GW Bush

Bush is World"s #1 Terrorist

Friday, December 28, 2007

No Crony Left Behind


stumbleupon :No Crony Left Behind digg: No Crony Left Behind reddit: No Crony Left Behind del.icio.us: No Crony Left Behind

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

US Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003

December 5th, 2007 1:23 am
U.S. Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003

By Mark Mazzetti / New York Times

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies released Monday concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting a judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely to keep its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”

Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is intended for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that the enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.

But the new report essentially disavows a judgment that the intelligence agencies issued in 2005, which concluded that Iran had an active secret arms program intended to transform the raw material into a nuclear weapon. The new estimate declares instead with “high confidence” that the military-run program was shut in 2003, and it concludes with “moderate confidence” that the program remains frozen. The report judges that the halt was imposed by Iran “primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”

It was not clear what prompted the reversal. Administration officials said the new estimate reflected conclusions that the intelligence agencies had agreed on only in the past several weeks. The report’s agnosticism about Iran’s nuclear intentions represents a very different tone than had been struck by President Bush, and by Vice President Dick Cheney, who warned in a speech in October that if Iran “stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences.”

The estimate does not say when intelligence agencies learned that the arms program had been halted, but officials said new information obtained from covert sources over the summer had led to a reassessment of the state of Iran’s nuclear program and a decision to delay preparation of the estimate, which had been scheduled to be delivered to Congress in the spring.

The new report came out just over five years after a 2002 intelligence estimate on Iraq concluded that it possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program. That estimate was instrumental in winning the Congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, but it proved to be deeply flawed, and most of its conclusions turned out to be wrong.

Intelligence officials said the specter of the 2002 estimate on Iraq hung over their deliberations on Iran even more than it had in 2005, when the lessons from the intelligence failure on Iraq were just beginning to prompt spy agencies to adapt a more rigorous approach to their findings.

The 2007 report on Iran had been requested by members of Congress, underscoring that any conclusions could affect American policy toward Iran at a delicate time. The new estimate brought American assessments more in line with the judgments of international arms inspectors.

Last month, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, reported that Iran was operating 3,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges capable of producing fissile material for nuclear weapons, but he said inspectors had been unable to determine whether the Iranian program sought only to generate electricity or to also to build weapons.

Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the Senate majority leader, portrayed the assessment as “directly challenging some of this administration’s alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran” and called for enhanced diplomatic efforts toward Tehran. Democratic presidential candidates mostly echoed Senator Reid, but also emphasized that Iran’s long-term ambitions were still a great concern to the United States.

In interviews on Monday, some administration officials expressed skepticism about the conclusions reached in the new report, saying they doubted that American intelligence agencies had a firm grasp of the Iranian government’s intentions.

The administration officials also said the intelligence findings would not lessen the White House’s concern about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The fact that Iran continues to refine its abilities to enrich uranium, they said, means that any decision in the future to restart a nuclear weapons program could lead Iran to a bomb in relatively short order. While the new report does not contrast sharply with earlier assessments about Iran’s capabilities, it does make new judgments about the intentions of its government.

Rather than portraying Iran as a rogue, irrational country determined to join the club of nations that possess a nuclear bomb, the estimate says Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.”

The administration called new attention to the threat posed by Iran this year when Mr. Bush suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III.” Mr. Cheney also said that month that as Iran continued to enrich uranium, “the end of that process will be the development of nuclear weapons.”

Yet even as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were making those statements, analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency were well under way toward revising the earlier assessment about Iran’s nuclear arms program. Administration officials said the White House had known at the time that the conclusions about Iran were under review but had not been informed until more recently that intelligence agencies had reversed their 2005 conclusion.

In September, officials said, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, and his deputy, Stephen R. Kappes, met with Iran analysts to take a hard look at past conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program in light of new information obtained since 2005.

“We felt that we needed to scrub all the assessments and sources to make sure we weren’t misleading ourselves,” said one senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The estimate concludes that if Iran were to restart its arms program, it would still be at least two years before it would have enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. But it says it is still “very unlikely” Iran could produce enough of the material by then.

Instead, the report released on Monday concludes that it is more likely that Iran could have a bomb by the early part to the middle of the next decade. The report states that the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research judges that Iran is unlikely to achieve this goal before 2013, “because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.”

The estimate concludes that it would be difficult to persuade Iran’s leaders to abandon all efforts to get nuclear weapons, given the importance of getting the bomb to Iran’s strategic goals in the Middle East.

Intelligence officials presented the outlines of the intelligence estimate two weeks ago to several cabinet members, along with Mr. Cheney. During the meeting, officials said, policy makers challenged and debated the conclusions. The final draft of the estimate was presented to Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney last Wednesday.

Officials said they now planned to give extensive briefings to American allies like Israel, Britain and France. Israel intelligence officials for years have put forward more urgent warnings about Iran’s nuclear abilities than their American counterparts, positing that Iran could get a nuclear bomb this decade.

Intelligence officials had said just weeks ago they were ending the practice of declassifying parts of intelligence estimates, citing concerns that analysts might alter their judgments if they knew the reports would be widely publicized.

But in a statement on Monday, Donald M. Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, said that since the new estimate was at odds with the 2005 assessment — and thus at odds with public statements by top officials about Iran — “we felt it was important to release this information to ensure that an accurate presentation is available.”

Friday, November 16, 2007

'IT'S TIME TO IMPEACH CHENEY'

Monday, November 5th, 2007
'IT'S TIME TO IMPEACH CHENEY' ...by Dennis Kucinich

Special to www.ImpeachCheney.org

As a member of Congress, I have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of our nation, and I have pledged to represent the views of my constituents and of all Americans.

That’s why I feel both duty and sorrow in pursuing the path of impeachment against Vice President Richard B. Cheney.

While the impeachment movement has generated intensely strong sentiment and activism, there have been only two polls published on the question of impeaching Vice President Cheney. In a national poll, 54 percent of Americans favored impeachment. In one state poll, 64 percent of Vermonters favored impeaching the Vice President.

Twenty-one of my colleagues have heeded the public demand and signed on as cosponsors of my resolution, H Res 333. Others in the Congress have claimed they have more important priorities, but have told their constituents they will keep their views in mind if the matter ever comes up for a vote.

Well, the issue is coming up for a vote this week on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the “distraction” will require members to balance their priorities between Constitutionally proscribed justice and recourse and the alternative: Constitutional abuse and dictatorial power.

Only by taking up impeachment can we reinstitute a balance of powers and slow down the rush to launch a new war of aggression against Iran.

I am urging my colleagues to recognize that impeachment will not create a crisis by briefly disrupting their schedules on Capitol Hill. The crisis, as Americans outside the Beltway know, is upon us. Congress, the first branch of our government, to which the first half of the Constitution is devoted, has been reduced to almost a bystander as the policies of the wealthiest nation and the largest military ever known are set in secret by the Vice President's office. Under Bush/Cheney, we have become a nation that illegally threatens and launches aggressive wars for political – not national security – reasons. For this crisis of confidence, this denial of our Constitutional beliefs and rights, impeachment is the only cure available.

I urge you, my fellow citizens, to share your sentiments with your Members of Congress and with your family, friends, and the news media in support regarding the rule of law and the imperative of impeaching a vice president who has misled both the public and the Congress about the gravest matters possible: war and peace. Please join with organizations like www.ImpeachCheney.org in making your voices heard as soon as possible! Every individual Member of Congress will have to decide within days where they stand.

On Tuesday, when I introduce my privileged resolution to force this issue to a vote, some other member of Congress will almost certainly move to table (kill) it. A Yes vote to table is a vote to delay the enforcement of the rule of law aside. A No vote to table is a vote to give impeachment a chance for a full and fair hearing. Please help me get this message out.

And, please help me sustain and expand YOUR platform on this and other issues by voting for me in Democracy for America's presidential poll: http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll?c=6

Right now, before the primaries and the caucuses and February’s Super Tuesday, your vote – TODAY – can change the tenor and direction of public debate by letting the other candidates, Congressional leaders, and political power-brokers know that some issues are too important to side-step, table, or ignore. You know what you believe and what you stand for. Now, today, your vote may mean more than ever again.

Thank you for everything you are doing. Now is the moment to step forward, whatever the challenge or struggle. Now is the moment in which we must preserve and defend our Republic by using the tools that its authors provided. Tell your Congressional Representative what you think. Tell the nation – through Democracy for America – what you believe. Let's save our pessimism for better times.

Peace,
Dennis

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Dennis Kucinich Pushes for Cheney Impeachment Articles


November 6th, 2007 3:15 pm
Dennis Kucinich Pushes for Cheney Impeachment Articles

FOX News

WASHINGTON — Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich made a procedural move on the House floor Tuesday to call up a vote on the Democratic presidential candidate's resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney, although the effort could be stopped in its tracks before the end of the day.

In the resolution, which was introduced in April and has 21 co-sponsors, Kucinich accuses Cheney of lying to Congress and the U.S. public in order to enter into a war in Iraq, and of trying to mislead again in order to start a war with Iran. Kucinich took about 15 minutes Tuesday to read the resolution into the record on the House floor.

After considering his motion, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi allowed the resolution to come up for debate.

But prospects for success on his effort to pass the resolution don't appear strong. A key Democrat on Tuesday reaffirmed that congressional leaders aren't keen on Kucinich's resolution.

"Impeachment is not on our agenda. We have some major priorities. We need to focus on those," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, adding that he planned on killing the effort.

Previewing his remarks on Monday, Kucinich issued a statement saying: "The vice president is cherry-picking intelligence and selectively using facts in a manner that does not portray the complete picture."

"The best option to prevent an unnecessary war with Iran is to impeach the vice president, the lead cheerleader of the war. The Constitution gave Congress the power to impeach. Congress must use its power to restrain the administration and impeach the vice president before he prods the United States into another war."

A Monday evening conference call intended to discuss Tuesday's plan might have foretold its future. Kucinich presidential campaign co-coordinator Herbert Hoffman said the scheduled call with resolution sponsors was canceled after suffering a fatal "technical failure."

Death of the resolution also is the preferable route for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who indicated through her spokesman Monday that impeachment is off the table.

"We're focused on redeploying our troops out of Iraq, covering 10 million uninsured children and meeting our national priorities long neglected by the Bush administration," said Pelosi aide Nadeam Elshami.

FOX News' Chad Pergram and Molly Hooper contributed to this report.

Friday, October 05, 2007

Bush vetoes child health insurance plan

October 3rd, 2007 12:17 pm

Bush vetoes child health insurance plan

By Jennifer Loven / Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.

Democrats unleashed a stream of harsh rhetoric, as they geared up for a battle to both improve their chances of winning a veto override and score political points against Republicans who oppose the expansion.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried Bush's action as a "heartless veto."

"Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America."

Democratic congressional leaders said they may put off the override attempt for as long as two weeks to maximize pressure on Republican House members whose votes will be critical.

"We remain committed to making SCHIP into law — with or without the president's support," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., referring to the full name of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

The White House sought little attention for Bush's action, with the president casting his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage. He defended it later Wednesday during a budget speech in Lancaster, Pa., addressing a welcoming audience organized by the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry in GOP-friendly Pennsylvania Dutch country.

"Poor kids first," Bush said. "Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system."

But he seemed eager to avert a full-scale showdown over the difficult issue, offering that he is "more than willing" to negotiate with lawmakers "if they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children."

The program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The president argued that the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far beyond its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He has proposed only a $5 billion increase in funding.

Democrats deny Bush's charge that their plan is a move toward socialized medicine that short-changes the poor, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, over 6 million are under 18 years old. That's over 9 percent of all children.

Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate, enough to override Bush's veto. But in the House, supporters of the bill are about two dozen votes short of a successful override, despite sizable Republican support. A two-thirds majority in both chambers is needed.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Democrats were imploring 15 House Republicans to switch positions but had received no agreements so far.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was "absolutely confident" that the House would be able to sustain Bush's expected veto.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Congress should be able to reach a compromise with Bush once he vetoes the bill. "We should not allow it to be expanded to higher and higher income levels, and to adults. This is about poor children," he said. "But we can work it out."

It took Bush six years to veto his first bill, when he blocked expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells last summer. In May, he vetoed a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq. In June, he vetoed another bill to ease restraints on federally funded stem cell research.

In the case of the health insurance program, the veto is a bit of a high-stakes gambit for Bush, pitting him against both the Democrats who have controlled both houses of Congress since January, but also many members of his own party and the public.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched radio ads Monday attacking eight GOP House members who voted against the bill and face potentially tough re-election campaigns next year.

And Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said a coalition of liberal groups was staging more than 200 events throughout the nation on Thursday to highlight the issue. The group, which includes MoveOn.org, and several unions, also has a goal of more than 1 million contacts to Congress through calls, letters and e-mails demanding that lawmakers override Bush's veto. The coalition is spending $3 million to $5 million on the effort.

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Saddam Wanted Out, Bush Lied About it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

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

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


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

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

Although I have no doubt that if the whole world voted, the United States, and especially the Presidunce in charge of Decidering, would be declared the world's leading terrorist, Bush seems it differently and branded Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism" and raised the specter of a "nuclear holocaust." I'm in the camp that isn't positive that this is just Bush bluster. Today Raw Story cites a credible study that says Bush is preparing a massive strike against Iran.
The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure, using long-range bombers and missiles, according to a new analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

America's biggest threat comes from within

America’s biggest threat comes from within

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, August 13, 2007

The "SICKO" Man Bush

HEALTHCARE & THE WAR ARE "SICKO"

HEALTHCARE & THE WAR ARE “SiCKO

Did you know?

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

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

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

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

• Stop the epidemic of hospital closings;

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

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

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

GET INVOLVED:

1) Endorse

2) Become a volunteer organizer

3) Donate

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

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

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

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

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

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

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

May 29, 2007

Dear Mr. Giuliani,

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Reggie Cervantes
Bill Maher

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

White House preparing to stage new September 11 !!!

White House preparing to stage new September 11 - Reagan official

13:58 | 20/ 07/ 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Please John Conyers: Impeach Bush NOW

jbcard's Xanga Site

Please John Conyers: Impeach Bush NOW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action items:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Support our efforts by contributing to ImpeachPAC.

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

Mike Gravel for President !!!

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

Anyone who ISN'T angry,

just isn't paying ATTENTION !!

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

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

THEN they stole ANOTHER ELECTION !!

Between the audacity of blaming arabs who turned up alive,

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

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

or mysteriously vanishing jets, AND BLACK BOXES,

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

or $2.3 TRILLION missing on 9/10,

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

or NORAD missing throughout 9/11,

or WMD's missing from Iraq,

or Sadam not even being INVOLVED WITH 9/11,

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

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

DAMNED RIGHT HE'S ANGRY !!!!

SO THE HELL AM I !!!!

Radical Priest,

Reverend Michael Valentine Goldsun

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

9/11=PNAC Plot

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

Mike Gravel for President !!!

After debate, little-known Democrat draws a crowd

April 28, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Posted May 3rd 2007 7:58AM by Jeff
Filed under: Elections, Democrats
Mike Gravel a Democratic candidate for President says that he would legalize Marijuana. He makes that very clear at around the five minute mark of this CSPAN call in show. I understand the idea is a long shot, but at least one politician is putting it out there. Prisons are full of American Marijuana users and maybe also Canadians soon.
This clip is the second part of four from his May 1st appearance on CSPAN. The full program can be watched here.

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

Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 5)

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

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

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

Kudos, Mr. Gravel, kudos!

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Bush is a nut case !!!

The Delusions Never End Hotlist

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

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

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

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

while Broder thinks

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

54 Representatives that cave for Bush

Primary 2008 List

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

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

911 Mysteries

The best 911 video sofar !!!


Check it out :


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

Why I leave the Democratic Party

An Open Letter to the Democratic Congress
By Cindy Sheehan

Dublin, Ireland

Dear Democratic Congress,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We gave you a chance, you betrayed us.

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

Founder and Director of
The Camp Casey Peace Institute

Eternally grieving mother of Casey Sheehan

Why I leave the Democratic Party

An Open Letter to the Democratic Congress
By Cindy Sheehan

Dublin, Ireland

Dear Democratic Congress,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We gave you a chance, you betrayed us.

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

Founder and Director of
The Camp Casey Peace Institute

Eternally grieving mother of Casey Sheehan