''Al Qaeda.'' It was a dramatic and powerful picture of bin Laden, but it bore little relationship to the truth.

[EXCERPT, CNN EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: BIN LADEN AND SOLDIERS]

VOICE OVER:
The reality was that bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organisation. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term ''Al Qaeda'' to refer to the name of a group until after September the 11th, when he realized that this was the term the Americans have given it.

[CUT TO MANHATTAN SKYLINE]

VOICE OVER:
In reality, Jamal al-Fadl was on the run from bin Laden, having stolen money from him. In return for his evidence, the Americans gave him witness protection in America and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many lawyers at the trial believed that al-Fadl exaggerated and lied to give the Americans the picture of a terrorist organisation that they needed to prosecute bin Laden.

SAM SCHMIDT, DEFENCE LAWYER EMBASSY BOMBINGS TRIAL:
And there were selective portions of al-Fadl's testimony that I believe was false, to help support the picture that he helped the Americans join together. I think he lied in a number of specific testimony about a unified image of what this organisation was. It made Al Qaeda the new Mafia or the new Communists. It made them identifiable as a group and therefore made it easier to prosecute any person associated with Al Qaeda for any acts or statements made by bin Laden -- who talked a lot.

BURKE:
The idea -- which is critical to the FBI's prosecution -- that bin Laden ran a coherent organisation with operatives and cells all around the world of which you could be a member is a myth. There is no Al Qaeda organisation. There is no international network with a leader, with cadres who will unquestioningly obey orders, with tentacles that stretch out to sleeper cells in America, in Africa, in Europe. That idea of a coherent, structured terrorist network with an organised capability simply does not exist.

VOICE OVER:
What did exist was a powerful idea that was about to inspire a single, devastating act that would lead the whole world into believing the myth that had begun to be constructed in the Manhattan courtroom.

[CUT TO MANHATTAN SKYLINE: WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS . ONE TOWER HAS BEEN HIT, AND IS ON FIRE .]

MAN (off-camera):
What's this other jet doing? What's this other jet doing?

WOMAN (off-camera):
What the hell's that?

[AIRCRAFT ENTERS VIEW FROM LEFT, CRASHES INTO SECOND TOWER. FIREBALL ERUPTS .]

MAN:
Holy -- fuck!

WOMAN:

Oh my God! Oh my God! Jesus fucking Christ!

[ARM PASSES BEFORE CAMERA LENS]

MAN #2:
Don't touch it!

WOMAN [SOBBING]:
Oh my God! Oh my God!

[OTHER EXCLAMATIONS AND SOBBING IN BACKGROUND AS SMOKE BILLOWS FROM TOWERS]

VOICE OVER:
The attack on America by 19 hijackers shocked the world. It was Ayman Zawahiri's new strategy, implemented in a brutal and spectacular way. But neither he nor bin Laden were the originators of what was called the ''Planes Operation.'' It was the brainchild of an Islamist militant called Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who came to bin Laden for funding and help in finding volunteers. But in the wake of panic created by the attacks, the politicians reached for the model which had been created by the trial earlier that year: the hijackers were just the tip of a vast, international terrorist network which was called, ''Al Qaeda.''

[CUT TO INTERIOR, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES CONGRESS]

GEORGE W BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES [ON SPEAKER'S PODIUM]:
Al Qaeda is to terror what the Mafia is to crime. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods, and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror.

[CUT TO PENTAGON BRIEFING ROOM]

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
This one network, Al Qaeda, that's receiving so much discussion and publicity make have activities in 50 to 60 countries, including the United States.

[CUT TO OTHER INTERIOR, PODIUM]

BUSH:
Our war is against networks and groups, people who coddle them, people who try to hide them, people who fund them. This is our calling.

VOICE OVER:
And the attacks had another dramatic effect: they brought the neoconservatives back to power in America. When George Bush first became president, he had appointed neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, and their allies like Donald Rumsfeld, to his administration. But their grand vision of America's role in the world was largely ignored by this new régime.

[TITLE: SEPTEMBER 2000]

[CUT TO PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE]

BUSH:

I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into another country and say, ''We do it this way, so should you.''

[TITLE: BUT NOW]

BUSH:
We're going to find those who, uh, who, uh, uh, those evil-doers.

VOICE OVER:
But now, the neoconservatives became all-powerful, because this terror network proved that what they had been predicting through the 1990s was correct: that America was at risk from terrifying new forces in a hostile world. A small group formed that began to shape America's response to the attacks. At its heart were Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, along with the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and Richard Perle, who was a senior advisor to the Pentagon. The last time these men had been in power together was 20 years before, under President Reagan. Back then, they had taken on and, as they saw it, defeated a source of evil that wanted to take over America: the Soviet Union. And now they saw this new war on terror in the same epic terms.

RICHARD PERLE, CHAIRMAN PENTAGON DEFENSE POLICY BOARD 2001-2003:
The struggle against Soviet totalitarianism was a struggle between fundamental value questions. ''Good'' and ''evil'' is about as effective a shorthand as I can imagine in this regard, and there's something rather similar going on in the war on terror. It isn't a war on terror, it's a war on terrorists who want to impose an intolerant tyranny on all mankind, an Islamic universe in which we are all compelled to accept their beliefs and live by their lights, and in that sense this is a battle between good and evil.

VOICE OVER:
But, as previous episodes have shown, the neoconservatives distorted and exaggerated the Soviet threat. They created the image of a hidden, international web of evil run from Moscow that planned to dominate the world, when, in reality, the Soviet Union was on its last legs, collapsing from within. Now, they did the same with the Islamists. They took a failing movement which had lost mass support and began to reconstruct it into the image of a powerful network of evil, controlled from the center by bin Laden from his lair in Afghanistan. They did this because it fitted with their vision of America's unique destiny to fight an epic battle against the forces of evil throughout the world.

VINCENT CANNISTRARO, HEAD OF COUNTER - TERRORISM, CIA, 1988-90:
What the neoconservatives are doing is taking a concept that they developed during the competition with the Soviet Union, i.e., Soviet Communism was evil, it wanted to take over our country, wanted to take over our people, our classrooms, our society. It was that kind of concept of evil that they took -- an exaggerated one, to be sure -- and then apply it to a new threat, where it didn't apply at all, and yet it was layered with the same kind of cultural baggage. The policy says there's a network, the policy says that network is evil, they want to infiltrate our classrooms, they want to take our society, they want all our women to wear, you know, veils, and this is what we have to deal with and therefore since we know it's evil let's just kill it, and that will make it go away.

[CUT TO TANKS AND VEHICLES ROLLING DOWN A ROAD IN AFGHANISTAN]

VOICE OVER:
And so the Americans set off to invade Afghanistan, to find and destroy the heart of this network.

[TITLE: AFGHANISTAN, NOVEMBER 2001]

[CUT TO DESOLATE TERRAIN, MOUNTAINS IN BACKGROUND, SHOOTING IN FOREGROUND]

VOICE OVER:
To do this, the Americans allied themselves with a group called the Northern Alliance. They were a loose collection of warlords, fighting a war of resistance against the Taliban, the Islamists who controlled Afghanistan. The Taliban's best troops were the thousands of foreign fighters from the training camps who the Northern Alliance hated.

[NORTHERN ALLIANCE TROOPS RETRIEVE IDENTITY PAPERS FROM DEAD TALIBAN FIGHTERS . ONE HOLDS AN IDENTITY CARD UP TO THE CAMERA]

NORTHERN ALLIANCE SOLDIER:
Pakistan, eh! Pakistan! Pakistan!

VOICE OVER:

And now, they took their revenge on the foreign fighters. The Americans believed that these men were Al Qaeda terrorists, and the Northern Alliance did nothing to disabuse them of this, because they were paid by the Americans for each prisoner they delivered. But the majority of these fighters had never had anything to do with bin Laden or international terrorism. Both they and the Taliban were radical nationalists who wanted to create Islamist societies in their own countries. But now, they were either killed or taken off to Guant{{225}}namo Bay and Islamism, as an organised movement for changing the Muslim world, was obliterated in Afghanistan. But as it disappeared, it was replaced by ever more extravagant fantasies about the power and reach of the Al Qaeda network.

[TITLE: TORA BORA]

VOICE OVER:
In December, the Northern Alliance told the Americans that bin Laden was hiding in the mountains of Tora Bora. They were convinced they had found the heart of his organisation.

[EXCERPT, ''MEET THE PRESS, '' NBC TV]

TIM RUSSERT:

The search for Osama bin Laden: there was constant discussion about him hiding out in caves and I think many times the American people have a perception that it's a little hole dug out of the side of a mountain.

DONALD RUMSFELD [OFF CAMERA]:
Oh, no.

[CUT TO DIAGRAM OF HIDDEN CAVE HEADQUARTERS MARKED ''SOURCE: THE TIMES OF LONDON'', DEPICTING A MULTI-STORY UNDERGROUND COMMAND POST]

RUSSERT:
This is it. This is a fortress.

RUMSFELD:
Yes.

RUSSERT:
A complex. Multi-tiered. [READING, AS LABELS ARE DISPLAYED ON DIAGRAM] ''Bedrooms and Offices'' on the top, as you can see. ''Secret Exits'' on the side, and on the bottom. ''Cut Deep to Avoid Thermal Detection.'' A ventilation system, to allow people to breathe and to carry on. The entrances, large enough to drive trucks and even tanks. Even computer systems and telephone systems. It's a very sophisticated operation.

[CUT TO STUDIO]

RUMSFELD:
Oh, you bet. This -- this is serious business. And -- and there's not one of those; there are many of those.

[CUT TO TORA BORA, AFGHANISTAN: B-52S BOMBING MOUNTAINS]

VOICE OVER:
For days, the Americans bombed the mountains of Tora Bora with the most powerful weapons they had. The Northern Alliance had been paid more than a million dollars for their help and information, and now their fighters set off up the mountains to storm bin Laden's fortress and bring back the Al Qaeda terrorists and their leader.

[NORTHERN ALLIANCE SOLDIERS SEARCHING CAVE OPENINGS]

VOICE OVER:
But all they found were a few small caves, which were either empty or had been used to store ammunition. There was no underground bunker system, no secret tunnels: the fortress didn't exist. The Northern Alliance did produce some prisoners they claimed were Al Qaeda fighters, but there was no proof of this, and one rumor was that the Northern Alliance was simply kidnapping anyone who looked remotely like an Arab and selling them to the Americans for yet more money.

[FADE TO AMERICAN FORCES IN TORA BORA]

VOICE OVER:
The Americans now began to search all the caves in all the mountains in eastern Afghanistan for the hidden Al Qaeda network.

AMERICAN SOLDIER, SPEAKING INTO RADIO:

We found a cave. The rest of it is open. Break.

[CUT TO INTERIOR, COMMAND POST]

AMERICAN ARMY SERGEANT:
If nobody went up to look into that cave, people could've been hiding up there for days and watching everything that we did.

[CUT TO VIEW OF MISSILE STRIKING CAVE OPENING, SOLDIERS INSPECT DAMAGE]

VOICE OVER:

But wherever they looked, there was nothing there. Al Qaeda seemed to have completely disappeared.

[FADE TO VIEW OF HELICOPTERS FLYING OVER AFGHANISTAN MOUNTAIN RANGE]

VOICE OVER:
But then, the British arrived to help. They were convinced they could hunt down Al Qaeda because of what they said was their unique experience in fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland. They could succeed where others had failed.

[CLOSE UP ON BRIGADIER ROGER LANE, COMMANDER, BRITISH FORCES, ADDRESSING AN OFF-CAMERA AUDIENCE]

BRIGADIER LANE:

The hunt for Al Qaeda Taliban goes on, and we stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States and our other coalition allies in the global war on terrorism.

[TITLE: FIVE WEEKS LATER]

INTERVIEWER:
But how many Al Qaeda have you captured?

LANE:
We haven't, uh, captured any Al Qaeda, but…

INTERVIEWER:
And how many have you actually managed to kill here in south-east Afghanistan?

LANE:
We haven't killed any.

[EXCERPT, THE THIEF OF BAGHDAD: MARKETPLACE SCENE, SCROLL IS UNROLLED READING:

Ten thousand pieces of gold for the body of Ali Baba and the destruction of the band of thieves.

by order of

Hulagu, Khan of the Mongols

and Ruler of Baghdad]

[SCENES OF MEN ON HORSEBACK JUMPING CHASMS AND ESCAPING]

[CUT TO CNN EXCLUSIVE VIDEO OF BIN LADEN, WAVING .]

[FADE TO BLACK]

[FADE TO AFGHANISTAN EXTERIOR]

VOICE OVER:
The terrible truth was that there was nothing there because Al Qaeda as an organisation did not exist. The attacks on America had been planned by a small group that had come together around bin Laden in the late 90s. What united them was an idea: an extreme interpretation of Islamism developed by Ayman Zawahiri. With the American invasion, that group had been destroyed, killed or scattered. What was left was the idea, and the real danger was the way this idea could inspire groups and individuals around the world who had no relationship to each other. In looking for an organisation, the Americans and the British were chasing a phantom enemy and missing the real threat.

JASON BURKE, AUTHOR, ''AL QAEDA'':
I was with the Royal Marines as they trooped around eastern Afghanistan, and every time they got a location for a supposed Al Qaeda or Taliban element or base, they'd turn up and there was no one there, or there'd be a few startled shepherds, and that struck me then as being a wonderful image to the war on terror, because people are looking for something that isn't there. There is no organisation with its terrorist operatives, cells, sleeper cells, so on and so forth. What there is is an idea, prevalent among young, angry Muslim males throughout the Islamic world. That idea is what poses a threat.

[CUT TO WASHINGTON, D.C., MONUMENTS AND SKYLINE]

VOICE OVER:
But the neoconservatives were now increasingly locked into this fantasy, and next they set out to uncover the network in America itself.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ, US DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
This is a network that has penetrated into some 60 countries, including very definitely our own, and it's got to be rooted out. Our intelligence priority, in many ways, is getting after the network here in the United States first. We will do whatever we need to do to go after these networks and dismantle them.

[CUT TO FLYOVER OF NEW ENGLAND TOWN]

VOICE OVER:
The American government set out to search for the Al Qaeda organisation inside its own country. Thousands were detained as all branches of the law and the military were told to look for terrorists.

[CUT TO VIEW OF GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, SAN FRANCISCO]

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL OFFICER:
You don't really know what a terrorist looks like, what kind of car they drive, or anything else, so it's just basically everything and everybody and anything out here.

[CUT TO NEWS TITLE: ''AMERICA UNDER ATTACK'']

[CUT TO SCENES OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE VEHICLES]

VOICE OVER:
And, bit by bit, the government found the network: a series of hidden cells in cities around the country from Buffalo to Portland.

[CUT TO PRESIDENTIAL PODIUM]

GEORGE W BUSH:

We've thwarted terrorists in Buffalo and Seattle, Portland, Detroit, North Carolina, and Tampa, Florida. We're determined to stop the enemy before he can strike our people.

VOICE OVER:
The Americans called them ''sleeper cells, '' and decided that they had just been waiting to strike. But in reality there is very little evidence that any of those arrested had anything at all to do with terrorist plots. From Portland to the suburb of Buffalo called Lackawanna, yet again the Americans were chasing a phantom enemy.

DAVID COLE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY:
They say ''terrorist sleeper cell.'' That's what -- they -- they call the Lackawanna people a terrorist sleeper cell, the Detroit people a terrorist cell, the Portland people a terrorist cell. But when you look at the details, the facts just don't support that, and they have not proved that any group within the United States has plotted to engage in any terrorist -- uh -- activity within the United States in all of the cases that they've brought since 9/11.

[CUT TO HOME VIDEO OF YOUTHS AT DISNEYLAND, CALIFORNIA]

VOICE OVER:
The evidence behind all of the sleeper cell cases is flimsy and often bizarre. This tape was one of the central pieces of evidence in the first of the cases. It was found in a raid on this house…

[CUT TO EXTERIOR VIEW OF HOUSE]

VO ... in Detroit. Four Arab men were arrested on suspicion of being an Al Qaeda sleeper cell.

[VIEWS OF ARREST PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUSPECTS . TITLE: DETROIT ACCUSED]

VOICE OVER:
They had been accused by another immigrant called Mr Hmimssa. But Mr Hmimssa was, in reality, an international con man with 12 aliases and wanted for fraud across America.

[CUT TO PHOTOGRAPH ; TITLE: YOUSSEF HMIMSSA, US GOVERNMENT WITNESS]

VOICE OVER:
Despite this, the FBI offered to reduce his sentence for fraud if he testified against the men. And to back up Mr Hmimssa's allegations, the FBI turned to the videotape. On the surface it was the innocent record of a trip to Disneyland by a group of teenagers who had nothing to do with the accused, but the government had discovered a hidden and sinister purpose to the tape.

RON HANSEN, REPORTER - THE DETROIT NEWS:

The government expert who has looked into surveillance tapes -- ''casing tapes, '' as he referred to them -- said that one of the objectives of making these kinds of tapes is to disguise the nature, the real purpose, of the tape, and he explained it that the tape is made to look benign, made to look like a tourist tape to obscure its real purpose as a tape to case Disneyland, and that the very appearance of it as being just a tourist tape is actually evidence that it's not a tourist tape.

[CUT TO DISNEYLAND VIDEO ; YOUTH IS SPEAKING TO CAMERA]

YOUTH [HOLDING IMAGINARY MICROPHONE]:
Al-Jazeera, Hollywood, Los Angeles, California. Hello?

[CUT TO DISNEYLAND VIDEO ; INTERIOR OF INDIANA JONES RIDE]

RON HANSEN:

I could never get past the fact that the tape just looked like a tourist tape. The Disneyland ride, for example, was a lengthy queue, people just making their way to the ride. The camera occasionally pans to look at the rocks on the wall, made to look like an Indiana Jones movie, and after several minutes the camera pans across and shows a trash can momentarily, and then continues off to look into the crowd. The expert basically said that, by flashing on that trash can for a moment, the people who are part of this conspiracy to conduct these kinds of terrorist operations, they would understand what this is all about: how to locate a bomb in Disneyland in California.

[CUT TO VIEW OF YOUTHS IN RESTAURANT]

YOUTH, WAVING:
Hello!

RON HANSEN:
All the talking and bantering were intended to disguise the hidden message contained within the tape.

[CUT TO VIEW OF YOUTHS DANCING ON VIDEOTAPE]

VOICE OVER:
The government was convinced that the tape was full of hidden messages. A brief shot of a tree outside the group's hotel room was there, they said, to show where to place a sniper to attack the cars on the freeway.

[CUT TO SHAKY VIEW OF SHADOW ALONG SIDEWALK AS INDIVIDUAL CARRIES CAMERA]

VOICE OVER:
And what looked like a camera which had accidentally been left running was in reality a terrorist secretly counting out distances to show others where to place a bomb.

[CUT TO VIEW OF US AIR FORCE JET LANDING]

VOICE OVER:
And the government also said that the Detroit cell was planning to attack US military bases around the world. Yet again, they found hidden evidence of this in a day planner they discovered under the sofa in the house in Detroit. What looked like doodles were in reality, they said, a plan to attack a US base in Turkey.

WILLIAM SWOR, DEFENCE LAWYER, DETROIT SLEEPER CELL TRIAL, INDICATING COPY OF DRAWINGS FROM DAY PLANNER:
The government brought in its security officer from the base to testify that she interpreted this as being the main runways. She identified these as being AWACS airplanes and these as being fighter jets. She said that these solid lines were lines of fire and she also said that this down here was a hardened bunker.

VOICE OVER:
But the drawings in the day planner were discovered to have actually been the work of a madman. They were the fantasies of a Yemeni who believed that he was the minister of defence for the whole of the Middle East. He had committed suicide a year before any of the accused had arrived in Detroit, leaving the day planner lying under the sofa in the house. Despite this, two of the accused were found guilty. But then, the government's only witness, Mr Hmimssa, told two of his cellmates that he had made the whole thing up to get his fraud charges reduced. The terrorism convictions have now been overturned by the judge in the case, but it was acclaimed by the President as the first success in the war on terror at home.

[INTERIOR, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPEAKER'S DAIS]

GEORGE W BUSH:
We have the terrorists on the run. We're keeping them on the run. One by one the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice.

[CUT TO VIDEOTAPE, YOUTHS HAVING A PILLOW FIGHT]

[CUT TO BUFFALO, NEW YORK, SKYLINE]

VOICE OVER:
Another case, in the city of Buffalo, New York, seemed on the surface to be more substantial. Six young Yemeni-Americans had gone to an Islamist training camp in Afghanistan.

[CUT TO AFGHANISTAN, TRAINING CAMP]

VOICE OVER:
They travelled there in early 2001 and spent between 2 and 6 weeks training and being taught Islamist revolutionary theory. Two of them even met bin Laden on one of his tours of the camp. They then returned to the Buffalo suburb of Lackawanna, where they lived, but they did nothing. The FBI heard about their trip and they watched the six men around the clock for nearly a year, but there was no suspicious behavior.

[CUT TO LACKAWANNA, SUBURBAN STREET]

VOICE OVER:
But then, one of the men, Mr al-Bakri, went to Bahrain and sent his friends an E-mail. It said he was going to get married and that he wouldn't be seeing them for awhile. The CIA, who had been monitoring their E-mails, understood this to be a coded message: the cell was about to launch a suicide attack on the US Fifth Fleet.

JOHN MOLLOY, DEFENCE LAWYER, LACKAWANNA TRIAL:
The FBI, the government, took that phrase to mean something sinister. They believed that the word ''wedding'' was a code. They believed that the phrase ''not seeing you anymore'' indicated that Muktar al-Bakri was a suicide bomber. The reality is that Mr al-Bakri was in Bahrain to get married and the reality of him getting married was that he wouldn't be around his friends anymore.

[CUT TO NEWS FOOTAGE OF POLICE]

[CUT TO US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PRESS ANNOUNCEMENT]

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:
Good afternoon. In the past 24 hours, United States law enforcement has identified and disrupted an Al Qaeda-trained terrorist cell on American soil.

VOICE OVER:
The arrests were announced proudly by Washington as another sleeper cell plotting an attack. But it soon became clear that there was no evidence for this at all, other than the E-mail.

COLE:
And the best the government can point to as a sleeper cell are these, you know, young men in Lackawanna, in New York, who, yes, went to Afghanistan, trained in an Al Qaeda training camp, but to all appearances had no intention to ever take any action on the basis of that. One of them faked an injury to try to get out early. They came back to the United States. We had them under intensive surveillance and we found no evidence -- not one shred of evidence -- that they ever planned or intended to engage in any kind of criminal, much less terrorist, act. That's the best they can show for a sleeper cell.

VOICE OVER:
Faced with the fact that there was no evidence, the government quietly dropped any charges of their being a terrorist cell. Instead, they were prosecuted simply for having gone to the training camp, and for having bought uniforms there. And all the other cases were even flimsier: A group of students who supported the liberation of Kashmir were found paint-balling in the woods of Virginia. They were convicted of training to attack America. A group of African-Americans from Oregon tried to go to Afghanistan to support the Taliban but got lost in China. All these groups, the government said, were part of a hidden and terrifying Al Qaeda network.

SWOR:
The government had a legitimate concern at the beginning, but they let that concern, and they took it, and they made it a panic. They had reasonable questions and took them and made a complete fantasy out of them. They started out with a conclusion and then filled in all the blanks to the questions. So this was totally driven by the need -- or the desire -- to have terrorists. You build this conclusion based on this assumption, and this assumption, and this assumption, and, sure, if you go -- if you build assumptions upon assumptions, you can go anywhere!

INTERVIEWER:
It's a work of imagination.

SWOR:
It is. It's a fantasy, and it's a fantasy that it was politically expedient to sell.

[CUT TO PRESIDENTIAL PRESS CONFERENCE]

GEORGE W BUSH:
And make no mistake about it: we got a war here just like we got a war abroad.

[CUT TO BRITAIN: GOLF COURSES ; INTERIOR, DOWNING STREET: DAVID BLUNKETT]

VOICE OVER:
In Britain, too, the government and most of the media have created the overwhelming impression that there is a hidden network of Al Qaeda sleeper cells waiting to attack.

[CUT TO POLICE OFFICERS AT CRIME SCENE]

VOICE OVER:
But, yet again, there is very little evidence for this. Of the 664 people arrested under the Terrorism Act since September the 11th, none of them have been convicted of belonging to Al Qaeda. Only 3 people have so far been convicted of having any association with any Islamist groups, and none of those convictions were for being involved in a terror plot; they were for fundraising, or posessing Islamist literature. The majority of people convicted under the Terrorism Act since September the 11th have actually been members of Irish terrorist groups like the UVF or the Real IRA. And many of the arrests that were dramatically announced as being part of a hidden Al Qaeda network were, in reality, as absurd as the cases in America. For example, the London police swooped on a Mr Zain ul-Abedin who they said was running an international network for terrorist training. It turned out to be a self-defence course for bodyguards. He called it ''Ultimate Jihad Challenge.'' His only client was a security guard from a supermarket, who wanted to learn how to defend himself against shoplifters. Mr Zain ul-Abedin was cleared of all charges. Then there was the Hogmanay terror cell who, it was alleged, were planning to attack Edinburgh. All charges against them were quietly dropped when it was revealed that a key part of the evidence, a map that showed the targets they were going to attack, turned out to have been left in their flat by an Australian backpacker who had ringed the tourist sites he wanted to see. And even the most frightening and high profile of the plots uncovered turned out to be without foundation. No one was ever arrested for planning gas attacks on the London tubes; it was a fantasy that swept through the media. Just as in America, there is no evidence yet of the terrifying and sinister network lurking under the surface of our society which both government and the media continually tell us is there.

[CUT TO MEETING ROOM]

INTERVIEWER:
So there was no network.

BILL DURODIE, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SECURITY ANALYSIS, KINGS COLLEGE:

No.

INTERVIEWER:
Never.

DURODIE:
Probably not.

INTERVIEWER:

We invented it.

BILL DURODIE:
''Invention'' is too string a term. I think we projected it -- um, we projected our own worst fears, and that what we see is a fantasy that's been created.

[CUT TO BBC NEWS INTERVIEW]

GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN:
Al Qaeda is a global network with global reach.

[CUT TO BBC NEWS READER]

READER:
The target, a deadly web of terror.

[CUT TO BILL DURODIE IN MEETING ROOM]

DURODIE:
I'm not saying that an atrocity might not happen on the British mainland. What I am saying is that we have an exaggerated perception of the possibility of terrorism that is quite disabling, and we only need to look at the evidence to understand that the figures simply don't bear out the way that we have responded as a society.

[CUT TO LONDON SKYLINE, WESTMINSTER, ETC .]

VOICE OVER:
What the British and American governments have done is both distort and exaggerate the real nature of the threat. There are dangerous and fanatical groups around the world who've been inspired by the extreme Islamist theories, and they are prepared to use the techniques of mass terror on civilians. The bombings in Madrid showed this only too clearly. But this is not a new phenomenon. What is new is the way the American and other governments have transformed this complex and disparate threat into a simplistic fantasy of an organised web of uniquely powerful terrorists who may strike anywhere and at any moment. But no one questioned this fantasy because, increasingly, it was serving the interests of so many people. For the press, television, and hundreds of terrorism experts, the fact that it seemed so like fiction made it irresistible to their audiences. And the Islamists, too, began to realise that by feeding this media fantasy they could become a powerful organisation -- if only in people's imaginations.

The prime mover in this was one of bin Laden's associates, who had been captured by the Americans. He was called Abu Zubaydah. He began to tell his interrogators of terrifying plots that Al Qaeda was preparing, some of which, he said, they had copied from Hollywood movies like Godzilla, which they had watched in Afghanistan.

[CUT TO INTERIOR, BRIEFING ROOM]

DR JOHN PRADOS, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE, WASHINGTON DC:
Zubaydah told the interrogators a set of stories based on what he thought would alarm us. He told us, for example -- coming out of a movie that had been recent at that time, Godzilla, in which the Brooklyn Bridge was destroyed by the monster -- he told us that Al Qaeda was interested in destroying the Brooklyn Bridge. He told us of attacks on mass transit sources like subway trains. He told us there were intentions of attacking apartment buildings and shopping centers, the Statue of Liberty, all manner of things.

[EXCERPT, GODZILLA: MONSTER RISING OVER BROOKLYN BRIDGE]

[CUT TO PRESS CONFERENCE ROOM, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.]

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES:
Recent intelligence reports suggest that Al Qaeda leaders have emphasised planning for attacks on apartment buildings, hotels, and other soft or lightly-secured targets in the United States.

[CUT TO ANOTHER PRESS CONFERENCE]

ASHCROFT:
Terrorists are considering physical attacks against US financial institutions.

[EXCERPT, GODZILLA: MONSTER RAMPAGING THROUGH STREETS, CRUSHING CARS]

VOICE OVER:
And Abu Zubaydah also told his interrogators of a terrifying new weapon the Islamists intended to use: an explosive device that could spray radiation through cities, the ''dirty bomb.''

[EXCERPT, CBS EVENING NEWS]

DAN RATHER:
First, a CBS News exclusive about a captured Al Qaeda leader who says his fellow terrorists have the know-how to build a very dangerous weapon and get it to the United States.

VOICE OVER:
And the media took the bait. They portrayed the dirty bomb as an extraordinary weapon that would kill thousands of people, and, in the process, they made the hidden enemy even more terrifying. But, in reality, the threat of a dirty bomb is yet another illusion. Its aim is to spread radioactive material through a conventional explosion, but almost all studies of such a possible weapon have concluded that the radiation spread in this way would not kill anybody because the radioactive material would be so dispersed, and, providing the area was cleaned promptly, the long-term effects would be negligible. In the past, both the American army and the Iraqi military tested such devices and both concluded that they were completely ineffectual weapons for this very reason.

[CUT TO INTERIOR, LIVING ROOM]

INTERVIEWER:
How dangerous would a dirty bomb be?

DR THEODORE ROCKWELL, NUCLEAR SCIENTIST AND RADIATION RISK EXPERT:
The deaths would be few, if any, and the answer is, probably none.

INTERVIEWER:

Really?

ROCKWELL:
Yes. And that's been said over and over again, but then people immediately say after that, ''But, you know, people won't believe that, and they'll panic.'' And then all the people working on this project, you know, the defence and so forth, breathe a big sigh of relief because they got their problem back: you know, we're gonna all panic. I don't think it would kill anybody and I think you'll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise. The Department of Energy actually set up such a test and they actually measured what happened. And they -- they -- the measurements were extremely low. They calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose -- not life-threatening, but fairly high -- and I checked into how the calculation was done, and they assume that after the attack, no one moves for one year. One year. Now, that's ridiculous.

[CUT TO ANOTHER INTERIOR, LIVING ROOM]

LEWIS Z KOCH, BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS:
The dirty bomb -- the danger from radioactivity is basically next to nothing. The danger from panic, however, is horrendous. That's where the irony comes. This -- instead of the government saying, ''Look, this is not a serious weapon; the serious danger of this is the panic that would ensue, and there is no reason for panic. Don't panic.''

[CUT TO VIEW OF ATOMIC BOMB EXPLODING, DESTROYING TEST HOUSES AND OBJECTS]

BRITISH NARRATOR:
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not the end of our show; however, something very much like this could happen at any moment. We just thought we ought to prepare you and more or less put you in the mood. Thank you.

And now, back to our story.

[CUT, CITY SKYLINE]

VOICE OVER:
The scale of this fantasy just kept growing as more and more groups realised the power it gave them -- above all, the group that had been instrumental in first spreading the idea: the neoconservatives. Because they now found that they could use it to help them realise their vision: that America had a special destiny to overcome evil in the world, and this epic mission would give meaning and purpose to the American people.

[CUT, INTERIOR, ROOM IN IRAQ, SADDAM HUSSEIN AND OFFICERS]

VOICE OVER:
To do this, they were going to start with Iraq, and, just as they had discovered a hidden reality of terror beneath the surface in America, they now found hidden links that previously no one had suspected between the Al Qaeda network and Saddam Hussein.

[CUT, SPEAKER'S DAIS, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES]

GEORGE W BUSH:
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein.

[CUT, OFFICE INTERIOR]

RICHARD PERLE, CHAIRMAN, PENTAGON DEFENSE POLICY BOARD, 2001-2003:
I continue to be amazed at the people who say there are no links. It simply isn't true. What hasn't been established is a direct link between Saddam's intelligence and the 9/11 plotters, although even there there is evidence that suggests, very possibly, facilitation and assistance to the 9/11 hijackers.

INTERVIEWER:

There really is evidence?

PERLE:
There really is evidence.

INTERVIEWER:
So, when people say there is no association between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, they're wrong.

RICHARD PERLE:

They're flatly wrong.

INTERVIEWER:
Really?

RICHARD PERLE:
Absolutely wrong.

[CUT, INTERIOR, AL-JAZEERA STUDIOS ; ARABIC VOICES IN BACKGROUND]

[SUBTITLE: THE BOMBING HAS STARTED]

[VIEW OF TELEVISION MONITORS DISPLAYING ATTACK ON BAGHDAD ; CUT TO REACTION OF NEWSROOM STAFF]

VOICE OVER:
The driving force behind these new global policies in the war on terror was the power of a dark fantasy: a sinister web of hidden and interlinked threats that stretched around the world. And such was the power of that fantasy that it also began to transform the very nature of politics because, increasingly, politicians were discovering that their ability to imagine the future and the terrible dangers it held gave them a new and heroic role in the world.

[CUT TO SCENE OF FUTURISTIC ROADWAY AND COUPLE DRIVING IN FUTURE CAR]

VOICE OVER:
In the post-War years, politicians had also used their imaginations, but to project optimistic visions of a better future that they could create for their people, and it was these visions that gave them power and authority.

[CUT, INTERIOR, DOWNING STREET: ANGLE ON TONY BLAIR]

VOICE OVER:
But those dreams collapsed, and politicians like Tony Blair became more like managers of public life, their policies determined often by focus groups. But now, the war on terror allowed politicians like Blair to portray a new, grand vision of the future. But this vision was a dark one of imagined threats, and a new force began to drive politics: the fear of an imagined future.

[CUT, INTERIOR, TONY BLAIR ADDRESSING AUDIENCE]

TONY BLAIR:
Not a conventional fear about a conventional threat, but the fear that one day these new threats of weapons of mass destruction, rogue states, and international terrorism combine to deliver a catastrophe to our world. And then the shame of knowing that I saw that threat, day after day, and did nothing to stop it.

[CUT, ANOTHER ADDRESS]

BLAIR:
It may not erupt and engulf us this month or next, perhaps not even this year or next …

[CUT, CLOSE-UP ON TONY BLAIR, SPEAKING TO INTERVIEWER BEFORE STUDIO AUDIENCE]

BLAIR:
I just think these -- these dangers are there, I think that it's difficult sometimes for people to see how they all come together -- I think that it's my duty to tell it to you if I really believe it, and I do really believe it. I may be wrong in believing it, but I do believe it.

[CUT, EXTERIOR, MOONLIT, DARK CITY SKYLINE]

VOICE OVER:
What Blair argued was that faced by the new threat of a global terror network, the politician's role was now to look into the future and imagine the worst that might happen and then act ahead of time to prevent it. In doing this, Blair was embracing an idea that had actually been developed by the Green movement: it was called the ''precautionary principle.'' Back in the 1980s, thinkers within the ecology movement believed the world was being threatened by global warming, but at the time there was little scientific evidence to prove this. So they put forward the radical idea that governments had a higher duty: they couldn't wait for the evidence, because by then it would be too late; they had to act imaginatively, on intuition, in order to save the world from a looming catastrophe.

[CUT, INTERIOR, MEETING ROOM]

DURODIE:
In essence, the precautionary principle says that not having the evidence that something might be a problem is not a reason for not taking action as if it were a problem. That's a very famous triple-negative phrase that effectively says that action without evidence is justified. It requires imagining what the worst might be and applying that imagination upon the worst evidence that currently exists.

[CUT, INTERIOR, HALL ; ANGLE ON TONY BLAIR ADDRESSING STATE FUNCTION]

BLAIR:
Would Al Qaeda buy weapons of mass destruction if they could? Certainly. Does it have the financial resources? Probably. Would it use such weapons? Definitely.

[CUT, INTERIOR, MEETING ROOM]

DURODIE:
But once you start imagining what could happen, then -- then there's no limit. What if they had access to it? What if they could effectively deploy it? What if we weren't prepared? What it is is a shift from the scientific, ''what is'' evidence-based decision making to this speculative, imaginary, ''what if''-based, worst case scenario.

[CUT, EXTERIOR, CAMP X-RAY, Guant{{225}}namo Bay, Cuba]

VOICE OVER:
And it was this principle that now began to shape government policy in the war on terror. In both America and Britain, individuals were detained in high-security prisons, not for any crimes they had committed, but because the politicians believed -- or imagined -- that they might commit an atrocity in the future, even though there was no evidence they intended to do this. The American attorney general explained this shift to what he called the ''paradigm of prevention.''

[CUT, INTERIOR, HEARING ROOM, UNITED STATES CONGRESS]

ASHCROFT:
We had to make a shift in the way we thought about things, so being reactive, waiting for a crime to be committed, or waiting for there to be evidence of the commission of a crime didn't seem to us to be an appropriate way to protect the American people.

[CUT, INTERIOR, OFFICE]

DAVID COLE:
Under the preventive paradigm, instead of holding people accountable for what you can prove that they have done in the past, you lock them up based on what you think or speculate they might do in the future. And how -- how can a person who's locked up based on what you think they might do in the future disprove your speculation? It's impossible, and so what ends up happening is the government short-circuits all the processes that are designed to distinguish the innocent from the guilty because they simply don't fit this mode of locking people up for what they might do in the future.

VOICE OVER:
The supporters of the precautionary principle argue that this loss of rights is the price that society has to pay when faced by the unique and terrifying threat of the Al Qaeda network. But, as this series has shown, the idea of a hidden, organised web of terror is largely a fantasy, and by embracing the precautionary principle, the politicians have become trapped in a vicious circle: they imagine the worst about an organisation that doesn't even exist. But no one questions this because the very basis of the precautionary principle is to imagine the worst without supporting evidence, and, instead, those with the darkest imaginations become the most influential.

[CUT, INTERIOR, RESTAURANT]

DAVID JOHNSTON, INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST, NEW YORK TIMES:
You'll hear about meetings where terrorist matters are discussed in the intelligence community, and always the person with the most dire assessment, the person with the -- who has the, kind of, the strongest sense that something should be done will frequently carry the day at meetings. We thus believe the most dire estimate of what could happen here. The sense of disbelief has vanished.

INTERVIEWER:
So the person with the most vivid imagination becomes the most powerful.

JOHNSTON:
In a sense, that's correct.

[CUT, INTERIOR, FBI OFFICE]

FBI OFFICIAL:

We knew that Al Qaeda's tentacles were beginning to become far-reaching.

[CUT, INTERIOR, BRITISH MEETING ROOM]

BRITISH OFFICIAL:
There will be an attack. It is ''when'' within the United Kingdom; I think the ''if'' is academic.

[CUT, TONY BLAIR AT PODIUM, ADDRESSING AUDIENCE]

BLAIR:

It is only a matter of time, and its potential is huge.

[EXCERPT, GODZILLA: WALL OF WATER SLAMS INTO CITY]

[CUT, INTERIOR, RESTAURANT]

JOHNSTON:
How will we ever know when it's over? How will we ever know when the threat is gone? In the mindset we are now in, once we declare it to be over will be exactly the time that we believe that they will strike.

[CUT, BRITISH NEWSSTAND]

NEWS VENDOR:
You know, uh, it's just -- it's the way we live today. We're living on a knife edge.

[CUT, AERIAL VIEW OF LONDON, FOLLOWED BY SCENES OF DISASTERS, ETC]

VOICE OVER:
This story began over 30 years ago as the dream that politics could create a better world began to fall apart. Out of that collapse came two groups: the Islamists and the neoconservatives. Looking back, we can now see that these groups were the last political idealists who, in an age of growing disillusion, tried to reassert the inspirational power of political visions that would give meaning to people's lives.

[CUT, VIEW OF ARABIC CROWD]

[SUBTITLES OVER CROWD SCENES: We will fight for an Islamic state, we will die for it.]

[CUT, PAUL WOLFOWITZ ENTERING PRESS BRIEFING ROOM]

VOICE OVER:
But both have failed in their attempts to transform the world and, instead, together they have created today's strange fantasy of fear which politicians have seized on. Because in an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power.

[CUT, INTERIOR, HALL, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION]

BUSH:
And we have seen Americans in uniform storming mountain strongholds and charging through sandstorms. We have fought the terrorists across the earth because the lives of our citizens are at stake. And America and the world are safer.

[CUT, INTERIOR, HALL, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION]

JOHN KERRY, UNITED STATES SENATOR AND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:
The stakes are high. We are a nation at war, a global war on terror against unlike we've ever known before….

[CUT, RNC]

BUSH:
Faced with that choice I will defend America every time.

[CUT, ANGLE ON CHEERING CROWDS OF REPUBLICANS]

[CUT, INTERIOR, MEETING ROOM]

DURODIE:

In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda. Whilst the 20th century was dominated between a conflict between a free-market Right and a socialist Left, even though both of those outlooks had their limitations and their problems, at least they believed in something, whereas what we are seeing now is a society that believes in nothing. And a society that believes in nothing is particularly frightened by people who believe in anything, and, therefore, we label those people as fundamentalists or fanatics, and they have much greater purchase in terms of the fear that they instill in society than they truly deserve. But that's a measure of how much we have become isolated and atomised rather than of their inherent strength.

[CUT, EXTERIOR DOWNING STREET, TONY BLAIR WALKING TOWARD DOOR]

VOICE OVER:
But the fear will not last, and just as the dreams that politicians once promised turned out to be illusions, so, too, will the nightmares, and then our politicians will have to face the fact that they have no visions, either good or bad, to offer us any longer.

[END CREDITS:

MUSIC:

''Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head'']

WITH THANKS TO

CBS TELEVISION

NBC NEWS ARCHIVE

SONY TRISTAR PICTURES

TESSA HUNKIN

CAMERA:
LUCY KELSALL

SOUND:
NIALL PODSON

RESEARCHERS:
SATIYESH MANOHARAJAH, HOSSAM AL-HAMALAWY

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH:
NEIL STEVENSON

PRODUCTION EXECUTIVE:
EMMANUELE PASQUALE

PRODUCTION MANAGER:
CLAIRE ASKEW

COLOURIST:
COLIN PETERS

ONLINE EDITOR:
TAMER OSMAN

DUBBING MIXER:
BOB JACKSON

FILM RESEARCH:
STUART ROBERTSON

ASSISTANT PRODUCER:
LUCY KELSALL

EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS:
STEPHEN LAMBERT, PETER HORROCKS

WRITTEN AND PRODUCED BY:
ADAM CURTIS

People no longer trust the Mainstream Corporate Media

People no longer trust the Republican controlled corporate mainstrean media and are turning to the internet to get their information. That is because corporate media giants fail to cover stories so as not to upset the Bush Administration. For example, ABC News and CBS news have yet to run a single story about the Downing Street Memos, which prove that George W. Bush deliberately and systematically lied about his reasons for invading Iraq.

The more the media covers up the more people distrust them and are turning to alternative media outlets that aren't controlled by money interests. As it turns out readers can get better information from independent sources than the can from the well funded but tightly controlled TV networks.

My Interview on Flag Burning

As many of you know, one of my web sites is flagburning.org. So whenever the Republicans pass their annual constitutional amendment to take away flag burning I get some radio interviews. My good buddy Kevin Miller of WPTF Radio Raleigh NC calls me every time the flag burning issue comes up. I'm the guy the love to hate in the south, but this time there was less resistance to the idea of flag burning than there used to be. I think that the Patriot Act and the Bush administration is making people wake up and think twice about the issues of surrendering their freedoms.

This time I made a recording of my interview so that everyone can listen to the debate. The interview was 2 hours but after editing out the comercials it's only 50 minutes long (8.7mb). Several callers brought up important points that are worth thinking about.

One issue that people don't grasp is that once this passes, how will it be abused? For example, once it becomes a crime to desecrate the flag, then all they have to do is print a flag on anything and that becomes protected. So if they want you to carry a mandated ID card that has a tracking microchip in it, that card will have a flag on it. The microchip will also have a flag on it. So destroying the ID card will be construed as desecrating the flag. It is an anti-sedition law and every time we give up our freedoms we become less free. And if we turn this country into a nation that is no longer free then the flag no longer means anything. That to me is the worse form of desecration imaginable.

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.

Democrats.com Seeks Apology for Washington Post Attack

For Immediate Release: June 19, 2005
For More Info: Bob Fertik http://democrats.com/contact
Web page: http://democrats.com/milbank

Democrats.com Seeks Apology for Washington Post Attack

On June 19, Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank attacked Democrats.com by name for the third time in 10 days.

Bob Fertik, President of Democrats.com, replied in detail to Milbank's attack in his blog:
http://democrats.com/milbank

Fertik also sent a Letter to the Editor of the Post requesting an apology.

To the Editor:

Re: Memos, 'Wing Nuts' and 'Hit Lists' by Ombudsman Michael Getler, June 19

On behalf of more than 300,000 supporters of Democrats.com, I write to express my outrage over Dana Milbank's libelous charge that our "followers have long been harassing this and other reporters and their families with hateful, obscene and sometimes anti-Semitic speech."

Democrats.com strictly prohibits personal attacks and takes immediate action against anyone who violates this rule.

Mr. Milbank never documented any personal attacks from Democrats.com supporters, so I am appalled that you published the allegation as though it were factual, and did not ask me for a response to this despicable charge.

I therefore request an apology from the Washington Post.

Sincerely,

Bob Fertik

President

p.s. I have published this letter, and all background correspondence, on my blog at:
http://democrats.com/milbank

----

This reminds me of a battle I had with Salon Magazine where one of their reporters, Jennifer Liberto, decided that I was the publisher of Media Whores Online and Bartcop was the writer. Salon refused to fix the story.

Is The United States a Cult?

Are we Americans living in a cult? I have been working on my cult pages for my Church of Reality and I came across this really good 100 question cult test. It was written by a guy who was exposing Alcoholics Anonymous as a cult and focuses mostly on religious cults. But religions aren't the only cults. More common are nation cults. So take this test from the perspective of America as the test cult and see if you think we are living in a cult.

Ministers were told of need for Gulf War Excuse

From the The Sunday Times - Britain. You don't see this in the American news media. Do you think the press would ignore this if Clinton faked a war?

MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.

The paper was circulated to those present at the meeting, among whom were Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The full minutes of the meeting were published last month in The Sunday Times.

The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.

“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.

The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.

The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it.

There has been a growing storm of protest in America, created by last month’s publication of the minutes in The Sunday Times. A host of citizens, including many internet bloggers, have demanded to know why the Downing Street memo (often shortened to “the DSM” on websites) has been largely ignored by the US mainstream media.

The White House has declined to respond to a letter from 89 Democratic congressmen asking if it was true — as Dearlove told the July meeting — that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” in Washington.

The Downing Street memo burst into the mainstream American media only last week after it was raised at a joint Bush-Blair press conference, forcing the prime minister to insist that “the facts were not fixed in any shape or form at all”.

John Conyers, the Democratic congressman who drafted the letter to Bush, has now written to Dearlove asking him to say whether or not it was accurate that he believed the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. He also asked the former MI6 chief precisely when Bush and Blair had agreed to invade Iraq and whether it is true they agreed to “manufacture” the UN ultimatum in order to justify the war.

He and other Democratic congressmen plan to hold their own inquiry this Thursday with witnesses including Joe Wilson, the American former ambassador who went to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore for its nuclear weapons programme.

When is it the News Media's Fault?

Letter to the Editor

The Bush Administration is blaming the news media for violence by Muslims who are upset with news reports about the brutal torture of prisoners at American prison camps. They say these news reports are getting people killed. But it's not the news reports that are getting people killed, it's the news. The torture at Abu Ghraib really did happen. The Gonzales memo approving the torture really did happen. And the abuse at Gitmo as reported by Amnesty International really did happen. It's not the job of the news media to cover up for the presidents war crimes. If the Bush administration wants to stop the news reports I suggest that he stop doing the things that the news media is reporting on.

Was Newsweek Wrong?

I really don't think so in spite of all the self criticism and the rest of the corporate media chiming in to denounce the "mistake" that the military is flushing the qaran down the toilet. I believe the store is true because it is consitent with the storied that prisioners are telling and the Anu Ghraib torture scandal.

The scary part is how the corporate media jumps through hoops for Bush as the Whitehouse controls them like puppets. I'm still waiting for them to apologize to Clinton for all the false reports they manufactured on him.

Does anyone really believe that this sort of think didn't happen? I don't think so. At Abu Ghraib this was cmmon. Part of the torture was religious humiliation. They just were too stupid to understand the consequences of it.

The other bizzare aspect of this is that these muslims go nuts over the treatment of a book and not over the the treatment of people. That's why the religiously insane scare me.

Bush supporters have to pay high gas prices too

I get at least some consolation in that those who voted for Bush have to pay $2.50 a gallon too and they too have to pay higher taxes for less services and generally suffer like the rest of real America.

But - will they get it when they are paying $5.00 a gallon? I doubt it.

Bolton Worked to Stop 2000 Election Recount

No wonder Bush is taking care of Bolton. Original Story

"I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."

Those were the words John Bolton yelled as he burst into a Tallahassee library on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, where local election workers were recounting ballots cast in Florida's disputed presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore.

Bolton was one of the pack of lawyers for the Republican presidential ticket who repeatedly sought to shut down recounts of the ballots from Florida counties before those counts revealed that Gore had actually won the state's electoral votes and the presidency.

The Dec. 9 intervention was Bolton's last and most significant blow against the democratic process.

The Florida Supreme Court had ordered a broad recount of ballots in order to finally resolve the question of who won the state. But Bolton and the Bush-Cheney team got their Republican allies on the U.S. Supreme Court to block the review. Fearing that each minute of additional counting would reveal the reality of voter sentiments in Florida, Bolton personally rushed into the library to stop the count.

Bolton was in South Korea when it became clear that the Nov. 7, 2000, election would be decided in Florida. At the behest of former Secretary of State James Baker, who fronted the Bush-Cheney team during the Florida fight, Bolton winged his way to Palm Beach, where he took the lead in challenging ballots during that county's recount. Then, when the ballots from around the state were transported to Tallahassee for the recount ordered by the state Supreme Court, Bolton followed them.

It was there that he personally shut down the review of ballots from Miami-Dade County, a populous and particularly contested county where independent reviews would later reveal that hundreds of ballots that could reasonably have been counted for Gore were instead discarded.

Miami-Dade County Elections Supervisor David Leahy argued at the time that 2,257 voters had apparently attempted to mark ballot cards for Gore or Bush but had not had them recorded because they had been improperly inserted into the voting machines. A hand count of those ballots revealed that 302 more of them would have gone for Gore than Bush. That shift in the numbers from just one of Florida's 67 counties would have erased more than half of Bush's 537-vote lead in the state.

But attempts to conduct a hand count were repeatedly blocked by the Bush-Cheney team, culminating with Bolton's Dec. 9 announcement, "I'm here to stop the count." A few days later, the U.S. Supreme Court would stop the count permanently, with a pro-Bush ruling in which five Republican-appointed justices, in the words of noted attorney Vincent Bugliosi, "committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law."

Bolton was a key player in the fight to delay the Florida count long enough to allow for the Supreme Court's intervention, and he got his reward quickly. Despite his record of making controversial and sometimes bizarre statements regarding international affairs, he was selected by the Bush administration in 2001 to serve as undersecretary of state for arms control. And he is now in line to become the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Before he is given that position, and charged with the job of promoting the spread of democracy around the world, however, senators would do well to consider the disregard John Bolton showed for democracy in Florida.

John Bolton - Where have we seen him before?

Judge Charles Burton, chairman of the Palm Beach County canvassing board, holds up the last ballot the board was able to consider in the manual recount of ballots as Democratic lawyer Mark White, left, and Republican lawyer John Bolton watch at the Palm Beach County Emergency Operations Center Sunday, Nov. 26, 2000, in West Palm Beach, Fla. On Election Day 2004 partisan lawyers are planning to be at polling places they consider important or prone to trouble as the best remembered controversies in the 2000 Florida election grew from technical voting problems, many of which still exist; an estimated 32 million voters in 19 states will use punch cards. -AP File Photo

----

Diplomat says he received no assurance of a reward

Bolton, the U.S. diplomat now responsible for arms control issues, said no payoff was promised for his decision to join the post-election fray. He had worked for the first Bush administration and, finding himself in South Korea on election night, contacted former Secretary of State James Baker in Texas to see how he might lend a hand. The reply: Go to Florida.

''I think, frankly, most of the people who did it just went down there by instinct,'' Bolton said. He said he received no legal fees, although the campaign paid his hotel bills and other expenses.

Bolton was part of the legal team and a ballot observer in Palm Beach County. Then he rushed to Tallahassee as the recount battle reached higher courts.

It was his role, on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, to burst into a library where workers were recounting Miami-Dade ballots and relay news of the U.S. Supreme Court's stay in the on-again, off-again presidential recount.

''I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count,'' he was quoted as saying in news reports at the time.

The Florida fraternity included major figures in the Bush administration, notably Theodore Olson, the current solicitor general, who worked on the case in both Tallahassee and Miami, then argued candidate Bush's case before the U.S. Supreme Court, and Robert Zoellick, now the U.S. trade representative, who served as a virtual chief of staff to Baker, Bush's main Florida strategist…

----

So - this is about payback for helping Bush steal the 2000 election. Interesting that the corporate media isn't mentioning this. Especially since this is an Associated Press story.

National Press Club Brings back jeff Gannon

He's Back! Jeff Gannon / James Guckert is back at the National Press Club.

Yes, the same day that the prestigious Washington, D.C., journalism organization plans to present a lunch talk by former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee, it will also allow the former White House reporter/escort to be on a panel discussing bloggers and online journalism.

Jesus - this guy is talking about real journalists like me? First he's a fake national corrispondent. Now he's a fake blogger and online journalist. No - this guy is a republican paid fraud.

Gannon, whose real name is James Guckert, resigned his job with the conservative Talon News last month after it was revealed he had used a pseudonym, had little journalism background, and had ties to male escort Web sites.

It wasn't ties to male escort sites. He owned gay male porn sites and advertized himself as a gay male whore.

Still, Press Club leaders will include Gannon on the panel April 8 that includes Wonkette.com editor Ana Marie Cox, National Journal's John Stanton, and others. Gannon has been asked on numerous occasions about charges that he worked as a prostitute, and has refused to deny them.

Gannon told E&P today that he always considered himself a legitimate journalist, and "perhaps their invitation is recognition of that."

It is in recognition that the rest of the journalists there are whores too. They are merely Republican surrogates that report the news the Neocons write for them.

Press Club President Rick Dunham, who also covers the White House for BusinessWeek, called Gannon "a figure in the news" who is involved in an important journalistic issue.

And they say bloggers have no journalistic standards!

"The panel came together because we wanted to discuss some issues that came about from the Gannon case," said Mike Madden, a Gannett News Service reporter and a member of the Press Club's Professional Affairs committee, which is organizing the free event. "So we thought, why not try to get him?"

The issues they should be discussing is why they are covering up for him and trying to legitimize this fraud. The real story is why there is no story.

Gannon's ability to gain access to regular daily White House briefings, despite not being able to obtain a permanent "hard pass" or a congressional press pass, sparked new discussions among reporters and White House staff about who should be granted regular access.

There is a simple system when it comes to White House access. You have to sell your soul to the Devil.

"The idea was talking about these issues and who should be allowed to set up shop [as a legitimate journalist]," Madden told E&P. "It is not intended to be a forum for [Gannon] to present his side unchallenged. It is going to be moderated and there will be others on the panel."

As if these guys are going to tell us who is a legitimate journalist.

When asked if giving Gannon a spot on the panel wrongly legitimizes him as a journalist, Madden disagreed. "It depends on how you look at it," he said. "He is there because the panel is presumably going to talk mostly about his case. He was, in large part, the central figure in the case that got us interested in the topic."

Maybe they sould invite O. J. Sompson to a women's conference to speak on domestic violence?

Dunham said "journalists should be given a chance to question him." Reminded that many reporters had interviewed Gannon in the past month, Dunham still believed his presence would be good for the event. "I want us to be on the news," he said. "I think it is better to have people ask any question they can ask."

The Press Club's Web site, however, does not tout the event as focusing on Gannon but rather as a discussion about the differences between "bloggers" and "journalists." In other words, it is a journalism panel, not a press conference featuring, say, a politician or author in the news.

There is not different between bloggers and journalists. The issue is the difference between the Washing Press Corpse and journalists.

John Aravosis at Americablog, which highlighted the Press Club event on Monday, wrote: "What is GannonGuckert doing there at all? Like he's an expert on the difference between blogging and journalism? How so? He thinks journalism means parroting press releases and transcripts. As for blogging, again, he started a so-called blog 3 weeks ago and now he's representative of all bloggers?"

John Aravosis at Americablog should be there instead of Guckert! John is the blogger that EXPOSED Guckert as a fraud. So instead of inviting the journalist to speak - they invite the fraud!

Gannon told E&P he "thinks it is a good opportunity for me to speak to issues related to bloggers." He also added that he was, "trying to stay out there where people can see me."

The above picture will help people see you. You're no more a blogger that you are a White House corrispondent.

Dunham hopes to have the panel covered by C-SPAN, but said no final decision by the cable channel had been made.

"There has been a passing thunderstorm of interest in this," said Julie Schoo, who handles logistics for the press club, but she did not have details of how many people have signed up to attend.

Who is a real journalist?

This is a real reporter - a Republican gay make hooker- who was part of the official white house press corps.

So - what makes someone a real journalist? Is the guy in this picture a real journalist? He sure is. He's part of the washington press corps and he's president Bush's favorite guy to call on for the "really tough" questions.

You see - blogglers are not only journalists - but they are the only journalists. We still have our freedom as opposed to the networks who are just whitehouse puppets.

For example - today Dan Rather leaves CBS after getting fired by the Bush administration. Presidents get to fire reporters these days. Back in the 1970s Dan Rather was one of the key reporters that led to President Nixon getting fired. Back when the press was free they asserted the freedom of the people to bring down the corrupt government. Now the corrupt government brings dow the media.

To me a real journalist is someone who brings you the real news. When the so called real journalists are really Republican gay male hookers who are hired to parrot the whitehouse line - that's not real journalism. And all the other real journalists know about this and knew about it for the last two years and continue to cover it up.

I find it ammusing that after the CNN report they had a segment reporting on what the bloggers are saying. While the report appears to be about bloggers - it's clear that the mainstream press is now looking at bloggers as a source of news.

Teresa Heinz Kerry speaks out about the Stolen Election

At least someone is finally speaking out. Here's part of an article from the Seattle Post Intelligencer

COUNTING THE VOTES: Heinz Kerry is openly skeptical about results from November's election, particularly in sections of the country where optical scanners were used to record votes.

"Two brothers own 80 percent of the machines used in the United States," Heinz Kerry said. She identified both as "hard-right" Republicans. She argued that it is "very easy to hack into the mother machines."

"We in the United States are not a banana republic," added Heinz Kerry. She argued that Democrats should insist on "accountability and transparency" in how votes are tabulated.

"I fear for '06," she said. "I don't trust it the way it is right now."

Programmer comes forward revealing he wrote the code to steal the election

If Clinton were stealing elections - do you think the news media would cover it?

In December 2004, computer programmer Clint Curtis swore in an affidavit that he was asked in 2000 by (now) US Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL) to design a software prototype that could "flip" the vote in South Florida voting machines.

That affidavit was first published by blogger Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com. Shortly thereafter, Curtis, in sworn public testimony, shared the details of this story with Democratic members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee who were investigating election fraud charges in Ohio. [video]

In 2000, Curtis was working for a Florida software company called Yang Enterprises Inc. (YEI). Feeney, who was then the incoming Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, was, at the same time, general counsel for YEI and its registered lobbyist. He had previously been Jeb Bush's 1994 running mate for Florida Governor and continues to be a close ally of the Bush family.

Feeney has refused public comment on the matter, while YEI and their attorney (Feeney's former law partner) have denied such an event took place. But the alibis of both Feeney and YEI have been repeatedly discredited and debunked by the reporting of Brad Friedman since December.

Clint Curtis, on the other hand, has a solid record as a whistleblower. He told Florida officials that another YEI employee, an illegal Chinese alien named Hai Lin "Henry" Nee, was engaged in high-tech espionage for China. Nee was subsequently indicted by the feds on related charged and pled guilty last year. YEI's CEO, Mrs. Li-Woan Yang, still denies that Nee worked for them, despite federal reports and weekly time records published on The BRAD BLOG which prove otherwise.

The Florida Inspector General who originally investigated Curtis' claims was found dead in a Georgia motel room two weeks after he told Curtis that "this goes all the way to the top." Police called it a "suicide," but Friedman has discovered a number of troubling new facts and inconsistencies about the police "investigation" (which was re-opened after Friedman's reporting emerged on the Internet) including photographs of the crime scene which the police had previously said in their report did not exist.

Clint Curtis' story has quietly rocked top Republicans from Tallahassee to Capitol Hill. Newspaper accounts of Curtis' affidavit and testimony have been published in various local papers (Feeney's hometown letter received a legal threat from both Feeney and YEI when they ran their story), yet the national media has largely been silent on this story despite the reams of public records, court documents and other hard evidence which confirm Curtis' story while continually debunking both Feeney's and YEI's explanations.

Bush Plan - 70% Tax on Social Security Benifits

So - under the Bush stock market plan - you invest you money in the market and when you retire you get to live on the profits - right? Wrong!

They aren't telling you that Bush plans to tax 70% of your earnings against your Social Security income. That means for ever dollar you make on your Social Security investment - you get a 70 cent cut in the amount of money the government gives you. And if you lose money --- you're just plain fucked.

But - you won't hear this story from the Republican owned media puppets to want to eliminate social security. To find that out you have to go to the town hall metting with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and find out what is really on the table.

Only on the web can you find the real news that is unfiltered by the Washington press.

Government Control of the Stock Market Coming

It's called "privatizing Social Security" - but that's not what it really is. A side effect of Bush's plan is the government takeover of the stock market.

Think about it. With two trillion dollars of buying and selling power the federal government - or the private parties who are doing the government's investing - become, by a factor of 100, the biggest single investor in the world. And I doubt that anyone will ever make a stock decision without wondering what move the government is going to make.

Besides - who is going to enforce laws and ethical standards against the government? The government? The possibilities for insider trading are endless. And how do you feel about the idea that the single biggest owner of "free enterprise" is the government? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Because the market goes up over time doesn't mean all investors make money. There are winners and there are losers. There is nothing out there that will ensure that the government doesn't lose it all. The market is a gamble and if you don't understand that - you don't understand the market.

Bush proposes that we are going to borrow two trillion dollars to gamble in a market that will be completely changed by this new super investor. And we are going to borrow that money from Muslin Saudi oil barons - some of whom are members of the family of Osama bin Laden - and the rest is going to be borrowed from the Communist Chinese.

This merger through the market of the government and private industry is like an elephant merging with a fly. The government is going to own or at least control the purchasing of huge amounts of private sector stock and become significant owners of many large free enterprise organization. Will the government end up picking members of the board of directors - or influence who is picked, perhaps even innocently? After all - companies are going to want to attract Uncle Sam as an investor and structure their organization in a way that the government likes. It make me wonder how these corporations will change once Uncle Sam becomes the company's biggest share holder.

And the insider trading ... what will that be like. If the FDA decides not to approve a new drug - will the FDA tip off the Social Security Fund? Or - will they keep the secret and let the government lose billions of dollars of our retirement money?

The stock market creates competition, and some people win and some people lose. In this case it pits the government against all other private investors and someone is going to win and someone is going to lose, and guess who has the advantage?

And let's suppose the government does well in the market and makes a big profit on our social security money. Wouldn't that be wonderful? Not necessarily. It might mean that investor lost a lot of money and the same old people who benefit from social security would lose their private investment to make up for it. Government wins - private industry loses - hardly sound like free enterprise to me.

But what if the Government loses? Then you have private investors getting rich at the expense of the taxpayers. If the government blows it's wad on the market - the still have to pay back the Muslim terrorists and the Communists who loaned them the money in the first place. They will probably have to borrow the money from the investors who screwed them out of it.

To me the very definition of "free enterprise" means free from the government. After all - what else does the word "free" mean? If the government is your owner you are not free. You are in fact a slave. And the government server as owner, employer, and pickpocket all at once. They have your credit card and are running up the bill. We now have a $36,000 birth tax in this country. That's your share of the debt from the moment you are born. Thanks Bush!

What I can't understand is - where the hell are the conservatives? Doesn't this debt make your skin crawl? The government is everywhere and they are expanding and taking over. They are already in your churches and now they want to own the company where you work? Why the hell aren't you freaking out?

It's a never ending cycle and it reminds me of the song "Sixteen Tons" by Frankie Lane that ends in, " St Peter don't you call me I cause can't go: I owe my soul to the company store."

Bush is coming to kill your children

As you know the mid term elections are just two years away and by then people are going to be tired of Iraq. Republicans need a fresh new war to keep up the momentum - and that fresh new war will be Iran.

Of course by then the number of idiots who volunteer will have dropped off so the draft is coming back. Bush will need to harvest your children as props in his illusion of "America - a nation at War" theme.

The sad part is that American are stupid enough that it's going to work. But - when they start saying "who would have known?" - I did - and a lot of others see this coming. It's just too bad that the only opposition to this would be the Democrats who are generally spineless. There's no voice for reality in the government these days.

Fahrenheit 9-/11 distribution - so what happened?

Below is an article about an interview I did for The Independent as I was distributing Fahrenheit 9/11 before the election. People were wondering about copyrights and if I was going to get sued. But like I said - it would never happen - and it didn't.

As it turn out it was like I said. Michael Moore said I could distribute it for free on the Internet and he meant it. At no time have I been contacted in any way about my distribution. Not even a polite request to take it down.

It just goes to show you the Michael Moore is a man of his word and he was being generous and I thank him for his generocity.

--------------

Marc Perkel is spending US$2000 in the hope of ensuring the result of next week’s presidential election.

Not by buying expensive TV adverts (something that would cost much more than US$2000) but by offering Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11 for free download from his site, in the hope that watching it will encourage people to vote against George W. Bush.

And at least half of his hope has been fulfilled: thousands of people have downloaded the film from his site, in a format that can be watched on a computer.

Yet despite offering a box-office hit backed by heavyweight producers such as Harvey Weinstein, available for free over the Net, Mr Perkel, of San Bruno in California, does not fear being sued, as one would normally expect.

Instead, he insists that “Michael Moore wants me to distribute this” - although he also admits Mr Moore has not spoken to him specifically.

The US$2000 is the cost of one month’s high-speed internet access to his web site where the digital versions of the film are stored - and if download numbers are any guide, he has found a receptive audience.

Since he put the films online, more than 300,000 people have downloaded them, in full or in part.

The film has become famous for its criticism of President Bush’s handling of the threat from terrorists before September 2001, and for his policies afterwards.

That inspired Mr Perkel to make a digital copy of the film, and offer it for free so others would see it: “This election is extremely important to the future of the planet,” he told The Independent.

“If I can make a difference, it’s worth US$2000 to make that happen.

According to my [site] logs - which I don’t trust because I don’t think it can distinguish failed attempts - it has been downloaded 337,756 times.

But I don’t count downloads - I count votes.

How many voters are converted [by seeing the film] or how many people are motivated to actually vote? That’s the score that counts to me.

I am trying to prevent World War 3 and possibly the fall of civilisation."What’s more, Mr Perkel says he has the tacit backing of Mr Moore for his venture.

“Michael Moore has made public statements encouraging people to download it and to distribute it over the internet for free.

At no time have I seen any public statements from a copyright holder to the contrary,” Mr Perkel told the Independent.

Indeed, Mr Moore said in July: “I don’t agree with the copyright laws and I don’t have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they’re not trying to make a profit off my labour.

I would oppose that."The distributors of the film in the US, Lion’s Gate, had no comment yesterday on Mr Perkel’s actions.

Mr Perkel commented: “Even if I were sued, which I really don’t think will happen, I am extremely legal savvy and I am not [rich].

And I would [demand the appearance of] Michael Moore as a defendant for misleading me into believing I had permission to distribute it.

So - under these conditions - a copyright suit won’t happen."

I'm tired of Red State vs. Blue States

I'm tired of people talking about red states and blue states as if everyone in red states voted for Bush and everyone in Blue states voted for Kerry. States didn't vote - people do. So those who feel like boycotting red states are a silly as those who like all black people are all alike. It's almost racist. A Kerry voter in Georga is no different that a Kerry voter in California. It's individuals - not states - who made the choice.

Liberals Crossing into Canada

The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration.

The re-election of President Bush is prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray and agree with Bill O'Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night.

"I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota.

The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry.

"He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left. Didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields.

"Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk."

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves.

"A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a drop of drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though."

When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about the Bush administration establishing re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR.

In the days since the election, liberals have turned to sometimes-ingenious ways of crossing the border.

Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers.

"If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age," an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies. "I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors does one country need?"

In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada, Vice President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the administration would take steps to reassure liberals, a source close to Cheney said.

"We're going to have some Peter, Paul &Mary concerts. And we might put some endangered species on postage stamps. The president is determined to reach out."

America is not a Democracy

When the results of an election depends on which party is counting the ballots and widespread fraud is acceptable and the law is "whatever you can get away with" and the government controls redistricting in ways that allows them to control the results of and election - that's not democracy. It's just a simulationm. It's a fraud. It's a lie. America has a fake democracy.

News Media Tries to Immitate Bloggers

I find it amuzing the the main stream media thinks they can immitate the credibility of bloggers just by buying some blog software and publishing their news in blog format. There's a big difference between real bloggers and our media immitators. Real bloggers are writing about their own opinion. Its an act of total free speech.

On the other hand the corporate bloggers are what they are - corporate bloggers. They are hired to write what the corporation wants to say and what the corporation wants to say is the script that is sent to them from Karl Rove in the Whitehouse. That's why you won't find them calling Bush a war criminal or reporting that Al Gore really did win the 2000 election and that America is merely a simulated democracy.

The corporate bloggers might have more resources to find news that us real bloggers but the news they find and what they report are two different things. These fake bloggers are on a short leash and although they technically have the freedom to write anything they want - they can only do it once and they are out the door.

So - if you want the real news - go to the sites where the grammar and spelling are poor and the message is both true and interesting. I suppose it is a form of flattery that corporate media has addopted the blog format because it is more trusted than the mainstream news. But what they don't get is the difference between form an substance. You don't achieve sincerity by learning better ways to fake it.

More info on Stolen Election

Here's an article by Greg Palast published in tompaine.com.

Bush won Ohio by 136,483 votes. In the United States, about 3 percent of votes cast are voided—known as “spoilage” in election jargon—because the ballots cast are inconclusive. Drawing on what happened in Florida and studies of elections past, Palast argues that if Ohio’s discarded ballots were counted, Kerry would have won the state. Today, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports there are a total of 247,672 votes not counted in Ohio, if you add the 92,672 discarded votes plus the 155,000 provisional ballots. So far there's no indication that Palast's hypothesis will be tested because only the provisional ballots are being counted.

Greg Palast, contributing editor to Harper's magazine, investigated the manipulation of the vote for BBC Television's Newsnight. The documentary, "Bush Family Fortunes," based on his New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, has been released this month on DVD .

Kerry won. Here are the facts.

I know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry.

Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. At 1:05 a.m. Wednesday morning, CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. The exit polls were later combined with—and therefore contaminated by—the tabulated results, ultimately becoming a mirror of the apparent actual vote. [To read about the skewing of exit polls to conform to official results, click here .] Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.

So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.

Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. [See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten," November 1.]

Once again, at the heart of the Ohio uncounted vote game are, I'm sorry to report, hanging chads and pregnant chads, plus some other ballot tricks old and new.

The election in Ohio was not decided by the voters but by something called "spoilage." Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of the vote is voided, just thrown away, not recorded. When the bobble-head boobs on the tube tell you Ohio or any state was won by 51 percent to 49 percent, don't you believe it ... it has never happened in the United States, because the total never reaches a neat 100 percent. The television totals simply subtract out the spoiled vote.

Whose Votes Are Discarded?

And not all votes spoil equally. Most of those votes, say every official report, come from African-American and minority precincts. (To learn more, click here.)

We saw this in Florida in 2000. Exit polls showed Gore with a plurality of at least 50,000, but it didn't match the official count. That's because the official, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, excluded 179,855 spoiled votes. In Florida, as in Ohio, most of these votes lost were cast on punch cards where the hole wasn't punched through completely—leaving a 'hanging chad,'—or was punched extra times. Whose cards were discarded? Expert statisticians investigating spoilage for the government calculated that 54 percent of the ballots thrown in the dumpster were cast by black folks. (To read the report from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, click here .)

And here's the key: Florida is terribly typical. The majority of ballots thrown out (there will be nearly 2 million tossed out from Tuesday's election) will have been cast by African American and other minority citizens.

So here we go again. Or, here we don't go again. Because unlike last time, Democrats aren't even asking Ohio to count these cards with the not-quite-punched holes (called "undervotes" in the voting biz). Nor are they demanding we look at the "overvotes" where voter intent may be discerned.

Ohio is one of the last states in America to still use the vote-spoiling punch-card machines. And the Secretary of State of Ohio, J. Kenneth Blackwell, wrote before the election, “the possibility of a close election with punch cards as the state’s primary voting device invites a Florida-like calamity.”

But this week, Blackwell, a rabidly partisan Republican, has warmed up to the result of sticking with machines that have a habit of eating Democratic votes. When asked if he feared being this year's Katherine Harris, Blackwell noted that Ms. Fix-it's efforts landed her a seat in Congress.

Exactly how many votes were lost to spoilage this time? Blackwell's office, notably, won't say, though the law requires it be reported. Hmm. But we know that last time, the total of Ohio votes discarded reached a democracy-damaging 1.96 percent. The machines produced their typical loss—that's 110,000 votes—overwhelmingly Democratic.

The Impact Of Challenges

First and foremost, Kerry was had by chads. But the Democrat wasn't punched out by punch cards alone. There were also the 'challenges.' That's a polite word for the Republican Party of Ohio's use of an old Ku Klux Klan technique: the attempt to block thousands of voters of color at the polls. In Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida, the GOP laid plans for poll workers to ambush citizens under arcane laws—almost never used—allowing party-designated poll watchers to finger individual voters and demand they be denied a ballot. The Ohio courts were horrified and federal law prohibits targeting of voters where race is a factor in the challenge. But our Supreme Court was prepared to let Republicans stand in the voting booth door.

In the end, the challenges were not overwhelming, but they were there. Many apparently resulted in voters getting these funky "provisional" ballots—a kind of voting placebo—which may or may not be counted. Blackwell estimates there were 175,000; Democrats say 250,000. Pick your number. But as challenges were aimed at minorities, no one doubts these are, again, overwhelmingly Democratic. Count them up, add in the spoiled punch cards (easy to tally with the human eye in a recount), and the totals begin to match the exit polls; and, golly, you've got yourself a new president. Remember, Bush won by 136,483 votes in Ohio.

Enchanted State's Enchanted Vote

Now, on to New Mexico, where a Kerry plurality—if all votes are counted—is more obvious still. Before the election, in TomPaine.com, I wrote, "John Kerry is down by several thousand votes in New Mexico, though not one ballot has yet been counted."

How did that happen? It's the spoilage, stupid; and the provisional ballots.

CNN said George Bush took New Mexico by 11,620 votes. Again, the network total added up to that miraculous, and non-existent, '100 percent' of ballots cast.

New Mexico reported in the last race a spoilage rate of 2.68 percent, votes lost almost entirely in Hispanic, Native American and poor precincts—Democratic turf. From Tuesday's vote, assuming the same ballot-loss rate, we can expect to see 18,000 ballots in the spoilage bin.

Spoilage has a very Democratic look in New Mexico. Hispanic voters in the Enchanted State, who voted more than two to one for Kerry, are five times as likely to have their vote spoil as a white voter. Counting these uncounted votes would easily overtake the Bush 'plurality.'

Already, the election-bending effects of spoilage are popping up in the election stats, exactly where we'd expect them: in heavily Hispanic areas controlled by Republican elections officials. Chaves County, in the "Little Texas" area of New Mexico, has a 44 percent Hispanic population, plus African Americans and Native Americans, yet George Bush "won" there 68 percent to 31 percent.

I spoke with Chaves' Republican county clerk before the election, and he told me that this huge spoilage rate among Hispanics simply indicated that such people simply can't make up their minds on the choice of candidate for president. Oddly, these brown people drive across the desert to register their indecision in a voting booth.

Now, let's add in the effect on the New Mexico tally of provisional ballots.

"They were handing them out like candy," Albuquerque journalist Renee Blake reported of provisional ballots. About 20,000 were given out. Who got them?

Santiago Juarez who ran the "Faithful Citizenship" program for the Catholic Archdiocese in New Mexico, told me that "his" voters, poor Hispanics, whom he identified as solid Kerry supporters, were handed the iffy provisional ballots. Hispanics were given provisional ballots, rather than the countable kind "almost religiously," he said, at polling stations when there was the least question about a voter's identification. Some voters, Santiago said, were simply turned away.

Your Kerry Victory Party

So we can call Ohio and New Mexico for John Kerry—if we count all the votes.

But that won't happen. Despite the Democratic Party's pledge, the leadership this time gave in to racial disenfranchisement once again. Why? No doubt, the Democrats know darn well that counting all the spoiled and provisional ballots will require the cooperation of Ohio's Secretary of State, Blackwell. He will ultimately decide which spoiled and provisional ballots get tallied. Blackwell, hankering to step into Kate Harris' political pumps, is unlikely to permit anything close to a full count. Also, Democratic leadership knows darn well the media would punish the party for demanding a full count.

What now? Kerry won, so hold your victory party. But make sure the shades are down: it may be become illegal to demand a full vote count under PATRIOT Act III.

I used to write a column for the Guardian papers in London. Several friends have asked me if I will again leave the country. In light of the failure—a second time—to count all the votes, that won't be necessary. My country has left me.

Zogby Smells a Rat

I found This Article on the John Zogby Site.

I Smell a Rat

I smell a rat. It has that distinctive and all-too-familiar odor of the species Republicanus floridius. We got a nasty bite from this pest four years ago and never quite recovered. Symptoms of a long-term infection are becoming distressingly apparent.

The first sign of the rat was on election night. The jubilation of early exit polling had given way to rising anxiety as states fell one by one to the Red Tide. It was getting late in the smoky cellar of a Prague sports bar where a crowd of expats had gathered. We had been hoping to go home to bed early, confident of victory. Those hopes had evaporated in a flurry of early precinct reports from Florida and Ohio.

By 3 AM, conversation had died and we were grimly sipping beers and watching as those two key states seemed to be slipping further and further to crimson. Suddenly, a friend who had left two hours earlier rushed in and handed us a printout.

"Zogby's calling it for Kerry." He smacked the sheet decisively. "Definitely. He's got both Florida and Ohio in the Kerry column. Kerry only needs one." Satisfied, we went to bed, confident we would wake with the world a better place. Victory was at hand.

The morning told a different story, of course. No Florida victory for Kerry--Bush had a decisive margin of nearly 400,000 votes. Ohio was not even close enough for Kerry to demand that all the votes be counted. The pollsters had been dead wrong, Bush had four more years and a powerful mandate. Onward Christian soldiers--next stop, Tehran.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

I work with statistics and polling data every day. Something rubbed me the wrong way. I checked the exit polls for Florida--all wrong. CNN's results indicated a Kerry win: turnout matched voter registration, and independents had broken 59% to 41% for Kerry.

Polling is an imprecise science. Yet its very imprecision is itself quantifiable and follows regular patterns. Differences between actual results and those expected from polling data must be explainable by identifiable factors if the polling sample is robust enough. With almost 3.000 respondents in Florida alone, the CNN poll sample was pretty robust.

The first signs of the rat were identified by Kathy Dopp, who conducted a simple analysis of voter registrations by party in Florida and compared them to presidential vote results. Basically she multiplied the total votes cast in a county by the percentage of voters registered Republican: this gave an expected Republican vote. She then compared this to the actual result.

Her analysis is startling. Certain counties voted for Bush far in excess of what one would expect based on the share of Republican registrations in that county. They key phrase is "certain counties"--there is extraordinary variance between individual counties. Most counties fall more or less in line with what one would expect based on the share of Republican registrations, but some differ wildly.

How to explain this incredible variance? Dopp found one over-riding factor: whether the county used electronic touch-screen voting, or paper ballots which were optically scanned into a computer. All of those with touch-screen voting had results relatively in line with her expected results, while all of those with extreme variance were in counties with optical scanning.

The intimation, clearly, is fraud. Ballots are scanned; results are fed into precinct computers; these are sent to a county-wide database, whose results are fed into the statewide electoral totals. At any point after physical ballots become databases, the system is vulnerable to external hackers.

It seemed too easy, and Dopp's method seemed simplistic. I re-ran the results using CNN's exit polling data. In each county, I took the number of registrations and assigned correctional factors based on the CNN poll to predict turnout among Republicans, Democrats, and independents. I then used the vote shares from the polls to predict a likely number of Republican votes per county. I compared this ‘expected' Republican vote to the actual Republican vote.

The results are shocking. Overall, Bush received 2% fewer votes in counties with electronic touch-screen voting than expected. In counties with optical scanning, he received 16% more. This 16% would not be strange if it were spread across counties more or less evenly. It is not. In 11 different counties, the ‘actual' Bush vote was at least twice higher than the expected vote. 13 counties had Bush vote tallies 50--100% higher than expected. In one county where 88% of voters are registered Democrats, Bush got nearly two thirds of the vote--three times more than predicted by my model.

Again, polling can be wrong. It is difficult to believe it can be that wrong. Fortunately, however, we can test how wrong it would have to be to give the ‘actual' result.

I tested two alternative scenarios to see how wrong CNN would have to have been to explain the election result. In the first, I assumed they had been wildly off the mark in the turnout figures--i.e. far more Republicans and independents had come out than Democrats. In the second I assumed the voting shares were completely wrong, and that the Republicans had been able to massively poach voters from the Democrat base.

In the first scenario, I assumed 90% of Republicans and independents voted, and the remaining ballots were cast by Democrats. This explains the result in counties with optical scanning to within 5%. However, in this scenario Democratic turnout would have been only 51% in the optical scanning counties--barely exceeding half of Republican turnout. It also does not solve the enormous problems in individual counties. 7 counties in this scenario still have actual vote tallies for Bush that are at least 100% higher than predicted by the model--an extremely unlikely result.

In the second scenario I assumed that Bush had actually got 100% of the vote from Republicans and 50% from independents (versus CNN polling results which were 93% and 41% respectively). If this gave enough votes for Bush to explain the county's results, I left the amount of Democratic registered voters ballots cast for Bush as they were predicted by CNN (14% voted for Bush). If this did not explain the result, I calculated how many Democrats would have to vote for Bush.

In 41 of 52 counties, this did not explain the result and Bush must have gotten more than CNN's predicted 14% of Democratic ballots--not an unreasonable assumption by itself. However, in 21 counties more than 50% of Democratic votes would have to have defected to Bush to account for the county result--in four counties, at least 70% would have been required. These results are absurdly unlikely.

The second rat

A previously undiscovered species of rat, Republicanus cuyahogus, has been found in Ohio. Before the election, I wrote snide letters to a state legislator for Cuyahoga county who, according to media reports, was preparing an army of enforcers to keep ‘suspect' (read: minority) voters away from the polls. One of his assistants wrote me back very pleasant mails to the effect that they had no intention of trying to suppress voter turnout, and in fact only wanted to encourage people to vote.

They did their job too well. According to the official statistics for Cuyahoga county, a number of precincts had voter turnout well above the national average: in fact, turnout was well over 100% of registered voters, and in several cases well above the total number of people who have lived in the precinct in the last century or so.

In 30 precincts, more ballots were cast than voters were registered in the county. According to county regulations, voters must cast their ballot in the precinct in which they are registered. Yet in these thirty precincts, nearly 100.000 more people voted than are registered to vote -- this out of a total of 251.946 registrations. These are not marginal differences--this is a 39% over-vote. In some precincts the over-vote was well over 100%. One precinct with 558 registered voters cast nearly 9,000 ballots. As one astute observer noted, it's the ballot-box equivalent of Jesus' miracle of the fishes. Bush being such a man of God, perhaps we should not be surprised.

What to do?

This is not an idle statistical exercise. Either the raw data from two critical battleground states is completely erroneous, or something has gone horribly awry in our electoral system--again. Like many Americans, I was dissatisfied with and suspicious of the way the Florida recount was resolved in 2000. But at the same time, I was convinced of one thing: we must let the system work, and accept its result, no matter how unjust it might appear.

With this acceptance, we placed our implicit faith in the Bush Administration that it would not abuse its position: that it would recognize its fragile mandate for what it was, respect the will of the majority of people who voted against them, and move to build consensus wherever possible and effect change cautiously when needed. Above all, we believed that both Democrats and Republicans would recognize the over-riding importance of revitalizing the integrity of the electoral system and healing the bruised faith of both constituencies.

This faith has been shattered. Bush has not led the nation to unity, but ruled through fear and division. Dishonesty and deceit in areas critical to the public interest have been the hallmark of his Administration. I state this not to throw gratuitous insults, but to place the Florida and Ohio electoral results in their proper context. For the GOP to claim now that we must take anything on faith, let alone astonishingly suspicious results in a hard-fought and extraordinarily bitter election, is pure fantasy. It does not even merit discussion.

The facts as I see them now defy all logical explanations save one--massive and systematic vote fraud. We cannot accept the result of the 2004 presidential election as legitimate until these discrepancies are rigorously and completely explained. From the Valerie Plame case to the horrors of Abu Ghraib, George Bush has been reluctant to seek answers and assign accountability when it does not suit his purposes. But this is one time when no American should accept not getting a straight answer. Until then, George Bush is still, and will remain, the ‘Accidental President' of 2000. One of his many enduring and shameful legacies will be that of seizing power through two illegitimate elections conducted on his brother's watch, and engineering a fundamental corruption at the very heart of the greatest democracy the world has known. We must not permit this to happen again.

Did Bush Really Win Florida?

Do you think Bush really won Florida? The take a look at This Chart and tell me why there is such a huge shift in votes in favor of Bush as compared to the expected results. Especially when the exit polls - not shown in the graph - agree with the respected results.

Who is Smarter? People in Red or Blue States?

What is the relationship between IQ and voting? Well - This Site answers the question. And it explains why Republicans want to gut Head Start and education.

NBC Criticizes Bloggers for Election Conspiracy Theories

I was watching the NBC evening news tonight as they dismissed people like me who question the results of the election - inferring that we are all part of the tin foil hat club. But where do left wing nutcases like myself get our information? What makes us think there's something to this? Well - I saw in on a report by Keith Oberman of MSNBC who spelled out a lot of the details. Areas where there are more votes than voters - areas that are 80% Democrat voting 80% for Bush - and exit polls that show a kerry landslide? And we are suppoed to trust these results?

So if NBC wants to understand why we don't trust the election - it's because we are watching NBC. If this election wasn't stolen - no one would ever know it because of all the cheating.

Where have we heard THAT before?

Who is Alberto Gonzales?

Here's yet another story that you won't see in the Republican press. Who os Alberto Gonzales? He's the guy who did the legal work to justify the torture at Abu Ghraib prison. The Bush administration wanted to torture people and needed a legal justification. The needed someone to torture and twist the law and the constitution to justify bush's position in case torture and murder came to light. Alberto Gonzales was the hatchet man who did the job.

Here's an example of his work. This is a guy who should be in jail for war crimes - not as attorney general.

Veterans vs. Draft Dodger - who is tougher?

This is the start of my review of the elections. So who is tougher? Most people would think veterans are - and if you do - you are wrong.

Lets go down the list and see who's tough and who's a pussy.

1. Bush - draft dodger - politically tough. This guy is crooked as hell but he kicks butt. Bush can get right in your face and tell a boldface lie so well he could probably pass a polygraph test. This is a guy who argues "Why should we tax the rich? The just cheat their way out of paying anyhow." To Bush - honest is for suckers. The most important thing in politics is sincerity - and once you learn hor to fake that you have it made.
   
2. Kerry - war hero - pussy. He had a choice to get tough or be nice. He chose to be nice and he lost. He could have got tough and told the truth the way it is - but he wimped out. He could have stood up and fought for it - but he had to be politically correect when we needed someone who was going to win.
   
3. Al Gore - pussy - Gore served in Vietnam - barely - but he did serve. But he's a guy who was to cowardly to stand up with Clinton because the Republicans suckered him into deamonizing him.
   
4. Clinton - draft dodger - Kicks Republican butt like there's no tomorrow. Clinton won two elections in a landslide and even during his impeachment the Democrats gaind seats in the House and Senate and the impeachment forced two major Republicans - Newt and Livingston - out of being Speaker of the House. Democrats who stuck with Clinton won. Democrats who abandoned him lost.
   
5. Bob Dole - war hero - well - he got shot in the hand anyhow. Sellout and pussy best describe him. Served his country with honor. Clinton totally kicked his ass. Dole was a political coward. he was so owned by the Tobacco indusrty that he wasn't allowed to say that cigarettes were bad for you. It's not just that he lost to Clinton - but that he sold his loyalties to someone other than the American people. Dole is a discrace to America.
   
6. Bush Senior - Veteran Mr. Winp Factor - pussy - Won his first election on Reagans coat tails but was no match for the draft dodging Clinton who focused like a laser beam and totally kicked his ass.
   
7. John McCain - Prisoner of War - pussy - sellout - McCain hates bush but you would never know it except for a few moments where McCains conscience crys out and he can help but to speak the truth. But he is soon slapped down by his Republican owners and wimpers off like a puppy who has been slapped on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. To call McCain Bush's butt boy would be too generous. For someone who spent 5 years in a POW camp you would thin McCain would be tough. But the GOP has surgically removed his spine and he is little more than a puppet and an embarrassment to even think of his as an American.
   
8. Reagan - draft dodger - but reagan kicks ass. no one out there looks a Ronald Reagan as a wimp even though he served not one day in the millitary. No one will say that Reagan isn't tough. When you compare politicians to Reagan - veterans like Dole and McCain don't even qualify to be in his shadow.
   

Moral Values and Vote Suppression

I'm still trying to figure out this election. I've been really busy lately but I do have things to say, and I will say them.

But - this idea that Bush was elected on moral values is insane. I suppose cheating and voter suppression is a moral value? Supposedly they determined this from exit polls? The same exit polls that indicated Kerry won by a landslide? Sorry - Karl Rove wrote that script and I'm not buying it.

Election Exit Polls very different from the results

Snagged this from Slate

Updated Late Afternoon Numbers
Mucho flattering to Kerry; plus Nader makes an appearance.
By Jack Shafer
Updated Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2004, at 4:28 PM PT

Florida
Kerry 51
Bush 49

Ohio
Kerry 51
Bush 49

Michigan
Kerry 52
Bush 46
Nader 1

Pennsylvania
Kerry 53
Bush 46

Iowa
Kerry 50
Bush 49

Wisconsin
Kerry 51
Bush 48
Nader 1

Minnesota
Kerry 52
Bush 46
Nader 2

New Hampshire
Kerry 54
Bush 44
Nader 1

New Mexico
Kerry 50
Bush 48
Nader 1

Colorado
Kerry 49
Bush 50
Nader 1

Arkansas
Kerry 45
Bush 54
Nader 1

Missouri
Kerry 47
Bush 52

New York
Kerry 62
Bush 36
Nader 2

Nevada
Kerry 49
Bush 48
Nader 1

New Jersey
Kerry 54
Bush 44
Nader 1

West Virginia
Kerry 45
Bush 54
Nader 1

Why is Slate running these numbers? See this morning's piece. ... 4:20 p.m. PT

Late Afternoon Exit Polls: It's a tight squeeze: In the national exit poll, Kerry leads Bush 51-48. In Wisconsin he's up by three, and in Ohio and Florida he leads by one.

Bush steals another election

Bush stole yet another election making it two stolen elections in a row. Republican's in Ohio succeeded in suppressing the Democratic vote. It also proved that the voting machines can be hacked in ways that are untracable so far.

There is a huge gap in the results of exit polls and the results of he election and I don't think the exit polls are wrong. It will be interesting to see if the "error" in the exit polling is different in places with electronic voting than paper balots.

Nonetheless - we still have an unelected ductator and we need to do everything in our power to take America back.

Difference between Democrats and Republicans

The Democrats are trying to get everyone to vote - especially Democrats. Republicans are working to prevent people from voting - especially Democrats.

When will we know?

That is an interesting question. And it depends on how close it is. The news media in an attempt to appear responsible will not start calling the results until the polls close. But - that doesn't mean they don't know beforehand.

In races where there is a significant gap there is exit polling and the news media knows these figures. Just because they don't tell you who won doesn't mean they don't know. They need to know ahead to figure out how to coner the event. And - I think you'll be able to tell by things they hint at which way things are going.

In fact - and trying not to be optimistic - but most media I see seem to be aware that Kerry is winning. A lot of voting has already occurred and there may be enough information out there to make a good guess.

I am hopeful that the dark day of America will soon be behind us. And - then there's the cheating factor that I'm woried about. Kerry can win by a landslide but between the GOP controlled media they may call Bush the winner like they did the last time.

This is it people - Election Day

So - its time to vote. Time to get out there and make a difference. I voted this morning.

I still have Fahrenheit 9-11 online for the next few hours. I don't know when I'm going to take it down but it will be sometime soon. I need to free up the resources so that the discussion software I'm hosting so that people can discuss the election as the results come in.

US is losing Iraq war: Powell

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: Secretary of State Colin Powell has privately confided to friends in recent weeks that the Iraqi insurgents are winning the war, Salon.com quoted Newsweek as having reported.

The insurgents have succeeded in infiltrating Iraqi forces “from top to bottom,” a senior Iraqi official told Newsweek in its Monday’s issue, “from decision making to the lower levels”.

This is a particularly troubling development for the US military, as it prepares to launch an allout assault on the insurgent strongholds of Fallujah and Ramadi, since US Marines were counting on the newly trained Iraqi forces to assist in the assault.

Newsweek reported that “American military trainers have been frantically trying to assemble sufficient Iraqi troops” to fight alongside them and that they are “praying that the soldiers perform better than last April, when two battalions of poorly trained Iraqi Army soldiers refused to fight.” “If the Fallujah offensive fails, the American president will find himself in a deepening quagmire on Inauguration Day,” Salon.com quoted Newsweek as saying.

Blair backs Kerry!

Nov 1 2004

TONY Blair has privately admitted that he wants Democrat John Kerry to win tomorrow's US election.

The Prime Minister has acknowledged to at least two confidantes that a Kerry win would be a 'lifeline' for his own political future.

If Kerry does triumph, the result will undoubtedly help draw the poison out of the Iraq debate in Britain in the run up to a general election It would mean Blair could focus on the future of Iraq - not the disasters of the past.

And it may also soothe fractured relations within the Labour Party.

Last chance for Fahrenheit 9-11

This is the last day that I'll be hosting F 9-11. Even though Michael Moore said we could pirate his movie - I believe that really means only till the election. By tomorrow about 50,000 people will have downloaded it directly from my server. Additionally other sites have sprung up that are also hosting it. So I became the site that showed the world that it was OK to do this. So I wouldn't be surprized if hundreds of thousands of people got to see the movie.

I put it up and no one asked me to take it down. Thus it appears that Micheal Moore's offer to share his work for free was genuine that with the blessing of all interested parties. And - I fantasize that if Kerry wins by a small number of votes - that I will be the one who put him over the top.

I was interviewed by Wired Magazine and was asked if I was aware of any right wing sites doing the same thing. I said that I wasn't - and that it would be illegal if they did. You see - Michael Moore gave it away for free - but the greedy Republicans didn't so I have the advantage over them. I'm not breaking the law - but they would be. Kerry might get elected because Democrats are more generous than Republicans.

My Take on Osama bin Laden's message

font color=red>OBL message was directed at Kerry

Trying to put all my partisan biases aside - what does the OBL tape really mean? OBL had a message - but what is he really trying to say and accomplish?

After giving this careful thought it looks to me like he is NOT trying to affect the outcome of the election in spite of the fact that it comes just days before the election. There are so many elements that both hurt Bush and help Bush that I have to say it's neutal.

Let's look at the facts and see if there is a big picture here. We all know that OBL was behind 9-11. And we all now know that he's free and apparently doing well. And I think that one of the missing pieces of the puzzle is - that Bush and Osama have made a deal. And the deal is - you don't kill me - and I won't attack America.

Over a year ago the Times of India ran an article suggesting that Bush and OBL made a deal. Bush doesn't want Packistan to capture OBL. Then when Bush hd OBL at Tora Bora - he let him get away on purpose. But the think that really points to a deal is that Bush has actively downplayed the importance of capturing OBL. He has made many statements like, “I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.” He described bin as “marginalized” and said, “I just don’t spend that much time on him.”

So - for those of you who are wondering why America hasn't been attacked - it's not the Patriot Act - the Jailing of Martha Stewart - or the deportation of Cat Stevens. Bush made a deal with OBL and as a result - we have a small wondow of security in exchange for OBL prospering in the middle east. I for one think its a bad deal.

So - now we are on the verge of an election and OBL appears on TV. Why? Because he has a message for Kerry. OBL can see that Bush is about to lose and if Bush loses - the deal goes away. So OBL is reacking out to Kerry to continue the deal. That is the message and that's why OBL made it.

Look at his change in demeanor. For the first time he is well dressed and groomed. He is not shown carrying a gun. He is going out of his was to be charking rather than threatening. As if he is preparing the American public that his deal - "you don't attack usd and we won't attack you" is something that is acceptable. And at some point Bush is going to have to break it to Kerry that there is a deal or the message will get to him through the Saudi embasy.

Making the deal with OBL is a serious mistake. Its a short term fix but the kind of fix that will get us into trouble in the long run. America has a history - mostly under Republican presidents - of getting into bed with the wrong people. OBL has now joined the club with Saddam Husein, the Shaw of Iran, Marcos, Franko, Noreiga, Pol Pot, Charles Taylor, Pinochet, and others. This is a mistake - and it will end under Kerry - I hope.

Vote on Monday if you can

The reason is because if you vote on Monday - you've voted. If you vote on Teusday then you might run into Republican dirty tricks that might prevent you from voting. You might only have an hour lunch break and the Republicans hold you up to long and you can't vote. Or - there's just long lines.

By voting early you not only get to vote - but you are not in line Teusday so someone else can vote too. As they say - vote early and often. Especially this year.

Steven Hawking to lead election protest

Stephen Hawking, Britain's most eminent scientist, has become the latest prominent opponent of the Iraq war by agreeing to take the lead role in a ceremonial protest to coincide with the United States presidential election.

Peace protesters will gather in Trafalgar Square at 5pm on Tuesday, where they will read out the names of 5,000 Iraqi men, women and children known to have died in the conflict.

The full death toll was put last week as high as 100,000.

Playwrights Harold Pinter and David Hare, actress Juliet Stevenson, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, and relatives of British soldiers killed in action in Iraq have all agreed to take part.

Professor Hawking, the author of the best-selling book A Brief History of Time, is wheelchair-bound as a sufferer from motor neurone disease. He recorded a message on Friday that will be broadcast at the start of the rally.

The oldest protester in Trafalgar Square is likely to be a fellow scientist, the Nobel Peace Prize winner Sir Joseph Rotblat. In the 1940s, he resigned from his job developing the world's first atomic bomb on moral grounds.

Sir Joseph, who will be 96 on Thursday, said: "In this nuclear age, we simply cannot allow others to start military action unless everything else has ... been tried and has failed."

The rally comes at a time when its organisers from the Stop the War Coalition have been embroiled in controversy with one of its biggest backers, the giant public sector union Unison, which has links with the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, (IFTU) whose general secretary, Subhi al-Mashadani, spent more than 10 years in prison under Saddam Hussein.

Unison leaders were appalled when Mr Mashadani was barracked and jostled at a London conference two weeks ago by left-wing delegates who accused him of being a stooge for the US and British governments. The row is threatening to become an issue inside Unison, where an election is taking place for the post of general secretary - the most powerful job in the trade union movement.

Left-wing activists in the union are trying to unseat the current general secretary, Dave Prentis, for being too close to Tony Blair.

Jon Rogers, the left-wing challenger, has accused two of Mr Prentis's senior advisers, Maggie Jones and Nick Sigler, of trying to split the union from the anti-war movement. Ms Jones, who is Unison's policy director, is a former Labour Party chairman and is expected to become Labour MP for Blaenau Gwent at the next election.

Mr Sigler, who heads the union's international department, worked for many years at Labour Party headquarters.

"It is not in the best interests of Unison for circumstances to arise in which it can appear that our union is being used as a vehicle by the Labour Party leader-ship to sow division in the anti-war movement," Mr Rogers claimed in a letter to Mr Prentis, leaked to The Independent on Sunday.

Walter Cronkite thinks Karl Rove put Osama up to it

Actual transcript from Larry King Live.

KING: OK, Walter. What do you make of this?

CRONKITE: Well, I make it out to be initially the reaction that it's a threat to us, that unless we make peace with him, in a sense, we can expect further attacks. He did not say that precisely, but it sounds like that when he says...

KING: The warning.

CRONKITE: What we just heard. So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing. The advantage to the Republican side is to get rid of, as a principal subject of the campaigns right now, get rid of the whole problem of the al Qaqaa explosive dump. Right now, that, the last couple of days, has, I think, upset the Republican campaign.

KING: Are there enough undecideds to tilt this? Or what do you think of the whole election picture?

CRONKITE: Well, I think it's one of the biggest messes we've had in a long time. I believe that we're undoubtedly not going to know the results of this election. I don't want to knock you off the air on Monday night or anything, or Tuesday night. But I suspect that we're not going to know who the next president is, whether it is Bush or the new man, until very probably sometime in the early spring. There's so much controversy that they're planting, deliberately planting at the polls, that there's almost certainly to be a suit going back to the Supreme Court eventually, going through the other courts slowly first.

Explosives looted AFTER US Invasion

EXCLUSIVE:
5 EYEWITNESS NEWS video may be linked to missing explosives in Iraq

A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared.

The missing explosives are now an issue in the presidential debate. Democratic candidate John Kerry is accusing President Bush of not securing the site they allegedly disappeared from. President Bush says no one knows if the ammunition was taken before or after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003 when coalition troops moved in to the area.

Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS determined our crew embedded with them may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where that ammunition disappeared. Our crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa. On April 18, 2003 they drove two or three miles north into what is believed to be that area.

During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew bunker after bunker of material labelled explosives. Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get in and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.

"We can stick it in those and make some good bombs." a soldier told our crew.

There were what appeared to be fuses for bombs. They also found bags of material men from the 101st couldn't identify, but box after box was clearly marked "explosive."

In one bunker, there were boxes marked with the name "Al Qaqaa", the munitions plant where tons of explosives allegedly went missing.

Once the doors to the bunkers were opened, they weren't secured. They were left open when the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew and the military went back to their base.

"We weren't quite sure what were looking at, but we saw so much of it and it didn't appear that this was being secured in any way," said photojournalist Joe Caffrey. "It was several miles away from where military people were staying in their tents".

Officers with the 101st Airborne told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that the bunkers were within the U.S. military perimeter and protected. But Caffrey and former 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Reporter Dean Staley, who spent three months in Iraq, said Iraqis were coming and going freely.

"At one point there was a group of Iraqis driving around in a pick up truck,"Staley said. "Three or four guys we kept an eye on, worried they might come near us."

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS e-mailed pictures of the material we found to experts in Washington Wednesday to see if it is the same kind of high explosives that went missing in Al Qaqaa. They could not make that determination.

The footage is now in the hands of security experts to see if it is indeed the explosives in question.

Fahrenheit 9/11 Sound Track - Download it now!

Is the video too big for you? Well now you can hear Fahrenheit 9-11. I have separated the audio track and you can Download it Here. It's only 14 megs - far smaller than the 650 meg video. Download it and pass it around.

Download Fahrenheit 9/11 Here

Note - these files will be taken down on Nov 2. The only reason I have them here is for the election. Once that is over then you should go to the theathers and video stores and see the movie there. I want to thank Michael Moore and the distributors for allowing me and others like me to make the available to you to be downloaded. I've heard that this will be shown election night on pay-per-view. I encourage everyone to return Moore's generocity, and that of Lion's Gate, and pay to see it.

Want to see just a few clips of F 9/11? You can download it in pieces here.

If you can help host these files on your server it will get to more people.

Mirror site with additional videos at: http://www.falaphilia.com/mirrors.php

OK - I've taken the link down in order to get the server ready for the election results. I want to thank Michael Moore for generously granting permission to pass these files around. Over 50,000 of you downloaded it from my site - and there were a number of other sites who posted this because I did it first.

For those who are wondering - at no time has anyone contacted me to take the files offline. This confirms my position against the critics that Michael Moore not only gave permission - but had the authority to do so.

Here's a Movie of Bush flipping the bird! I'd like to see christian conservatives explain this!

Michael Moore has made several Public Statements that web sites should pirate his movie. He cares more about getting rid of Bush than making money. He says he has already made plenty of money on it and he wants people like me to spread it around. So I'm relying on his statements as a grant to spread it around.

Copyright information can be found Here.

Terror vs. Hope

In the 1990s the world was facing a crisis - the Y2K issue where it was predicted that computer networks were going to crash so bad that it would be the end of civilization. There was two modes of behavior in response to this threat. One was to buy food and generators and prepare for the end of the world. The other was to start a massive effort to reviewing the computer code and fixing the problems before the year 2000 hit. As a result - the Y2K apocalypse never occurred. The survivalists crawled out of their caves and rejoined society.

We are now facing a similar issue about where society will go. We have a choice between terror an hope. To choose a path of war or peace. o we engage in an unending war against enemies both real and imagined? Or - do we do the hard work and fix the problem? Do we proceed on a war footing or a footing of peace. Do we face the problems and fix them - or do we crawl into our caves and await the end of the world? In this election we have a message of terror and a message of hope. Hope is the hard path because it requires more work up front. But war doesn't solve the problem. Eventually - you have to do the hard work - you have to win the peace.

That is the choice we have today between Kerry and Bush. It's the choice between hope and terror. We need to fix the problem. So I'm voting for Kerry.

A Little Tongue

Will Bush bring back the Draft?

People are asking the question - will Bush bring back the draft? Well - you can take Bush's word for it that he won''t - and if you just believe everything Bush tells you - then you can stop reading now.

But - for those of you who are still wondering - let's reason this out.

1. The problem is bad and it's getting worse. There isn't enough people and they are going to need to get more people in there - somehow.

2. Most of the people in there now signed up for the National Guard - never thinking that they were part of the real military and would be sent to war unless it was an extreme emergency.

3. The people serving now want out. When they try to get out they can't because Bush is using a back door draft to keep them from quitting. But Bush can't do that forever. Eventually those who want out will get out.

4. People who would have joined the guard are less likely to do so. First - they know they are going to Iraq and it's not just an every other weekend thing. And - they know the war is a fraud - the president is a moron - Iraq is a mistake - and who wants to fight and die for no reason at all?

5. Bush's honesty is questionable. He lied to start the war. He stole the election. Bush will tell you anything. So a statement that there will be no draft means absolutely nothing at all.

6. So - taking all the above into consideration - a war that sucks - needing more troops - less interest - people there wanting to get out - Bush is a lying moron - do you think there's going to be a draft?
   

Vote for Kerry - or die for oil!

How Secure is Electronic Voting?

Not very. Here's a movie about it. Created by technical experts who really understand the problem in detail. The files are very big so if you don't have a high speed connection - it will probably take too long to download.

RNC Trashes Democratic Voter Registrations

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has hired firms in serveral states including Oregon and Nevada to pretend to register democrats and then throw the registrations in the trash. Sometimes using the names of Democratic groups to fool Democrats into thinking they are registering when they aren't.

The Republican owned news media is trying to avoid this story and is not giving it the attention it deserves. I think that this is at least as big as dan Rather's mistake - and you can bet that if the DNC were tearing up Republican voter registrations it would be a national scandal.

In order for Democrats to win - they have to get 60% of the vote to offset Republican cheating. It looks like everything is being set up for yet another stolen election.

In Memory of Christopher Reeve

Kerry 4 - Bush 0 - Kerry wins again

Having said that - I was bored. I think both of them played it safe. Both of them tried hard not to make a mistake. I thought it would be more agressive. I wanted a fight. I wanted some action.

We'll see how the polling goes. I give it to Kerry because his facts were far better than Bush. Kerry had the easier argument because reality is on Kerry's side. When it come to style however - no winner there.

For what it's worth - I think both of them did worse than they did last time. The result - Kerry will gain a little. Bush has failed to turn it around. So - it's up to the October surprise and cheating for Bush to win now.

Pre debate spin - Bush's last chance?

With Kerry clearly winning the first two debates the pressure is on Bush big time to have a decisive victory. If Bush merely ties that probably isn't good enough. But it would be better than losing and if you use Bush math - Bush and the Republican controlled media will score a tie as a win. And as usual - the slant will be in favor of Bush.

They say that no one who has lost all the debates has won the presidency. This is a statement that I think has a basis in reality.

So - look for Bush to take more chances looking for a knockout or a sucker punch. But - if Bush take chances - it could backfire on him.

I'm looking for a hump on Bush's back - but I doubt you'll see it this time because everyone is looking for it. If I were the electronics guy builting the secret receiver - I'd put it in Bush's crotch - making him look like he has a bigger dick that Kerry - two birds - one stone.

But I do think that they should pat down the candidates to see if they are cheating. Can you imagine if Bush were caught cheating? Or if Kerry says, "Hey Bush - What's that hump on your back? Take off your jacket! " Then Kerry chases Bush around the stage trying to pull Bush's jacket off.

Kerry has the expectation problem. He is favored to win and can't shake that expectation. So if Kerry wins - he sort of stays even. Kerry could take Bush out with a good zinger tonight. But - Kerry can still fuck up. It is unlikely that Bush can win - but Kerry can lose. Will Kerry play it safe and conservative and just beat Bush by a little - or will he stomp Bush into the dust - or will he fuck up and lose?

In the Bush vs. Gore debate - Bush didn't beat Gore - Gore lost to Bush. It was Gore's screwups that cost him the election - not Bush's prowess. So - Bush's big chance will only come if Kerry makes a serious mistake.

Bush loses it - the video

Click on this. Debate 2 - Bush goes wild.

Republican owned television network to air Anti-Kerry special before election

This is why central ownership of thye media is a bad idea.

THE NATION
Conservative TV Group to Air Anti-Kerry Film
Sinclair, with reach into many of the nation's homes, will preempt prime-time shows. Experts call the move highly unusual.

By Elizabeth Jensen, Times Staff Writer

NEW YORK -- The conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation's homes with TV, is ordering its stations to preempt regular programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that attacks Sen. John F. Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War, network and station executives familiar with the plan said Friday.

Sinclair's programming plan, communicated to executives in recent days and coming in the thick of a close and intense presidential race, is highly unusual even in a political season that has been marked by media controversies.

Sinclair has told its stations -- many of them in political swing states such as Ohio and Florida -- to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," sources said. The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, features former POWs accusing Kerry -- a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester -- of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war. Sinclair will preempt regular prime-time programming from the networks to show the film, which may be classified as news programming, according to TV executives familiar with the plan.

Executives at Sinclair did not return calls seeking comment, but the Kerry campaign accused the company of pressuring its stations to influence the political process.

Kerry 3 - Bush 0

Kerry won it again. It was as I predicted not a slaughter. He was still as wrong as ever on the facts. But his style wasn't terrible as he was the last time. Still - when it comes to how the viewing audience will see this - it depends on if they check out the facts or not. If you check the facts - Kerry wins. If you don't know the facts then it depends on who's style you like better.

So - I'm going to watch Star Trek Enterprize. First show of the year in the new season. So - I'll be bask after I get my Trek fix.

Read my lips?

Bush say - no new draft. But - will he say "Read my lips - no new draft?"

Bush Logic

I told Kerry a lie - and Kerry believed my lie - therefore Kerry and I agreed. And now just because he discovered he was suckered - he wants to flip flop and change his mind.

Most of Iraq is now run by Iraqis

It is true that most of Iraq is now run by Iraqis. But it's not what it sounds like. You see - most of Iraq is controlled by the insurgents which are Iraqi's. The rest of the country live under the tyranny of a foreign oppressor.

Neither one of these two situation is freedom or democracy. Both are worse than they were under Saddam.

And that is the reality of what is happening today in Iraq.

How bad is the economy?

How bad is the economy? The economy is so bad that Herbert Hoover is flip flopping in his grave!

Five Bucks worth of Gas

I remember when you could drive into a gas station and put 5 bucks in and it was significant. But now 5 bucks of gas is less that 2 gallons and it keeps going up. If we have 4 more years of Bush it's going to cost $100 every time you want to fill up the tank.

Pre Debate Spin

Coming up on the second debate between Bush and Kerry. What are the stakes this time?

First - at this point all honest people know that Kerry beat Bush to a pulp last time. Could Bush do even worse this time? I have to say I doubt it. I'm predicting Bush will do better.

So - how will the media spin that? They will use "Bush Math" to describe it. Bush will have made "great progress" since the first debate, where Kerry made "no progress". Thus they will conclude that Bush has momentum and Kerry doesn't. That Bush's gains since last time was far greater than Kerry's gains. Bush is moving forward while Kerry is standing still.

It's the same math as they use on the economy. When the deficit doesn't increase as fast as some predicted it would - then Bush calls that "progress" and a "recovery".

I have no doubt that Kerry will wind the second debate. The only variables are by how much and how the media will lie about who won. In the VP debate Edwards clearly won - but the media disagrees with reality and after being pressured by Bush - they are now saying the Bush admin line.

Microsoft NBC was the biggest whore. No matter what happens in Friday's debate - MsNBC will say that Bush won it. They are totally sold out.

But - there will be viewers and people will get to see it for themselves. My hope is that there will be a big audience to watch so that it doesn't get filtered by the Republican controlled news media.

Cheney says - check the web for facts

During the debate - Cheney siad to go to FactCheck.com and check out the facts. I agree - go there and find out for yourself.

News Coverage of the Debates

It's interesting to see that Fox News has it more accurate than Microsoft NBC. Fox seems to know that Cheney got his ass kicked and trying to explain that. Microsoft NBC thinks Cheney won it in spite of the reality that Republicans are very unhappy tonight about the job Cheney did.

The numbers I'm looking for is the audience size. How many people actually watched it because if the audience was high - then that's good for Kerry. That means that people were interested and that they got to see it first hand for themselves.

What's interesting is that Microsoft NBC seems to disagree with its viewers. 70% give it to Edwards and 30% for Cheney. So I would say that Microsoft NBC is losing the debate with it's viewers.

So - are all these online polls wrong? Do Democrats have more computers than Republicans? I agree that online polls are less scientific that GOP manipulated polls - but when it's so slanted in favor of Edwards - there has to be some reality there.

CNN changed the question on their web site. Instead of asking who won - now they are asking if the debate will help you decide. CNN doesn't want to call it for Edwards who was winning 85 to 15 percent when CNM pulled the poll.

I'm seeing far less polls tonoght than I did last thursday. I see less that 1/3 of the polls last week. Seems to me that the news media doesn't want us to vote online any more because the voice of the people must be suppressed.

CBS News running 87 Edwards - 20% Cheney.

Fox News - with 184,000 votes Edwards winning 53% to 46%. And Fox is heavily biased towards Republicans. What this says is that Republicans know Edwards won it. Thanks to Fox for being a little more honest than NBC.

Admit it! If Edwards wins a poll on FOX - Edwards won it! And he won it BIG!!!

Kerry 2 - Bush 0

Another happy night for me. Edwards kicked butt! I didn't think he was going to do much more than tie Cheney and I thought Cheney was going to do a lot better than he did. Cheney did come across as Darth Vader and he also came across as not very smart.

I suppose that that might be good because he didn't come across as being way smarter than Bush - but it is also ad that he didn't come across as being smarter than Bush.

The body language said it all. Edwards was cool and composed and his answers ware simple and straigt forward. Cheney was tight and nervous. His sholders were shrugged and hands clasped in tension. It was about the 3rd question that you could see Cheney starting to lose it.

Cheney did what people were worried that Kerry was going to do. He got involved in complicated answers that left the viewers behind and confused. Edwards answers were simple and clear - and were far more accurate.

So - all Edwards had to do was tie it and he came across as far stronger that Cheney. I think the viewers would think that Edwards was more prepared to be president than Cheney.

Pre Debate Spin - VP

This is going to be an interesting debate. Cheney has the experience advantage - but also the experience disadvantage in that there's the Cheney Bush record of failure he has to try to pass off as some sort of success. I expect the VP debate to be smarter than the last presidential debate.

Unlike his performance in the real world - Cheney will come across as a nice guy. He will not be Darth Vader and anyone who underestimates him will be making a mistake.

I'm sure Halliberton will be mentioned - but not sure how it will play out. The real targets are at the top of the ticket and both of them know it.

Edwards is a legendary trial lawyer and he got that way because he can not only think on his feel - but can convince a jury to vote his way. Edwards is definitely the most likable person in the race and his personality will draw people to the ticket who are uncomfortable with Kerry's personality.

Cheney will create confidence in the ticket where people are worried that Bush is to stupid to be president. I think it would help Cheney to just admit he's the puppeteer and Bush is the puppet.

Momentum is with Kerry so Cheney has to do better than just beat Edwards or hold his own. Cheney needs a decisive win just to stop the bleeding. Edwards needs to handle the issue that he isn't experienced enough to become president in case some right wing idiot kills the president. If the debate is a tie - that's not good enough for the Bush team because for Edwards to tie Cheney makes him as big as Cheney.

As to Edwards being a lawyer - that's not going to count against him. As to Cheney being a business CEO - that's not going to count against him either. If this debate is about hating lawyers vs. hating corporate execs - no one wins.

If I were Edwards - I would talk about the future of America. Where were we four years ago - where are we now - which was are we heading - and do we want to stay the course to failure - or do we want to go back to success?

That's my take on the pre debate spin. Let's see what happens.

The GOP Message in just a few words

Here's a Quick Time Movie that gets the GOP message down to a few words and phrases.

Using Bush Math in Relationships

I've been admiring Bush's ability to take failure and try to describe it as a success. Bush will say that because the economy isn't failing as fast as predicted as a recovery. That somehow going from the biggest surplus in the history of the world to the biggest deficit in the history of the world is a strong economy.

So I got inspired by this and pointed out to my girlfriend that the number of women in the world that I didn't sleep with is greater than the number of men in the world that she didn't sleep with.

Nader targets swing states to throw the election to Bush

Nader to Hit Swing States; Kerry Improves

By THEO EMERY, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - With polls showing a narrowing gap between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, independent candidate Ralph Nader said Sunday that he planned to continue campaigning in key battleground states in the final month of the presidential election.

In a Newsweek poll, the first taken since the debate Thursday night, Kerry was running even with Bush after having trailed him in the same survey last month. A Los Angeles Times poll of debate viewers showed favorable perceptions of Kerry rose 5 percent, but the survey of 725 registered voters indicated little change in overall backing for the two candidates.

The Times poll, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, was released for Sunday's editions.

The Newsweek poll showed Kerry had the support of 47 percent and Bush 45 percent, with Nader at 2 percent.

Bush led 49-43 in the poll in early September and was up by 11 points in the poll following the GOP convention. The Newsweek poll of 1,013 registered voters was taken from late Thursday to early Saturday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Nader has long disputed the charge that he will be a "spoiler" for the Democrats in November. Critics have said his candidacy cost Democrat Al Gore the presidential election in 2000 when he lost by just a few hundred votes in Florida, where the liberal Nader got 97,000 votes for his Green Party candidacy.

While preparing for a campaign trip that begins at Harvard on Monday and continues to the swing states of Maine and New Hampshire on Tuesday, Nader said defeating Bush is a priority, but he's still trying to capture as many votes as possible in November.

"The assumption of all these questions is that I take more votes away from Kerry than Bush. Part of that is in Kerry's hands. He once said he wants to take away my votes by taking away my issues: I'm delivering it to him on a silver platter. He's responsible for that problem," Nader said.

Tobe Berkovitz, a political analyst and professor of communication at Boston University, said Nader's role could prove pivotal once again in the election.

"Nader is a factor because, in a race that seems to be this close, a point here, two points there in a battleground state can make a real difference in the Electoral College," he said.

Nader said that his supporters don't pull votes from one party or the other. Rather, half of his supporters would not otherwise vote at all, and the other half are split equally between Kerry and Bush.

"You never know. Our problem is how to break up the two-party system, not how to concede to one or the other," he said.

Nader's potential swing role for the election spurred a California peace activist to pledge last week not to eat until Nov. 2 in an effort to persuade Nader to drop out of the race.

"We're sending him some carrot juice," Nader said Sunday.

Republicans Fail to Pass Gay Marriage Amendment

Letter to the Editor

Some things change and some things stay the same. What's the same are Republicans trying to amend the Constitution on an election year. But what's different is that in the good old days - instead of an amendment barring gay marriage - they used to try to pass a balanced budget amendment. But with Republicans in charge of the House and Senate and with a Republican president and the biggest deficit in the history of the world - you won't see a balanced budget amendment any time soon.

MoveOn running a Killer Ad - Love it!

Check out this KILLER AD that MoveOn is running!

Scoring the Media on who won the debate

First of all - Kerry won the debate big time. What do I say that and how do I objectively know that? Because Kerry's team is doing hand flips and Bush's team is crying and making excuses.

So - how is the media spinning the debate?

CNN - Reading this you'd think Bush won:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.main/index.html

In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey of 615 registered voters who watched the debate, most said Kerry did the better job and almost half said the debate made them think more favorably of Kerry. (Special Report: America Votes, 2004, the debates)

By narrow margins, Bush came out better on believability, likeability and toughness. But there was virtually no change among those polled on which candidate would handle Iraq better or make a better commander-in-chief.

Microsoft NBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6123725/

No polling information.

CBS - Experts rate the debate a draw

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/01/politics/main646711.shtml

ABC - Kerry wins but no change

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20041001_648.html

USA Today - Kerry Wins - they get it right!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-01-battleground-debate_x.htm

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.

Objective tests as to who won the debate

Of course the real test is to see how it affects the polls. But as far as testing it right now - the instant polls are strongly in favor of Kerry. But one of the tests too is that the Kerry people are happy and the Bush people are unhappy. And I think that's probably the best test that we have in the 90 minutes since the debate ended.

And - it looks like even Fox News is conceding that Kerry won. And when they got it - I think everyone got it.

There's 2 more presidential debates - a town hall debate - and one on the economy and domestic issues. This is the one where they were on Bush's turf. It's up hill for Bush now.

Kerry won it - big time!

I was really nervous about this one - but Kerry really won it. Even the coverage on Fox News showed that Kerry was the clear winner. Bush supporters are clearly depressed and Kerry supporters are clearly elated.

Kerry was no Clinton - or even a Reagan for that matter. But - as I saw on democratic underground.com - Bush looked like a toad sucking lemons.

I can't help to think that the undecided voters are swinging towards Kerry - and that Kerry will win the real test of who won the debate - who gains in the polls.

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.

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.

Is Alan Keyes Daughter a LESBIAN?

Perhaps so - check out this blog. This makes the race more interesting.

Cat Stevens was NOT on no fly list after all

As it turns out. His Islam name - Yusuf Islam - was not on the list. But a similar name - Youssouf Islam - was on the list.

None the less - the Bush administration still insists that Cat Stevens is a terrorist supporter and that the acted properly in deporting him for having a similar name to someone else on the list.

The solution - people with common names or names spelled similar to those who might be on a terrorost list - names like David Nelson - should change their name, or maybe just move to some other country and stay out of America. I don't know why people from free nations would want to visit this country anyway.

Earlier this week Colin Powell defended the deportation:

NEW YORK (AFP) - US Secretary of State Colin Powell defended a US decision to deny entry to British singer Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens.

"We have no charges against him," Powell told reporters at the foreign press center here. "We have nothing that would be actionable in our courts, or in the courts in the United Kingdom, I'm sure.

"But it is the procedure that we have been using to know who is coming into our country, know their backgrounds and interests and see whether we believe it is appropriate for them to come in," he said.

"With respect to Cat Stevens ... our Homeland Security Department and intelligence agencies found some information concerning his activities that they felt under our law required him to be placed on a watch list and therefore deny him entry into the United States," Powell said.

"In this instance, information was obtained that suggested he should be placed on the watch list and that's why he was denied entry into the country," he said.

-------

This is what happens when you suspend the constitution like the Bush administration has done.

So - now that we know that the problem was a spelling error - will they let Cat Stevens in now?

Put Saddam on the Ballot!

I say - Iraq should put Saddam on the ballot. I'd bet that if Saddam were on the ballot that he would win. Is Iraq better off today than it was before they were "liberated"? I don't think so. The just have a different brutal dictator. The torture and rape are still occurring - and more civilians are still being killed that WSaddam was killing. I would bet that if Saddam was on the ticket he would win. Iraqies would rather be persecuted by their own dictator than by a dictator from a foriegn occupier.

Cat Stevens go home!

Letter to the Editor

Singer Cat Stevens was "being followed by a Moonshadow" when his life became a "Wild World" - his plane was diverted to Maine and was denied entry into the United States for being on a government no fly list. Mr. Stevens will not be "Sitting" on the "Peace Train" once "Morning Has Broken". The government, acting "Crazy" like a "Hard Headed Woman" has detained Mr. Stevens in the "Foriegner Suite" because he "Can't keep it in" when it comes to his religious choices. He will be deported to some place like "Sweet Jamaica" before he spends "Another Saturday Night" in this country.

With the Patriot Act in place people like Stevens will no longer sing out if they want to sing out - and they will no longer be free if they want to be free. He will not find a new way and he definitely will not do it today. He might have got away with that when he was "Oh Very Young" but America is a different place today. We live in a world where we have surrendered our freedom for the illusion of security and concepts like peace, and freedom, and singing out, and speaking out, is no longer considered patriotic.

The US Atrocities that Kerry was exposing

The Swift Boats Veterans for "Truth" have be running ads against Kerry because he accused US forces of committing attrocities in Vietnam - as if speaking out is some sort of crime.

The real crime was what was going on in Vietname at the time and the heros were the ones who were speaking out against it. Here is a picture from the My Lai Massacre.

This is what was going on in Vietnam in 1969. US soldiers were mass slaughtering women and children. It was wrong and John Kerry stood up and said it was wrong. The issue that these Bush stooges are running is the think about Kerry I like the most. It makes me want to support him even more.

When it comes down to it - the anti-war movement was right and the government was wrong. This is not what America stands for. This is a nation of peace. This photo and photos like it were what made me decide to oppose the war in the 1970s and burn my draft card.

The war in Vieynam was wrong - but the war in Iraq is even more wrong. In Vietnam they somewhat innocently blundered into the war. No one really intended from the beginning to get as involved as we did. But in Iraq Bush deliberately got us into an unprovoked war for fraudulent reasons. The Iraq war is far more wrong than Vietnam was.

An Introduction to the My Lai Courts-Martial
By Doug Linder

Two tragedies took place in 1968 in Viet Nam. One was the massacre by United States soldiers of as many as 500 unarmed civilians-- old men, women, children-- in My Lai on the morning of March 16. The other was the cover-up of that massacre.

U. S. military officials suspected Quang Ngai Province, more than any other province in South Viet Nam, as being a Viet Cong stronghold. The U. S. targeted the province for the first major U.S. combat operation of the war. Military officials declared the province a "free-fire zone" and subjected it to frequent bombing missions and artillery attacks. By the end of 1967, most of the dwellings in the province had been destroyed and nearly 140,000 civilians left homeless. Not surprisingly, the native population of Quang Ngai Province distrusted Americans. Children hissed at soldiers. Adults kept quiet.

Two hours of instruction on the rights of prisoners and a wallet-sized card "The Enemy is in Your Hands" seemed to have little impact on American soldiers fighting in Quang Ngai. Military leaders encouraged and rewarded kills in an effort to produce impressive body counts that could be reported to Saigon as an indication of progress. GIs joked that "anything that's dead and isn't white is a VC" for body count purposes. Angered by a local population that said nothing about the VC's whereabouts, soldiers took to calling natives "gooks."

Charlie Company came to Viet Nam in December, 1967. It located in Quang Ngai Province in January, 1968, as one of the three companies in Task Force Barker, an ad hoc unit headed by Lt. Col. Frank Barker, Jr. Its mission was to pressure the VC in an area of the province known as "Pinkville." Charlie Company's commanding officer was Ernest Medina, a thirty-three-year-old Mexican-American from New Mexico who was popular with his soldiers. One of his platoon leaders was twenty-four-year-old William Calley. Charlie Company soldiers expressed amazement that Calley was thought by anyone to be officer material. One described Calley as"a kid trying to play war." [LINK TO CHAIN OF COMMAND DIAGRAM] Calley's utter lack of respect for the indigenous population was apparent to all in the company. According to one soldier, "if they wanted to do something wrong, it was alright with Calley." The soldiers of Charlie Company, like most combat soldiers in Viet Nam, scored low on military exams. Few combat soldiers had education beyond high school.

Seymour Hersh wrote that by March of 1968 "many in the company had given in to an easy pattern of violence." Soldiers systematically beat unarmed civilians. Some civilians were murdered. Whole villages were burned. Wells were poisoned. Rapes were common.

On March 14, a small squad from "C" Company ran into a booby trap, killing a popular sergeant, blinding one GI and wounding several others. The following evening, when a funeral service was held for the killed sergeant, soldiers had revenge on their mind. After the service, Captain Medina rose to give the soldiers a pep talk and discuss the next morning's mission. Medina told them that the VC's crack 48th Battalion was in the vicinity of a hamlet known as My Lai 4, which would be the target of a large-scale assault by the company. The soldiers' mission would be to engage the 48th Battalion and to destroy the village of My Lai. By 7 a.m., Medina said, the women and children would be out of the hamlet and all they could expect to encounter would be the enemy. The soldiers were to explode brick homes, set fire to thatch homes, shoot livestock, poison wells, and destroy the enemy. The seventy-five or so American soldiers would be supported in their assault by gunship pilots.

Medina later said that his objective that night was to "fire them up and get them ready to go in there; I did not give any instructions as to what to do with women and children in the village." Although some soldiers agreed with that recollection of Medina's, others clearly thought that he had ordered them to kill every person in My Lai 4. Perhaps his orders were intentionally vague. What seems likely is that Medina intentionally gave the impression that everyone in My Lai would be their enemy.

At 7:22 a.m. on March 16, nine helicopters lifted off for the flight to My Lai 4. By the time the helicopters carrying members of Charlie Company landed in a rice paddy about 140 yards south of My Lai, the area had been peppered with small arms fire from assault helicopters. Whatever VC might have been in the vicinity of My Lai had most likely left by the time the first soldiers climbed out of their helicopters. The assault plan called for Lt. Calley's first platoon and Lt. Stephen Brooks' second platoon to sweep into the village, while a third platoon, Medina, and the headquarters unit would be held in reserve and follow the first two platoons in after the area was more-or-less secured. Above the ground, the action would be monitored at the 1,000-foot level by Lt. Col. Barker and at the 2,500-foot level by Oran Henderson, commander of the 11th Brigade, both flying counterclockwise around the battle scene in helicopters.

My Lai village had about 700 residents. They lived in either red-brick homes or thatch-covered huts. A deep drainage ditch marked the eastern boundary of the village. Directly south of the residential area was an open plaza area used for holding village meetings. To the north and west of the village was dense foliage [MAP].

By 8 a.m., Calley's platoon had crossed the plaza on the town's southern edge and entered the village. They encountered families cooking rice in front of their homes. The men began their usual search-and-destroy task of pulling people from homes, interrogating them, and searching for VC. Soon the killing began. The first victim was a man stabbed in the back with a bayonet. Then a middle-aged man was picked up, thrown down a well, and a grenade lobbed in after him. A group of fifteen to twenty mostly older women were gathered around a temple, kneeling and praying. They were all executed with shots to the back of their heads. Eighty or so villagers were taken from their homes and herded to the plaza area. As many cried "No VC! No VC!", Calley told soldier Paul Meadlo, "You know what I want you to do with them". When Calley returned ten minutes later and found the Vietnamese still gathered in the plaza he reportedly said to Meadlo, "Haven't you got rid of them yet? I want them dead. Waste them." Meadlo and Calley began firing into the group from a distance of ten to fifteen feet. The few that survived did so because they were covered by the bodies of those less fortunate.

What Captain Medina knew of these war crimes is not certain. It was a chaotic operation. Gary Garfolo said, "I could hear shooting all the time. Medina was running back and forth everywhere. This wasn't no organized deal." Medina would later testify that he didn't enter the village until 10 a.m., after most of the shooting had stopped, and did not personally witness a single civilian being killed. Others put Medina in the village closer to 9 a.m., and close to the scene of many of the murders as they were happening.

As the third platoon moved into My Lai, it was followed by army photographer Ronald Haeberle, there to document what was supposed to be a significant encounter with a crack enemy battalion. Haeberle took many pictures [HAEBERLE PHOTOS]. He said he saw about thirty different GIs kill about 100 civilians. Once Haeberle focused his camera on a young child about five feet away, but before he could get his picture the kid was blown away. He angered some GIs as he tried to photograph them as they fondled the breasts of a fifteen-year-old Vietnamese girl.

An army helicopter piloted by Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson arrived in the My Lai vicinity about 9 a.m. Thompson noticed dead and dying civilians all over the village. Thompson repeatedly saw young boys and girls being shot at point-blank range. Thompson, furious at what he saw, reported the wanton killings to brigade headquarters [THOMPSON'S STORY].

Meanwhile, the rampage below continued. Calley was at the drainage ditch on the eastern edge of the village, where about seventy to eighty old men, women, and children not killed on the spot had been brought. Calley ordered the dozen or so platoon members there to push the people into the ditch, and three or four GIs did. Calley ordered his men to shoot into the ditch. Some refused, others obeyed. One who followed Calley's order was Paul Meadlo, who estimated that he killed about twenty-five civilians. (Later Meadlo was seen, head in hands, crying.) Calley joined in the massacre. At one point, a two-year-old child who somehow survived the gunfire began running towards the hamlet. Calley grabbed the child, threw him back in the ditch, then shot him.

Hugh Thompson, by now almost frantic, saw bodies in the ditch, including a few people who were still alive. He landed his helicopter and told Calley to hold his men there while he evacuated the civilians. Thompson told his helicopter crew chief to "open up on the Americans" if they fired at the civilians. He put himself between Calley's men and the Vietnamese. When a rescue helicopter landed, Thompson had the nine civilians, including five children, flown to the nearest army hospital. Later, Thompson was to land again and rescue a baby still clinging to her dead mother.

By 11 a.m., when Medina called for a lunch break, the killing was nearly over. By noon, "My Lai was no more": its buildings were destroyed and its people dead or dying. Soldiers later said they didn't remember seeing "one military-age male in the entire place". By night, the VC had returned to bury the dead. What few villagers survived and weren't already communists, became communists. Twenty months later army investigators would discover three mass graves containing the bodies of about 500 villagers.

II.

The cover-up of the My Lai massacre began almost as soon as the killing ended. Official army reports of the operation proclaimed a great victory: 128 enemy dead, only one American casualty (one soldier intentionally shot himself in the foot). The army knew better. Hugh Thompson had filed a complaint, alleging numerous war crimes involving murders of civilians. According to one of Thompson's crew members, "Thompson was so pissed he wanted to turn in his wings". An order issued by Major Calhoun to Captain Medina to return to My Lai to do a body count was countermanded by Major General Samuel Koster, who asked Medina how many civilians has been killed. "Twenty to twenty-eight," was his answer. The next day Colonel Henderson informed Medina that an informal investigation of the My Lai incident was underway-- and most likely gave the Captain "a good ass-chewing" as well. Henderson interviewed a number of GIs, then pronounced himself "satisfied" by their answers. No attempt was made to interview surviving Vietnamese. In late April, Henderson submitted a written report indicating that about twenty civilians had been inadvertently killed in My Lai. Meanwhile, Michael Bernhart, a Charlie Company GI severely troubled by what he witnessed at My Lai discussed with other GIs his plan to write a letter about the incident to his congressman. Medina, after learning of Bernhart's intentions, confronted him and told him how unwise such an action, in his opinion, would be.

If not for the determined efforts of a twenty-two-year-old ex-GI from Phoenix, Ronald Ridenhour, what happened on March 16, 1968 at My Lai 4 may never have come to the attention of the American people. Ridenhour served in a reconnaissance unit in Duc Pho, where he heard five eyewitness accounts of the My Lai massacre. He began his own investigation, traveling to Americal headquarters to confirm that Charlie Company had in fact been in My Lai on the date reported by his witnesses. Ridenhour was shocked by what he learned [RIDENHOUR'S STORY]. When he was discharged in December, 1968, Ridenhour said "I wanted to get those people. I wanted to reveal what they did. My God, when I first came home, I would tell my friends about this and cry-literally cry." In March, 1969, Ridenhour composed a letter detailing what he had heard about the My Lai massacre[LINK TO LETTER]and sent it to President Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress. Most recipients simply ignored the letter, but a few, most notably Representative Morris Udall, aggressively pushed for a full investigation of Ridenhour's allegations.

By late April, General Westmoreland, Army Chief of Staff, had turned the case over to the Inspector General for investigation. Over the next few months, dozens of witnesses were interviewed. It became apparent to all connected with the investigation that war crimes had been committed. In June, 1969, William Calley was flown back from Viet Nam to appear in a line-up for identification by Hugh Thompson. By August, the matter was in the hands of the army's Criminal Investigation Division for a determination as to whether criminal charges should be filed against Calley and other massacre participants. On September 5, formal charges, included six specifications of premeditated murder, were filed against Calley.

Calley hired as his attorney George Latimer, a Salt Lake City lawyer with considerable military experience, having served on the Military Court of Appeals. Latimer pronounced himself impressed with Calley. "You couldn't find a nicer boy," he said, adding that if Calley was guilty of anything it was only following orders "a bit too diligently."

Meanwhile, the issue of the My Lai massacre had gotten the attention of President Nixon. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird briefed Nixon at his San Clemente retreat. The White House proceeded with caution, sensing the potential of the incident to embarrass the military and undermine the war effort. The President characterized what happened at My Lai as an unfortunate aberration, as "an isolated incident."

In November, 1969, the American public began to learn the details of what happened at My Lai 4. The massacre was the cover story in both Time and Newsweek. CBS ran a Mike Wallace interview with Paul Meadlo. Seymour Hersh published in depth accounts based on his own extensive interviews. Life magazine published Haeberle's graphic photographs.

Reaction to the reports of the massacre varied. Some politicians, such as House Armed Services Subcommittee Chair L. Mendel Rivers maintained that there was no massacre and that reports to the contrary were merely attempts to build opposition to the Viet Nam war. Others called for an open, independent inquiry. The Administration took a middle course, deciding on a closed-door investigation by the Pentagon, headed by William Peers, a blunt three-star general.

For four months the Peers Panel interviewed 398 witnesses, ranging from General Koster to the GIs of Charlie Company. Over 20,000 pages of testimony were taken. The Peers Report criticized the actions of both officers and enlisted men. The report recommended action against dozens of men for rape, murder, or participation in the cover-up.

III.

The Army's Criminal Investigation Division continued its separate investigation. Most of the enlisted men who committed war crimes were no longer members of the military, and thus immune from prosecution by court-martial. A 1955 Supreme Court decision, Toth vs Quarles, held that military courts cannot try former members of the armed services "no matter how intimate the connection between the offense and the concerns of military discipline." Decisions were made to prosecute a total of twenty-five officers and enlisted men, including General Koster, Colonel Oran Henderson, Captain Medina. In the end, however, only few would be tried and only one, William Calley, would be found guilty. The top officer charged, General Samuel Koster, who failed to report known civilian casualties and conducted a clearly inadequate investigation was, according to General Peers, the beneficiary of a whitewash, having charges against him dropped and receiving only a letter of censure and reduction in rank. Colonel Henderson was found not guilty on all charges after a trial by court martial. Peers again expressed his disapproval, writing "I cannot agree with the verdict. If his actions are judged as acceptable standards for an officer in his position, the Army is indeed in deep trouble."

Captain Ernest Medina faced charges of murdering 102 Vienamese civilians. The charges were based on the prosecution's theory of command responsibility: Medina, as the officer in charge of Charlie Company should be accountable for the actions of his men. If Medina knew that a massacre was taking place and did nothing to stop it, he should be found guilty of murder. (Medina was originally charged also with dereliction of duty for participating in the coverup, but the offense was dropped because the statute of limitations had run.) Medina was subjected to a lie-detector test which tended to show he responded truthfully when he said that he did not intentionally suggest to his men that they kill unarmed civilians. The same test, however, tended to to show that his contention that he first heard of the killing of unarmed civilians about 10 to 10:30 A.M. was not truthful, and that he in fact knew non-combattants were being killed sometime between 8 A.M. and 9 A.M., when there would still have been time to prevent many civilian deaths. The prosecution, led by Major William Eckhardt, was unable, however, to get the damaging lie-detector evidence admitted. Medina's lawyer, flamboyant defense attorney F. Lee Bailey, conducted a highly successful defense, forcing the prosecution to drop key witnesses and keeping damaging evidence, such as Ronald Haeberle's photographs, from the jury. After fifty-seven minutes of deliberation, the jury acquitted Medina on all charges. (Months later, when a perjury prosecution was no longer possible, Medina admitted that he had suppressed evidence and lied to the brigade commander about the number of civilians killed.)

The strongest government case was that against Lt. William Calley. On November 12, 1970, in a small courthouse in Fort Benning, Georgia, young Prosecutor Aubrey Daniel stood to deliver his opening statement: "I want you to know My Lai 4. I will try to put you there." Captain Daniel told the jury of six military officers the shocking story of Calley's role in My Lai's tragedy: his machine-gunning of people in the plaza area south of the hamlet; his orders to men to execute men, women, and children in the eastern drainage ditch; his butt-stroking with his rifle of an old man; his grabbing of a small child and his throwing of the child into the ditch, then shooting him at point-blank range. Daniel told the jury that at the close of evidence he would ask them to "in the name of justice" convict the accused of all charges.

Daniel built the prosecution's case methodically. For days, the grisly evidence accumulated without a single witness directly placing Calley at the scene of a shooting. One of the early witnesses was Ronald Haeberle, the army photographer whose pictures brought home the horror of My Lai [TESTIMONY OF HAEBERLE]. Another was Hugh Thompson, My Lai's hero. Defense attorney Latimer's handling on cross of Haeberle, Thompson, and other witnesses led many courtroom observers to conclude that his glowing reputation was undeserved. His questioning of Haeberle, whose credibility was largely irrelevant, was pointless. His attempt to question Thompson's heroism "failed utterly," according to Richard Hammer, author of The Court-Martial of Lt. Calley.

In the second week of the trial Daniel began to call his more incriminating witnesses. Robert Maples, a machine gunner in the first platoon, testified that he saw Calley near the eastern drainage ditch, firing at the people below. Maples said that Calley asked him to use his machine gun on the Vietnamese in the ditch, but that he refused [TESTIMONY OF MAPLES]. Dennis Conti provided equally damning evidence. Conti testified that he was ordered to round up people, mostly women and children, and bring them back to Calley on the trail south of the hamlet. Calley, Conti said, told us to make them "squat down and bunch up so they couldn't get up and run." Minutes later Calley and Paul Meadlo "fired directly into the people. There were burst and shots for two minutes. The people screamed and yelled and fell." Conti said that Meadlo "broke down" and began crying [TESTIMONY OF CONTI].

The prosecution's final witness was its most anticipated witness. Paul Meadlo had been promised immunity from military prosecution in return for his testimony in the Calley case, but when he was called earlier in the trial, Meadlo had refused to answer questions about March 16, 1968, claiming his fifth amendment right not to incriminate himself. Daniel called Meadlo to the stand for a second time, and the ex-GI, who had lost a foot to a mine shortly after the massacre, limped to the stand in his green short-sleeve shirt and green pants. Judge Kennedy warned Meadlo that if he refused to answer questions, two U. S. marshals would take him into custody.
Meadlo said he would testify. He told the jury that Calley had left him with a large group of mostly women and children south of the hamlet saying, "You know what to do with them, Meadlo." Meadlo thought Calley meant he should guard the people, which he did. Meadlo told the jury what happened when Calley returned a few minutes later:

He said, "How come they're not dead?" I said, I didn't know we were supposed to kill them." He said, I want them
dead." He backed off twenty or thirty feet and started shooting into the people -- the Viet Cong -- shooting automatic. He was
beside me. He burned four or five magazines. I burned off a few, about three. I helped shoot ‘em.
Q: What were the people doing after you shot them?
A: They were lying down.
Q: Why were they lying down?
A: They was mortally wounded.
Q: How were you feeling at that time?
A: I was mortally upset, scared, because of the briefing we had the day before.
Q: Were you crying?
A: I imagine I was....

Daniel then asked Meadlo about the massacre at the eastern drainage ditch, and in the same almost emotionless voice, Meadlo recounted the story, telling the jury that Calley fired from 250 to 300 bullets into the ditch. One exchange was remarkable:

Q: What were the children in the ditch doing?
A: I don't know.
Q: Were the babies in their mother's arms?
A: I guess so.
Q: And the babies moved to attack?
A: I expected at any moment they were about to make a counterbalance.
Q: Had they made any move to attack?
A: No.

At the end of Meadlo's testimony, Aubrey Daniel rested the for the prosecution[MEADLO'S TESTIMONY].

The defense strategy had two main thrusts. One was to suggest that the stress of combat, the fear of being in an area thought to be thick with the enemy, sufficiently impaired Calley's thinking that he should not be found guilty of premeditated murder for his killing of civilians. Latimer relied on New York psychiatrist Albert LaVerne to advance this defense argument [LAVERNE TESTIMONY]. The second argument of the defense was that Calley was merely following orders: that Captain Ernest Medina had ordered that civilians found in My Lai 4 be killed and was the real villain in the tragedy.

On February 23, 1971, William Calley took the stand. He told the jury he couldn't remember a single army class on the Geneva Convention, but that he did know he could be court-martialed for refusing to obey an order. He testified that Medina had said the night before that there would be no civilians in My Lai, only the enemy. He said that while he was in the village, Medina called and asked why he hadn't "wasted" the civilians yet. He admitted to firing into a ditch full of Vietnamese, but claimed that others were already firing into the ditch when he arrived. Calley said, "I felt then--and I still do-- that I acted as directed, I carried out my orders, and I did not feel wrong in doing so" [CALLEY TESTIMONY].

Ernest Medina was called as a witness of the court. Medina directly contradicted Calley's testimony. Medina said he was asked at the briefing on March 15 whether "we kill women and children," and-- looking straight at Calley behind the defense table--he said to the GIs "No, you do not kill women and children...Use common sense." At the close of his testimony, Medina saluted Judge Kennedy, then marched past Calley's table without glancing at him [MEDINA TESTIMONY].

It was time for summations. George Latimer for the defense argued that Medina was lying about not giving the order to kill civilians, that Medina knew perfectly well what was going on in the village, and now he and the army were trying to make Calley a scapegoat[LATIMER SUMMATION]. Aubrey Daniel for the prosecution asked the jury who will speak for the children of My Lai. He pointed out that Calley as a U. S. officer took an oath not to kill innocent women and children, and told the jury it is "the conscience of the United States Army"[DANIEL SUMMATION].

After thirteen days of deliberations, the longest in U. S. court-martial history, the jury returned its verdict: guilty of premeditated murder on all specifications. After hearing pleas on the issue of punishment, jury head Colonel Clifford Ford pronounced Calley's sentence: "To be confined at hard labor for the length of your natural life; to be dismissed from the service; to forfeit all pay and allowances."

IV.

Opinion polls showed that the public overwhelmingly disapproved of the verdict in the Calley case [OPINION POLLS]. President Nixon ordered Calley removed from the stockade and placed under house arrest. He announced that he would review the whole decision. Nixon's action prompted Aubrey Daniel to write a long and angry letter in which he told the President that "the greatest tragedy of all will be if political expediency dictates the compromise of such a fundamental moral principle as the inherent unlawfulness of the murder of innocent persons" [AUBREY LETTER]. On November 9, 1974, the Secretary of the Army announced that William Calley would be paroled. In 1976, Calley married. He now works in the jewelry store of his father-in-law in Columbus, Georgia.

My Lai mattered. Two weeks after the Calley verdict was announced, the Harris Poll reported for the first time that a majority of Americans opposed the war in Viet Nam. The My Lai episode caused the military to re-evaluate its training with respect to the handling of noncombatants. Commanders sent troops in the Desert Storm operation into battle with the words, "No My Lais-- you hear?"

GOP wants Star Tribune to suspend poll

Are the Republicans manipulating polls? Do they believe that polling numbers influence the public? Is this why we see Bush ahead in the polls?

MINNEAPOLIS - The Star Tribune has declined to suspend its Minnesota Poll at the request of State Republican Party Chairman Ron Eibensteiner, who said the poll is "fatally flawed."

On Friday, Eibensteiner called on the newspaper to suspend the poll until after the Nov. 2 election.

Last week, Eibensteiner called for the Star Tribune to fire its pollster for what he said was years of overrepresenting Democrats and underrepresenting Republicans in the poll. Days later, a new Minnesota Poll of likely voters showed Democratic presidential challenger Sen. John Kerry leading President Bush among likely voters, 50 percent to 41 percent.

Since that poll, three others have shown a much smaller gap. A CNN-Gallup Poll released Monday shows the race as a tie, while a Minnesota Public Radio-Pioneer Press poll produced by the Mason Dixon research firm shows Bush ahead by two percentage points, 46 to 44.

Strategic Vision, a Republican-oriented national poll of likely voters, released the latest poll, showing Kerry ahead in Minnesota by three percentage points, 48 to 45.

Eibensteiner said the other polls "are one more piece of damning evidence showing that the Minnesota Poll is flawed and failing the voters of Minnesota."

The newspaper defended its poll.

"Our polling methodology is public and well-established, and the paper will continue to poll, report our results and publish other polls," Star Tribune Editor Anders Gyllenhaal said.

Last week, Gyllenhaal called the GOP's demand to fire its longtime pollster, Rob Daves, a personal attack that was "shameful and misdirected."

---

Information from: Star Tribune, http:// WWW.STARTRIBUNE.COM

Kerry needs to appeal to STUPID PEOPLE

I strongle suggest simplifying the messages. One line - easy to remenber. Hammer it! Hammer it! Hammer it!

BUSH = FAILURE

over and over and over and over.

Bush is doing this and it's working. Bush's messages are:

Kerry = flip-flop
Kerry will raise your taxes
Kerry is too weak to deal with terrorists

To counter that - these messages:

Bush = FAILURE (failed president)
Bush is dishonest (Bush is lying - stealing)
America is getting (will continue to get) worse under Bush

------------

The kerry campaign is making arguments that are too complex for the average stupid disinterested voter. The average voter has no idea who Haliburton is. They don't know the difference between voting for war authorization and voting to go to war. I get it - but I am not the average voter. It's time to start appealing to STUPID PEOPLE because Bush relates very well to stupid people. And stupid people are the ones who are going to determine the outcome of this election.

Please pass this on to the strategy folks in the Kerry campaign and to all Democrats.

Having said that - I'm glad I'm not the one running. ;)

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.

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.

Schwarzenegger Signs Bill Banning Sex with Corpses

hmmmmmm - is this Republicans trying to pose as compasionate conservatives? Also makes you wonder if anyone voted against this and why.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Having sex with corpses is now officially illegal in California after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill barring necrophilia, a spokeswoman said on Friday.

The new legislation marks the culmination of a two-year drive to outlaw necrophilia in the state and will help prosecutors who have been stymied by the lack of an official ban on the practice, according to experts.

"Nobody knows the full extent of the problem. ... But a handful of instances over the past decade is frequent enough to have a bill concerning it," said Tyler Ochoa, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law who has studied California cases involving allegations of necrophilia.

"Prosecutors didn't have anything to charge these people with other than breaking and entering. But if they worked in a mortuary in the first place, prosecutors couldn't even charge them with that," Ochoa said.

The state's first attempt to outlaw necrophilia, in response to a case of a man charged with having sex with the corpse of a 4-year-old girl in Southern California, stalled last year in a legislative committee.

Lawmakers revived the bill this year after an unsuccessful prosecution of a man found in a San Francisco funeral home drunk and passed out on top of an elderly woman's corpse.

The new law makes sex with a corpse a felony punishable by up to eight years in prison.

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.

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!

Bob Dole withdraws $8000 week in cash?

Riggs Affair Sparks 'Suspicious Activity' Alert on Dole

WASHINGTON -- The Riggs National Bank scandal has led to unexpected fallout, including "suspicious activity reports" on former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci, Friday's Wall Street Journal reported.

As often as once a week, Mr. Dole's assistant walks around the corner from his Pennsylvania Avenue office in Washington to a branch of Riggs Bank, where she withdraws as much as $8,000 in cash. For walking-around money, Mr. Dole keeps a wad of $100 bills in the breast pocket of his shirt. "I probably use a credit card four or five times a year," Mr. Dole confesses. "I don't even have a wallet."

Mr. Dole's affinity for cash was of no concern to anyone until recently, when federal regulators pawing through the books of scandal-tarred Riggs spotted the large withdrawals and called them to the attention of management. In short order, the bank filed "suspicious activity reports" on Mr. Dole and another prominent Washington figure, Mr. Carlucci, questioning whether the two men might have violated federal laws against money laundering.

The two aren't actually suspected by Riggs of wrongdoing, people familiar with the filings say. But the bank, a unit of Riggs National Corp. (RIGS), felt it had no choice but to file these reports because of the strict wording of the Bank Secrecy Act.

The reports are the latest strange fallout from the Riggs affair, which has reverberated through Washington in unexpected ways since the bank got into trouble with regulators this year for overlooking signs of suspicious activity by Saudi diplomats and foreign despots. The scandal has provoked a minor diplomatic crisis for the State and Treasury departments as Riggs, which has long had a lock on the diplomatic market in Washington, starts to shed all of its embassy accounts to get out from under a regulatory cloud and sell itself to PNC Financial Services Group Inc. (PNC).

To some observers, these headaches suggest flaws in the government's system for monitoring suspicious activity, which generates more than 200,000 filings annually -- many of which go unread. Many banks dislike the process for suspicious activity reports, or SARs, and avoid customers who may force the banks to get more involved with it even if the customers aren't suspicious characters.

The case of Messrs. Dole and Carlucci illustrates what can happen, as Riggs had to file the reports whether it wanted to or not.

Wall Street Journal Staff Reporter Glenn R. Simpson contributed to this report.

Zell Miller's Military Record

So - after all the chest beating and chalenging Chris Mathews to a duel - what's the story on his military record? Anyone know?

Two Anti-Kerry Vets Tapped for VA Panel

Bush Administration Appoints Two Veterans in Anti-Kerry Ads to VA Advisory Panel

WASHINGTON Sept. 3, 2004 — Two former Vietnam prisoners of war who appear in ads attacking Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry were appointed by the Bush administration to a panel advising the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The former POWs in the ad, Kenneth Cordier and Paul Galanti, serve on the VA's 12-member Former POW Advisory Committee. VA Secretary Anthony Principi appointed Cordier in 2002 and Galanti in 2003.

Cordier said the VA panel has nothing to do with the Bush campaign or the anti-Kerry group. "It's totally apolitical, and we meet twice a year to bring to the secretary's attention problems from around the country in VA hospitals," he said.

Cordier and Galanti appear in an anti-Kerry ad saying their Vietnamese captors used news of anti-war protests, such as ones Kerry organized, to taunt the prisoners. Cordier also was a member of a Bush campaign veterans' committee but quit earlier this month after that role was revealed.

VA spokesman Phil Budahn said Principi did not know about or encourage the veterans' appearance in the anti-Kerry ad. Budahn said federal regulations bar advisory committee members from engaging in political activity while performing their committee duties, but there are no other restrictions on their activities when not working on committee business.

Kerry has labeled the group running the ads, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a front for the Bush campaign. Kerry's campaign complained to the Federal Election Commission that the veterans' group was illegally coordinating its attacks with the Bush campaign.

More than $100,000 of the group's initial funding came from Houston-area homebuilder Bob J. Perry, a longtime donor to Bush and other Texas Republicans. A Bush campaign lawyer also advised the Swift boat group and was dropped from the campaign staff after his role became public.

Bush and his campaign have denied any coordination with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Cordier said he got involved with the group because of his continuing outrage over anti-Vietnam war activists like Kerry. He said he got in touch with one of its leaders, John O'Neill, who later commanded the same Swift boat Kerry had overseen.

Cordier said he doesn't remember his Vietnamese captors specifically mentioning Kerry but he does remember them playing a tape of an address by anti-war activist Jane Fonda.

Cordier and Galanti are longtime friends and prominent former Vietnam POWs with long-standing Republican ties. Cordier said he suggested Galanti contact O'Neill.

Galanti coordinated Arizona Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign in Virginia four years ago and was a member of the same VA advisory panel when Bush's father was president. Cordier gave $2,000 to Texas Republicans in 2000 and 2001.

The anti-Kerry group's ads have accused Kerry of lying to get some of the five medals he won as a Swift boat commander in Vietnam.

Navy documents and other servicemen who witnessed the incidents contradict the group's claims, and the group has not offered any documentary proof of its claims that Kerry lied about his medals. Kerry himself has given differing accounts of some incidents, however, and his past claim to have been in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 is not substantiated by any documents so far.

Navy records also show most of the anti-Kerry group's members were not in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry. The group has not released a membership list but did criticize Kerry in a May letter signed by 238 members.

Only 101 names on the letter match names of officers or enlisted men on the rolls of Kerry's units in Vietnam when he was there, from November 1968 through March 1969.

Van Odell, an enlisted man in Kerry's unit and a member of the group, said Swift Boat Veterans for Truth never claimed to be exclusively made up of veterans who served with Kerry. Finding such vets is difficult because Kerry was only in Vietnam for about four months, Odell said.

"It's hard to be there when he was," Odell said. "He was in and out so fast."

Before volunteering for Swift boat duty on Vietnam's rivers, Kerry served about a year on a Navy frigate offshore in the Gulf of Tonkin.

At least 30 men on the list, including one who appears in an anti-Kerry ad, served in Kerry's former Swift boat unit a year after Kerry left Vietnam, the records show.

Shelton White appears in the group's first ad, which claims it is quoting those who served with Kerry. In the ad, White says "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam." Navy records show White served in Kerry's former unit, Coastal Division 11, from November 1969 to March 1970 a full year after Kerry left.

Odell said White was referring to Kerry's anti-war activities after Kerry returned to the United States.

Curveball - He's Back!

Ahmed Chalabi - code named by the CIA "curveball" continues to live up to his name. First he was the guy who brought Bush a lot of the misinformation he was looking for to justify the war in Iraq. He seemed destined to be Bush's hand picked leader of Iraq but then the relationship fell through and he became a spy for Iran. A warrant was issued for his arrest. Now he's back - as a member of the US controlled Iraqi Parliment.

It turns out that Iraq's self government is partially Bush cornies who we have installed to pretend to be the government of the people so as to create an illusion of democracy under American occupation.

Here's the story.

How Goes the Iraq War?

Here's a chart of Bush's success in Iraq.

Kerry FINALLY Kicking ASS!!!

I think Bush is in for a bigger fight than the Republicans realize. Here it is 30 minutes later and he's taking Bush on big time. Good to hear him bring this back from the GOP fantasy to reality.

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.

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.

Moore laugh$ off McCain In$ult

This is a funny one. McCain just gave Moore a free plug. Now lots more people will see the movie. You would think the McCain would have at least WATCHED the movie before criticizing it. But Bush sucked him into giving the speech because as dumb as Bush is - he's smarter than McCain. Bush probably said "Sure John - you plug me this time an in 2008 you can be president."

What a sucker - here's the story.

Michael Moore is eating up the abuse he's been getting at the Republican National Convention. The "Fahrenheit 9/11" director is still blowing kisses to Arizona Sen. John McCain, who scorned the anti-Bush crusader as "a disingenuous filmmaker" during his speech Monday night.

"Thank you, John McCain," said Moore, who is covering the convention for USA Today. "The film's doing $120 million right now. When McCain mentions it, I have a chance to do $150 million.

"I felt bad that McCain got set up by the Bush people to comment on a film he hasn't seen," Moore told us. "Anytime McCain wants a screening, I'd be happy to do that because I think he'd like it." (McCain's camp had no immediate comment.)

Swift Boat Vet Got $40M Contract From Bush

Article from the MisLeader

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.

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.

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.

Where are the Republicans?

OK - I did make it into a letter to the editor.

Letter to the Editor

There seems to be two Republican parties - the republican party that is in power - and the pretty face that they are trotting out at the convention. They are bringing out the liberal Republicans like John McCaim and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani who have no power and hiding the people who are really in charge.

The real Republicans are hidden away. We don't see John Ashcroft speaking on Civil Liberties. Where is Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Allen Keyes, the Reverend Sun Mung Moon, and Pat Buchanan? Where are the people behind the Republican energy policy like Kenneth Lay or Prince Vandar? Where is Donald Rumsfield and Paul Wolfowitz to talk about why we should torture prisoners? Where are the noecons like Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich? These are the people who wrote the Republican platform and shape Republican policy.

It looks to me like the Republicans are trying to put lipstick on a pig, showing people what they think they want to see rather than the way they really are. Republicans don't think you'd vote for them if they showed who was really in charge - and on that point I agree with them.

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.

Kerry should not have pulled the McCain ads

This cartoon was true 4 years ago and it's still true today.

I think Kerry should not have pulled the McCain ads exposing McCain as a liar for Bush. McCain want to have it both ways - to compain about what Bush did to him - and to endorse a man who McCain clearly hates so that some day he might get a shot at president. It might be a different stort if McCain weren'ty actively involved in this election - but he is. So - I hope MoveOn picks up those spots and runs them. McCain is as dishonorable as the Swift Boat Vets who are lying about Kerry's record. McCain is the very thing he hates.

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.

Swift Boats for Truth lies exposed

This New York Times Article exposes the lies of the swift boats for truth organization as well as the ties to the Bust administration.

I don't know where people get this false idea that just because someone was in the millitary that they are somehow more honest than those who weren't. For example - Bob Dole - wounded in World War II has zero integrity. He was so sold out to tobacco that he wouldn't even say that smoking was bad for you when directly asked the question. He said that some people think milk is bad for you.

John McCain - another example of a POW in Veitnam who has sold his soul to the Republican Party. Bush did the same thing to McCain - and in this video McCain says what he really thinks about Buish. But now McCain who soul has been sold will lie and support the man he hates at the expense of the American people.

And then there's Abu Ghraib Prison where our "finest" have acted just like Hitler and are laughing about it. And the military is busy covering up the fact that everyone in the chain of command knew about it and approved it all the way to Bush.

So - I'm not going to listen to this "I'm a war hero and I tell the truth" crap. Not going to live the lie.

Anger as Bush bids to exploit Olympic games

The Guardian

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.

Fixing the Election

How will you know if the election is fixed and the press is in on the fix? One simple indicator is if the media decides not to do exit polling. The exit polling would be a strong indicator if the election results deviate from the way people voted. So if you hear the media saying that they have decided NOT to do exit polls - then the fix is in.

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.)

New CIA Chief considers himself unqualified ...

... which is why Bush picked him ..... You won't see this story in the GOP controlled press.

US Congressman Porter Goss, nominated to be the new director of the CIA, may be talking himself out of the job, according to film-maker Michael Moore.

Moore, who directed the film Fahrenheit 9/11, has released an interview with Mr Goss in which he says he lacks the qualifications for the top spy post.

"I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified," Mr Goss told Moore's production company in March.

The White House has dismissed the interview as "ridiculous hearsay".

The interview did not make it into the final edit of the film, which criticises President George W Bush's policy on Iraq.

But following Mr Goss's nomination by the president, Moore has released the transcript and video excerpt on his website.

"I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably," Mr Goss says on the video.

"And I certainly don't have the technical skills, as my children remind me every day: 'Dad, you got to get better on your computer.'

"So, the things that you need to have, I don't have."

Michael Moore has this Video of Porter Goss admitting he is unqualified - but you won't see this on the GOP owned network news.

Did you ever wonder why you aren't seeing this on the network news? Don't you think it's news when the person who was just appointed to head the CIA has admitted that he isn't even qualified to work for the CIA?

Leaning towards Kerry

In a nation where one party owns the press - the GOP - how do you tell what the polls really are. In 2000 all the polls showed Bush ahead of Gore but when the election happened Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 votes.

So - in this "too close to call" race - how do we know what's really happening? Is the media covering up Kerry's lead? I think so. Here's why.

I look at where the battleground is. Remember that the base line is the last election. In all that states that Gore won - Kerry is safely ahead. In all the states that were close - Kerry is ahead in most of them. The rest are too close to call. And in states that Bush won in 2000 - several of them are now battleground states.

So - since technically Gore won the last election and Kerry is doing better - it's looking good. However - there's still those rigged voting machines and other dirty tricks yet to be played. Look for more talk of suspending elections or other power grabs. Kerry also has to get a 5 point lead just to compensate for GOP cheating.

Here's an Electoral Vote site that shows the trend.

Bush did not win Florida

Just to clear things up once and for all - Bush did not win Florida. Neither did Gore. Nobody won the election in Florida. What happened is that the Supreme Court in a Supreme act of Treason to the Constitution stopped the election process and without any constitional authority to do so - appointed Bush the president.

We can argue forever who might have won the election had the process not been terminated by the Supreme Court but that doesn't matter. What matters is that we at least tell it the way it is - and the way it is is - Bush didn't win. The Supreme Court stole the election for Bush. And for those of you who claim "Bush would have won anyhow", even if that were true - it doesn't matter. He didn't win. He was not elected president - he was appointed president. Bush did not win Florida.

I keep seeing the press make statements that Bush won Florida by 537 votes when the reality is that he didn't. Bush won by only one vote - 5-4 in the Supreme Court who stopped the election process and substituted it with their own election.

Curveball wanted for Murder / Counterfieting

Bush's partner in Iraq Ahmad Chalabi who the CIA called "curveball" and who the Bush administration relied upon in the decision to go to war is wanted for murder and counterfieting money. Is there anyone connected with Bush who isn't a thief?

Man who videos own beheading speaks out!

You might have seen this story in the news lately about the San Francisco man who put up a fake video of a beheading (of himself being beheaded) and the Associated Press took it as real. Since then the respectable press has been trying to cover their asses and distort the truth to make it look like this guy is to blame for the deception rather than their own stupidity.

To that end the newsmedia who has called Ben Vanderford and interviewed him have been changing his story to suit their spin on the issue. But unlike them - I am a real journalist and I have provided them web space to tell their side of the story unedited. That way the real story can come out.

As of this moment the FBI is trying hard to find something they can charge these kids with to save the press the embarrasment of having fucked up the original story. You see - if they can persecute them - then that take attention off their own coverups, their stupidity, and that the media is just a puppet of the Bush administration. At least - this is my spin about what is going on with this story.

As of right now - this is the only link on the internet to their side of the story and as an advocate of free speech I have decided to give them a voice. I got a call early this morning after they got booted off of their previous host and I decided to give them a voice. They have given me the go ahead so it is now up there. And it will remain the official unedited voice of what it is they have to say.

One of the reasons I am doing this is because I have myself been a critic of the original Nick Berg Video which was heavilly edited and raised more questions than it resolved. In the Nick Berg video the man who is killing berg - al-Zarqawi - has two legs where the real al-Zarqawi only has one. The video appears to have been filmed at Abu Ghraib Prison and Berg - who was in American custody is still wearing an American orange uniform. Aparently others had suspected fakery and were curious enough to experiment on how to fake a beheading. These kids produced a video - obviously not intended to actually decieve anyone - because it was the beheading of the producer of the film who was never a captive - and who's name and address appear in the film.

Had Associated Press done ANY research at all they would have know it was fake. Here's a link to the Original video. Can you believe they fell for this?

Now Keyes is the Carpetbagger

Letter to the Editor

Alan Keyes will run for US Senate in Illinois where he has never lived. Keyes once called Hillary Clinton a carpetbagger for running for Senate in New York is now doing the same thing.

Amazingly how these Republicans flip flop when it works to their favor.

The Keyes candidacy raises questions about the race factor. Keyes is strongly against affirmative action and any race based preferences. So it makes you wonder why he doesn't have a problem with the GOP picking him because he's black.

Anyhow - I'm predicting that an African American will win this senate seat - and by African American I'm talking about someone who actually comes from Africa.

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?

Bush vs. Kerry comparison chart

Here's a Kerry vs. Bush Comparison Chart I'm working on. Take a look at it and add more comparisons.

I thought tonight was going to be boring ...

... but I was wrong. I really like Teresa Heinz Kerry a lot. I think she's going to make a great first lady. But the men are going to beat her up for having an opinion. They'll continue to demonize her like they do to Hillary.

I enjoyed Ron Reagan's speech education all of us about the sciense of stem cells. And I liked that it wasn't political. Quite frankly - if he were invited - he would give the same speech at the Republican convention. All they woulfd have to do is invite him. So - it's not that he chose the Democrats - it's that the Democrats chose him and the Republicans rejected him.

Dean and Kenedy were a little boring. I wanted to see Dean do the screch!

I liked Barack Obama a lot. I'd never heard of him before and he's a great speaker. Really helped get the "we are all in this together" theme across.

All in all the Dems are on a roll. Doing much better that I expected.

Reagan's Legacy Continues

Tonight we'll hear Ron Reagan - his son - and speaking in behalf of his mother - the former first lady Nancy Reagan - will give up the fetus fetish and endorse stem cell research. Ron Reagan is not endorsing the Democratic Party. He is speaking to people who are reasonable enough to listen to good sense. If the Republicans would listen to good sense he would speak there too.

Text of Clinton's Speech

Thank you. I am honored to share the podium with my Senator, though I think I should be introducing her. I'm proud of her and so grateful to the people of New York that the best public servant in our family is still on the job and grateful to all of you, especially my friends from Arkansas, for the chance you gave us to serve our country in the White House.

I am also honored to share this night with President Carter, who has inspired the world with his work for peace, democracy, and human rights. And with Al Gore, my friend and partner for eight years, who played such a large role in building the prosperity and progress that brought America into the 21st century, who showed incredible grace and patriotism under pressure, and who is the living embodiment that every vote counts -- and must be counted in every state in America.

Tonight I speak as a citizen, returning to the role I have played for most of my life as a foot soldier in the fight for our future, as we nominate a true New England patriot for president. The state that gave us John Adams and John Kennedy has now given us John Kerry, a good man, a great senator, a visionary leader. We are constantly told America is deeply divided. But all Americans value freedom, faith, and family. We all honor the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world.

We all want good jobs, good schools, health care, safe streets, a clean environment. We all want our children to grow up in a secure America leading the world toward a peaceful future. Our differences are in how we can best achieve these things, in a time of unprecedented change. Therefore, we Democrats will bring the American people a positive campaign, arguing not who's good and who's bad, but what is the best way to build the safe, prosperous world our children deserve.

The 21st century is marked by serious security threats, serious economic challenges, and serious problems like global warming and the AIDS epidemic. But it is also full of enormous opportunities-to create millions of high paying jobs in clean energy, and biotechnology; to restore the manufacturing base and reap the benefits of the global economy through our diversity and our commitment to decent labor and environmental standards everywhere; and to create a world where we can celebrate our religious and racial differences, because our common humanity matters more.

To build that kind of world we must make the right choices; and we must have a president who will lead the way. Democrats and Republicans have very different and honestly held ideas on that choices we should make, rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our role in the world. Democrats want to build an America of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities and more global cooperation, acting alone only when we must.

We think the role of government is to give people the tools and conditions to make the most of their lives. Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people, in a world in which we act unilaterally when we can, and cooperate when we have to.

They think the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, economic, and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on matters like health care and retirement security. Since most Americans are not that far to the right, they have to portray us Democrats as unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America. But Americans long to be united. After 9/11, we all wanted to be one nation, strong in the fight against terror. The president had a great opportunity to bring us together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in common cause against terror.

Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice: to use the moment of unity to push America too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors finished their jobs, but in withdrawing American support for the Climate Change Treaty, the International Court for war criminals, the ABM treaty, and even the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Now they are working to develop two new nuclear weapons which they say we might use first. At home, the President and the Republican Congress have made equally fateful choices indeed. For the first time ever when America was on a war footing, there were two huge tax cuts, nearly half of which went to the top one percent. I'm in that group now for the first time in my life.

When I was in office, the Republicans were pretty mean to me. When I left and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. At first I thought I should send them a thank you note -- until I realized they were sending you the bill.

They protected my tax cuts while:

-- Withholding promised funding for the Leave No Child Behind Act, leaving over 2 million children behind

-- Cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of job training

-- 100,000 working families out of child care assistance

-- 300,000 poor children out of after school programs

-- Raising out of pocket healthcare costs to veterans

-- Weakening or reversing important environmental advances for clean air and the preservation of our forests.

Everyone had to sacrifice except the wealthiest Americans, who wanted to do their part but were asked only to expend the energy necessary to open the envelopes containing our tax cuts. If you agree with these choices, you should vote to return them to the White House and Congress. If not, take a look at John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats.

In this year's budget, the White House wants to cut off federal funding for 88,000 uniformed police, including more than 700 on the New York City police force who put their lives on the line on 9/11. As gang violence is rising and we look for terrorists in our midst, Congress and the President are also about to allow the ten-year-old ban on assault weapons to expire. Our crime policy was to put more police on the streets and take assault weapons off the streets. It brought eight years of declining crime and violence. Their policy is the reverse, they're taking police off the streets and putting assault weapons back on the streets. If you agree with their choices, vote to continue them. If not, join John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats in making America safer, smarter, and stronger.

On Homeland Security, Democrats tried to double the number of containers at ports and airports checked for Weapons of Mass Destruction. The one billion dollar cost would have been paid for by reducing the tax cut of 200,000 millionaires by five thousand dollars each. Almost all 200,000 of us would have been glad to pay 5,000 dollars to make the nearly 300 million Americans safer-but the measure failed because the White House and the Republican leadership in the House decided my tax cut was more important -- If you agree with that choice, re-elect them. If not, give John Kerry and John Edwards a chance.

These policies have turned the projected 5.8 trillion dollar surplus we left-enough to pay for the baby boomers retirement-into a projected debt of nearly 5 trillion dollars, with a 400 plus billion dollar deficit this year and for years to come. How do they pay for it? First by taking the monthly surplus in Social Security payments and endorsing the checks of working people over to me to cover my tax cut. But it's not enough. They are borrowing the rest from foreign governments, mostly Japan and China. Sure, they're competing with us for good jobs but how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers? If you think it's good policy to pay for my tax cut with the Social Security checks of working men and women, and borrowed money from China, vote for them. If not, John Kerry's your man.

We Americans must choose for President one of two strong men who both love our country, but who have very different worldviews: Democrats favor shared responsibility, shared opportunity, and more global cooperation. Republicans favor concentrated wealth and power, leaving people to fend for themselves and more unilateral action. I think we're right for two reasons: First, America works better when all people have a chance to live their dreams. Second, we live in an interdependent world in which we can't kill, jail, or occupy all our potential adversaries, so we have to both fight terror and build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists. We tried it their way for twelve years, our way for eight, and then their way for four more.

By the only test that matters, whether people were better off when we finished than when we started, our way works better-it produced over 22 million good jobs, rising incomes, and 100 times as many people moving out of poverty into the middle class. It produced more health care, the largest increase in college aid in 50 years, record home ownership, a cleaner environment, three surpluses in a row, a modernized defense force, strong efforts against terror, and an America respected as a world leader for peace, security and prosperity.

More importantly, we have great new champions in John Kerry and John Edwards. Two good men with wonderful wives-Teresa a generous and wise woman who understands the world we are trying to shape. And Elizabeth, a lawyer and mother who understands the lives we are all trying to lift. Here is what I know about John Kerry. During the Vietnam War, many young men -- including the current president, the vice president and me-could have gone to Vietnam but didn't. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too. Instead he said, send me.

When they sent those swift-boats up the river in Vietnam, and told them their job was to draw hostile fire-to show the American flag and bait the enemy to come out and fight-John Kerry said, send me. When it was time to heal the wounds of war and normalize relations with Vietnam-and to demand an accounting of the POWs and MIAs we lost there-John Kerry said, send me.

When we needed someone to push the cause of inner-city kids struggling to avoid a life of crime, or to bring the benefits of high technology to ordinary Americans, or to clean the environment in a way that creates jobs, or to give small businesses a better chance to make it, John Kerry said send me.

Tonight my friends, I ask you to join me for the next 100 days in telling John Kerry's story and promoting his plans. Let every person in this hall and all across America say to him what he has always said to America: Send Me. The bravery that the men who fought by his side saw in battle I've seen in the political arena. When I was President, John Kerry showed courage and conviction on crime, on welfare reform, on balancing the budget at a time when those priorities were not exactly a way to win a popularity contest in our party.

He took tough positions on tough problems. John Kerry knows who he is and where he's going. He has the experience, the character, the ideas and the values to be a great President. In a time of change he has two other important qualities: his insatiable curiosity to understand the forces shaping our lives, and a willingness to hear the views even of those who disagree with him. Therefore his choices will be full of both conviction and common sense.

He proved that when he picked a tremendous partner in John Edwards. Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect, and charisma. The important thing is how he has used his talents to improve the lives of people who -- like John himself -- had to work hard for all they've got. He has always championed the cause of people too often left out or left behind. And that's what he'll do as our Vice President.

Their opponents will tell you to be afraid of John Kerry and John Edwards, because they won't stand up to the terrorists -- don't you believe it. Strength and wisdom are not conflicting values -- they go hand in hand. John Kerry has both. His first priority will be keeping America safe. Remember the scripture: Be Not Afraid.

John Kerry and John Edwards, have good ideas:

-- To make this economy work again for middle-class Americans

-- To restore fiscal responsibility

-- To save Social Security; to make healthcare more affordable and college more available

-- To free us from dependence on foreign oil and create new jobs in clean energy

-- To rally the world to win the war on terror and to make more friends and fewer terrorists.

At every turning point in our history we the people have chosen unity over division, heeding our founders' call to America's eternal mission: to form a more perfect union, to widen the circle of opportunity, deepen the reach of freedom, and strengthen the bonds of community.

It happened because we made the right choices. In the early days of the republic, America was at a crossroads much like it is today, deeply divided over whether or not to build a real nation with a national economy, and a national legal system. We chose a more perfect union.

In the Civil War, America was at a crossroads, divided over whether to save the union and end slavery -- we chose a more perfect union. In the 1960s, America was at a crossroads, divided again over civil rights and women's rights. Again, we chose a more perfect union. As I said in 1992, we're all in this together; we have an obligation both to work hard and to help our fellow citizens, both to fight terror and to build a world with more cooperation and less terror. Now again, it is time to choose.

Since we're all in the same boat, let us chose as the captain of our ship a brave good man who knows how to steer a vessel though troubled waters to the calm seas and clear skies of our more perfect union. We know our mission. Let us join as one and say in a loud, clear voice: Send John Kerry.

CNN - On the other hard ....

... after Clinton giving the defining speech of the election, what does CNN talk about? The talk about Teresa Kerry telling a right wing rag to shove it. It clearly shows how biased CNN is and how they are owned by the Republicans.

During Al Gore's speech CNN was running a crawl under his picture talking about the "shove it" story. Now - when they cover the Republican convention - what do you think the chances are that they will run a crawl about his "get fucked" comment? See what I mean? They are so much Bush's puppet at CNN.

I remember when there was a free press in America. I think the news in Russia is more accurate than America.

Clinton was so powerful - even Fox News is Praising him!

This is amazing. Even Fox is praising him. They look real worried. Some of them look like they are even going to vote for him. I think a lot of right wingers are really afraid tonight. This looks like a turning point to me.

Fox calls Clinton a rock star. Nothing but praise. The only digs were against Hillary saying she did nothing for her presidential run.

Clinton's Speech was so great!

Letter to the Editor

For those of you out there who are speculating that Clinton's speech will overshadow Kerry's speech - well - you may be right. Clinton gave a hell of a speech. I don't think there's any way Kerry is going to top that. But if he does - Bush doesn't stand a chance. Oh how I miss Clinton and the peace and prosperity we used to have. America has fallen down and we must get back up. Clinton has inspired me to do whatever I can to get rid of Bush.

Al Gore Sounds Good Tonight

I wish he sounded that good 4 years ago. I was also concerned about reports that the Democrats weren't going to go negative - which caused me to worry that non one would bring up all the problems of the Bush administration has caused. But Gore came out hitting Bush hard and I'm hopeful this convention will do better than what I thought it would do.

And - Gore finally mention Clinton in his speech and praised him. Something that cost him his chance at being president. Something that I was deeply offended by 4 years ago. So - so far so good.

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.

Have you seen JibJab.com?

If you haven't seen it - it's great. Check out this flash cartoon.

Bush to dump Cheney for Hillary

OK - you heard it here first. I bet there's a Pulitzer prize waiting for me but here's the BREAKING NEWS!

Bush is not only going to dump Cheney - but he's going to try to woo Democrats by putting together a unity ticket. And what Democrat is Bush going to pick to be his running mate? None other than HILLARY CLINTON!!!!

A Bush / Clinton ticket would be a very powerful ticket because it will attract a lot of women voters and Clinton supporters. It would alienate the Right but if its part of a plan to hold onto power - they might go for it. Besides - who else are they going to vote for? Hillary however wants to have Cheney's power and use Bush as a puppet president the way Cheney does. Bush himself doesn't have a problem with that - but Carl Rove and Donald Rumsfield hate the ticket and want to stick with Cheney.

Did you wonder why Bush was so nice to Bill Clinton last month when he came to the White House? Well - that's when Bush and Clinton struck a deal to put Hillary on the ticket. And - the real reason that the Democrats didn't want to put Hillary on the schedule originally for the Democratic Convention is because they believe the rumors might be true.

So - you might be thinking - "Perkel - you are a whaco! Do you think anyone is going to buy a story like this? Is anyone really that stupid? You're hardly a real journalist!" Well - they bought the Kerry / McCain ticket story that was just as far out and kept running it even after Kerry and McCain denied it. And you don't hear Bush denying a Bush / Clinton ticket. I may end up being wrong on this - but if Bush doesn't run with Hillary - it won't be because he didn't want to - it will be that Hillary backed out and he got stuck with his second choice.

Feel free to post this story on other blogs.

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 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.

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.

Bush Issues Politically Terrified Alert

The Bush administration today issued another terror alert triggered by the popularity of the Kerry / Edwards ticket. This is yet another fake terror alert providing no useful information.

Homeland security chief Tom Ridge had NO SPECIFIC INFORMATION and had nothing new to say other than be scared of the boggyman. But is any of this real - and does any of this make America safer? No!

First - it's clear that Bush will issue fake terror alerts because we know he lied to us about Iraq and started a war for political purposes. We are actually in more danger of being attacked by Bush than real terrorists.

But - what if this is real? What if this time they aren't faking it? Well - in that case we are in trouble because the Bush administration is totally incompetent and is totally clueless as to how to prevent it. And if there is a terror event that is actually caused by terrorists - our current government isn't going to stop it.

Bush is not pursuing bin Laden. Bush has personally received millions of dollars from the bin Laden family and Bush's family is partners with the bin Laden's in the Carlyle Group. So the real terrorists are getting a pass putting America in danger.

The theme of Ridges speech is about "disrupting elections" and bush is setting the stage for seizing power if he should lose the election again. He's going to try to invalidate the elections based on a terrorist event.

One think I'm really worried about is if Kerry is ahead in October - Bush WILL do something spectacular in order to create some diversion as a plot to sieze power.

So - it's not the terrorists we should be watching but our own unelected war criminal who will do anything to keep his grip on power. Osama bin Laden is to be feared - but the real threat to the electroal process comes from Bush.

Of course - this is also a distraction from the fact that Bush's buddy Kennyboy Lay is being led into court in handcuffs. So Bush needs a terror alert distraction

News Media Kerry / McCain Ticket Fiction

It's amazing how the "legitimate press" fabricates news. If you listen to them you would get the idea that Kerry had offered McCain the VP slot and McCain turned it down. But Kerry never made McCain any offers according to both Kerry and McCain. This was a media fabrication because either they wanted to see that ticket - or - they wanted to be able to say Edwards was Kerry's second choice after McCain.

The truth is - it's fiction. It never happened. But the Republican owned news media will create any story to help Bush steal the election. And this is yet another example of it.

It's Edwards!

I am so glad he didn't pick Gephardt! One of the defining moments of the Gore campaign is the really bad decision he made in picking Joe Lieberman. It weas one of many really bad decisions Gore made that led to him failing to become president. So I was worried that Kerry might make a similar mistake.

Edwards is a good choice because - among other things - he has the folksy demeanor that people like in Bush. Kerry is somewhat stiff and arrogant as compared to Edwards so he fills in some gaps and will be able to help take the south. So far - today is a good day.

Bush Seeks Political Control of Churches

In yet another example of why the separation of Church and State is a good thing - Bush is making a blantant attempt at controlling the politics of churches. And - like he does with corporation that support him I'm sure he will dole out his faith based rewards based on the support the church provided during his election.

If this were legal - can you imagine the implications? Suppose Kerry were elected. Then he could pass out faith based initiative money to churches who support democrats and help them spread the word of God as seen by Christian Democrats as opposed to Christian Republicans.

Here are some of the things Bush wants churches to do for him.

• Send your church directory to your state Bush-Cheney '04 headquarters or give to a BC04 field representative.

• Identify another conservative church in your community who we can organize for Bush.

• Recruit 5 people in your church to help with the voter registration project.

• Talk to your pastor about holding a citizenship Sunday and voter registration drive.
  

Clinton Beats His Wife!

Thanks to Bartcop for this idea. This is how the right wing news media would spin this headline. The story is that Bill Clinton's book has beat Hillary's book in the New York Times Bestseller's list.

Did Saddam Gas the Kurds? Or was it Reagan?

It was the 1980s. Saddam was America's puppet in Iraq fighting the Iranians who has just turned into an Islamic state after America's puppet - The Shaw of Iran - died of cancer. Osama bin Laden was our buddy in Afganastan and the Teliban was know as the MujaHadine Freedom Fighters. Reagan was trading arms for hostages to fund an illegal war against the Sandinista-controlled government of Nicaragua. And now Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield was makking oil deal with Saddam Hussein. (pictured here)

We now accuse Saddam of gassing his own people and we want to put him on trial for it. And - if he did it - he deserves to die for it. But America gave Saddam the poison gas that he used to hill the Kurd - gas that he was supposed to use to kill Iranians.

Poison gas is illegal under International Law and America making it is illegal. But Americans are above the law - or specifically Republican presidents are above the law - and we make nerve gas and we gave it to Saddam to use to kill people in Iran - which Saddam also did.

So - you see - Republicans interpret the law differently than the rest of the world. It's OK to gas Iranians - but it's not OK to gas Kurds. If Saddam if found guilty then i- in my view - his partner Ronald Reagan is also guilty. Reagan gave Saddam poison gas to kill Iranians and Saddam did what Reagan wanted - but he just gassed some Kurds on the side.

Reality is different than American political fiction. Under International Law it's just as illegal to gas Iranians as it is to gas Kurds and the criminals include everyone who was involved which includes those who supplied Saddam with the gas with instructions to use it.

Reagan is dead now - and beyond the reach of the law. But Reagan was Saddam's partner in the gassing of the Jurds and a conviction of Saddam is also a conviction of Ronald Reagan - both of whom are criminals of war.

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)
  

Can Republicans say "Go Fuck Yourself"?

I guess so? That's what Vice President Cheney said on the Senate floor. And - he refuses to apologize for it. So - I'm confused. I thought that the Republicans were the party of family values and that we had a Christian nation? What kind of example does it set for Christian children when Cheney says "Go Fuck Yourself" and doesn't even apologize for it?

On a side note - in the 1990s if Al Gore told a Republican to go fuck himself - do you think that the press would have given him a pass or do you think they would have carved it on his tombstone? You would think that the press would have covered Cheney saying Go Fuck Yourself as much as Deans screech - wouldn't you?

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.

Fed Intrest Rate Hike - Might be the last straw

The FED raised the interest rate today and it might be the last straw that will break the fragile economy. We are running on totally false numbers. Gas prices and energy prices spiraling out of control - health care costs in double digit inflation - and wages continue to drop. This is insanity and things are about to break. America is on the verge of collapse.

Someone at Democratic Underground Met Clinton and said ...

Someone met Clinton yesterday in Santa Clara and reported tha Clinton is taking this election seriously. Let's hope it's true.

-----------------

My husband, a fellow DUer, and I met the Big Dog, the Honorable William Jeffereson Clinton, last night at a fancy, shmanzy fundraiser in California. Through contacts, we were able to gain entrance to this exclusive event of the Democratic Party elite. We dined on barbeque and enjoyed the view at a "hillrop retreat" in Santa Clara Valley.

We were interviewed by the media as we approached the grounds of the home. One reporter implied that my husband, who was carrying Mr, Clinton's book, had just bought it that morning to bring to the event. He launched into a tirade about how he'd had the book for days, and how Mr. Clinton was the best President of his lifetime,etc.

We waited out in the sun for an hour or so, eating and drinking, until the President made his appearance with Nancy Pelosi. Of course he was greeted like a rock star. I was about ten feet from him, and, if you will allow a personal comment, he was even more handsome than in phographs,and very svelte. He is really in good shape! His first move was to thank the jazz band that was playing. He shook every band member's hand and had a word with each of them. He thanked the firefighters who were manning the barbeques. Yay, firefighers!

But the President was in a serious mood, and he gave a serious speech. There were moments of humor, but the theme was urgency. He actually said that if, heaven forbid, the * wins this Fall, AND the repukes retain control of both houses again, our country will not the same. I think his exact words were "You won't recognize this great country." He ended with a plea to tell everyone we know what is happening and what is at stake in this election. He told us to talk to people in words that they can understand, and to explain to them what cuts are being made in education, health care, and after school programs just so that people like him can have a tax cut. He was particularly biting and sarcastic about tax policy and the deficit.

He made fun of the repukes selling themselves as the party of fiscal discipline. He said they were more like teenagers who had been given their inheritance too early and couldn't wait to blow it!

Brothers and Sisters, the Big Dog was serious last night. He did not smile during his speech. He KNOWS what's at stake and he was begging us to do EVERYTHING we can to stop *, and to win back the House, the Senate, or both. I'm just the messenger. Think of this man, of all he has endured and sacrificed on our behalf(knowing, of course, that he is not perfect). He is scared, and we should be, too. NOW LET'S DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

Republicans Fail to hide raising Debt Limits

At least Republicans are at least still embarrased about their borrow and spend politics and have tried to hide raising the borrowing limit inside the defense spending bill. Basically ther way it worked was that there would be language in the bill that would make financing a national secutity issue and thus in times of (fake) war the debt limits wouldn't apply - allowing Republicans to borrow and spend without the embarrassment of being seen raising the debt limits during an election year. The Democrats finally found the balls to stop it.

Saudi's Own 7% of America

According to the Michael Moore movie Fahrenheight 9/11 Saudi Araiba owns 7% of America. With the growing deficit that percentage is increasing. Soon America will be under Saudi control and we will basically be their slaves.

Bush's tax cust are a means of transferring America's wealth and power to the Saudi royal family. The Saudi's no longer pay taxes - but the still pay - but now it's in loads. We are borrowing money from them - paying higher gas prices to them - making them richer - and America is becomming more indebeted to them. Once they own us - we will become Sauds.

Will we be forced to become Muslim and live under Muslim law? Will we have public beheadings like the Saudis do? Will women be forced to wear burkas? I guess we'll find out if Bush is reselected. Because the deficit will soon climb to over 1 trillion dollars a year - and the percentage of foreign ownership of America will grow. And once we are owned - you can kill American soveriengty goodbye.

Fahrenheit 9/11 - Makes me glad Gore didn't run again

I just saw the movie. Loved it! But the beginning sceenes reminded me about how angry I was with Gore after the 2000 selection. This movie is not just anti-bush. It's also very anti-Gore and very accurate indead.

I remember when it came to to confirm bush as president members of the Congress wanted to speak out about the fraud that had just occurred and it was Gore who was shouting us down and preventing us from speaking out.

Gore wanted to be a gracious loser - but what Gore doesn't get is that this election wasn't about him. It was about the people of America and we had something to say and it wasn't up to him to make that decision. And the movie really captures that.

Having said that - I also didn't know the extent that Bush and the bin Ladens were business partners and now it's pretty obvious why Bush isn't going after bin Laden anymore. It's because bin Laden did Bush a favor with 9-11 and Bush cares more about bin Laden and his Saudi friends than about Americans.

Unlike "The Day After Tomorrow" - a movie that truely sucked - Fahrenheit 9/11 is definitely a keeper. And for those of you who hate Democrats - there's a lot in there for you too. Moore's movie crosses party lines and give you a far more accurate version of reality that you see in the evening news on Television. me and the Sturdy Wench give the movie 2 thumbs up - a must see.

Green Party Awakens to Reality

Finally figuring it out that if not for Nader and the Green Party - Bush wouldn't be president. I guess they decided not to make the same mistake twice and rejected the Republican backed Nader as their candidate. Good for them for finally getting it.

Supreme Court Rules Republican Presidents protected from Vexatious Litigation

The Supreme Court has a different standard for Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. Democrats have to face trial - Republicans get a pass! In the case of Dick Cheney the Supreme Court ruled:

Court won't order Cheney Papers Released!

He said "special considerations applicable to the president and the vice president suggest that the courts should be sensitive to requests by the government" in such special appeals.

But when Clinton was president they ruled differently saying that they didn't see a problem with Paula Jones bringing a bullshit lawsuit against the president. He had plenty of time to defend it back then. What a crock of shit this is!

Unanimous Supreme Court says there is no constitutional barrier to harassment suit against president

In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court said, "We are not persuaded that either of these risks is serious."

You see - when the president is a Democrat you get one set of rules - but when the president is a Republican the Supreme Court rules the opposite. And you have to consider the seriousness of the crime. Cheney was meeting with Oil Executives who were shutting electricity off to the entire west coast and planning a war with Iraq. Jones on the other hand had a much more seroius issue. That Clinton showd her his cock.

Jesus fucking Christ - the Moonies must be in control. Only if you lived in a CULT would something like this make sense!

America is a Christian Nation - Controlled by the Moonies

Well finally the "mainstream media" has caught up with the Internet. CBS News finally ran the story of the Reverend Syung Mung Moon being corrinated as the messiah by members of Congress in the Dirkson office building. I blogged about it weeks ago. Where is NBC, ABC and CNN on this story? Hiding it. That's because the moonies are so powerful that they can bury this story. It's not what you see in the news that's scary - it's what you don't see.

Moon owns a lot of the media - He owns United Press International - and The Washington Times. Daddy Bush is a regular paid speaker at Moon mass weddings and Moon is the one behind the take down the cross put up the crown movement. The Christians do run America - the Moonie Christians. And as you can see, members of Congress are crowning him King. So it's official. Who are the true Christians? The Moonies are! Hail the Moonies - the only True Christians!

Its funny - Christians have been calling America a Christian nation with out a clue as to why we have the separation of Church and State. They just don't get it. So - maybe they will get it now. Yes - the Christians have taken over and they rule America. But - which Christians are in charge? The Moonies are in charge. So Christians - how do you feel about that? How do you like living in a nation where the Moonies control the state?

Religion controling government is a great idea when it's your religion that's running it. But if it's someone else's religion - then that's a very different story.

Christians have emailed me and said - "America is a Christian nation - and if you don't like it - get out!" Well - America is a Christian moonie nation - and if you don't like being a Moonie - get out!

Feels kind of different to be on the other side of that - doesn't it?

Here's a piece of the CBS Story:

The Washington Post reported that Moon received a crown that was placed on his head. The crown was carried on a pillow by Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill., who wore white gloves, the newspaper said.

The Post said Moon, 85, delivered a lengthy speech at the "Crown of Peace" ceremony. The newspaper quoted Moon as saying he was "sent to Earth . . . to save the world's six billion people. . . . Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."

So - you see Christians - you were right. Jesus has returned in the form of the reverened Syung Myung Moon. Moon is officially Jesus because America is a Christian nation - and the nation officially crowned Moon messiah. And if the government crowns you messiah - which they just did - then it's official. America officially recognizes Moon as Lord - our father - the True Parents.

From this day forward your religion as you have know it is over. You will worship Reverened Moon as God - the True Messiah. Jesus has returned. Resistance is futule. You will be assimilated. You are hereby ordered by the authority of the United States of America to bend your knee and pray to Moon now and to publically acknowledge that Moon is Christ returning.

Look Christians - this is about your eternal soul. Do you want to Burn in Hell forever? I don't think so. Well - there's only one way for you to save yourself and that is to accept the True Father into your heart and worship HIM. Reverened Moon is your true father and he has demonstrated his authority by having America - the greatest Christian nation on Earth - crown him King. Why else would former presidents like poppy Bush speak at Moon mass weddings? Why else is the leadership of the christian world sucking up to him? How do you explain miracles like this if Moon isn't the true father? Are you going to take a change with your soul and risk frying in Hell forever? It's time to bend your knee and worship Moon the way these members of Congress are. Democrats and Republicans joining together in harmony to worship Moon. This has to be a miracle! God is making it happen for Reverend Sun Myung Moon!

How about it Christians? Sounds kind of funny being on the other side of that - doesn't it? of cource - as the Founder of the Church of Reality I think all Christian religions are just as stupid. But I wanted to push the issue a little so that you can experience what it's like to be on the other side. How does that feel?

Record Sales for Clinton's Book

Bill Clinton's new book has outsold any book in history for first day sales. It may sell more copies than any book in history. Boy do the Clinton haters hate that. The media reviewers say the book is boring. But the public thinks different and are voting with their dollars. So - who is right? The public is.

Clinton is after all America's greatest president. And that's why everyone is so interested in him. We all long to go back to Clinton's America when we had peace and prosperity - when we were wondering what we were going to do with the surplus and people were suffering from "sudden wealth syndrome". Now we have war and terror - big brother reading our email - tracing our moves - listening to our phone calls - watching everything we buy and where we go - watching everything we do. We are so far in debt that we are afraid to think about it let alone talk about it. Americans are not safe anywhere and we talk about our alies like France and Canada as if they were our enemies.

American has fallen and we look back to the good old days and think about how great Clinton was. And we want to read his book because we want to compare him to our present day loser and wonder - can we ever go back? What happened to the Man from Hope?

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.

Another fake terrorist arrest in swing state of Ohio

This one looks as fishy as the rest that turned out to be fake. Fake terror alters and fake prosecutions put America at risk. The GOP is using this as an election tactic.

COLUMBUS, Ohio June 15, 2004 — Like thousands of fellow Somalis leaving behind brutal clan warfare, Nuradin Abdi settled in this city known for relatively mild weather, plentiful jobs and, in recent years, an abundance of shopping malls.

Just months after the government granted Abdi asylum, however, federal authorities say he was plotting to blow up one of those malls, exactly the type of target some feared would be next on terrorists' lists. Attorney General John Ashcroft said charges revealed Monday against Abdi serve as a reminder that al-Qaida is determined "to hit the United States and hit us hard."

But the portrait painted of Abdi by the government is in sharp contrast to the one offered by his family, who insist he is innocent and describe a man who hated terrorists.

Abdi, who operated a small cell phone business, loved his new freedoms and never spoke out against the U.S. government, said his brother Mohamed AbdiKarani, 17. Abdi has a son and daughter and his wife is pregnant.

"He loved it here. He never had as much freedom. He said it's good to raise his kids here," AbdiKarani said. "He really hated terrorists. You know how (President) Bush hates terrorists? I think he hates them more."

Abdi is accused of conspiring with convicted al-Qaida operative Iyman Faris a former Columbus truck driver who sought to sabotage the Brooklyn Bridge to bomb a mall in the area, though the FBI said no specific mall was targeted.

Abdi, 32, was arrested at his apartment Nov. 28, the day after Thanksgiving when malls across America were crowded with shoppers. He was held at first on immigration violations, authorities said.

Charges in the four-count indictment include providing material support to al-Qaida, conspiracy to provide material support and document fraud. If convicted on all charges, Abdi could be sentenced to up to 80 years in prison and fined $1 million.

The FBI has warned al-Qaida might shift away from trying to hit tightly guarded installations, such as government buildings or nuclear plants, to more vulnerable targets such as malls, apartment buildings or hotels.

Court papers filed by the government allege that a plot dated to March 2000 when Abdi returned from a terrorist training camp in Ethiopia to join Faris in Columbus.

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.

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.

Should Blacks thank America for ending Slavery?

I want to take the opposite position from those who think that America should apologize to Black people for slavery. Lets look at reality here.

America wasn't the ones who started enslaving blacks. They usually bought black slaves from other blacks in Africa where slavery still exists.

The decendents of the slaves in America are generally far better off that the decendants of those who were not brought to America. Blacks in America should be thankful for their own personal sake that their ancestors were brought over here.

America fought a civil war to free the slaves and blacks all over the world enjoy far greater freedom today because of the white people who fought and died to set them free. Blacks in Africa are more free today because of the civil war. Most of black oppression in Africa today are oppressed and slaughtered by other black people.

If we go back enough generations - we all come from Africa. All our ancestors were once black from Africa. So we are all African Americans.

I will agree that there were attrocities committed by people with light skin in America against people with dark skin in America. However - 100% of my family emigrated from Europe after the Civil War and I think it's racist for people to say that I have a debt to people of color just because I'm visibly white. None of MY ancestors enslaved black people.

Most of American blacks are of mixed heritage and are the decendants of both the oppressors and the oppressed. The number of people in America who are 100% non-white is nearly zero.

I think it's time for black people to stop complaining about the past and start looking to the future - to take responsibility for your own lives and to make the choice to thrive instead of complain. There comes a point where you have to stand up and make the best of your situation and build a future for yourself and your people - or join the civilized world and identify yourself as a fellow human and not by the frequencies of light that are reflected off the surface of your skin.

I say - get over it - focus on the future - and make something of yourself that way that the Asians have. We are trying to give you a hand up - but you have to lift up your own asses and help. I am not racist when I say - I don't owe black people anything because I'm white. I didn't enslave anyone - and if slavery existed today I would be out on the front lines fighting it. But this reparations bullshit is racist.

Lets look at some other facts - more blacks have been slaves to other blacks than they have been to white people.

More blacks today are still slaves to other black people than they are to white people.

More black people are slaughtered by other black people than they are by white people.

So - it looks to me like if reparations are owed - that blacks are more in debt to blacks than whites.

So - I'm just not buying this classification thing that we judge people by the frequencies of light reflected off the surface of their skin. To me we are all one people and we are all humans regardless of race, sex, or lines drawn on a map and we are all working together for the common good of EVERYONE.

Are Liberals more Racist that Conservatives?

I actually think so - it didn't used to be that way but many of those on the left are openly racist against whites. Here's the response I got on the Democratic Underground for refuting the silly notion that white people owe black people for slavery. It's the kind of thing that makes you want to join the GOP - until you find out what the GOP is about.

Well - I've been thrown off of the Democratic Underground twice and thrown off of Free Republic twice. It's just a matter of who controls the site. And - I do that too - sometimes after enough moron posts I start nuking access. But - DU is very racist against white people and if you aren't willing to give lip service to the concept that white people are evil - you don't get to play there.

Oh well - I used to don'te money to them - but they haven't got a dime since they banned me the first time. But - neither the right wing or the left wing controls me. I say what I want - and when I want. So the Democratic Underground can go fuck themselves!

Welcome to Liberal rage!

----------------------------

ibegurpard (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. oh boy

Printer Friendly | | Top

boilerbabe (837 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
53. You still have Howard Dean on your thingy too!

And keep the liberal flame going, hunny!! Have you been on the new Dem organization site? I have been working waaay too much overtime and have not had a chance to check it out, unfortunately....Still a Deanie,I think he got SUCH a raw deal...
XXXOOO
The Boilerbabe

Printer Friendly | | Top

pbl (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. I'm sorry, but I couldn't even finish reading your post

It made me so angry that I don't know what to say except, I hope you are not serious.

As a black American, I don't know whether to scream or cry after reading the part of your post that I could get through. I really hope you're not serious.

I'm not a Democrat but I play one on DU

Printer Friendly | | Top

Tomee450 (134 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. I'm with you.

I read the first few lines and could go no further. Unfortunately, I believe there are many who are like this person.

Printer Friendly | | Top

boilerbabe (837 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
55. My Question is why are they posting on DU??

SHouldn't they be on the Freeper website??

Printer Friendly | | Top

MercutioATC (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #55
72. I find it appalling, but we DO offer the opportunity to air viewpoints

here. Some of them are bound to be distasteful. Censoring "unpleasant" posts wouldn't serve us.

Printer Friendly | | Top

boilerbabe (837 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
50. I'm white, and it really bugs me, too

When I was misguided and working on the Reagan campaign oh so many years ago, they tried to pull the "color blind" thingy on me. I pretty much lost it at that point, along with the other social platforms i found that I disagreed with. What the everlovin'byJesus is this guy thinking about anyway? They also pulled that same crap on the Equal Rights Amendment....
It's easy to say "don't worry be happy" when you are white and have a good income and all that...I happen to be white and FINALLY have a good income, but that does not make me forget the people and places and situations I have lived with and have seen...am pretty much foaming at the mouth over this post, why are they letting people like this on DU for one thing??? WTF Ok...should be more open to diverse opinions? Gotta go throw up...talk to ya later GAGGAGAG

Printer Friendly | | Top

datasuspect (58 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
73. i'm with you

this is post is some unmitigated, offensive bullshit

Printer Friendly | | Top

burythehatchet (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
3. lift up your own asses - that's precious

Don't worry about the fact that you live in a society that has racism and racial bias ingrained in every institution. Ignore the workplace racism that exists almost everywhere. Although the govt keeps going against programs designed to try and equalize opportunities. Just pull up your bootstraps.

He who knows he knows, doesn't know. He who knows he doesn't know, knows. -Joseph Campbell

Printer Friendly | | Top

bushgottago (98 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. The ASIANS did it

And you don't see me complaining because Asians are more successful than white people.

Printer Friendly | | Top

burythehatchet (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. So much to say - such little interest

He who knows he knows, doesn't know. He who knows he doesn't know, knows. -Joseph Campbell

Printer Friendly | | Top

cheezus (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
25. Yeah, the ASIANS did the EXACT SAME THING

they were enslaved and brought over here, lived for generations in slavery, then were freed and overcame the generations of ingrained disdain for them. That's why Asians have already thanked the US Government.

Unless specifically noted above, this post is not based on published data or scientific findings and is therefore meaningless.

Printer Friendly | | Top

bushgottago (98 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. Thanks !!! Someone gets it!

Printer Friendly | | Top

ibegurpard (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. No, someone DOES NOT

your sarcasm detector needs tuning.

Printer Friendly | | Top

cheezus (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Thanks! Someone who gets it!

oh well, at least this stupid thread has made me laugh.

Unless specifically noted above, this post is not based on published data or scientific findings and is therefore meaningless.

Printer Friendly | | Top

cheezus (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. I thought I was making fun of you, actually

but I guess you're the one around here who knows the "facts", so who am I to argue?

Unless specifically noted above, this post is not based on published data or scientific findings and is therefore meaningless.

Printer Friendly | | Top

boilerbabe (837 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #37
83. You Can't Make Fun of Someone That is Serious

So What else do you have up your sleeve? I took it all kindof seriously, since I have been working waaay too much, my job has kindof put me sideways, it's kind of like ruining my whole perspective. Like 84 hour work weeks. That's my excuse and I'm sticking with it!!

Printer Friendly | | Top

Cheswick (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
65. Asian are more successful than white people?

What standards are you using?

I like Kerry better this way. = )

Printer Friendly | | Top

DoveTurnedHawk (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
74. Don't You DARE Try To Pit Communities Against Each Other With Divisive BS

Asians Americans owe African Americans and other people of color an ENORMOUS debt of gratitude, because without the brave and heroic efforts of the Civil Rights Movement pioneers, the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 never would have become law, and there just wouldn't be very many Asians even living in this country. Without the Civil Rights Movement, the few Asians that would be here, would be suffering from even worse racism than people of color already do.

Regarding the "more successful" claim, most Asians live in urban areas, and many report (when they report at all, the poorer ones often don't) data through extended families, and quite a few have higher average education levels due to cultural emphasis. All of these factors skew household income numbers higher than the national average.

Regardless, Asian Americans are not a monolithic group. Some come from countries where the immigrants are middle-class, with a decent amount of capital and a built-in support network of immigrants who came over to America earlier. Often these subgroups do pretty well, and emphasize education for their children. Other subgroups come from crushing poverty, or are fleeing war, and do not do nearly so well.

I am Asian American, and I reject your divisive tactics.

DTH

Play the BushGame! It's a little crass, but informative and hilarious. http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html I am a proud supporter of John Forbes Kerry for President.

Printer Friendly | | Top

boilerbabe (837 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
69. Yeah, Right!

I am a white woman in a male-dominant workplace...fortunately this time around, I have not really encountered a lot of "hey bitch, what are you doing here" kind of stuff...I kick ass anyway...
I found where I came from...(Maine) the people distinguish others by saying they are "Black" or some other thing...I also find this here in Connecticut. I try to ease my fellow workers thru the "Fag", "Nigger" thing, I think it's more or less a stupidity thing, seeing as how we have some "Fags, and Niggers" working here anyway. Zoinks, what's a girl to do ? I am not a Fag or a NIgger, but I will be perfectly happy to be one!

Printer Friendly | | Top

freetobegay (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. I just love waking up & loging on to DU just to see tripe!

Thanks to the Bush Administration, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.

Printer Friendly | | Top

burythehatchet (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Take heart

there's plenty of intelligent threads to visit.

He who knows he knows, doesn't know. He who knows he doesn't know, knows. -Joseph Campbell

Printer Friendly | | Top

Bandit (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
6. I've seen stupid posts before but this one takes the cake

42.7% of all statistics get made up on the spot ~

Printer Friendly | | Top

pbl (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. May I add

Bush isn't the only who has gotta go!!!!!!!!! You are major league @sshole.

I'm not a Democrat but I play one on DU

Printer Friendly | | Top

bushgottago (98 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. You can instult me - but I dont't see anyone disputing my facts

Everything I said is 100% true.

Printer Friendly | | Top

pbl (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. How can you prove or disprove opinion

This is your opinion and may I add that your opinion of blacks in America is wrong!

I'm not a Democrat but I play one on DU

Printer Friendly | | Top

MercutioATC (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #14
77. Agreed that seems, at least, really uninformed, but

how can an "opinion" be wrong?

Printer Friendly | | Top

Snow (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Well, okay, I'll start with your subject line...how do you figure

some entity called "America" ended slavery? And really, that's about as far as I got.

Printer Friendly | | Top

Political_Junkie (482 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. See post #3

no need to dispute your "facts" because you left out the very relevant truth of racism in America.

"...years ago, I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

Printer Friendly | | Top

Snow (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. Also, a little applied logic would be educational....imagine, if you will,

"facts" that are not "100% true" - perhaps 97% true facts? or 43% true facts?

I'm not just picking on semantics, here, youngster - if your thinking isn't any clearer that that, then it carries over into your argument about slavery.

Printer Friendly | | Top

Nimble_Idea (677 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
26. no, the only thing 100% is your stupidity you freeping monkey
Edited on Sat Jun-12-04 12:12 PM by Nimble_Idea

your facts are just a projection of your hate , emanating from the cesspool of sludge that is backed up in your orifices.

Printer Friendly | | Top

nothingshocksmeanymore (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
79. That because you didn't read my post...convenient

"There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Mafia." Kurt Vonnegut

Printer Friendly | | Top

Straight Shooter (708 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. DU -- Do we have an Idiotic Question of the Century Award?

I think we have a winner.

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. (author unknown)

Printer Friendly | | Top

goclark (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. The Idiot's Award Goes To

the post writer.

I am African American and I would suggest that he/she start reading history books that are NOT written by the KKK.

clark2

Printer Friendly | | Top

Jen6 (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
13. Like asking "should a beaten wife

thank her husband when he stops beating her"?

Good Lord!

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody will see it. - M.K. Gandhi

Printer Friendly | | Top

McDiggy (52 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
30. not quite

No, it's like asking "Should the great-granddaughter thank her great-grandfather for beating her great-grandmother in a situation that ended in her inheriting billions of dollars due to the aforementioned relationship."

Not saying I agree with the guy, I just hate falacious discussion that is flat out silly hyperbole.

Printer Friendly | | Top

Political_Junkie (482 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
15. ???

go back to freeperville, asshole.

"...years ago, I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

Printer Friendly | | Top

gmoney (613 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
17. this is the kind of thinking...

that would advocate bringing back slavery to reduce unemployment.

No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up. -- Lily Tomlin

Printer Friendly | | Top

Blue-Jay (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
18. Oh, for Pete's sake....

Are with just about done with the "Should X apologize to Y about Whatever"?

It's just guaranteed flamebait every damn time, and annoying as well.

Printer Friendly | | Top

mandyky (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
19. There would be few black Americans

if there had never been slavery, and no matter who sold America her slaves, America has always proclaimed freedom as its primary purpose, unless you were something other than a landowning white male.

While African Americans being grateful for now being free, actually thanking anyone but the gods and / or good luck is ludicrous on its face. It took almost 100 years for this country to make sure African Americans a REAL right to vote and attend decent schools. In some places, like Florida, one can argue the vote is being taken back from Black Americans.

The DLC is _STILL_ in Dean-ial! Give 'em Hell, Howard!

Printer Friendly | | Top

bushgottago (98 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. But America didn't invent slavery

Slavery was common all over the world. It was common in the middle east - Africa - and at times in Europe. All kinds of people were enslaved. But in America we fought a war to end slavery and moved world opinion away from the evils of enslaving people. The slavery situation has vastly improved worldwide because of the efforts of people of all colors working together.

America was not the culprit - we are part of the solution. I am not proud of what white people - who are not my ancestors - in America did before I was born when they enslaved others. I am proud of what people of all colors did here in America to stop it. People who are also not my ancestors.

Printer Friendly | | Top

CatWoman (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #28
51. The civil war was not fought to end slavery

that act was a by product of the war.

Lincoln never had any intention of ending slavery -- he stated so several times.

That war was about bringing the union back together.

Printer Friendly | | Top

OaktownGrrl (293 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #51
59. Thanks Cat Woman.

I was going to posit same above where he stated his facts were 100% true.

Printer Friendly | | Top

Cheswick (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #51
96. the thing breaking the Union apart was slavery

The issue of states rights was about whether new states should be allowed to be slave states. The southern states felt they would lose their political advantage if new states were not slave states.
The abolitionists in the north were gaining too much influence and breaking from the union was the only way they saw to continue their "way of life".
So the war was about states right...but it was the right to own slaves that was the disagreement.

So even if it was his intention at the begining to "end slavery". The war did transform itself to that purpose by the time he made the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

He may have started out as a very imperfect man of his times, but he ended up with the intention of ending slavery and he accomplished it. Sometimes history is transforming and people step up to the challenge.

I like Kerry better this way. = )

Printer Friendly | | Top

Cheswick (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #28
71. slavery ended in many places before it ended in America

get your facts straight.

I like Kerry better this way. = )

Printer Friendly | | Top

Coventina (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #28
88. Uh WRONG!!!!

America was just about the LAST place to outlaw slavery......the United States had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the nineteenth century.

Jeez laweez!!!!! Your ignorance is embarrassing!

And we tried so hard. And we looked so good. And we lived our lives in black. But something about you felt like pain. You were my sunny day rain......

Printer Friendly | | Top

playahata1 (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #28
103. And by the way, you are using the same argument that Bushco

uses to justify Abu Ghirab: "SADAAM WAS WORSE!" The fact that other countries started slavery does not justify America's participation in it.

Printer Friendly | | Top

Nimble_Idea (677 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
21. I think it's you who has to lift your head out of your ass

so get about the business of doing that ok.

Printer Friendly | | Top

Name removed (0 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Printer Friendly | | Top

McDiggy (52 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
27. .............

Well, he does have a point. Would African Americans be Americans if it were not for slavery? The question that should be asked is if these ends justify the means; is it worth the agony of your forefathers to live in the wealthiest nation in the world?

I'm not sure what's with the vitrol towards the poster. All I see are numberous knee-jerk reactions without reading or contemplating the entire post.

Printer Friendly | | Top

Blue-Jay (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. sniff sniff...

hmm.

"vitriol" "knee-jerk"....

yeah.

Printer Friendly | | Top

Name removed (0 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Printer Friendly | | Top

ibegurpard (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. would it be worth it to you

to have your freedom taken away so that your progeny could have the chance to be Bill Gates' maid?

Printer Friendly | | Top

burythehatchet (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. out of the mouths of babes

You raise a brilliant point. Most people here on DU have probably NEVER heard arguments like the poster makes. WOW, what a wake-up call for us. Perhaps we should hit the books and do some research about this issue.

He who knows he knows, doesn't know. He who knows he doesn't know, knows. -Joseph Campbell

Printer Friendly | | Top

pbl (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #27
43. May I be the first black on this thread to say
Edited on Sat Jun-12-04 12:26 PM by pbl

Thank ya massa, thank ya!

This nation wouldn't be great without the black people that it enslaved. It became wealthy at the expense of my forefathers and I don't know where people get this idea that black people owe their freedom to white people-- we fought for every single thing we ever got.

This is the whole mindset of America that has us in this mess in Iraq, that we are the only ones who can free people and life is so much worse if you don't have the American culture to guide you.

I'm not a Democrat but I play one on DU

Printer Friendly | | Top

sadiesworld (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #27
44. We've been "contemplating" this simplistic, racist crap for years...

we get to "contemplate" it everytime Limbaugh and his ilk open their pieholes.

sadiesworld

Printer Friendly | | Top

bushgottago (98 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #27
47. Exactly - They wouldn't be here if not for slavery

I am NOT endorsing slavery in any way. The point is - none of the black people in America TODAY were slaves. Neither are any of the JEWS alive today slaves in Egypt. That stuff happened to OTHER PEOPLE. There are a lot of WHITE PEOPLE in America who are also the decendants of slaves. And - there are lots of people of MIXED RACE who are the decendents of people who did all kinds of things.

In fact - every single person on the planet is the decendents of both the oppressed and the oppressors. But that is all backward looking.

If anyone of any reace is going to move themselves and "their people" forward then you have to move your focus away from what happened to ancestors you never met and take some personal responsibility to make something of yourself.

Printer Friendly | | Top

Walt Starr (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Actually, you've endorsed slavery pretty handily

after all, the sons of former slaves should be thanking their fomer overseers for the beatings, and rapings, and loss of dignity since now they're MURCANS!

There's a word for people like you, but even I won't stoop to that level of obscenity.

Printer Friendly | | Top

nothingshocksmeanymore (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #47
76. Take some personal responsibility? Kiss my lily white ass!

Next I suppose you'll argue that the ghettoization of blacks is good because it allows them to rise to their level of arrested development

BTW...WHERE is Asia is your family from?

"There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Mafia." Kurt Vonnegut

Printer Friendly | | Top

Cheswick (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #47
101. you are a very young dittohead aren't you?

Don't worry there is still time for your head to detox. Finish High School take some sociology and history classes and then come back and see us.

I like Kerry better this way. = )

Printer Friendly | | Top

nothingshocksmeanymore (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #27
52. I read the entire post..and your question is based on the assumptions

he offers as though any are historically correct.

"There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Mafia." Kurt Vonnegut

Printer Friendly | | Top

playahata1 (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #27
78. Did African slaves ASK to come to the "New World?"
Edited on Sat Jun-12-04 01:05 PM by playahata1

They had no choice in the matter, and even if their descendants had the option to go back to Africa, they would not take it, because they had the old ways and culture stripped from them.

You seem to imply that black people should be happy to live in America because of its alleged "superiority" to African -- and other -- cultures. That BS that you and your boy are running off at the keyboard with is not appreciated here, Jack!

Printer Friendly | | Top

BringEmOn (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #27
87. Another one with no fork in the family tree?

Printer Friendly | | Top

philosophie_en_rose (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #27
102. Slavery isn't the only way to immigrate.
Edited on Sat Jun-12-04 01:13 PM by philosophie_en_rose

"Would African Americans be Americans if it were not for slavery?"

Um... yeah. They could have been the sons and daughters of willing immigrants.

Plus, African Americans were not given the rights of Americans until they demanded it. Regardless of slavery or segregation, African Americans don't owe a damned thing to the people that perpetuate the systems that oppress them.

And, do African Americans really live in the "wealthiest nation"? Are there as many African Americans (or "more successful" Asians) in affluent areas as there are in poverty?

We have to fight back. But we can't fight like they do. The Right's entertainment value comes from their willingness to lie and distort. Ours will have to come from being funny and attractive. And passionate. And idealistic. But also smart. And not milquetoasty. We've got to be willing to throw their lies in their face. - Al Franken

Printer Friendly | | Top

Walt Starr (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
34. You're wrong on your second sentence

America DID start slavery, enshringing the evil institution within it's defining document, the constitution.

Printer Friendly | | Top

YIMA (75 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. I thought Romans also had black slaves.......

.....as did the Greeks. Of course, both of these cultures enslaved many of the people they conquered.

OUT DA BUSHES!!!!

Printer Friendly | | Top

MercutioATC (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #34
80. I'm afraid you're mistaken. Slavery predates America by quite a bit.

Printer Friendly | | Top

Tatiana (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
38. Your thinking is typical of prejudiced and uninformed Americans.

African-Americans are denied the opportunity to even obtain an interview for mid to high level jobs because of "ethnic-sounding" names.

Discrimination and racism still exist, as your own post proves. We are only decades removed from segregation. Children who attend public schools with predominantely African-American populations receive an inferior education to children attending schools where the majority is caucasian.

Racial profiling by the police, the number of African-American males incarcerated (while "white collar" crimes go largely unprosecuted, or result in little to no jail time for those convicted), I could go on and on...

Level the playing field. Let's be fair and give everyone an equal opportunity, then we can talk about moving on and looking towards the future. As it stands now, the future for many minorities is not as bright as it may be for caucasian people.

Printer Friendly | | Top

DoctorMyEyes (684 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
41. I thought you were channeling Dinesh D'Souza

or attempting some kind of satire - but you're serious aren't you?

Maybe you should go hang out with the freepers or join the American Enterprise Institute - they seem more in tune with your logic.

Why I thought you were *doing" D'Souza:

from "The End of Racism":

"If America as a nation owes blacks as a group reparations for slavery, what do blacks as a group owe America for the abolition of slavery?"

I gave you too much credit.

Printer Friendly | | Top

nothingshocksmeanymore (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
42. What I first began to post started with F and ended with YOU

But the racism inherent in your post is beyond disgusting...allow me to pick it apart...oh and welcome back to DU BTW

America wasn't the ones who started enslaving blacks. They usually bought black slaves from other blacks in Africa where slavery still exists.

That is known as equivocating. That is tantamount to saying that since Hitler actually brought to light the Ukraines murdered by Stalin and since Hitler only exterminated 6 million and Stalin murdered million more that we should actually pause and give thanks to Hitler for ending atrocities in the Ukraine.

The decendents of the slaves in America are generally far better off that the decendants of those who were not brought to America. Blacks in America should be thankful for their own personal sake that their ancestors were brought over here.

Again that is a triangulating argument....many many MORE people were taken into slavery due to the MARKET for it CREATED by the white men that came to take slaves...

America fought a civil war to free the slaves and blacks all over the world enjoy far greater freedom today because of the white people who fought and died to set them free. Blacks in Africa are more free today because of the civil war. Most of black oppression in Africa today are oppressed and slaughtered by other black people.

And that would be a good argument but for the fact that it oversimplifies the causes of the civil war including secession.

BTW most black oppression in Africa today is being spurred on in many regions due to WHITE economic interests such as the race for COLTAN to keep our cell phones and computers humming along...again oversimplification .....it's as though you are claiming that since African wars are black on black versus western wars which are WHITES on every other color, our causes are so much more pure.

If we go back enough generations - we all come from Africa. All our ancestors were once black from Africa. So we are all African Americans.

Not even historically true since some of the earliest human forms are traced to Asia

I will agree that there were attrocities committed by people with light skin in America against people with dark skin in America. However - 100% of my family emigrated from Europe after the Civil War and I think it's racist for people to say that I have a debt to people of color just because I'm visibly white. None of MY ancestors enslaved black people.

BULL FUCKING SHIT...the oppression of African Americans and the economic benefits to white Americans did NOT end with the civil war...so that argument is MOOT.

Most of American blacks are of mixed heritage and are the decendants of both the oppressors and the oppressed. The number of people in America who are 100% non-white is nearly zero.

Complete non-sequitur

I think it's time for black people to stop complaining about the past and start looking to the future - to take responsibility for your own lives and to make the choice to thrive instead of complain. There comes a point where you have to stand up and make the best of your situation and build a future for yourself and your people - or join the civilized world and identify yourself as a fellow human and not by the frequencies of light that are reflected off the surface of your skin.

I say - get over it - focus on the future - and make something of yourself that way that the Asians have. We are trying to give you a hand up - but you have to lift up your own asses and help.

Wow if I sit here and pick apart all the stereotypes you invoke with this sentence...of laziness, ecoexting something for nothing, pretending that blacks have brought all oppression to themselves...I might lunge through the computer.

Welcome back Jumper..glad to see nothng's changed

"There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Mafia." Kurt Vonnegut

Printer Friendly | | Top

Misunderestimator (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #42
75. For all you freeps out there that can read ....

Refer yourselves to the post above. I wish I'd written it, but I'm so fuming irritated that all I can say is F*CK YOU bushgottago_gotago.

Printer Friendly | | Top

camero (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
45. maybe they should thank the rich>major sarcasm

since the rich are the ones that bought and sold the slaves eh? What a stupid post.

``We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.''-George Orwell

Printer Friendly | | Top

DBoon (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
46. Should White people thank Black people

for all the underpaid labor the Black people's ancestors performed as slaves?

And maybe show their gratitude for all the hard work done by slaves by presenting their heirs with a nice check for wages owed (including overtime pay)?

Bob Dylan wrote propaganda songs

Printer Friendly | | Top

bushgottago (98 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #46
61. hmmm - I would say - YES

Because those people are still here and still alive today. That is a real issue that is current. We do need to end anything that makes black people disadvantaged today.

Like I said - focus on the future - not the past.

Printer Friendly | | Top

DBoon (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #61
85. And property legally earned belongs to one's heirs

And we know slavery is (and should have been) illegal

And we know labor should be fairly compensated, and have laws to ensure this.

Bob Dylan wrote propaganda songs

Printer Friendly | | Top

CatWoman (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
48. As a black person, I'd like to speak on behalf of other blacks, and say

FUCK YOU.

Printer Friendly | | Top

burythehatchet (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #48
56. Cat, can you be more direct perhaps?

He who knows he knows, doesn't know. He who knows he doesn't know, knows. -Joseph Campbell

Printer Friendly | | Top

CatWoman (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. LOL

In the future, I'll try to tone it down.

Printer Friendly | | Top

burythehatchet (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #63
84. not on my account i hope

He who knows he knows, doesn't know. He who knows he doesn't know, knows. -Joseph Campbell

Printer Friendly | | Top

Political_Junkie (482 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #48
64. Woohoo! You go, girl!

"...years ago, I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

Printer Friendly | | Top

bushgottago (98 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
54. Well - at least it's not about REAGAN!

For those of you who are tired of the never ending funeral.

Printer Friendly | | Top

nothingshocksmeanymore (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #54
60. It was what Reagan stood for and cut and paste from David

Horowitz....his ten arguments against reparations...up yours

"There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Mafia." Kurt Vonnegut

Printer Friendly | | Top

Misunderestimator (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
57. It's time for black people to stop complaining...

And it's time for you to grow a brain. What absolute, sophomoric, idiotic and bigoted logic. Thanks for soiling the board.

I'd say more but I've already read the measured and sensible responses to your crap, which I think I can rightly assume you will neither read nor comprehend.

I am so very sure that YOU "are trying to give... a hand up"... where? the ass?

Printer Friendly | | Top

Walt Starr (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
58. Folks, this trolling flamfest thread is a DISTRACTION

from the REAL story this morning:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic...

Proof of torture in the pictures and that dogs were used in that torture, not to frighten, but to INJURE!

Printer Friendly | | Top

Political_Junkie (482 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #58
86. Thanks, Walt,

I hadn't see that.

"...years ago, I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

Printer Friendly | | Top

Cheswick (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
62. Should men thank women for giving birth all these centuries

so that they could prosper and rule the world?...You know, enslavement by Uterus!

oops, excuse my interupting your borderline racist rant.

make something of yourself that way that the Asians have. We are trying to give you a hand up - but you have to lift up your own asses and help.

ummm yikes

I like Kerry better this way. = )

Printer Friendly | | Top

playahata1 (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #62
95. Cheswick -- that is NOT borderline racist,

that is ALL-THE-WAY racist, period! Let's not beat around the bush here.

Note to Jerk-off of the Year: You say that you are not white. What makes you think that white Americans fully accept you -- if you are indeed what you claim to be?

Printer Friendly | | Top

Walt Starr (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
66. I'd consider this thread a successful ultimate something or other

because a poster with less than 100 posts has just about single handedly alienated every last African American DUer from this site.

Printer Friendly | | Top

nothingshocksmeanymore (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. Correction

Less than 100 posts in this incarnation

"There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Mafia." Kurt Vonnegut

Printer Friendly | | Top

matcom (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
68. "get over it"???? are you FUCKING INSANE??

i would NEVER EVER FUCKING EVER "get over it" if it were MY history.

"get over it?"

i just can't IMAGINE why this thread was started in the first place

-"Your Government Failed You...." - Richard Clarke

Printer Friendly | | Top

playahata1 (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
70. Who in hell are you to tell black people to "get over it"?

Racism and slavery are NOT dead in this country. You stand a better chance of being hired, of not being followed around in a store, of becoming CEO of a major corporation -- hell, President of the United States -- than I do.

I won't further dignify your bullshit by going on. Your ignorance is beyond words, and contempt.

Printer Friendly | | Top

supernova (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
81. Should Bushgottago be sold into slavery?
Edited on Sat Jun-12-04 12:52 PM by supernova

It seems fitting.

Visit the DU North Carolina Forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic...
Proud President of the DU Johnny Depp Fan Club!
Confidential to UGRR:

Printer Friendly | | Top

nothingshocksmeanymore (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #81
93. I think I just found a viable use for Abu Graib

"There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Mafia." Kurt Vonnegut

Printer Friendly | | Top

supernova (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. Well, there you go

keep a thing long enough and eventually you find a use for it.

Visit the DU North Carolina Forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic...
Proud President of the DU Johnny Depp Fan Club!
Confidential to UGRR:

Printer Friendly | | Top

datasuspect (58 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #81
94. i got a book of s&h green stamps

toward the purchase

Printer Friendly | | Top

Political_Junkie (482 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #81
100. hmmm...

Got me thinking, Supernova.

"...years ago, I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

Printer Friendly | | Top

slinkerwink (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
82. this is the most moronic post I've ever seen, and you, sir, are a racist!

Forever a Howard Dean Democrat......

Printer Friendly | | Top

bandera (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
89. The sheer ignorance of this post is appalling.

It's more than obvious that you have little knowledge of what the American institition of slavery, and just as importantly, it's aftermath entailed. I would advise you to read a bit of that history before endulging in such remarks as:

"They usually bought black slaves from other blacks in Africa where slavery still exists."

"America fought a civil war to free the slaves and blacks all over the world enjoy far greater freedom today because of the white people who fought and died to set them free. Blacks in Africa are more free today because of the civil war. Most of black oppression in Africa today are oppressed and slaughtered by other black people."

"I say - get over it - focus on the future - and make something of yourself that way that the Asians have. We are trying to give you a hand up - but you have to lift up your own asses and help."

As for "not being responsible" because "my ancestors" enslaved no one.

I would think that most of us were born after Japanese Americans were sent to concentration camps by our government during WWII. Yet most of us were quite willing to see apolgies and reparations made to those victims of American injustice.

Your rationalizations and excuses sound an awful lot like the drivel I've heard Limbaugh and his ilk spew.

"Mejor morir a pie que vivir en rodillas." - Dolores Iburruri - Madrid 1936

Printer Friendly | | Top

newsguyatl (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
90. and i say your rationale

is idiotic at best.

pathetic.

"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." George Bernard Shaw

Printer Friendly | | Top

FleshCartoon (539 posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
91. This argument reminds me of when someone I know...

...who used to beat their wife said that she had it coming because she provoked him.

I suppose that when he allowed her to finally divorce him and didn't go gunning for her like we all expected him to, she should have sent him a thank you card for sparing her life.

Give me a break. This is just bullshit!

Something Shakespeare never said was, "You've got to be kidding!"

Printer Friendly | | Top

philosophie_en_rose (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
92. Should White People Demand Anything About Slavery?
Edited on Sat Jun-12-04 01:11 PM by philosophie_en_rose

Even if you didn't personally kidnap Africans and force them to work on cotton fields, you benefit from the privilege created by that system.

No one can force you to empathize with an experience you obviously think is easy to ignore. That's a personal failing you'll just have to live with for the rest of your life. However, even should everyone "get over it" the political, economic, and cultural effects of slavery would still exist.

"Blacks should be grateful..." For what? For free housing and food back in the day... of slavery. Being raped, enslaved, and degraded for more that four hundred years is sure something to be grateful about.

As for your ignorant comments on Africa, I think you need to learn a little more about colonialism in Africa if you think anyone there should be grateful for the interference of caucasians.

This is probably just a flamebait thread, but it's nice to see how morans can bring us together.

We have to fight back. But we can't fight like they do. The Right's entertainment value comes from their willingness to lie and distort. Ours will have to come from being funny and attractive. And passionate. And idealistic. But also smart. And not milquetoasty. We've got to be willing to throw their lies in their face. - Al Franken

Printer Friendly | | Top

Mikimouse (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
98. I had to read this entire thread to realize that it was NOT...

written by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, and I am still horrified. The most germane point(among thousands that you choose to ignore) that you clearly do not understand is this: (Maestro, please a little organ music appropriate for the occasion, something rousing, like the Battle Hymn of the Republic, playing in the background) The great white society FREED the slaves, hooray, hooray, hooray! BUT FOR WHAT! TO STARVE TO DEATH BECAUSE THEY THEN HAD NO ACCESS TO THE RESOURCES NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN LIFE!!!!!!!!!! OH yeah, we shoud be SO proud. By the way, my ancestors didn't own slaves either, but unless you have missed the entire point, which I suspect you have, we are all supposed to be in this deal TOGETHER. NO, I'm not shitting you, REALLY!

The true greatness of a nation is inversely proportional to the number of times it declares itself so (Mikimouse)

Printer Friendly | | Top

number6 (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-12-04 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
99. Black People Should Thank

all those white people who organized resistance
to slavery in the south ...

"I think it's time for black people to stop complaining about the past and start looking to the future - to take responsibility for your own lives and to make the choice to thrive instead of complain."

and who the hell said they should not ?

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?

Moon Over Washington

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.

Rush Limbaugh to Divorce - Again!

I remember during the Monica Lewinshy affair how the right wingers salivated over the impending demise of the clinton family. "Surely she will divorce him" they drooled waiting for the impending announcement that never came. That's because Clinton's marriage was much more solid than his Republican detractors like Rush Limbaugh.

Generally I don't revel in the misfortune of others - but I have a rule which is what I call the "hypocracy exception" - which in this case means that when Rush cheers at the downfall of others - it's ok to cheer at his downfall. This is so that an important point is made to warn other of the dark side of self richeousness and moral masturbation.

Some day it will be my turn but for now - let them eat crow!

---------------------------------

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh announced Friday that he and his wife, Marta, were divorcing.

The Limbaughs "mutually decided to end their marriage of 10 years" and have "separated pending an amicable resolution," according to a statement released by Limbaugh's publicist.

The couple shared a $24 million oceanfront mansion in nearby Palm Beach, from where Limbaugh often broadcast his daily three-hour show.

Spokesman Tony Knight said the matter was personal and declined further comment.

It was the third marriage for both Limbaugh, 53, and his 44-year-old wife, who were wed May 27, 1994 at the Virginia home of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas officiated the ceremony.

Reagan Funeral GOP FuckFest Nearly Over

Of course the media is grateful to Reagan because he's the one who turned media ownership over to the current right wing owners. As everyone tries to rewrite history in favor of a really sorry president, it doesn't seem to be helping the GOP hold on to power in the midst of the revelations that Bush authorized the torture and rape of children of Abu Griab - pictures soon to be released.

Finally their get the sucker into the ground and we can get back to reality.

Reagan did not win the Cold War

Actually Gorbechev did.

Here's an exerpt from MSNBC Story where Gorbechev sets the record straight.

'We all lost'
But if he had warm, appreciative words for Reagan, Gorbachev brusquely dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had intimidated either him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make concessions. Was it accurate to say that Reagan won the Cold War? "That's not serious," Gorbachev said, using the same words several times. "I think we all lost the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union. We each lost $10 trillion," he said, referring to the money Russians and Americans spent on an arms race that lasted more than four decades. "We only won when the Cold War ended."

By Gorbachev's account, it was his early successes on the world stage that convinced the Americans that they had to deal with him and to match his fervor for arms control and other agreements that could reduce East-West tensions. "We had an intelligence report from Washington in 1987," he said, "reporting on a meeting of the National Security Council." Senior U.S. officials had concluded that Gorbachev's "growing credibility and prestige did not serve the interests of the United States" and had to be countered. A desire in Washington not to let him make too good an impression on the world did more to promote subsequent Soviet-American agreements than any American intimidation, he said. "They wanted to look good in terms of making peace and achieving arms control," he said of the Reagan administration.

The changes he wrought in the Soviet Union, from ending much of the official censorship to sweeping political and economic reforms, were undertaken not because of any foreign pressure or concern, Gorbachev said, but because Russia was dying under the weight of the Stalinist system. "The country was being stifled by the lack of freedom," he said. "We were increasingly behind the West, which . . . was achieving a new technological era, a new kind of productivity. . . . And I was ashamed for my country -- perhaps the country with the richest resources on Earth, and we couldn't provide toothpaste for our people."

A Special Song to Remember Ronald Reagan

I found this Special Song that expresses that way I feel at the tragic passing of Presinent Reagan. Please play this song and see it this special piece moves your soul the way it moved mine and expresses the mood that represents how I felt about the passing of President Reagan.

------

I sent the link to my news media list with this message:

ok - I'm watching this week long Reagal Funeral Orgy that is trying to convert a truely bad president into a saint - capture his spirit and try to stuff him into George Bush. Reagan was not a great president and really accomplished very little that was positive. In my opinion firing the airline traffic controllers for their illegal strike was the high point of his carreer. I'm 48 years ols and I'm never going to see Social Security because of the Reagan debt. And - neither are you.

So - since we are reinventing history I feel that I need to bring the focus back to reality. There are a lot of us who truely resent Ronald Reagan and he was a very devicive president. He took political annomosity to a new level. He was openly insulting to people of good conscience who strongly disagreed with him on many issues and he fostered a spirit of hatred between "Liberals" and "Conservatives".

So "liberals" are enlightened and show respect for the dead, but - some liberals are not enlighened and are basically crude and insensitive. I am in the latter category - especially when conservatives are taking advantage of the sit\uation and turning it into an opportunity to use moonie like brain washing techniques to try to create a false record and obscure reality as it really is. Those to would rewrite history should first pay bach the $12,000 per person he ran up in debt with absolutely nothing to show for it. When I think about the Reagan legacy - I want to go out and burn a flag! So - having said that - here's the way the other half of America really feels.

Torture Memo Released

Snagged this off of MSNBC - Torture.pdf

This is pretty interesting legal bullshit. It basically justifies everything Bush and the millitary does. It makes me wish I was a lawyer defending the guards at Abu Griab. This memo provides the perfect legal cover. Here's why:

The guards say that they were acting under orders and that they were doing so because they believed that they were saving lives by extracting valuable information - because they were told that was the reason.

Now - here's the test. Would a person reasonably believe their actions were justified under these circumstances? Normally this excuse wouldn't fly - but - because of this memo - it changes everything.

The guards can argue that they could reasonably believe it because the legal counsel to the President believed it - and would a lowly guard be expected to be smarter that the presidents lawyers? See where this is going? It's the "I can be expected to be smarter than the President" defense. I think it would work.

Seriously - if the President says it's legal - the secretary of defense says it's legal - the justice department says it's legal - the generals say it's legal - the commanding officers say it's legal - then how can a burger flipper who was called to duty - trained as a truck mechanic - and made a prison guard know that it's not legal?

The truth is - everyone from the President on down know that it was illegal - but they all lied to create a legal fiction to justify breaking the law. It's a plan where if enough higher ups break the law - and the congress and the supreme court is under Republican control - we know they are all going to get away with it. But if these legal theories had any validity then Hitler and Saddam Husein would be innocent. Begause what this memo says is that the President is above the law and can do whatever the hell he wants.

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

Yahoo Story

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.

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!!

http://www.iraqtimeline.com

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.

Cheney Learns from Reagan

A few months ago it was revealed that Cheney learned something from Reagan. "Ronald Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter."

Great lesson Dick!

Isn't it interesting that you don't hear Republicans talking about the deficit anymore. No longer do you hear the words "balanced budget". It looks to me like Republicans have abandoned fiscal responsibility from their platform.

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!

Kerry and Flip Flopping

The Republican controlled press wants you to believe Kerry Flip Flops on everything. If Kerry stopped flip floping they would report "Kerry flip flops on flip flopping". But this is the same press that's trying to convince you that the economy is strong so take into account where it's coming from. The press is so stupid that they even think Bush is articulate!

Did Al Gore Finally Find his Testicals?

Perhaps he did. This is the speech he gave for MoveOn.org If he only spoke like this when he was running in 2000 then maybe the country wouldn't be going to hell. Gore finially says it like it is and apologizes for shouting down people like me who were trying to speak out against the fraud of the election. Finally - Al Gore gets it.

Listen to Gore's Speech - 7mb - 1 hour

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?

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