BUSH..IT !! Blog

No Crony Left Behind

2007-12-28T12:29:00.001-08:00

Read More: Bush Education, Education, McGraw Hill, McGraw Hill Testing, Nclb, Neil Bush, No Child Left Behind, Breaking Politics News

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.

US Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003

2007-12-04T22:59:00.000-08:00

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.”

'IT'S TIME TO IMPEACH CHENEY'

2007-11-16T23:04:00.000-08:00

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

Dennis Kucinich Pushes for Cheney Impeachment Articles

2007-11-08T19:33:00.000-08:00

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.

911 Ripple Effect: Full Length Video

2007-10-12T13:02:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Xanga!

People look at this 911 video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9127706080717077488

Bush vetoes child health insurance plan

2007-10-05T10:37:00.001-07:00

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.

Saddam Wanted Out, Bush Lied About it

2007-09-30T17:40:00.001-07:00

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.

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

2007-09-26T13:59:00.000-07:00

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.

America's biggest threat comes from within

2007-08-29T21:58:00.000-07:00

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.”

The "SICKO" Man Bush

2007-08-13T20:49:00.001-07:00

HEALTHCARE & THE WAR ARE "SICKO"

2007-08-13T20:36:00.001-07:00

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.

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

2007-07-31T22:18:00.000-07:00

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

White House preparing to stage new September 11 !!!

2007-07-24T21:00:00.001-07:00

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.

Please John Conyers: Impeach Bush NOW

2007-06-03T21:45:00.000-07:00

jbcard's Xanga Site

Please John Conyers: Impeach Bush NOW

Submitted by Bob Fertik on March 3, 2006 - 9:19pm.

Impeachment

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 !!!

2007-06-03T16:17:00.000-07:00

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

Submitted by radical Priest on Sat, 2007-04-28 12:54.

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 !!!

2007-06-03T16:05:00.000-07:00

After debate, little-known Democrat draws a crowd

April 28, 2007

By Joe Lauria, Globe Correspondent | 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

2007-06-03T15:48:00.000-07:00

"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.

Permalink
Email this
Linking Blogs
Comments [73]
Share this
- Add this post to...
- Netscape
- Digg
- Del.icio.us

Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 5)

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

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!

Bush is a nut case !!!

2007-05-31T15:30:00.000-07:00

The Delusions Never End

by mcjoan

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.

54 Representatives that cave for Bush

2007-05-30T23:26:00.001-07:00

Primary 2008 List

Submitted by Bob Fertik on May 30, 2007 - 12:52pm.

Democratic Primary Challenges

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

2007-05-30T22:47:00.000-07:00

The best 911 video sofar !!!

Check it out :

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

Why I leave the Democratic Party

2007-05-30T22:40:00.002-07:00

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

2007-05-30T22:40:00.001-07:00

thanks Nancy-- you're a war criminal now......

2007-05-24T17:24:00.000-07:00

thanks Nancy-- you're a war criminal now....

I hope Pelosi and Reid join jr and the Dick in the Hague for their crimes against humanity someday.

When The Dems Go Home For The Memorial Day Holiday They......

2007-05-24T17:06:00.000-07:00

When The Dems Go Home For The Memorial Day Holiday They......

might as well just stay there. They have caved once again. All the tough talk and then they give in. Bush gets his way again. Bush wins. The minority Repugs win. The neocons win. Dick Cheney wins.

Deal with it folks - we lost. We lost in the Nov '06 election. We elected a bunch of wienies. They folded.

Now Bush can say again - well they must be for this war - they voted to give me the money to continue.

More of the same folks.

Are you happy.

And to boot - we have to pay $4.00/gallon for gas.

Rub our nose in it will you.

So - we can expect to see Bush and Cheney and Rove and Condi and Gonzo and Snow and Hannity and Rush and Coulter, etc, etc, etc - gloat once again.

600 or so more days of these criminals - at least I hope that's all. But who knows what awaits us - perhaps another stolen election. Perhaps another coincidental attack on our soil. Perhaps martial law.

Wow - something to look forward to.

Let me say this as well - it's going to be hard to even vote for a Dem in Nov 08 now - as they never do what the people want them to do.

When

911 Mysteries (video about 911) !!!

2007-05-23T20:16:00.000-07:00

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043&q=911+mysteries

Check the 911 video above: awsome. If you want to know the truth about 911, do it.

911 Mysteries !!!

2007-05-23T09:56:00.000-07:00

http://www.911weknow.com/911-mysteries-movie.html

Check the link above.

That is the best 911 documentary that I have seen.

Check it out !!

Impeach Bush and Cheney !!!

2007-05-22T17:01:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Impeach Bush and Cheney !!!

Media No Longer Even Mentioning Absence of Deadline in War Funding Bill | AfterDowningStreet.org

MichaelMoore.com : Statement in Response to Bush Administration's Investigation of 'SiCKO'

2007-05-18T09:46:00.000-07:00

MichaelMoore.com : Statement in Response to Bush Administration's Investigation of 'SiCKO': "May 10th, 2007 9:34 am
Statement in Response to Bush Administration's Investigation of 'SiCKO'

'SiCKO,' Michael Moore's new movie, will rip the band-aid off America's health care industry. Premiering at the Cannes Film Festival in just one week and opening across the U.S. on June 29th, 'SiCKO' will expose the corporations that place profit before care and the politicians who care only about money. Our health care system is broken and, all too often, deadly. The efforts of the Bush Administration to conduct a politically motivated investigation of Michael Moore and 'SiCKO' will not stop us from making sure the American people see this film.

On September 11, 2001 this country was attacked. Thousands of Americans responded with heroism and courage, toiling for days, weeks and months in the ruins at Ground Zero. These 9/11 first responders risked their lives searching for survivors, recovering bodies, and clearing away toxic rubble. Now, many of these heroes face serious health issues -- and far too many of them are not receiving the care they need and deserve. President Bush and the Bush Administration should be spending their time trying to help these heroes get health care instead of abusing the legal process to advance a political agenda.

-- Meghan O'Hara, Producer, SiCKO"

Stop Blackwater USA

2007-05-18T09:41:00.000-07:00

Stop Blackwater USA

StopBlackwater.net

View of Round Potrero Valley, where the training camp is proposed. This is a valley that should be returned to its native state and to the wildlife in the Cleveland National Forest.

Remember the bill passed just before the November elections to fund the military? ("John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007" (H.R. 5122)) Well, hidden in that bill are provisions that seriously weaken two bulwarks of liberty--the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act of 1807--by expanding the power of the president to declare martial law and use troops as a domestic police force in response to a "public emergency" or any "other condition". Blackwater troops (which were deployed domestically in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina) or other private mercenary and paramilitary forces pose a severe threat to the civil liberties of the American people and now could be deployed to quell public dissent, put down popular uprisings, or even to stop opposing points of view through intimidation or outright force.

These are bases of an invading force that is bent on stealing our country from us, right under our noses! CONNECT THE DOTS!

Blackwater USA, one of the largest private military contractors in the world, has proposed "Blackwater West" to be built in a valley just north of the small town of Potrero, in East San Diego County. The facility will comprise 824 acres, and includes a portion of the Cleveland National Forest. The valley is one of a chain of valleys starting in Descanso, part of the original two-million acre preserve originally designated by Teddy Roosevelt. Since then, it has been reduced to 650K acres, and swiss-cheesed with private ownership. This valley has been used as a chicken ranch.

The proposed boot camp will substantially develop the property and utilize it for target practice using pistols and carbines, a two-mile race track for emergency vehicle training, an 18,000 sqft armory (almost 1/2 acre of guns and ammo,) dormitories, mess hall, etc. The intention is to service 15,000 soldiers each year (300 per week) with 60 staff in residence on site.

Learn more...(Enter wiki site)

Jeremy Scahill -- Came to San Diego May 1/2

Video of his presentation is available on the website (Click above)...

Potrero Planning Group Meeting 10 May 2007

This PPG meeting is going to be intense. I imagine that we will have all the local and national news media present. At the same time, Potrero Planning Group chair Gordon Hammers is going to try to avoid the issue of Blackwater, by claiming that nothing can be said due to the lawsuit. It looks now like Gordon is being forced to keep the meeting OPEN per the County Counsel.

I have drafted some proposed talking points for residents to speak to. I will be able to pass these out prior to the meeting. Please ask me for talking points if you want some suggestions OR WRITE YOUR OWN SPEECH, about 1 page usually is all you'll have time for.

Our goal is to be VERY APPROPRIATE AND DEAL WITH THE ISSUES, not just spout off. This will make the PPG look ridiculous as they haven't dealt with any of these issues, and I'm sure Gordon will respond to them anyway, as he can't seem to stop talking as if he works for Blackwater.

MORE DETAIL HERE: Click to View Meeting Information

I also recommend that we have small (letter size) signs that say "NO CLOSED SESSION" "STOP BLACKWATER" "SAVE POTRERO" etc. as these will be visible by the media.

OUTSIDE, all other protesters, large signs, etc. WE SHOULD RESERVE THE ROOM FOR THE POTRERO RESIDENTS AND THOSE WHO PLAN TO SPEAK. However, the outside protesters should be in place by 6pm to have the maximum effect! Everyone arriving at the meeting will see the signs and the massive number of protesters.

THIS MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT MEETING TO TURN THE TIDE AND STOP BLACKWATER!!!

MichaelMoore.com : Open Letter from Michael Moore to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson

2007-05-16T09:33:00.000-07:00

MichaelMoore.com : Open Letter from Michael Moore to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson

Friday, May 11th, 2007
Open Letter from Michael Moore to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson

Secretary Henry Paulson
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20220

May 11, 2007

Secretary Paulson,

I am contacting you in light of the document sent to me dated May 2, 2007, which was received May 7, 2007 indicating that an investigation has been opened up with regards to a trip I took to Cuba with a group of Americans that included some 9/11 heroes in March 2007 related to the filming of my next documentary, on the American Healthcare system. SiCKO, which will be seen in theaters this summer, will expose the health care industry’s greed and control over America’s political processes.

I believe that the decision to conduct this investigation represents the latest example of the Bush Administration abusing the federal government for raw, crass, political purposes. Over the last seven years of the Bush Presidency, we have seen the abuse of government to promote a political agenda designed to benefit the conservative base of the Republican Party, special interests and major financial contributors. From holding secret meetings for the energy industry to re-writing science findings to cooking the books on intelligence to the firing of U.S. Attorneys, this Administration has shown time and time again that it will abuse its power and authority.

There are a number of specific facts that have led me to conclude that politics could very well be driving this Bush Administration investigation of me and my film.

First, the Bush Administration has been aware of this matter for months (since October 2006) and never took any action until less than two weeks before SiCKO is set to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival and a little more than a month before it is scheduled to open in the United States.

Second, the health care and insurance industry, which is exposed in the movie and has expressed concerns about the impact of the movie on their industries, is a major corporate underwriter of President George W. Bush and the Republican Party, having contributed over $13 million to the Bush presidential campaign in 2004 and more than $180 million to Republican candidates over the last two campaign cycles. It is well documented that the industry is very concerned about the impact of SiCKO. They have threatened their employees if they talk to me. They have set up special internal crises lines should I show up at their headquarters. Employees have been warned about the consequences of participating in SiCKO. Despite this, some employees, at great risk to themselves, have gone on camera to tell the American people the truth about the health care industry. I can understand why that industry's main recipient of its contributions -- President Bush -- would want to harass, intimidate and potentially prevent this film from having its widest possible audience.

And, third, this investigation is being opened in the wake of misleading attacks on the purpose of the Cuba trip from a possible leading Republican candidate for president, Fred Thompson, a major conservative newspaper, The New York Post, and various right wing blogs.

For five and a half years, the Bush administration has ignored and neglected the heroes of the 9/11 community. These heroic first responders have been left to fend for themselves, without coverage and without care. I understand why the Bush administration is coming after me -- I have tried to help the very people they refuse to help, but until George W. Bush outlaws helping your fellow man, I have broken no laws and I have nothing to hide.

I demand that the Bush Administration immediately end this investigation and spend its time and resources trying to support some of the real heroes of 9/11.

Sincerely,

Michael Moore

Other items in this section

Recent Letters

Tuesday, May 15th, 2007
A Challenge from Michael Moore to Presidential Hopeful Fred Thompson

Friday, May 11th, 2007
Open Letter from Michael Moore to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson

Thursday, April 19th, 2007
'SiCKO' Selected for Cannes Film Festival!

Wednesday, January 10th, 2007
Dear Mr. President: Send Even MORE Troops (and you go, too!) ...from Michael Moore

Sunday, December 24th, 2006
Some Christmas Pudding from Michael Moore

Wednesday, November 29th, 2006
Cut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do ...a letter from Michael Moore

Tuesday, November 14th, 2006
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore

Wednesday, November 8th, 2006
LANDSLIDE! ...a big thanks from Michael Moore

Tuesday, November 7th, 2006
5 Good Reasons to Vote Today ... a letter from Michael Moore

Monday, November 6th, 2006
The Race Between the Right Wing and the Right Thing ...a message from Michael Moore

Check out the Archive

The evil bastard Farwell is gone !!!

2007-05-15T19:00:00.000-07:00

The fat evil bastard Farwell is finally gone !!!

There is another 7 of these Right-Christians that need to go soon !!!

Blackwater:The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army

2007-05-15T18:59:00.000-07:00

Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army
by Jeremy Scahill

(Thanks to George W. Bu$h)

March 2007 - ISBN: 156025979
[buy it now online]

Meet Blackwater USA, the powerful private army that the U.S. government has quietly hired to operate in international war zones and on American soil. With its own military base, a fleet of twenty aircraft, and twenty-thousand troops at the ready, Blackwater is the elite Praetorian Guard for the "global war on terror"--yet most people have never heard of it.

Pre-Order copies of Blackwater here.

It was the moment the war turned: On March 31, 2004, four Americans were ambushed and burned near their jeeps by an angry mob in the Sunni stronghold of Falluja. Their charred corpses were hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River. The ensuing slaughter by U.S. troops would fuel the fierce Iraqi resistance that haunts occupation forces to this day. But these men were neither American military nor civilians. They were highly trained private soldiers sent to Iraq by a secretive mercenary company based in the wilderness of North Carolina.

Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Armyis the unauthorized story of the epic rise of one of the most powerful and secretive forces to emerge from the U.S. military-industrial complex, hailed by the Bush administration as a revolution in military affairs, but considered by others as a dire threat to American democracy.

"Jeremy Scahill's exposé of the Blackwater mercenary firm forcefully demonstrates the grave dangers of outsourcing the government's monopoly on the use of force."
--Joseph Wilson, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq

"The most important and chilling book about the death throes of U.S. democracy you will read in years and a triumph of investigative reporting."
--Naomi Klein, author of No Logo

"Jeremy Scahill's comprehensive research and reporting lifts the veil off the ever-tightening relationship between the federal government and unaccountable private military corporations such as Blackwater USA."
--U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)

Jeremy Scahill is a Polk Award-winning investigative journalist. He is a frequent contributor to The Nation magazine and a correspondent for the national radio show Democracy Now! Scahill has reported extensively from Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, and Nigeria. He is currently a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill lives in Brooklyn, New York. For more on his book visit www.blackwaterbook.com.

Abo

Impeach Cheney !!!

2007-05-10T11:53:00.000-07:00

Kucinich to Sponsor Impeach Cheney Bill

by Dave Lindorff

Sources close to the office of Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) confirm that the progressive Democratic congressman and Democratic presidential aspirant intends to introduce a bill of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, April 25. The move will mark the second time that an impeachment bill has been submitted against a member of the Bush administration. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) filed a bill of impeachment against President Bush in December of last year, just as the 109th Congress was about to end, and as Rep. McKenney was about to leave office (she was defeated in last November’s election).

Kucinich’s bill will go to the Judiciary Committee, where Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and the other members will have to decide whether to request subpoena powers and to begin a hearing into impeachable offenses by the vice president.

Kucinich’s action marks a major step forward for impeachment activists, who have been frustrated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has repeatedly stated that she has no interest in having the House hold impeachment hearings against president or vice president (and who has been leaning hard on Democratic caucus members in the House not to file impeachment bills).

By bucking Pelosi and filing his bill, Kucinich may force the mainstream corporate media to start discussing the idea. There has been a virtual blackout on impeachment in the media, which has not even been asking the question in polls, since a year ago, when Pelosi made it clear she had no interest in impeachment.

Kucinich’s move comes as citizens across the country are bringing impeachment resolutions to town meetings, city councils, Democratic Party county and state committees, and even state legislatures–and getting them passed.

The Democratic Party Establishment has been resisting impeachment, fearing that it could “turn off” independent voters, although the few polls that have been conducted suggest that a majority of Americans, and even not a few Republicans, favor impeaching the president. But as the administration’s scandals have grown in number and seriousness, from financial chicanery to voter suppression to political firings of federal prosecutors to illegal spying on citizens, and as the president’s War in Iraq has lurched from bad to catastrophic, public pressure is mounting for Democrats to take tougher action.

Kucinich’s bill may not in itself put Bush’s impeachment back on the Congressional table, but it could whet the public’s appetite for more substantial fare.

Do not steal the Iraq oil !!

2007-05-10T11:11:00.000-07:00

The Democrats should remove the following article from the current bill of funding the Iraq War:

Iraq should keep only 17% of the oil proceedings, giving away 83% to the oil companies

The US should not steal the oil from the Iraq people

Call your representative in Washington at

202- 225-3121

jbcard's Xanga Site

2007-04-28T22:59:00.000-07:00

jbcard's Xanga Site

Ex-C.I.A. Chief, in Book, Assails Cheney on Iraq

Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2007-04-27 17:23. Evidence

By SCOTT SHANE and MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times

WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.

The 549-page book, “At the Center of the Storm,” is to be published by HarperCollins on Monday. By turns accusatory, defensive, and modestly self-critical, it is the first detailed account by a member of the president’s inner circle of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the decision to invade Iraq and the failure to find the unconventional weapons that were a major justification for the war.

“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

Mr. Tenet admits that he made his famous “slam dunk” remark about the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But he argues that the quote was taken out of context and that it had little impact on President Bush’s decision to go to war. He also makes clear his bitter view that the administration made him a scapegoat for the Iraq war.

A copy of the book was purchased at retail price in advance of publication by a reporter for The New York Times. Mr. Tenet described with sarcasm watching an episode of “Meet the Press” last September in which Mr. Cheney twice referred to Mr. Tenet’s “slam dunk” remark as the basis for the decision to go to war.

“I remember watching and thinking, ‘As if you needed me to say ‘slam dunk’ to convince you to go to war with Iraq,’ ” Mr. Tenet writes.

As violence in Iraq spiraled beginning in late 2003, Mr. Tenet writes, “rather than acknowledge responsibility, the administration’s message was: Don’t blame us. George Tenet and the C.I.A. got us into this mess.”

Mr. Tenet takes blame for the flawed 2002 National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq’s weapons programs, calling the episode “one of the lowest moments of my seven-year tenure.” He expresses regret that the document was not more nuanced, but says there was no doubt in his mind at the time that Saddam Hussein possessed unconventional weapons. “In retrospect, we got it wrong partly because the truth was so implausible,” he writes.

Despite such sweeping indictments, Mr. Bush, who in 2004 awarded Mr. Tenet a Presidential Medal of Freedom, is portrayed personally in a largely positive light, with particular praise for the his leadership after the 2001 attacks. “He was absolutely in charge, determined, and directed,” Mr. Tenet writes of the president, whom he describes as a blunt-spoken kindred spirit.

But Mr. Tenet largely endorses the view of administration critics that Mr. Cheney and a handful of Pentagon officials, including Paul D. Wolfowitz and Douglas J. Feith, were focused on Iraq as a threat in late 2001 and 2002 even as Mr. Tenet and the C.I.A. concentrated mostly on Al Qaeda.

Mr. Tenet describes helping to kill a planned speech by Mr. Cheney on the eve of the invasion because its claims of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq went “way beyond what the intelligence shows.”

“Mr. President, we cannot support the speech and it should not be given,” Mr. Tenet wrote that he told Mr. Bush. Mr. Cheney never delivered the remarks.

Mr. Tenet hints at some score-settling in the book. He describes in particular the extraordinary tension between him and Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, in internal debate over how the president came to say erroneously in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa.

He describes an episode in 2003, shortly after he issued a statement taking partial responsibility for that error. He said he was invited over for a Sunday afternoon, back-patio lemonade by Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state. Mr. Powell described what Mr. Tenet called “a lively debate” on Air Force One a few days before about whether the White House should continue to support Mr. Tenet as C.I.A. director.

“In the end, the president said yes, and said so publicly,” Mr. Tenet wrote. “But Colin let me know that other officials, particularly the vice president, had quite another view.”

He writes that the controversy over who was to blame for the State of the Union error was the beginning of the end of his tenure. After the finger-pointing between the White House and the C.I.A., he wrote, “My relationship with the administration was forever changed.”

Mr. Tenet also says in the book that he had been “not at all sure I wanted to accept” the Medal of Freedom. He agreed after he saw that the citation “was all about the C.I.A.’s work against terrorism, not Iraq.”

He also expresses skepticism about whether the increase in troops in Iraq will prove successful. “It may have worked more than three years ago,” he wrote. “My fear is that sectarian violence in Iraq has taken on a life of its own and that U.S. forces are becoming more and more irrelevant to the management of that violence.”

Mr. Tenet says he decided to write the memoir in part because the infamous “slam dunk” episode had come to define his tenure at C.I.A.

He gives a detailed account of the episode, which occurred during an Oval Office meeting in December 2002 when the administration was preparing to make public its case for war against Iraq.

During the meeting, the deputy C.I.A. director, John McLaughlin, unveiled a draft of a proposed public presentation that left the group unimpressed. Mr. Tenet recalls that Mr. Bush suggested that they could “add punch” by bringing in lawyers trained to argue cases before a jury.

“I told the president that strengthening the public presentation was a ‘slam dunk,’ a phrase that was later taken completely out of context,” Mr. Tenet writes. “If I had simply said, ‘I’m sure we can do better,’ I wouldn’t be writing this chapter — or maybe even this book.”

Mr. Tenet has spoken rarely in public, and never so caustically, since stepping down in July 2004.

Asked about Mr. Tenet’s assertions, a White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe, defended the prewar deliberations on Thursday. “The president made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein for a number of reasons, mainly the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s own actions, and only after a thorough and lengthy assessment of all available information as well as Congressional authorization,” the spokesman said.

The book recounts C.I.A. efforts to fight Al Qaeda in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks, and Mr. Tenet’s early warnings about Osama bin Laden. He contends that the urgent appeals of the C.I.A. on terrorism received a lukewarm reception at the Bush White House through most of 2001.

“The bureaucracy moved slowly,” and only after the Sept. 11 attacks was the C.I.A. given the counterterrorism powers it had requested earlier in the year.

Mr. Tenet confesses to “a black, black time” two months after the 2001 attacks when, sitting in front of his house in his favorite Adirondack chair, he “just lost it.”

“I thought about all the people who had died and what we had been through in the months since,” he writes. “What am I doing here? Why me?” Mr. Tenet gives a vigorous defense of the C.I.A.’s program to hold captured Qaeda members in secret overseas jails and to question them with harsh techniques, which he does not explicitly describe.

Mr. Tenet expresses puzzlement that, since 2001, Al Qaeda has not sent “suicide bombers to cause chaos in a half-dozen American shopping malls on any given day.”

“I do know one thing in my gut,” he writes. “Al Qaeda is here and waiting.”

David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington, and Julie Bosman from New York.

A28: Nationwide Impeachment Protests April 28, 2007

2007-04-28T11:23:00.000-07:00

A28: Nationwide Impeachment Protests April 28, 2007

Visit:

http://network.a28.org/

IMPEACH BUSH and CHENEY !!!

2007-04-19T21:35:00.000-07:00

The Bush Crime Family:

Bush Senior
Bush son
Cheney
Rove
Rumsfeld
Wolfwitz

If we had a truly democratic goverment,

Bush and Cheney would have been impeached by now.

Only in US this can happen:

The people is against the Iraq war, and against all the corruption perpetrated by he Bush Crime Family with the help of the Supreme court judges anf the help of the US Attorney general: The "Gonzo man" from Texas and a puppet of Bush.

GW Bush the Anti-Christ himself must go along with all his fellow tugs.

"The Bush Crime family is responsible for the death of about 600,000 civil Iraq citizens".

Bush is not a Christian, he is an alcoholic and a drug addict.

Bush's only interest in life is to steal the oil from the Middle-East (Iraq and others) and to bankrupt America. The US debt is the highest ever. Bush wants to end with social security, medicare, healthcare. He wants to destroy the American middle class and poor people. He favors the Corporations and Pharmaceutical Companies.

Call your Senator and House Representative and ask for impeachment Proceedings to start.

'Three Years Ago Today' ...by Cindy Sheehan

2007-04-04T21:36:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007
'Three Years Ago Today' ...by Cindy Sheehan

Three years ago today I was a "normal" American mother with four children, a marriage of almost 27 years and a boring 8 to 5 job. On April 3, 2004, I went to a nearby mall and bought a new outfit for work and two CDs: Evanescence and White Stripes. I was dreadfully worried about Casey, but I didn't know that my world was about to be turned upside down.

Three years ago today, my oldest son was deployed to a war zone in a conflict that never should have happened and because of the illegal invasion and immoral occupation, was soon to be killed. My oldest daughter, Carly, was excited about transferring to university soon; my 2nd son, Andy, was doing well as a surveyor's apprentice; and my youngest daughter, Janey, was on spring break in her senior year of high school.

Three years ago today, if I thought about my marriage at all, being so distracted by my worry for Casey, I would have imagined Pat and I growing old(er) together with a passel of grandchildren we could spoil surrounding us. I always dreamed of 2 daughters-in-law and 2 sons-in-law to increase our happy family. Unfortunately, our marriage was a victim of King George's war of terror. I never understood why marriages break up after the death of a child, until I experienced it. After surviving so many other stressors, Casey's death was the proverbial straw that broke our marriage's back.

Three years ago today, the light green spring suit that I bought for work became the suit I wore on the sunny-surreal day that we buried Casey. The men looked so handsome in their new dark suits and the girls also looked beautiful in their new outfits which part of the "death benefit" purchased. Casey looked so peaceful in his dress greens; lying in his coffin like he was asleep. He was asleep---asleep forever at the age of 24 before he could marry that daughter-in-law for us or have those grandchildren. Asleep forever before he could finish college and become an elementary school teacher. Asleep forever before he could become a permanent Deacon in the Catholic Church. Unnaturally asleep forever before three of his grandparents and his mother and father.

Three years ago today, I disagreed with the occupation of Iraq and with King George, but I never raised my voice; wrote a letter; or marched in protest. I didn't believe that my voice could have one slight bit of effect on the discourse in this country. After all, King George had called millions of people around the world who marched in protest of the impending invasion, a focus group. What would he call one more voice? A flea? I bought into the propaganda that one person can't make a difference and spent my entire adult life protecting my own family and circling the wagons around my own children and our comfort. Three years ago today, I didn't know that my tunnel vision was going to cost Casey his life and my family our comfort and would end up tearing us apart.

Three years ago today, I didn't know that the term "broken heart" wasn't figurative, but literal. I didn't know that the pain of child-birth was a cakewalk compared to the pain of child-death. I didn't know that a person could scream so long and so loud without having a heart attack or stroke. I didn't know that a person could even survive such psychic shock. I didn't know that a person could actually become a stronger person after such a debilitating pain; a pain that just becomes a constant dull agonizing ache.

Three years ago today, Casey was alive and didn't know that it was his last day on this earth. Casey and seven of his buddies, including Mike Mitchell whose family has become intertwined with ours in grief and resolve to end this devastating war, were unaware that Bloody King George had numbered their days and their numbers were soon to be up.

To me, three years ago today is a lifetime away, but yet seems so close. To me, the world was a vastly different place three years ago today. Today is another beautiful Northern California day. Sun shining, birds singing, neighbors living their lives not even aware that the paradigm shifted for the Sheehans on April 04, 2004. But today, the air is less sweet and even though the birds still sing as though Casey were alive, their songs don't sound the same to me.

How many families in Iraq and America will be affected by George's war of terror today or tomorrow? How many are in a state of shock, disbelief and pain today because of yesterday? How long are we the people going to allow Congress and King George off the hook for this unremitting and unrelenting pain and destruction?

Today, tomorrow, yesterday, and forever, I will miss and mourn Casey.

My son, my friend, and my hero.

April 3rd, 2007 11:56 pmUS troops will pay if war funding blocked: Bush

2007-04-04T21:18:00.000-07:00

April 3rd, 2007 11:56 pm
US troops will pay if war funding blocked: Bush

(AFP) -- President George W. Bush lashed out at US lawmakers Tuesday, warning that a fight over war funding will only hurt US troops in Iraq and scolding Congress for going on holiday despite unfinished business.

If Congress does not approve a war funding bill in coming weeks, "the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones," Bush told reporters.

"The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front line also means that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines," Bush warned.

"And others can see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people."

Bush renewed his vow to use his presidential powers to veto a bill which ties funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a timetable to end the US presence in Iraq.

Monday, Senate Democrats raised the stakes in the bitter fight, unveiling a new bid to cut off nearly all funding for the Iraq war after March 31, 2008 if Bush vetoes the bill they plan to submit to the White House.

The date was set as a goal for withdrawing most combat troops in the 122 billion war budget bill passed by the Senate.

The measure, co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Russ Feingold, would permit funding only for operations against Al-Qaeda, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and protecting US personnel and installations.

But Bush hit out at US lawmakers for being irresponsible, and urged Congress to make good on its pledges of support for US troops.

"Congress's most basic responsibilities (are) to give our troops the equipment and training they need to fight our enemies and to protect our nation. They're now failing in that responsibility," he said.

"Now they have left Washington for spring recess without finishing the work. Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq."

Democrats plan to officially unveil the new legislation on April 10 when the Senate returns from its Easter break.

Senator Hillary Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for the 2008 presidential election, urged supporters to petition Bush to drop his veto threat.

"The American people have had enough of the president's failed strategy in Iraq," read the message on Clinton's presidential campaign website.

"Join Hillary in telling him to listen to the will of the people and to Congress, withdraw his veto threat, and begin phased deployment of the troops out of Iraq."

Reid said Monday he would aim to bring the bill back before Senate if the president were to veto it, and Feingold told supporters via email: "Our bill funds the troops, it just de-funds the war."

It is a high-stakes poker game. Democrats who swept to power in November's election still lack the large majorities in the two-chamber Congress needed to overcome a Bush veto, and they are depending on widespread fatigue over the war to keep the public on their side.

The White House is also playing to the public, declaring that Congress is giving the enemy a timetable to take over.

Negotiators in Congress are spending the current recess reconciling the House and Senate versions of the budget bill so a compromise version can be sent to Bush's desk for signing.

The House version of the war budget contains a withdrawal deadline of August 31, 2008.

Vice President Dick Cheney warned on Monday the United States faced defeat in Iraq if Democrats succeed in imposing withdrawal.

"When members of Congress speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines, or other arbitrary measures, they're telling the enemy to simply watch the clock and wait us out," he said.

Impeach Bush !!!!

2007-03-26T18:58:00.000-07:00

March 25th, 2007 5:59 pm
Hagel: Some See Impeachment As Option

GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel: Some Lawmakers See Impeachment As Option if Bush Continues Iraq Strategy

By Hope Yen / Associated Press

WASHINGTON - With his go-it-alone approach on Iraq, President Bush is flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy, a senator from Bush's own party said Sunday.

Meanwhile, the Senate's No. 2 Republican leader harshly criticized House Democrats for setting an "artificial date" for withdrawing troops from Iraq and said he believes Republicans have enough votes to prevent passage of a similar bill in the Senate.

"We need to put that kind of decision in the hands of our commanders who are there on the ground with the men and women," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. "For Congress to impose an artificial date of any kind is totally irresponsible."

GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed if a president really believes that, then there are what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.

The Senate planned to begin debate Monday on a war spending bill that would set a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the removal of combat troops.

That comes after the House narrowly passed a bill Friday that would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements.

On Sunday, Hagel said he was bothered by Bush's apparent disregard of congressional sentiment on Iraq, such as his decision to send additional troops. He said lawmakers now stood ready to stand up to the president when necessary.

In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who doesn't believe he's accountable to anyone. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes," Hagel told the magazine.

In his weekly address Saturday, Bush accused Democrats of partisanship in the House vote and said it would cut the number of troops below a level that U.S. military commanders say they need. Vice President Dick Cheney also accused Democrats of undermining U.S. troops in Iraq and of sending a message to terrorists that America will retreat in the face danger.

"We have clearly a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort," Hagel said. "It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as to our involvement."

"This is not a monarchy," he added, referring to the possibility that some lawmakers may seek impeachment. "There are ways to deal with it. And I would hope the president understands that."

Lott said setting withdrawal dates is a futile and potentially dangerous exercise because Bush has made clear he will veto any such legislation.

"There are members in the Senate in both parties that are not comfortable with how things have gone in Iraq," Lott said. "But they understand that artificial timetables, even as goals, are a problem. ...We will try to take out the arbitrary dates."

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the Senate bill seeks to heed the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group by setting a goal of withdrawing some troops while leaving others behind to train the Iraqi army for border patrol and other missions.

"That, combined with a very aggressive, diplomatic effort in the region is what we're going to need to have," he said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she believed that setting a timetable was appropriate but declined to predict whether it would garner enough Senate votes to pass.

"People of this country have spoken overwhelmingly. It's been constant now," Feinstein said. "They want us out. It is time for the Senate to weigh in. I hope we will have the votes."

Hagel spoke on ABC's "This Week," Feinstein and Lott appeared on "Fox News Sunday," and Nelson was on CNN's "Late Edition

IMPEACH BUSH !!!I

2007-03-22T21:00:00.000-07:00

IMPEACH BUSH !!!!!!!

IMPEACH BUSH !!!!

IMPEACH BUSH !!!

NOW !!!!!

'Betrayals' ...by Cindy Sheehan

2007-03-12T20:26:00.000-07:00

Monday, March 12th, 2007
'Betrayals' ...by Cindy Sheehan

In the past week, my travels have taken me to 15 different cities in New England holding impeachment teach-ins.

Admittedly, we were speaking to converted, mostly singing, Impeachment Choir members, but still, the outrage against the crimes of the BushCo is palpable and profound.

I can also feel the frustration mounting against the Democratic Party who did nothing to check the outright criminals squatting in the White House and Blair House for the first six years of unmitigated disaster because they were not “in power.” Now that the Dems are “in power” they are still doing nothing to rein in the reign of King George the Terrible. What is Congress’ excuse now? It is unfathomable that they have not already courageously acted against BushCo! Instead of inviting George to speak at the recent Dem retreat, they should have had him handcuffed!

As Chalmers Johnson says in his fabulous book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic:

When it comes to the deliberate dismantling of the Constitution, however, the events that followed the Supreme Court’s intervention in the election of 2000 that named George W. Bush the forty-third president have proved unprecedented...If the United States has neither the means nor the will to overcome this crisis, then we have entered the last days of the Republic.

Our Republic has the means (Articles of Impeachment) to overcome the shocking crisis we have found ourselves in, but where is the will? I was thrilled with my fellow Americans when we went out to vote in record numbers against George Bush and his failed war and disastrous foreign and domestic policies. I was not optimistic though that a change in Congressional power would make a difference in the war. I knew that the struggle for peace must continue full force with the Dems as we had been doing with a Republican controlled government for years. I found that criticizing Democrats for behaving the same way as Republicans is not popular in some “liberal” circles, but the occupation of Iraq is not popular in most circles and the Democrats are not doing anything constructive to obstruct the Bush Regime.

One of my idols, Congressman John Conyers was on Amy Goodman shortly after the January 27th rally and march in DC where he proclaimed that we could “fire” George Bush. Amy asked him how we could do that short of impeachment and Mr. Conyers said that impeachment was a “luxury.” Many people feel that for peace and justice to once again come to our world that impeachment is about as much of a luxury to humanity as oxygen is. I found it ironic, also, that at the end of a week where Congress spent the entire time debating a NON-binding, meaningless resolution against the occupation; Mr. Conyers called impeachment a “waste of time.”

George Bush is well into the seventh and penultimate year of his mind-boggling and injurious presidency and he only becomes more defiant and obstinate about holding onto an occupation that is destroying at least two countries and leading this country down a path to becoming a rogue state with vast and appalling nuclear capabilities. However, a few weeks ago, he finally said something that I agreed with. If Congress really feels strongly about ending the occupation, they would not send him meaningless NON-binding resolutions, but they would vote “nay” on the next supplemental one hundred billions of more dollars that he is asking for to wage his war of terror. I totally agree, but he and Congress are immorally using the “support the troops” anti-troop excuse to give a psychopathic killer more money to kill more of our troops and more innocent Iraqi babies.

Our troops have never been supported in the field in Iraq and I have news for people who are breaking the back of our military to continue to line the pockets of the war machine: OUR TROOPS DON’T NEED SUPPORT IN THE FIELD, IF THEY ARE BROUGHT HOME. It is as simple and pure as that. Use the money that has already been appropriated to fund a safe and speedy withdrawal and use future monies to fully fund the VA system to take care of our veterans and to pay reparations to the peoples of Iraq.

The Iraqi people, our troops, the darling baby girl sitting in front of me and the two toddler boys behind me who have been kicking the back of my seat for about two hours now on this plane and the rest of the children of the world, do not have the “luxury” of waiting for peace and accountability. Roughly one Iraqi has been killed for every ten minutes of the occupation; one American soldier dies every ten hours and ten billion dollars an hour have been stolen from our families and communities by the new robber barons of the 21st century.

BushCo has continually and consistently betrayed its position as officers of the public trust and Congress is following suit by allowing it to get away with its transgressions.

The planet cannot afford two more years of the Bush regime. We can only be betrayed if we allow the treachery to continue.

We voted for change on November 7th. Now let’s make sure our votes count.

Call Congressman Conyers.

Call Speaker Pelosi.

Call your Congressional Representative.

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Sheehan who was killed in Bush's war of terror on 04/04/04.

She is the co-founder and president of Gold Star Families for Peace and The Camp Casey Peace Institute.

[Click here to call for impeachment]

2007-03-07T19:47:00.000-08:00

http://staging.michaelmoore.com/_images/splash/masterofpuppets.jpg

A Judgment on Cheney Is Still to Come

2007-03-07T19:25:00.000-08:00

March 7th, 2007 2:42 am
A Judgment on Cheney Is Still to Come

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg / New York Times

WASHINGTON, March 6 — In legal terms, the jury has spoken in the Libby case. In political terms, Dick Cheney is still awaiting a judgment.

For weeks, Washington watched, mesmerized, as the trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr. cast Vice President Cheney, his former boss, in the role of puppeteer, pulling the strings in a covert public relations campaign to defend the Bush administration’s case for war in Iraq and discredit a critic.

“There is a cloud over the vice president,” the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, told the jury in summing up the case last month.

Mr. Cheney was not charged in the case, cooperated with the investigation and expressed a willingness to testify if called, though he never was. Yet he was a central figure throughout, fighting back against suggestions that he and President Bush had taken the country to war on the basis of flawed intelligence, showing himself to be keenly sensitive to how he was portrayed in the news media and backing Mr. Libby to the end.

With Tuesday’s verdict on Mr. Libby — guilty on four of five counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice — Mr. Cheney’s critics, and even some of his supporters, said the vice president had been diminished.

“The trial has been death by 1,000 cuts for Cheney,” said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist. “It’s hurt him inside the administration. It’s hurt him with the Congress, and it’s hurt his stature around the world because it has shown a lot of the inner workings of the White House. It peeled the bark right off the way they operate.”

The legal question in the case was whether Mr. Libby lied to investigators and prosecutors looking into the leak of the name of a C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson, whose husband, the former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, wrote an Op-Ed article in The New York Times accusing the White House of distorting pre-war intelligence. Mr. Cheney scrawled notes on a copy of the article, asking “did his wife send him on a junket?”

Now, Mr. Cheney faces a civil suit from Mr. Wilson.

The political question was whether Mr. Libby, the vice president’s former chief of staff, was “the fall guy” for his boss, in the words of Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. Though the defense introduced a note from Mr. Cheney worrying that Mr. Libby was being sacrificed to protect other White House officials, some say the vice president bears responsibility for the fate of his former aide, known as Scooter.

“It was clear that what Scooter was doing in the Wilson case was at Dick’s behest,” said Kenneth L. Adelman, a former Reagan administration official who has been close with both men but has broken with Mr. Cheney over the Iraq war. “That was clear. It was clear from Dick’s notes on the Op-Ed piece that he wanted to go get Wilson. And Scooter’s not that type. He’s not a vindictive person.”

Mr. Cheney is arguably the most powerful vice president in American history, and perhaps the most secretive. The trial painted a portrait of a man immersed in the kind of political pushback that is common to all White Houses, yet often presumed to be the province of low-level political operatives, not the vice president of the United States.

Prosecutors played a tape of Mr. Libby testifying to a grand jury that Mr. Cheney had asked Mr. Bush to declassify an intelligence report selectively so he, Mr. Libby, could leak it to sympathetic reporters. Mr. Cheney’s hand-written scribbles were introduced into evidence at the trial, including the one that hinted Mr. Cheney believed that his own staffer, Mr. Libby, was being sacrificed.

“’Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat-grinder because of the incompetence of others,” the note read.

Mr. Cheney’s defenders insisted the vice president was not out to smear Mr. Wilson or even clear his own name, but simply to defend a policy he fiercely believed in.

“There wasn’t some Cheney strategy or Wilson strategy,” said Mary Matalin, Mr. Cheney’s former political director. “There was only one strategy: to convey the nature of the intelligence and the nature of the threat.”

Ms. Matalin said Mr. Cheney remained as influential as ever where it counts — with Mr. Bush.

Still, liberal critics of the administration had a field day with the trial. They are hoping the Democrats who now control Congress will use the case to investigate Mr. Cheney’s role further. Mr. Schumer, who was among the first to call for a special prosecutor in the case, suggested in an interview that they might.

“I think there is a view in the public that Libby was the fall guy,” Mr. Schumer said, “and I do think we will look at how the case shows the misuse of intelligence both before and after the war in Iraq.”

Such issues are already of intense interest to scholars, who say the Libby case will invariably shape Mr. Cheney’s legacy.

Historians typically pay scant attention to vice presidents, unless they become president. Mr. Cheney, though, is an exception. The historian Robert Dallek, who has written about presidents including Lyndon B. Johnson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy, predicts scholars will “be racing for vice-presidential records in a way that we’ve never seen before” to answer questions raised by the Libby trial.

“It will deepen the impressions of someone who was a tremendous manipulator and was very defensive about mistakes,” Mr. Dallek said, “and I think it will greatly deepen the impression of a political operator who knew the ins and outs of Washington hardball politics. He’s going to be, I think, the most interesting vice president in history to study.”

On a personal level, friends of the vice president say the trial has been deeply painful for him. Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney were all but inseparable — Ms. Matalin has called the former aide “Cheney’s Cheney” — and often started their days by riding to work together. Mr. Libby accompanied the vice president almost everywhere he went, and Mr. Cheney made clear his high professional and personal regard for his aide, even playing host to a book party for him in 2002 at his official residence. Alan K. Simpson, a Republican former senator from Mr. Cheney’s home state, Wyoming, said he saw Mr. Cheney over Christmas and asked how he was doing. He took the answer as a kind of oblique reference to the Libby case.

“He said, ‘I’m fine, I’m O.K., I have people I trust around me — it’s the same old stuff, Al,’ ” Mr. Simpson recalled.

Another friend of Mr. Cheney’s, Vin Weber, a Republican former congressman, said the verdict had “got to be heartbreaking for the vice president.” But Mr. Weber said he wished Mr. Cheney would explain himself.

“I don’t think he has to do a long apologia,” Mr. Weber said, “but I think he should say something, just to pierce the boil a little bit.”

Instead, Mr. Cheney maintained his silence Tuesday. As the verdicts were being read, he went to the Capitol for the Republicans’ regular weekly policy luncheon. Later, he issued a two-paragraph statement saying only that he was disappointed with the verdict, “saddened for Scooter and his family” and would have no further comment while an appeal is pending.

With a career in politics that goes back to the Nixon White House, Mr. Cheney is no stranger to Washington scandal and how to weather it. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said he went hunting with the vice president late last year and did not sense that the trial was bothering him.

'The Destroyer and His Helpers' ...by Cindy Sheehan

2007-02-06T19:34:00.000-08:00

Tuesday, February 6th, 2007
'The Destroyer and His Helpers' ...by Cindy Sheehan

When I first started on my long, arduous and relentless journey towards peace shortly after my son, Casey, was killed in Iraq, I met with many Democratic House Members and two Republicans, Walter Jones (R-NC) and Ron Paul (R-Tx). I received sympathy and sometimes tea from each elected official, but the consensus was that the anti-war group was in the minority in the Democratic Party and but the barest of minorities in the Republican Party so nothing could be accomplished in stopping Bloody George the Destroyer's war of terror.

The news from Iraq is already devastating this month. In the first five days of February, as things are escalating, compounding and stacking up The Destroyer's blunders in Iraq, 17 of our soldiers have been killed. So far, over hundreds of hungry civilians have been killed at crowded marketplaces in Baghdad. These calamities have occurred while The Destroyer and his helpers, Congressional Democrats, were rubbing elbows and sharing a good chuckle over George's linguistic contortions. Is it just me, or should it be a requirement that the president of an English speaking country be able to speak English?

Recently, Sen. Hillary Clinton said during a speech that she knows there are people in the country who wish that Congress could "do more" then offer pathetic non-binding resolutions and even weaker bills that don't have a chance in Bush-Hell to get out of committee, or if by a miracle a bill reaches The Destroyer's desk, he would just veto it, or add one of his tyrannical and dictatorial signing statements.

Excuse me, Ms. Clinton, Congress can do more. Congress has it in its power to stop The Destroyer and the depraved occupation of Iraq. Congress can quit enabling The Destroyer's addiction to destruction.

Congress can vote "Nay" on the next 250 billion dollar request for more madness in the Middle East.

Congress can start investigating the myriad of high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Crime Regime. Congress can remove BushCo from office and see that they are tried in criminal court for war crimes and crimes against our own Constitution.

Congress can belatedly regain its constitutional powers to declare war and rescind its resolution giving George the authority to invade countries willy-nilly as he sees fit, because was all know that he is not fit to see anything.

Congress, in a bi-partisan effort must lasso in this faux-cowboy-run-amok who said he was sending 21,000 more troops to Baghdad to throw more fuel onto the dead body fire but will now send 50,000 more troops because he wants more fodder in the region when he invades Iran.

It is not enough for our employees to say that they are against a war that they voted for and continue to fund. It is not enough to expediently and conveniently say that if you were president in 2003, (Hillary Clinton) that you wouldn't have invaded Iraq. It is absolutely stunning to begin political campaigns for 2008 when our troops and the Iraqi people are being butchered in an absolutely obscene war of choice when many of the candidates mouth the words that it is "wrong."

Seventeen families here in the US and hundreds of families in Iraq are going to find out what it is like to live lives of unqualified hell while no one does anything to help them. We are in a disgraceful and apparently hopeless situation.

What do we do?

First of all, we never give up hope. The grass roots anti-war community has brought this country a long way since even before The Destroyer's "shocking and awful" invasion of an already compromised country. However, we can also never give up our commitment to our brothers and sisters in Iraq and to our children whom BushCo have put in danger's way still without the proper tools to stay alive.

Peace is within our grasp if we don't give into the despair and darkness that has been showered upon our country by the Bush Regime.

Peace is just around the corner if we will move confidently and courageously out of our circles of comfort and concern to realize that being comfortable in such a violent world is not the correct moral choice and someone should be concerned about the innocents being slaughtered by US imperialistic fervor.

Peace is not an issue it is the issue.

Cindy is writing from Paris, France, where her book "Peace Mom" is debuting in France this week.

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Sheehan who was killed in Bush's war of terror on 04/04/04.

She is the co-founder and president of Gold Star Families for Peace and the Camp Casey Peace Institute.

She is the author of three books, the most recent is Peace Mom: A Mother's Journey Through Heartache to Activism.

'IMPEACHMENT FOR THE PEOPLE' ...by Howard Zinn

2007-02-01T20:33:00.000-08:00

Wednesday, January 31st, 2007
'IMPEACHMENT FOR THE PEOPLE' ...by Howard Zinn

Courage is in short supply in Washington, D.C. The realities of the Iraq War cry out for the overthrow of a government that is criminally responsible for death, mutilation, torture, humiliation, chaos. But all we hear in the nation’s capital, which is the source of those catastrophes, is a whimper from the Democratic Party, muttering and nattering about “unity” and “bipartisanship,” in a situation that calls for bold action to immediately reverse the present course.

These are the Democrats who were brought to power in November by an electorate fed up with the war, furious at the Bush Administration, and counting on the new majority in Congress to represent the voters. But if sanity is to be restored in our national policies, it can only come about by a great popular upheaval, pushing both Republicans and Democrats into compliance with the national will.

The Declaration of Independence, revered as a document but ignored as a guide to action, needs to be read from pulpits and podiums, on street corners and community radio stations throughout the nation. Its words, forgotten for over two centuries, need to become a call to action for the first time since it was read aloud to crowds in the early excited days of the American Revolution: “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government.”

The “ends” referred to in the Declaration are the equal right of all to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” True, no government in the history of the nation has been faithful to those ends. Favors for the rich, neglect of the poor, massive violence in the interest of continental and world expansion—that is the persistent record of our government.

Still, there seems to be a special viciousness that accompanies the current assault on human rights, in this country and in the world. We have had repressive governments before, but none has legislated the end of habeas corpus, nor openly supported torture, nor declared the possibility of war without end. No government has so casually ignored the will of the people, affirmed the right of the President to ignore the Constitution, even to set aside laws passed by Congress.

The time is right, then, for a national campaign calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Representative John Conyers, who held extensive hearings and introduced an impeachment resolution when the Republicans controlled Congress, is now head of the House Judiciary Committee and in a position to fight for such a resolution. He has apparently been silenced by his Democratic colleagues who throw out as nuggets of wisdom the usual political palaver about “realism” (while ignoring the realities staring them in the face) and politics being “the art of the possible” (while setting limits on what is possible).

I know I’m not the first to talk about impeachment. Indeed, judging by the public opinion polls, there are millions of Americans, indeed a majority of those polled, who declare themselves in favor if it is shown that the President lied us into war (a fact that is not debatable). There are at least a half-dozen books out on impeachment, and it’s been argued for eloquently by some of our finest journalists, John Nichols and Lewis Lapham among them. Indeed, an actual “indictment” has been drawn up by a former federal prosecutor, Elizabeth de la Vega, in a new book called United States v. George W. Bush et al, making a case, in devastating detail, to a fictional grand jury.

There is a logical next step in this development of an impeachment movement: the convening of “people’s impeachment hearings” all over the country. This is especially important given the timidity of the Democratic Party. Such hearings would bypass Congress, which is not representing the will of the people, and would constitute an inspiring example of grassroots democracy.

These hearings would be the contemporary equivalents of the unofficial gatherings that marked the resistance to the British Crown in the years leading up to the American Revolution. The story of the American Revolution is usually built around Lexington and Concord, around the battles and the Founding Fathers. What is forgotten is that the American colonists, unable to count on redress of their grievances from the official bodies of government, took matters into their own hands, even before the first battles of the Revolutionary War.

In 1772, town meetings in Massachusetts began setting up Committees of Correspondence, and the following year, such a committee was set up in Virginia. The first Continental Congress, beginning to meet in 1774, was a recognition that an extralegal body was necessary to represent the interests of the people. In 1774 and 1775, all through the colonies, parallel institutions were set up outside the official governmental bodies.

Throughout the nation’s history, the failure of government to deliver justice has led to the establishment of grassroots organizations, often ad hoc, dissolving after their purpose was fulfilled. For instance, after passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, knowing that the national government could not be counted on to repeal the act, black and white anti-slavery groups organized to nullify the law by acts of civil disobedience. They held meetings, made plans, and set about rescuing escaped slaves who were in danger of being returned to their masters.

In the desperate economic conditions of 1933 and 1934, before the Roosevelt Administration was doing anything to help people in distress, local groups were formed all over the country to demand government action. Unemployed Councils came into being, tenants’ groups fought evictions, and hundreds of thousands of people in the country formed self-help organizations to exchange goods and services and enable people to survive.

More recently, we recall the peace groups of the 1980s, which sprang up in hundreds of communities all over the country, and provoked city councils and state legislatures to pass resolutions in favor of a freeze on nuclear weapons. And local organizations have succeeded in getting more than 400 city councils to take a stand against the Patriot Act.

Impeachment hearings all over the country could excite and energize the peace movement. They would make headlines, and could push reluctant members of Congress in both parties to do what the Constitution provides for and what the present circumstances demand: the impeachment and removal from office of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Simply raising the issue in hundreds of communities and Congressional districts would have a healthy effect, and would be a sign that democracy, despite all attempts to destroy it in this era of war, is still alive.

Howard Zinn is the author, most recently, of “A Power Governments Cannot Suppress” published by City Lights Books. See Howard on C-SPAN Booknotes Sunday Feb 4, 2007 at 4:30pm.

Welcome to MichaelMoore.com

2007-01-29T19:03:00.000-08:00

Welcome to MichaelMoore.com: "January 29th, 2007

Redeployed to D.C.; Peace rallies draw hundreds of thousands | Mobile, AL; Anchorage, AK; Tucson, AZ; Eureka, CA; Fresno, CA; Los Angeles, CA; Palm Springs, CA; San Diego, CA; San Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; Boulder, CO; Denver, CO; Grand Junction, CO; New Haven, CT; Stamford, CT; Daytona Beach, FL; Port Charlotte, FL; Weeki Wachee, FL; Champaign, IL; Mishawaka, IN; Louisville, KY; Ellsworth, ME; Annapolis, MD; New Bedford, MA; Ludington, MI; Minneapolis, MN; Albuquerque, NM; Glens Falls, NY; Larchmont, NY; Nanuet, NY; Wooster, OH; Oklahoma City, OK; Eugene, OR; Pendleton, OR; Montrose, PA; Charleston, SC; Columbia, SC; Rock Hill, SC; Austin, TX; Dallas, TX; Denton, TX; Brattleboro, VT; Bremerton, WA; Seattle, WA; Green Bay, WI; Madison, WI"

'The Fifth Estate' ...Cindy Sheehan

2007-01-29T18:57:00.001-08:00

Monday, January 29th, 2007
'The Fifth Estate' ...Cindy Sheehan

"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785.

If one "googles" Thomas Jefferson and "freedom of the press" one finds a myriad of quotes from the second president, author of the Declaration of Independence, and founder of the University of Virginia. Mr. Jefferson understood the importance of having a free press as a "fourth estate" of checks and balances on the Federal Government. His concerns that lack of a free press would lead to tyranny and the situation that we are in now with regards to one of the branches of government becoming too powerful over the others was very prescient, to say the very least.

In the United States today, we have a media that is controlled by corporations that are, for the most part, controlled by other entities that profit off of war. NBC is owned by General Electric that is a major war profiteer (which used to be a crime punishable by hanging). The corporate media has a lot at stake by keeping the wag the dog occupation of Iraq afloat on BushCo's failed ship of state.

The inadequacies and sycophantic nature of the press towards the Bush Regime are legion, but Dick Cheney was recently interviewed by Wolf Blitzer and instead of asking the Vice commander in thief about his connections to the obscene war profiteering company, Halliburton; or his being comfortable with surging more troops to Iraq when he had 5 deferments during the Vietnam conflict; or how he said the insurgency was in its final throes; or how his office was connected to outing Valerie Plane, Blitzer asked Dastardly Dicky about his gay daughter's pregnancy. Wolf almost wept with fear when the puppet master attacked him for asking such a question.

Besides a free press, another supposed check and balance on limiting executive power to its proper constitutional authorities is Congress. With its first vote to give Bloody George the authority to invade a harmless country and its continuing feeding Bloody George the blood money he needs to continue the killing and be unwilling to impeach BushCo for crimes against humanity, Congress abdicated its role in declaring war and reining in tyranny. Who can do the heavy labor that the other "estates" are shirking?

Over the weekend, we the people, went to marches and rallies by the hundreds of thousands. From movie stars who are finally breaking their silence to military families, Gold Star families, Vets, and other activists that don't have "skin in the game" we appeared in the hundreds of thousands. Some of us scraped together bus money and stayed 5-6 people per room to afford the trip. We carried creative signs and chanted or sang while we marched. Some of us have not been silent for years.

We want to put Congress, the media, and the executive branch on notice to show them that we will be the checks and balances that Mad King George and the rest so desperately need while we still have a nation to care about. We the people are the Fifth Estate and we are declaring that we will be peace inSURGEnts to save the people of Iraq and to bring our troops home and see BushCo imprisoned for their murder and corruption.

"I am persuaded that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army." --Thomas Jefferson, 1787

Right now we are the only ones.

Let's give Congress the courage it needs to finally do the right thing.

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Sheehan who was killed in Bush's war of terror on 04/04/04.

She is the co-founder and president of Gold Star Families for Peace and the Camp Casey Peace Institute.

She is the author of three books, the most recent is Peace Mom: A Mother's Journey Through Heartache to Activism.

Impeach Now!!

2007-01-11T20:16:00.001-08:00

Thursday, January 11th, 2007
Impeach Now! ...by Jodin Morey

Well, our chance to convince Nancy Pelosi to Impeach Bush/Cheney is this Monday Jan. 15th.

Pelosi most likely said impeachment was "off the table" to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment.

What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she is forced to join the impeachment movement in the future.

Sacks and sacks of mail are about to arrive in Nancy Pelosi's office initiating impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules this Monday January 15th. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635).

There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.That's where we come in. In addition to a House Resolution (635), or the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

You can initiate the impeachment process and simultaneously help to convince Pelosi to follow through with the process. Do-It-Yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. Be a part of history.

Impeach for Peace -- Impeach Now!

Cowboys Differ on Iran Attack

2007-01-02T20:38:00.000-08:00

Cheney/Bush vs. Baker Commission

Cowboys Differ on Iran Attack

By GARY LEUPP

The reaction to the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report suggests that a showdown is shaping up within the U.S. power elite between two different sets of cowboys. On the one hand, there are the George W. Bush cowboys who want to expand their conquests from Afghanistan and Iraq into Syria and Iran. It's a natural extension of the Manifest Destiny doctrine that underpinned the conquest of the "Wild West," the annexation of almost half of Mexico's territory in the 1840s, the "opening of Japan" resulting from gunboat diplomacy in 1854, the Marines' overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, and the establishment of a colonial empire from the Pacific to the Caribbean following the Spanish-American War. Bush and Dick Cheney saw nothing wrong with the Vietnam War (except the possibility that they might be personally involved, since they had other priorities at the time). They really liked the first Gulf War, but were disappointed it didn't conquer more. Thus Dubya told Mickey Herskowitz, a Houston Chronicle sports columnist helping ghostwrite his autobiography in 1999 that, "My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade [Iraq]---if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it."

On the other hand, there are the Jim Baker-type cowboys who question the feasibility of further conquest at this time, and want to lasso in their wayward buckaroo buddies and rowdy youngins before they get everybody into deeper horseshit in them foreign parts. The Baker cowboys are saying talk to the natives at least, smoke the peace-pipe if necessary, then ride off into the sunset leaving a fort or two behind proudly waving the tattered flag to help save face.

Dubya's cowpokes say, "No, we don't talk to the natives in those rich lands, overflowing with milk and honey and petroleum products, that God made for us." Like a spirit-filled country parson, Bush declared (to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in 2003), "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." Solving that problem of course means making all of Southwest Asia U.S. and Israel-friendly.

(Here the concept of the "promised land," a central theme in the Old Testament which envisions an Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates and deeply affects modern Zionism, nicely dovetails with the entitlement notion so long operative in American psychology and mythology. The Pilgrims felt God gave them the heathen Indians' land, and even the most progressive American artists, such as Woody Guthrie ---"this land is your land, this land is my land"---and Bruce Springsteen---""I believe in a promised land"---draw on that powerful, ultimately religious concept. The twin myths of divine favor to the biblical Israelites and to the European settlers of America can easily enough in the whiskey-impacted cowboy mind produce the delusion that God wants a Yankee war on any oil-rich Muslim country. Especially after 9-11 because "they" attacked "us.")

The Bush gang, backed up by an Israeli posse, says the Syrian and Iranian leaders are evil. Dick Cheney, real bold behind his 28-gauge Perazzi shotgun, has declared, "We don't negotiate with evil. We defeat it." (Especially in a canned-hunt situation.)
But the Baker cowboys respond, "Well sure they're evil. They're murderous heathens. But we have to at least parlay with some of them, if it keeps us god-fearing folks from getting massacred. That's just common sense."

The ISG doesn't question the decision to invade Iraq, problematize its morality or acknowledge the humanity of the Iraqi resistance braves in the face of the Great White Father's assault. It doesn't say, "Pardners, you done wrong, and gotta be held to account." They don't want to deal with any of that history; they just want to move on. (Just like Rumsfeld deputy Paul Wolfowitz, who having disseminated so much disinformation to get Americans to back the assault on Iraq, dismissed the embarrassing collapse of the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as a merely "historical issue" just a few months after the crime had occurred.) These cowboys aren't interested in going back and dredging up all that dirt, or questioning the need for the cavalry to stay in Iraq for ages to come. They just want the troops out of rifle range, as much as possible, so that the commonfolk back home don't start forming a lynch mob marching on DC. That means asking the Syrians and Iranians to help out.

* * * * *

That recommendation---that the U.S. in the context of a regional conference sit down and talk with those it wants to destroy---was the one most immediately and emphatically rejected by Bush, Condoleezza Rice and other top officials. That rejection is a strong indication that Dick Cheney continues to steer foreign policy assisted by neocon lieutenants such as Elliott Abrams and David Wurmser. From his undisclosed location, undaunted by abysmal popularity ratings, Cheney seems to keep Condi in line and on board the program, and during his weekly lunches with Bush encourages the cowboy president's messianic vision of a Greater Middle East free of terrorism, dotted with U.S. bases "protecting" the oil fields, friendly with Israel, and affording infinite profit opportunities to U.S. corporations.

Notice how the neocons out of power (including Richard Perle and David Frum) who have recently criticized Bush for his failure to properly subdue Iraq have spared Cheney, no doubt because they see him as their real remaining ally and rock of support in the administration. He may not share their emotional connection to Israel, so central to the neocon movement, but like them he is committed to using U.S. force to refashion the Middle East. He thinks in terms of securing U.S. geopolitical advantage vis-à-vis other imperialist powers and rising capitalist China as the U.S. economy relatively declines. (The U.S. GDP this year for the first time lags behind that of the European Union.) His interests dovetail with those of the neocons, which is why he seeded the administration with them when he constructed Bush's cabinet after the 2000 election.

As Robert Dreyfuss pointed out in the American Prospect in May 2006, Cheney sees China as the biggest long-term threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East, if not the world: "For the Cheneyites, Middle East policy is tied to China, and in their view China's appetite for oil makes it a strategic competitor to the United States in the Persian Gulf region. Thus, they regard the control of the Gulf as a zero-sum game. They believe that the invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. military buildup in Central Asia, the invasion of Iraq, and the expansion of the U.S. military presence in the Gulf states have combined to check China's role in the region. In particular, the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the creation of a pro-American regime in Baghdad was, for at least 10 years before 2003, a top neoconservative goal, one that united both the anti-China crowd and far-right supporters of Israel's Likud. Both saw the invasion of Iraq as the prelude to an assault on neighboring Iran."

The administration still adheres to its New American Century game plan of toppling the Syrian and Iranian regimes, despite the Iraqi disaster. The "Office of Iranian Affairs," a successor of the "Office of Special Plans" that prepared the disinformation campaign leading into the Iraq War, occupies the same Pentagon offices as it predecessor and is headed by the same Machiavellian psy-ops specialist Abram Shulsky. John Dean, among others, predicts an assault on Iran next year, following the predictable failure of the UN Security Council to satisfy U.S. demands for harsh sanctions on Iran. A watered-down UNSC resolution will be cited as an international justification for preemptive action, which will blow away the Iranian leadership and produce some sort of friendly Iranian regime. Meanwhile Syria, blamed for political assassinations in Lebanon and support for "terrorist" Hizbollah will also feel Bush's terrible swift sword.

That's all impossible, many rational people say. These may include members of the Iraq Study Group, but their report---a shot across the bow of the Office of Iranian Affairs---indicates, it seems to me, some genuine alarm that the president is out to do the impossible, with more disastrous results. Surely they, and administration officials as well, are worried that an Iran attack could produce some embarrassments, like the resignations of high-level military officers. It could produce some seriously painful measures by China, which owns much of the U.S. national debt, and Russia. It would certainly intensify the already soaring anti-U.S. feelings felt throughout the world, and maybe even jeopardize the emerging alliance with aspiring superpower India. But those who brought us the Iraq War have enormous confidence in themselves and the power of their heroic will, which they think can create a whole new reality for generations to come. They feel that more aggression in Southwest Asia---even if it sows chaos, draws Iran's Revolutionary Guards into the Iraqi conflict, and generates another war between Israel and Hizbollah and its Lebanese allies---is necessary soon, under the current sympathetic president, lest the bold project be lost entirely.

Some suggest that the expansion of the war is inevitable given the internal logic of capitalist imperialism. But clearly many thoroughly invested in the system find the neocons nuts. They want to head them off before they with some of their Christian fundamentalist allies in tow produce an apocalyptic scenario. Baker, Hamilton & Co. seem to doubt that the system's best served at this point by attacking Syria and Iran, and are deliberating provoking discussion about the wisdom of the near-future, planned stages of the neocon project. If that's happening at the level of the ruling class, isn't there an even greater basis for the antiwar movement to agitate against an expanding war? The greatest deterrent of all would be Cheney's expectation that an assault on Iran might lead a politically informed American people to pour out into the streets as the attack gets underway, denouncing it, informing the world that we reject it and those who planned it and demand regime change right here.

* * * *

I've been accused of spinning a "conspiracy theory" because I connect the dots between Cheney, the neocons, the Office of Special Plans and the campaign to make war on Iraq. I'm really not a conspiracy theorist, but if I were one, I'd have to bring up the issue of Mary Cheney's pregnancy. Just bear with me.

On October 26, 1965, the Selective Service listed constraints on drafting childless married men. Cheney was then classified as 1-A , "available for service." Cheney, who had been married to his wife Lynn for fourteen months, may have been influenced by this policy change to think seriously about parenthood. Daughter Elizabeth was born nine months later on July 28, 1966. Cheney applied for and received a 3-A classification, his fifth and final draft deferment (following marriage and education deferments) during the Vietnam era when, as he has stated, he "had other priorities" than going to war.

Elizabeth, married to General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security Philip Perry, is now Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and sitting directly atop the spooky "Office of Iranian Affairs" inhabiting the Office of Special Plans' former offices in the Pentagon and headed by Machiavellian disinformation artist Abram Shulsky. (Such an irony that a child born out of a man's earnest desire to avoid the battlefield should be assigned to help him later in life rain down terror upon Iran.) Lynn's a powerful figure too, having spent seven years on Lockheed Corporation's board of directors, and serving as a "fellow" at the American Enterprise Institutute for Public Policy Research. She founded the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a conservative group that monitors American academia and in November 2001 issued a report entitled Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It. The whole family is nasty, and Mary's being a lesbian and pregnant doesn't get her off the hook. She was public relations manager for Coors Brewing Co., for god's sakes. She was director of vice-presidential operations in the 2004 campaign. She's an AOL executive. But because she's a lesbian, and the Christian right hates lesbianism (the sin if not the sinner), she might receive sympathy from Americans who are liberal (or rational) on gay-lesbian issues. And who are also, antiwar and anti-Bush/Cheney.

So maybe Vice President Cheney, who's gotten women pregnant before to save his skin, might not have said to Mary, some months back, "Why don't you and your life partner Heather have a baby?" It makes the whole family seem so much more human, and complicated. So many have the stereotype of Cheney as the man who opposed the release of Nelson Mandela from prison in South Africa because he considered him a "terrorist" working with communists. A man who, while thoroughly callous when it comes to the well-being of South African blacks or Iraqi civilians, is filled with self-righteousness, telling the world "We don't negotiate with evil, we defeat it." A man dripping with corporate greed, ruthlessly pursuing his goals, repeating bald-faced lies every step of the way. A man actively planning an assault on Iran as we speak. But a man who supports and defends his gay daughter, expressing his own family values. Couldn't such a man, whose popularity is at rock bottom, benefit should it be known that in this Christmas season his daughter Mary is pregnant, and that he rejoices?

Cheney publicly disagrees with the president's position on gay marriage. Can you think of any other issue on which the two men publicly differ? And this isn't just any issue; it might have been the one that won the 2004 election, skillfully managed by Karl Rove. So it was significant that Bush and Cheney differed on it. Highly significant too that the president just told the press: "I think Mary is going to be a loving soul to her child. And I'm happy for her." That was a little risky for Bush. His hard-right Christian fundamentalist base, reeling from the revelation that yet another prominent Colorado preacher man has had a history of man-to-man sin, wasn't real pleased with it. It put Bush on record as saying, I'm not that homophobic. I'll bet he did it out of deference to Cheney, the man still calling the shots, and Cheney's family situation.

I don't think it's coincidental that the report of the "virgin birth" of the Komodo dragon in the British zoo comes out just as Mary's pregnancy hits the front pages. The Komodo dragon fertilized her own eggs; some lizards have evolved in such a way that they can do that. A female lizard can produce young without a male (and still be a good mother). A zoologist on NPR stated that by his calculations the earliest likely date for the lizards to hatch is Dec. 25.

Mary Cheney's special pregnancy. Virgin Mary's giving birth at Christmas. A lizard virgin birth on that same day. How likely is all this a coincidence?
Ok. I confess I've just playing with your mind. I don't believe Cheney encouraged Mary to get pregnant, or planted the Komodo dragon story in the press, or wants to steer the administration away from its Christian right base towards more gay-friendly stances in order to acquire a reputation for fairness and reason as it plans to attack Iran. I just believe that Cheney still shapes the cowboy mind in Washington, his violent amoral proclivities touched by ordinary family sentiments, to which he's asked the homophobic Commander-in-Chief to please attach himself. Bush's public happiness for Mary might be simultaneously a testimony that he is happy to leave the big decisions for his administration, as before, with Uncle Dick.

The Tyrant is Dead! Long Live ... ?

2007-01-02T20:17:00.000-08:00

"Casting Ominous Conjecture on the Whole Success"

The Tyrant is Dead! Long Live ... ?

By ALEVTINA REA

The King is dead. Long live the King! With such words, proclamations about the departure of a deceased and the rule of a new monarch have been announced to the court and, subsequently, to the world. According to the Wikipedia website, "The phrase arose from the law of le mort saisit le vif--that the transfer of sovereignty occurs instantaneously upon the moment of death of the previous monarch." In the world of lawful rulers, the title of monarch is hard to challenge. A monarch may be, and often is, a dictator, but the sanctity of his rule is rarely questioned. Nonetheless, if overthrown and executed, the regicide is often mourned and regretted after the fact. Reverse the equation, and the situation is rather mockery than a real sorrow. The execution of a dictator is hailed as a justified accomplishment, but notes of doubt manage to creep in, notwithstanding the back-patting pretence of justice being carried out.

In Saddam Hussein's case, his departure from this world was accompanied with the following words: "The tyrant has fallen." And no one proclaimed: "Long live the tyrant!" to immediately announce transfer of sovereignty to the next in line. Saddam is dead, and who would dare to announce that a new dictator is about to reign over Iraq (or that the U.S.-backed president of Iraq is its new dictator personified)? And wouldn't it be even too pessimistic to predict that the next Iraqi government will be as tyrannical as Saddam's rule ever was? However, the question at hand is not about whether the dictator should be punished for his horrible deeds and be hanged as a common criminal. And the question is not about the fact that Saddam's tyrannical deeds were aided by the U.S. government when he was a convenient pawn to be used to further American interests in the Middle East. The question here is rather about the fairness of an execution so hastily carried out--less than four days after the verdict--and at the dawn of one of the two most important Islamic holidays. By cowardice and being an U.S. pawn, thus we know the current Iraqi government. By tactlessness and ineptitude we know the Bush administration.

Anybody who saw pictures of Saddam Hussein's execution could comment on the dignity written on Saddam's face in the last few minutes of his life and the criminal appearance of his executioners, whose faces were covered by ski masks, exactly as bank robbers' faces that are shown on TV--whether in movies or documentaries. Indeed, the impression is that a martyr had been executed in cowardly fashion by criminals presiding over the country. While the current Iraqi government's officials may boast about the justice finally imposed on the former ruler of Iraq, we need to ask ourselves whether Saddam's execution displayed Iraqi officials acting according to law or rather in a spirit of barbaric revenge. (In any case, it did reveal the indifference of the international community on this matter.)

It is a given fact that Saddam's cruel rule inflicted death on thousands of innocent Iraqi people. And it is also a fact that U.S. government officials supported his criminal deeds when it was convenient for U.S. interests abroad. Does the realization of the former make this execution more justified than Saddam's execution of Iraqis? Doesn't our knowledge of U.S. complicity in Saddam's crimes evoke the need to judge also those U.S. officials involved in his support? Is the execution of the criminal moral per se? Is capital punishment less barbaric than the original crime?

According to L.P. Pojman's definitions of capital punishment in his article "For the Death Penalty" (1998), "institutional or legal punishment is an evil inflicted by a person in a position of authority upon another person who is judged to have violated a rule." One word in this definition stands out immediately; that is, capital punishment is a calculated "evil," no less. The irony of the situation is that those who are authorized by law to punish the violators, in reality murder those whose actions (or murders) are considered morally wrong from the point of that law. The murder in the former case is justified while the murder in the latter is condemned. Hence, there is an inherent contradiction between what is proscribed by law and what is prescribed as a remedy. In "Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion and Death" (1966), Albert Camus offered the following considerations on the morality of official executions:

"An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death. Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated, can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life."

But such monsters are definitely encountered in official life of politics. In this particular case, the Iraqi government committed a premeditated murder of Saddam and, prior to this, the U.S. government handed him to his enemy, namely the current Iraqi authority. Therefore, the U.S. complicity in Saddam's previous crimes resulted in betraying him later on. It is important to remember that handing the criminal to his enemy is against international law. Moreover, another interesting fact is that Iraq reinstated the death penalty in August 2004, during the U.S. occupation. The new law on capital punishment became more expansive than it was during Saddam's years at the helm of Iraqi government. But who is to judge the criminal complicity of the U.S.A. during and after Saddam's dictatorial rule and the devastating effects of the U.S. occupation of Iraq? Which international authority will dare to confront the bullying power of the U.S.A. and demand its responsibility in international crimes?

While the U.S. government brags about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq, which suffered during Saddam's regime, during those years and today it is perpetrator or accomplice in many of the criminal deeds inflicted on the Iraqi people. Behind good words hide evil means that--in reality--do not lead toward but rather barricade the path to democracy and civilization. As J. Reiman put it in his article, "Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished in America" (1998), the level of our "civilization is characterized by lower tolerance for our own pain and of others." When the state refrains from imposing grave harms such as a death penalty on those who deserve them, it propagates a powerful message about the repugnant nature of capital punishment, in this case, of Saddam's execution. By shifting to abolition of capital punishment, the government, or the state, acts in a way that advances civilization. It is definitely a deep contradiction between our country's claim to be a harbor of freedom and democracy--of civilization, in other words--and tolerance for the pain of the Iraqi people.

The partners in crime, in this case, Saddam and his U.S. supporters (during Saddam's regime before the invasion of Kuwait at least) cannot be judged differently, on dissimilar grounds. By executing its former ally, the U.S. government falls still lower and commits vengeance instead of justice. By continuing its occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration discloses that all its proclaimed intentions of bringing freedom and democracy to Iraqi people are false and hollow. Moreover -- to end with John Milton's words--the current U.S. politics in Iraq in general and its role in Saddam's execution in particular "seem to cast ominous conjecture on the whole success."

Alevtina Rea lives on Olympia, Washington and can be reached at sailcool@comcast.net.

The 911 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush

2007-01-01T22:59:00.000-08:00

The 911 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush

Wednesday, 12 June 2002, 2:37 pm
Article: Cheryl Seal

The 9/11 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush

By Cheryl Seal
Also published - 02 June 2002
http://web11.superb.net/www.nodomain.com/editorials/smoking_gun.html

The Case Against G.W. Bush: a Preliminary "Hearing" in the Court of Common Sense

At the very least Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. But the evidence indicates his guilt involves more than just a huge intentional sin of omission – this now seems certain. So it is ulcer-fomenting to watch him, Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and their PR army try to sell America yet another Big Lie – that they had no idea such a thing as 9/11 could happen...they could never have imagined it in their wildest dreams...they had no specific warnings...there was nothing unusual about the summer 2001 warnings, etc, etc, ad nauseam. I have compiled some material that clearly shows that the above litany is blatantly, arrogantly false. But first, let's hold a preliminary hearing in the "Court of Common sense".

To see through a wall of propaganda and determine what's really going on, one must tune out the spin completely and take a good, objective look at what has been DONE and what the parties involved have to GAIN by their actions. Let's look at the well-documented facts:

First, when Bush, Rice and the other top Reichmeisters discarded the warning on August 6, Bush's approval ratings had sunk to just 49% – this is the red zone for a president. As any political expert or presidential historian: Hit 45%, and impeachment may soon loom on the horizon.

Second, Bush's actions throughout his entire life show a clear and consistent pattern: without exception, he has always chosen the path that will benefit himself and his corporate friends the most and will do so in the face of even the most outraged criticism.

Third, the stolen election of 2000 proves that Bush was willing to participate in a very daring, very large scale crime in pursuit of power.

Fourth, Bush's father's approval ratings went from shaky to astronomical within a month of declaring war on an "evil terrorist" leader back in 1991. This lesson could hardly have been lost on Bush, Jr.: Start a war and the emotions of the public can be whipped up to a point that will push presidential approval ratings way, way up.

So, given the above facts as "evidence," what do you imagine a self-serving man who has faced no serious opposition from Congress, the press, or the American public would be likely to do? A bookie would most certainly lay odds that Bush would stand aside and allow an event like 9/11 to happen.

Another action that must be considered in the cold hard light of day is Bush's behavior after 9/11. He seized upon national fears, worked at intensifying them, and immediately, without waiting for Congress or serious discussions with other nations, called for an attack on Afghanistan and a global war on terrorism. At the same time, he worked through John Ashcroft with stunning swiftness to dismantle civil liberties. These are not the actions of a leader who wants to keep his nation calm, reassured, and standing tall in its principles in the wake of tragedy. They are the actions of an opportunist who knows, from watching his father's presidency, that the window of opportunity for consolidating his power will be narrow: Bush Sr.'s approval rating high lasted only a few months.

Last, why would Bush admit to having been warned about 9/11 in the first place? In the corporate and political world, this admission is a strategy that has been used over and over by creeps who are guilty of huge crimes and know the heat is on. By confessing to a lesser charge, they try to draw the heat away from the main, more dangerous issue. Ken Lay, the head of Anderson, and every criminal who has ever copped or tried to cop a plea bargain have used this ploy. If Bush were innocent of any complicity in 9/11, why should he make ANY statement? It is always the guilty who feel the need to make statements: "I am not a crook!", "I never had sex with that woman!" Or how about that row of tobacco industry CEO's who all swore that none of them knew their product was harmful or addictive?

Therefore, based on the evidence, I would say we have a phony president who is as guilty as hell, who knows that someone has the goods on him and is breathing down his neck. He is gambling that by making a preemptive strike while he still has control of the media, he can spin a protective wall around himself. Thus, we have Dick Cheney appearing on 5/19 on Meet the Press, being "interviewed" about the 9/11 flap by his friend and neighbor Russert. Yep, that's right –both interviewer and interviewee live in the feudally exclusive Kalorama suburb of D.C., where houses START at around $1 million. In fact, on the same program, Russert had the arrogance to even mention how he'd seen his buddy out taking the air on his new "It" scooter. How cozy! And this is what is being served to America in the name of a free and honest press. Ya got a problem? Just pick a pal in the press corps and tell him what questions you want him/her to ask you so you can spin them in just the way you want.

Russert asked Cheney how he responded to charges that the information existed in several reports which showed that a WTC-type attack was a possibility. Cheney responded –incredibly!– that reading all those reports weren't his concern. There's just too darn many of them. Russert let this ridiculous response go totally unchallenged and unqualified.

Here are the questions that are missing –the questions a real journalist would have asked: "So then, Mr. Cheney, just what are your criteria for a report that is important enough for you to read? How do you prioritize what you read or what those under you are directed to call to your attention? What reports on this matter DID you read?"

It is insulting to America's intelligence that such questions are not being asked. It's like a grand jury that refuses to ask a murder suspect questions like "Where were you on the night of such and such? What was your relationship to the victim?" but instead says, "Well, here's what we heard from the police that someone thinks you may have killed someone. Go ahead and explain yourself. Don't worry –we won't interrupt you or ask you any uncomfortable questions. And, by the way, your good pal who lives down the block volunteered to serve as jury foreman!"

Here's one last FACT to consider. The GOP spent $40 million to pursue an ultimately merit-less case against Clinton that involved diddling an intern and some questionable real estate deals. Since Bush took office, not one dime has been spent by Congress to investigate Cheney and his secret energy dealings, Bush's stolen election, Tom Delay's boiler room scams that have bilked doctors out of millions, the mysterious wild trading of American and United Airlines stock the week before 9/11 or any of the other crimes that were far more serious than Clinton's offenses. Meanwhile, the GOP –so eager to spend millions to investigate an office romance– has worked overtime to block the initiation of any serious investigation into the biggest crime to have ever been perpetrated on American soil that claimed nearly 3,000 lives. WAKE UP AMERICA!!

"Vague Warning" or Blueprint for Disaster?

The story Bush wants the world to buy is that the warnings he received were vague, routine, too general to act upon. Condi Rice wants us to believe that no one in the administration could have dreamed the hijackers would fly into a landmark building. But, as they say in show biz, this is "lies, lies, and damn lies."

Since 1993, scores of people, collectively, in the White House, Pentagon, State Department, FBI, and CIA have know that an attack like 9/11 was not only a possibility –but an increasingly likely probability. Because I am not writing a book here, I will confine myself to summarizing the most obvious pieces of evidence that Bush and his team had to work with. However, they are enough to convict him in any court of opinion.

'Impeach Bush' ....by Cindy Sheehan

2006-11-20T21:33:00.000-08:00

Thursday, November 16th, 2006
'Impeachment Proceedings' ...by Cindy Sheehan

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish

Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,

promote the General Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves

and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

- Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America

There are many important issues facing our nation and the 110th Congress. Minimum wage increases and universal health care are long past due. I certainly appreciate the stirrings about bringing our troops home from Iraq within 3 or 4 months, too! After all, six more troops were killed yesterday while our politicos are playing footsies with each other! We thought that Nov. 7th was a day to celebrate! When the last of our brave young people come limping home to their relieved families that will be a joy-filled and historic day.

I believe, though, that those same troops and others who have fought so bravely, died so needlessly, and have been wounded for life deserve justice for what the Bush regime has put them through. I believe that this country and the world deserve justice for the raping and pillaging by the pirates who have stolen our liberties and inflicted torture and other pains and hardships upon the world. I believe that impeachment proceedings are the most important issue that the 110th Congress should put on OUR table.

Since I have written open letters to George and Reps Pelosi and Conyers, I have had almost overwhelming support for the ideas, but there are also some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed.

First of all, many people believe that impeachment proceedings will be seen as "political" revenge for what the Republicans have done to the Democrats for the last 12 years or revenge for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Impeachment is not a political tool as used by the Republican Congress, but it is a Constitutional remedy for elected or appointed officials who are abusing their powers. If George has not abused his powers as president and commander in chief, then no president in history has. I will not detail his high crimes and misdemeanor and crimes against peace and humanity, because all of his illicit activities have already been well documented. Justice should not be a partisan issue and if Congress took their oath to the Constitution as seriously as they take their allegiance to the special interests and to partisan politicking, George would have already been impeached.

Secondly, many people are fearful that impeachment proceedings will bog down Congress. Elizabeth Holtzman who was a Representative from New York and sat on the investigative committee that recommended impeachment articles be charged against Richard Nixon said, last weekend at our impeachment forum in Philadelphia's Constitutional Hall, that this kind of reasoning doesn't give Congress enough credit. Ms. Holtzman said that Congress is able to "walk and chew gum" at the same time. I will have to take her word for it, since she is the reasoned voice of experience.

Lastly, people are concerned that holding George accountable will further divide a country already damaged and split by the "Uniter." This is a legitimate concern, but our country healed completely after the Nixon debacle, and we will heal again. I would like to also give us Americans the credit that we deserve. We have proven over and over again that we are very resilient and strong enough to withstand a quest for accountability.

Recent polls have shown that most Americans want proceedings instituted against BushCo. The newly elected Congressional leadership will not institute these proceedings unless the will of the people is shown. Many members of the Congresses, in both parties, that have been seated since BushCo came to power in an illegal electoral coup in 2000, have been willing co-conspirators in the Bush crimes against everything and it is up to the will of the American people to correct the course that is robbing the Blessings of Liberty from all of us and from our posterity. As the preamble states, it is our Constitution, as well as it is theirs, and we need to reclaim our country and our humanity before it is lost to us forever.

Bringing Articles of Impeachment against BushCo will not only bring resolution and justice to our nation and the world, but if this regime is made to be held accountable for their crimes and abuses of power, then future administrations may be slower to commit such blatant and belligerent crimes and the world will be a safer and more peaceful place. But there is an overriding reason for these proceedings to be instituted as soon as possible: A president is not above the law, or the law. A president is an elected official who has a duty to obey, carry out and protect the laws of our land, not break them as if he were a dictator of a banana republic, not leader of a once great nation. We need to restore our greatness and our credibility to a world that despises us for allowing BushCo free rein to commit their aggressions against the world.

By attaining this justice that our world so desperately needs, we people of compassion and courage cannot bring back the hundreds of thousands of people who have been killed already. We cannot put the buildings back together that the war machine's bombs have destroyed. We cannot make whole the people who have been emotionally and physically wounded by these high crimes and misdemeanors. We cannot put back together the families who have been torn apart by illegal wars. No matter how hard we try, we cannot prevent the pain that has already been caused by BushCo, but by bringing them to justice, we can, and will prevent more needless suffering here at home and abroad for the present and for our posterity.

Our dead, our soldiers, and the people of Iraq are voiceless in the debate on accountability and we must be their voices. The Constitution cannot break out of its glass at the National Archives and sit-in in front of the White House or walk the Halls of Congress to demand that BushCo quit desecrating it and what the US used to stand for. It is up to us, the citizens, to protect humanity and the law of our land. As historian Howard Zinn states in the introduction to Impeach the President, the Case against Bush and Cheney, edited by Dennis Loo and Peter Phillips:

We cannot expect either Republicans or Democrats in Congress to initiate any challenge to the existing order of things. In the history of the nation, serious injustices---slavery, racial segregation, the rights of working people, the condition of women, the war in Vietnam---have only been remedied by powerful social movements that have forced the government to change its policies.

Now we have another such time.

Our very existence as a nation of laws and justice depends on it.

Please visit Impeach for Change to learn about the new and powerful people's movement for accountability. Sign up for an impeachment forum in your area on Human Rights day, December 10th, or organize one locally if there is not one near you. I will be speaking with, among other notable Americans, Elizabeth Holtzman, at the forum in NYC that day.

Please visit Gold Star Families for Peace to learn about our Walk for Change campaign in the Halls of Congress on January 3rd and 4th, 2007. You can join Gold Star Family members in our demand for peace and accountability.

2006 was the year of the Awakening and 2007 will be the year of the Change!

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spec. Casey Sheehan who was KIA in the Bush regime's war of terror on 04/04/04. She is the co-founder and president of Gold Star Families for Peace and founder and director of the Camp Casey Peace Institute. Cindy has published three books and the latest is Peace Mom: A Mother's Journey Through Heartache to Activism.

Impeach Bush and Cheney !!!

2006-11-14T22:13:00.000-08:00

Impeach Pres. Bush

By Baiano

Impeach Pres. Bush !!!

and put them in jail !!!!

October 5: No Work. No School. Protest in the Streets.

2006-09-26T21:32:00.000-07:00

October 5: No Work. No School. Protest in the Streets.

On October 5, people everywhere will walk out of school, take off work, and come to the downtowns & townsquares and set out from there, going through the streets and calling on many more to join us - making a powerful statement: "NO! THIS REGIME DOES NOT REPRESENT US! AND WE WILL DRIVE IT OUT!"

What difference will the Oct. 5 protests make?...

>What You Can Do to Make October 5 a Success

>PDF flyer to distribute

>More organizing materials

Latest Developments:

>PROTESTS PLANNED IN OVER 80 CITIES

>Permit granted for San Francisco march

>Initial list of speakers

>New Oct. 5 video on the World Can't Wait MySpace page.

Peaceful Iraq war protests prompt 71 arrests

2006-09-26T21:24:00.000-07:00

September 26th, 2006 8:06 pm

Peaceful Iraq war protests prompt 71 arrests

By Lisa Goddard / CNN

WASHINGTON -- Two Presbyterian ministers were among 71 people arrested during a series of peaceful protests against the Iraq war Tuesday, said a spokeswoman for a group participating in the protests.

Demonstrators held sit-ins, prayer services and sing-alongs at four locations in the Capitol complex, including the central atrium of the Senate Hart Office Building.

The demonstrations were reminiscent of the Vietnam era, with protesters strumming guitars, singing peace songs, holding flowers and wearing hats made of balloons.

Senate staffers watched the demonstrators from their offices. Protesters said that several workers gave them a thumbs-up or other signs of approval.

"We are trying to protest a lack of civil liberties and to try and end a war culture," said protester Alex Bryan of New York.

Thirty-three of those arrested were charged with unlawful conduct inside the Hart Building, said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider of the Capitol Police.

Thirty-eight more demonstrators were arrested at separate protests near the Capitol, she said. Of those, 23 were charged with crossing a police line and 15 were charged with demonstrating without a permit.

All of those arrested were cooperative with police, Schneider said.

The National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance, which has organized dozens of anti-war protests around the country, coordinated Tuesday's effort, which included several religious and secular groups.

Among those arrested during the demonstrations were two Presbyterian ministers, a Catholic activist and a member of a Quaker group, said Jennifer Kuiper, spokeswoman for The Declaration of Peace, one of the groups participating in the protests.

Both groups apparently expected participants to be arrested. On a notice posted at The Declaration of Peace Web site, the protests are described as an "interfaith religious procession around the Capitol, followed by peace presence and nonviolent resistance, including risking arrest at the U.S. Senate."

The National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance Web site adds, "Those willing to engage in nonviolent acts of civil resistance against the war and occupation are encouraged to join us. We also enthusiastically call upon those who cannot risk arrest, but who are willing to support those who do."

Despite a rising tide of war opposition, the protesters said they represent no party or political movement.

Baptist minister Jamie Washam of Wisconsin, who led an interfaith service during the protests, said she is adamantly opposed to the war.

"My congregation wants peace," she said. "And I think it's an offense to God."

Tuesday's events in Washington were part of 375 protests and other activities being held around the country this week in opposition to the war, according to The Declaration of Peace.

There were hundreds of arrests in a protest organized by the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance a year ago. On September 26, 2005, 371 people were arrested during the "Resist and Remember" protest in Washington, one of the organization's founders, Gordon Clark, wrote in an online article.

Of those, 104 were arrested at the White House for refusing to leave after being denied an audience with President Bush, Clark wrote.

Other items in this section

More of Latest News

September 26th, 2006 8:06 pm
Peaceful Iraq war protests prompt 71 arrests

September 26th, 2006 7:35 pm
Students, parents unite to stop calls from military recruiters

September 26th, 2006 7:05 pm
Iraq is 'cause celebre' for extremists

September 26th, 2006 3:14 pm
Four peace activists are arrested

September 26th, 2006 12:23 pm
Torture Victim Had No Terror Link, Canada Told U.S.

September 26th, 2006 3:11 am
CIA paid Pakistan for catching al Qaeda: Musharraf

September 26th, 2006 2:40 am
Detainee Measure to Have Fewer Restrictions

September 26th, 2006 12:58 am
6 arrested at anti-war protest in Charlotte

September 25th, 2006 11:37 pm
Three Retired Officers Demand Rumsfeld's Resignation

September 25th, 2006 9:44 pm
Activists push peace declaration, at least four arrested

Mike's Latest News Archive

Search the site

Advanced Search | Need Tips on Searching?

2006-09-24T14:45:00.000-07:00

How Israel is Engineering the "Clash of Civilizations"

By JONATHAN COOK

Nazareth.

The trajectory of a long-running campaign that gave birth this month to the preposterous all-party British parliamentary report into anti-Semitism in the UK can be traced back to intensive lobbying by the Israeli government that began more than four years ago, in early 2002.

At that time, as Ariel Sharon was shredding the tattered remains of the Oslo accords by reinvading West Bank towns handed over to the Palestinian Authority in his destructive rampage known as Operation Defensive Shield, he drafted the Israeli media into the fray. Local newspapers began endlessly highlighting concerns about the rise of a "new anti-Semitism", a theme that was rapidly and enthusiastically taken up by the muscular Zionist lobby in the US.

It was not the first time, of course, that Israel had called on American loyalists to help it out of trouble. In Beyond Chutzpah, Norman Finkelstein documents the advent of claims about a new anti-Semitism to Israel's lacklustre performance in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. On that occasion, it was hoped, the charge of anti-Semitism could be deployed against critics to reduce pressure on Israel to return Sinai to Egypt and negotiate with the Palestinians.

Israel alerted the world to another wave of anti-Semitism in the early 1980s, just as it came under unprecedented criticism for its invasion and occupation of Lebanon. What distinguished the new anti-Semitism from traditional anti-Jewish racism of the kind that led to Germany's death camps, said its promoters, was that this time it embraced the progressive left rather than the far right.

The fresh claims about a new anti-Semitism began life in the spring of 2002, with the English-language website of Israel's respected liberal daily newspaper, Haaretz, flagging for many months a special online supplement of articles on the "New anti-Semitism", warning that the "age-old hatred" was being revived in Europe and America. The refrain was soon taken up the Jerusalem Post, a rightwing English-language newspaper regularly used by the Israeli establishment to shore up support for its policies among Diaspora Jews.

Like its precursors, argued Israel's apologists, the latest wave of anti-Semitism was the responsibility of Western progressive movements -- though with a fresh twist. An ever-present but largely latent Western anti-Semitism was being stoked into frenzy by the growing political and intellectual influence of extremist Muslim immigrants. The implication was that an unholy alliance had been spawned between the left and militant Islam.

Such views were first aired by senior members of Sharon's cabinet. In an interview in the Jerusalem Post in November 2002, for example, Binyamin Netanyahu warned that latent anti-Semitism was again becoming active:

"In my view, there are many in Europe who oppose anti-Semitism, and many governments and leaders who oppose anti-Semitism, but the strain exists there. It is ignoring reality to say that it is not present. It has now been wedded to and stimulated by the more potent and more overt force of anti-Semitism, which is Islamic anti-Semitism coming from some of the Islamic minorities in European countries. This is often disguised as anti-Zionism."

Netanyahu proposed "lancing the boil" by beginning an aggressive public relations campaign of "self-defence". A month later Israel's president, Moshe Katsav, picked on the softest target of all, warning during a state visit that the fight against anti-Semitism must begin in Germany, where "voices of anti-Semitism can be heard".

But, as ever, the main target of the new anti-Semitism campaign were audiences in the US, Israel's generous patron. There, members of the Israel lobby were turning into a chorus of doom.

In the early stages of the campaign, the lobby's real motivation was not concealed: it wanted to smother a fledgling debate by American civil society, particularly the churches and universities, to divest -- withdraw their substantial investments -- from Israel in response to Operation Defensive Shield.

In October 2002, after Israel had effectively reoccupied the West Bank, the ever-reliable Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, lumped in critics who were calling for divestment from Israel with the new anti-Semites. He urged a new body established by the Israeli government called the Forum for Co-ordinating the Struggle against anti-Semitism to articulate clearly "what we know in our hearts and guts: when that line [to anti-Semitism] is crossed".

A fortnight later Foxman had got into his stride, warning that Jews were more vulnerable than at any time since the Second World War. "I did not believe in my lifetime that I or we would be preoccupied on the level that we are, or [face] the intensity of anti-Semitism that we are experiencing," he told the Jerusalem Post.

Echoing Netanyahu's warning, Foxman added that the rapid spread of the new anti-Semitism had been made possible by the communications revolution, mainly the internet, which was allowing Muslims to relay their hate messages across the world within seconds, infecting people around the globe.

It is now clear that Israel and its loyalists had three main goals in mind as they began their campaign. Two were familiar motives from previous attempts at highlighting a "new anti-Semitism". The third was new.

The first aim, and possibly the best understood, was to stifle all criticism of Israel, particularly in the US. During the course of 2003 it became increasingly apparent to journalists like myself that the American media, and soon much of the European media, was growing shy of printing even the mild criticism of Israel it usually allowed. By the time Israel began stepping up the pace of construction of its monstrous wall across the West Bank in spring 2003, editors were reluctant to touch the story.

As the fourth estate fell silent, so did many of the progressive voices in our universities and churches. Divestment was entirely removed from the agenda. McCarthyite organisations like CampusWatch helped enforce the reign of intimidation. Academics who stood their ground, like Columbia University's Joseph Massad, attracted the vindictive attention of new activist groups like the David Project.

A second, less noticed, goal was an urgent desire to prevent any slippage in the numbers of Jews inside Israel that might benefit the Palestinians as the two ethnic groups approached demographic parity in the area know to Israelis as Greater Israel and to Palestinians as historic Palestine.

Demography had been a long-standing obsession of the Zionist movement: during the 1948 war, the Israeli army terrorised away or forcibly removed some 80 per cent of the Palestinians living inside the borders of what became Israel to guarantee its new status as a Jewish state.

But by the turn of the millennium, following Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, and the rapid growth of the oppressed Palestinian populations both in the occupied territories and inside Israel, demography had been pushed to the top of Israel's policy agenda again.

During the second intifada, as the Palestinians fought back against Israel's war machine with a wave of suicide bombs on buses in major Israeli cities, Sharon's government feared that well-off Israeli Jews might start to regard Europe and America as a safer bet than Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. The danger was that the demographic battle might be lost as Israeli Jews emigrated.

By suggesting that Europe in particular had become a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism, it was hoped that Israeli Jews, many of whom have more than one passport, would be afraid to leave. A survey by the Jewish Agency taken as early as May 2002 showed, for example, that 84 per cent of Israelis believed anti-Semitism had again become a serious threat to world Jewry.

At the same time Israeli politicians concentrated their attention on the two European countries with the largest Jewish populations, Britain and France, both of which also have significant numbers of immigrant Muslims. They highlighted a supposed rise in anti-Semitism in these two countries in the hope of attracting their Jewish populations to Israel.

In France, for example, peculiar anti-Semitic attacks were given plenty of media coverage: from a senior rabbi who was stabbed (by himself, as it later turned out) to a young Jewish woman attacked on a train by anti-Semitic thugs (except, as it later emerged, she was not Jewish).

Sharon took advantage of the manufactured climate of fear in July 2004 to claim that France was in the grip of "the wildest anti-Semitism", urging French Jews to come to Israel.

The third goal, however, had not seen before. It tied the rise of a new anti-Semitism with the increase of Islamic fundamentalism in the West, implying that Muslim extremists were asserting an ideological control over Western thinking. It chimed well with the post 9-11 atmosphere.

In this spirit, American Jewish academics like David Goldhagen characterised anti-Semitism as constantly "evolving". In a piece entitled "The Globalisation of anti-Semitism" published in the American Jewish weekly Forward in May 2003, Goldhagen argued that Europe had exported its classical racist anti-Semitism to the Arab world, which in turn was reinfecting the West.

"Then the Arab countries re-exported the new hybrid demonology back to Europe and, using the United Nations and other international institutions, to other countries around the world. In Germany, France, Great Britain and elsewhere, today's intensive anti-Semitic expression and agitation uses old tropes once applied to local Jews -- charges of sowing disorder, wanting to subjugate others -- with new content overwhelmingly directed at Jews outside their countries."

This theory of a "free-floating" contagion of hatred towards Jews, being spread by Arabs and their sympathisers through the internet, media and international bodies, found many admirers. The British neo-conservative journalist Melanie Philips claimed popularly, if ludicrously, that British identity was being subverted and pushed out by an Islamic identity that was turning her country into a capital of terror, "Londonistan".

This final goal of the proponents of "the new anti-Semitism" was so successful because it could be easily conflated with other ideas associated with America's war on terror, such as the clash of civilisations. If it was "us" versus "them", then the new anti-Semitism posited from the outset that the Jews were on the side of the angels. It fell to the Christian West to decide whether to make a pact with good (Judaism, Israel, civilisation) or evil (Islam, Osama bin Laden, Londonistan).

We are far from reaching the end of this treacherous road, both because the White House is bankrupt of policy initiatives apart from its war on terror, and because Israel's place is for the moment assured at the heart of the US administration's neoconservative agenda.

That was made clear last week when Netanyahu, the most popular politician in Israel, added yet another layer of lethal mischief to the neoconservative spin machine as it gears up to confront Iran over its nuclear ambitions. Netanyahu compared Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Adolf Hitler.

"Hitler went out on a world campaign first, and then tried to get nuclear weapons. Iran is trying to get nuclear arms first. Therefore from that perspective, it is much more dangerous," Netanyahu told Israel's anti-terrorism policymakers.

Netanyahu's implication was transparent: Iran is looking for another Final Solution, this one targeting Israel as well as world Jewry. The moment of reckoning is near at hand, according to Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister, who claims against all the evidence that Iran is only months away from posssessing nuclear weapons.

"International terrorism is a mistaken term," Netanyahu added, "not because it doesn't exist, but because the problem is international militant Islam. That is the movement that operates terror on the international level, and that is the movement that is preparing the ultimate terror, nuclear terrorism."

Faced with the evil designs of the "Islamic fascists", such as those in Iran, Israel's nuclear arsenal -- and the nuclear Holocaust Israel can and appears prepared to unleash -- may be presented as the civilised world's salvation.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. He is the author of the forthcoming "Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State" published by Pluto Press, and available in the United States from the University of Michigan Press. His website is www.jkcook.net

Hugo Chavez and Bush

2006-09-24T14:12:00.000-07:00

AMY GOODMAN: Mr. President Hugo Chavez, your assessment of president Bush, of the invasion and occupation of Iraq? And do you think if it weren't Iraq, it would have been Venezuela?
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ: The imperialist government of Mr. Bush planned. What is the U.S. government looking for? And the elite governing this country? They're looking for oil. This is part of the crisis that is looming in the horizon. You should know that the U.S., I already said this, 5% of the world population lives in this country and you consume 25% of the energy. That this consumption is partially rational, I am convinced that the U.S. people will wake up to the reality of things. Yesterday morning, we were coming from the airport for instance, it was the traffic jam time, it was very packed in the highway coming from the airport here. I talked to the people in my car, looked outside, looked at the cars surrounding us. Out of a hundred cars, ninety-nine were occupied by a single person, the driver only. Cars occupying the highways, and burning fuel, how many gallons of fuel were burned yesterday morning, polluting the environment? That's the extreme of individualism. And public transportation, we don’t see large buses coming from the airport here. So this is pure individualism, this is capitalism.
This planet cannot stand this model any longer. I think developed countries-- so-called developed countries should reflect upon the way of living and the waste of energy. And the government knows this. The big trans-nationals know this. The U.S. only has 20 billion barrels of oil in reserve. It seems as though there is no more oil around. Venezuela has 300 billion barrels of oil in reserves. Iraq has like 150 billion barrels of oil. Iran, close to 300 billion barrels of reserve. Oil for 200 years of course. Now, it is clear that the U.S. government wants that oil. That's why they planned, first they tried to get the Venezuelan oil and, of course the coup, they staged against us. That was an oil-motivated coup. They want to have the control over Venezuelan oil before going for the Iraq, for Iraq’s oil.
They failed in Venezuela. So they went to attack Iraq. And the soldiers. And when I saw on TV how they were broadcasting in the evening news of the tanks attacking Baghdad, advancing toward Baghdad, and they said the Baghdad population were going to receive the American marines with flowers. I said, those people are nuts. They're insane. These people have been combating for centuries. This is the Mesopotamian people. I know a little bit of the spirit of the Arab countries. Those are warriors, ten times more warriors than we are. They've been struggling in war for many centuries. They're going to receive, not with flowers, they're going to resist the occupation. That's the reality we are facing today. The U.S. government, they fooled the U.S. soldiers, telling them, no, its going to be a piece of cake, that your going to be received as heroes, that the Arabian girls will throw flowers at them. They are drowning in a quagmire of blood and it is very painful. That’s the risk that is hovering over the world today. They are now threatening Iraq. There are still threats over Venezuela. They still think about assassinating me. There are also plans to invade Venezuela. Now, when you know the way of thinking of those in the White House, any insanity is possible. Now, let me tell you this, if the imperialist government of the White House led an invasion against Venezuela, well, the war of 100 years will be unleashed in South America. Because with our teeth, with our nails with our knees, we will go to struggle and defend our dignity in South America. Now, I aspire and I pray to God that this will never occur. We want peace. We want life. We want to have eternal relations with these sisters countries, sister nations.
The U.S. people have a major role to play to solve, to save this planet. Because we're talking about the government. I was reading recently, Noam Chomsky, I read him very frequently. And in one of his most recent books, Chomsky, I would like very much to shake hands with Chomsky. I've been reading him for a while. I admire him enormously. The name of the book is “Hegemony or Survival” its what Rosa Luxemburg used to say, “socialism or barbarism.” We changed to Capitalism, and we’re going back to the caveman. Chomsky in his book, he says that two superpowers in this world and I was really shocked by that idea. I think he’s right after all. I think the key to save the world is one super power, this government? And it’s military power? Might? Fear? Technological might space power, economic might and so on. But what is the other superpower that could perhaps stop this government. That could even put an end to imperialism so we can have a true democracy to help the peoples of the world.
The U.S. Government which will be fully aware of the needs of Africa, the needs of the poor. Let's assume that we have a government here in the United States that overnight decides to cut in half the military expenses and withdraw the troops from around the world and declare it is the champion of peace of the world and declare itself an enemy of imperialism and then devote billions of dollars to the poor. Last year the defense budget was $400 billion in military defense. Just for one single year. One single year. For those $400 billion we can go to Africa, in the poor countries of Asia, in the Caribbean and Latin America, we can help them.
I’ve learned to appreciate the thinking of John Kennedy. John Kennedy once said, and that's why he was assassinated, listen to the South, he said once. The recent revolution going on in the south in Africa, in Asia, and Latin America. It was in the 1960's, where the people, the black power was raging. Che Guevara said, one, two, three, Japan, and Vietnam and Asia. The world was fed up with misery and inequities. As he said, the cause of all the revolution is poverty. And he said this sentence, today more than ever is valid, he said, those who shut down the doors to peaceful resolutions open the doors to violent revolutions. That's a reality. I do believe that the U.S. people – is the other super power that Noam Chomsky is referring to. What is the other super power? Public opinion. The peoples of the world. That's the other super power. And the U.S. People have a major responsibility in the world. I think that we're going to save the world. And I hope that you take part in this struggle in the same way we are doing today. And many other people, women and men in this country, in this soil.
AMY GOODMAN: Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez in a rare interview speaking with Democracy Now! and Pacifica Radio at the Venezuelan ambassador to the U.N.'s home in New York. Coming up, the president speaks about the Cuban, anti-Castro militant Luis Posada as well as the role of the media and the aborted coup against Chavez. This is Democracy Now! stay with us. [break]
MARGARET PRESCOD: President Chavez, speaking of the other super power, the Bush administration via Rumsfeld referred to you as a threat to the region. Many of us translating that on a grass root level assume that means that you're doing something that really rattles the Bush administration and means also that you're wildly popular in the region. Which we have seen. I want you to comment on two things. In relation to women and also the relationship between the middle class and the grassroots. You're the only president who has said that to deal with poverty, you have to give power to the poor, 70% of whom are women. Why did you say this? And how are you putting it into practice? And also in relation to the middle class and the grassroots of that relationship, some of us have often seen how middle class professionals who are used to being in charge, instead of putting their skills at the service of the grassroots, cling to power and keep the grassroots out. How are you addressing the class issue in Venezuela so that the movement here can learn from it?
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ: That's a very important issue you are raising there. Because you are touching the core, the very core of any transformation process. Beat reformists, beat revolutionaries, beat an abrupt process or aggressive process, moderate or radical. In any transformation process, social transformation process, economic transformation process, political-- is doomed to fail without the participation of the grassroots and the population. The people, the communities, they are like the fuel. They are the fuel of revolution, of the processes. Without them there's no revolution. It’s like water. It's just a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. Or air, oxygen is important for this mixture to occur. That is why when you go to the plenary sessions of the U.N., I feel like oxygen is missing there. Because it is so removed from the reality of the people, of the needs of the people.
You ask me then, in the Bolivarian revolution, the role of the grassroots communities, the women and men, as well of course. But the grassroots and communities, their role is vital, and it’s more dynamic. It's very beautiful in the roles they have to play. Just to give you an idea of some of the experiences we have had in Venezuela. I leave for Venezuela this weekend. Next week we are going to have an event in Caracas with thousands of people who are part of the Urban Land Committee, the C.T.U. in Spanish. These committees of urban land are all over the country. They are in each neighborhood, poor neighborhood. You have a committee. The members of this committee should watch the whole neighborhood. And then they draft the map of the neighborhood. They go house by house, family by family and they assess all the problems. If they lack running water or if some of the houses are unstable and they could fall down. How many children they have. The schools. The health care system in the neighborhood and so on. So these are the urban land communities.
We also have the technical commissions of water. These technical commissions of water interact with the urban land committee. They take care of the water supply and also the sewage system. There are other technical groups to take care of energy supply, electricity supply especially. We have also the health committee. The rural land committees in the rural areas. We also have housing cooperatives. In large networks of grassroots organizations, as you know, in the constitution that we have drafted, in the government we foster these grassroots movements. Here we have been trying the democratic model. It is the revolutionary democracy. But it is not only a representative democracy. It is a participatory democracy and beyond that it is a fully and meaningful democracy. And Abraham Lincoln already said this: the government of the people, for the people and by the people. That what we say here is to transfer power to the people, especially the poorest of the poor. If you want to get rid of poverty, we need to empower the poor. Not to treat them like beggars. And this week we're going to give money, we’re going to give financial resources to these neighborhood committees, grassroots organizations, we’re going to give them technical resources, equipment, we are going to carry out the housing schemes, infrastructure schemes, water supply, electricity supply schemes. So this is a beautiful task we are conducting.
Because there, we are reducing to zero, the possibility of corruption because we give the money to the population themselves. And they put it in the bank, they help to make withdrawals and then execute the budget. They have to save some money also. And, of course, the money is to better used. They do the social oversight of the use of the moneys. Efficiency, because the work will profit them. It not a private company that is going to do the job and they take the profit and in the end the community is poorer than before.
And let me tell you this. In all these committees, cooperatives, the women play a major role. Without women there would be no revolution. Artists are never wrong when they paint revolution with the beautiful dress and with the sword. On the horse or by foot. Because revolution is a woman. A woman is the revolution. But the poverty also is the face of the woman. And the hopes is also woman. And nature is also woman. There will be no probability of success without the creative participation and the powerful participation of women.
MARGARET PRESCOD: Thank you.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, there's no longer any doubt that the majority of the people in Venezuela support your government. But there are still those in Venezuela who say that you are using that majority support to stamp out the dissident views. Recently, I participated in a forum at Columbia University with Gustavo Cisnero, the head of Venevision, where he insisted that you are not allowing a free press to continue to function in Venezuela. I asked him, well what is the press of Venezuela doing organizing political coups? But I'd like you to talk about the role of the press in your democratic revolution and the importance of the press in general in communicating ideas to the mass of the people.
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ: Ignacio Ramonet recently wrote a piece called “The Media Dictatorship” because most of the media, not only in Venezuela but all over the world as well, they are in the hands of very powerful people. Very powerful economic people. For instance this person you refer to is a clear example of that. And he was one of the ones taking part in the coup in that time. And he use all his media power and all the private channels in Venezuela and all the media, the press, newspapers and private TV stations even succeeded in fooling the international public opinion for some time. They depicted me as a tyrant who massacred his people. The tyrant was defeated, was overthrown, was toppled. However, a few hours after that, the people who toppled the tyrant brought the tyrant back. So they were naked before the world, of course. So that is one of the problems the world is facing today, the media’s tyranny and that we have been denouncing around the world. However, at the same time we are very encouraged by the fact that we have excellent shows.
Every day the more the truth is being revealed in the Hurricane. I was watching CNN during the Katrina disaster, and you can see how the journalists-- I remember a lady who was in the eye of the hurricane, Inez Fered, I think the name of this lady. I watched a lot of TV at the time during Katrina. Well she started to interview people and telling the truth. And then another journalist, and they started to criticize the government for the way they reacted to the tragedy. So the powers could not silence the truth. Not even through CNN. And other media, large media. Now in Venezuela we have full freedom of the press. I doubt very much that there is any other country where freedom of the speech is so respected in Venezuela. For instance, Luis Zapatero, the president of the Spanish government, he arrived late, and I waited for him in the palace the next day. When he saw me, he told me, Chavez, I had many news about you and about freedom of speech. Now, this morning I saw two hours of TV shows. And I read the papers. I have no doubt in my mind that here you have full and total freedom of speech. And this will continue to be so. And all these rumors and attacks against us are totally untrue. And I think here in the United States you have a journalist in jail because she did not reveal her sources. This has never, in other parts of our history, never happened. Journalists who were in jail and journalists killed or persecuted. Today, there is total freedom Venezuela. This is part of the dynamic of the revolutionary democracy. And what the capitalists of the media do not forgive us, forgive the people because we have demonstrated that the people are fully aware of the reality defeat the media campaign.
You ask about the middle class. I forgot to mention the middle classes. This is important. The same struggles -- the same reality that was discovered openly in the world is touching today the middle class. In Venezuela, middle class’s current is appearing all over the country. And they are adding up. They are joining the process. After the coup there is this movement called middle class in positive this is a movement which is growing every day. When the medical doctors, the Cuban doctors arrived in Venezuela. The media launched a campaign against these Cuban doctors. And they succeeded in making the middle class to oppose the presence of the Cuban doctors in Venezuela. They succeeded in preventing Venezuelan doctors to join these health care schemes. It was insanity, total insanity. Today, however, we have thousands of Venezuelan doctors joining the Cuban doctors in these programs. We have dentists, ophthalmologists, and the “Into the Neighborhood” project, the health care program, today, two hundred million of doctors seeing patients in poor neighborhoods. We have twenty-five million people. It means that it’s four times the population. It’s like each Venezuelan has gone to the doctor four times, and these being free of charge procedures with the medication. The Venezuelan doctors today are joining this scheme. And together with Castro, we have signed an agreement to form, to train two hundred thousand doctors in ten years. To train them in South America, Africa and the U.S., social doctors, doctors who are not charging, those who are saving lives. People who are giving a lending hand to the poor. That’s the medical doctors we need. We have also started a project called “The Miracle Project,” and we put this project today to be at the disposal of the U.S. If you know someone – tomorrow when you show this broadcast this show and you have people who have eye problems and they cannot afford an eye surgery, please, go to the Venezuelan Consulate in the U.S. Go to the U.S. Embassy in Washington. Go to CITGO. We can guarantee the transportation of these people to Caracas and Havana free, totally free of charge. These people could undergo eye surgery. This year we have conducted close to 100,000 eye surgeries, cataracts. In children, when you do not operate these cataracts, they can go blind, cornea operations, estavism, myopia and many others. You wear glasses and you are writing pretty well, right? If you remove your glasses, you cannot read. It’s going to be difficult. The same thing. I am 51 years old. So I have problems with my eyes. I need glasses. There are people who cannot read because no one has told them that they should wear glasses. They don't have glasses to read – millions of human beings. So we have this plan with Fidel, and we have agreed to do this in the next 10 years, and we have already started, 2005 to 2015, we are going to operate to conduct eye surgery to a million people. 600,000 people per year. That's a miracle surgery. And that includes the U.S. people, especially the poorest of the poor. Help us to help these people who are suffering from eye diseases.
AMY GOODMAN: Mr. President, I know you have to go, but why are you calling for the extradition of Luis Posada to Venezuela?
PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ: Well, you know that this gentleman – there is ample evidence that this guy is a terrorist, clear evidence that he took part and he masterminded, among many other terrorist attacks, in the blowing the Cuban plane that was coming from Barbados to Caracas. It was blown up, and 73 people died as a result of this terrorist attack. But also in Venezuela this person occupied a senior position in the political police force, and there are many evidences of tortures, of people missing as a result of his acts. It was in the 1960's and the 1970's. So this gentleman, Posada, was already condemned in Venezuela for the blowing of the plane. He was in jail, but he fled. He escaped with the connivance of friends in jail. So we have the duty, once we located him – and we located him here in the U.S. – well it is our duty to request that he is extradited to Venezuela because he is a murderer. He is an assassin. He's a terrorist. He's a very dangerous person. He has caused a lot of harm, and he could even cause more harm, by himself and in a network he is leading, because he is very active. If he were in jail, he would be the mastermind of the terrorist network that already took part in the coup attempt in Venezuela, like snipers for instance, they were sent to kill people. So they blame me for those deaths. So this person should be extradited in Venezuela.

AMY GOODMAN:

Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act

2006-09-24T13:59:00.000-07:00

Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act

Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2006-09-24 14:51. Impeachment

BY ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, Chicago Sun Times

Thirty-two years ago, President Gerald Ford created a political firestorm by pardoning former President Richard Nixon of all crimes he may have committed in Watergate -- and lost his election as a result. Now, President Bush, to avoid a similar public outcry, is quietly trying to pardon himself of any crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of U.S. detainees.

The ''pardon'' is buried in Bush's proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ''pardon'' provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.

Press accounts of the provision have described it as providing immunity for CIA interrogators. But its terms cover the president and other top officials because the act applies to any U.S. national.

Avoiding prosecution under the War Crimes Act has been an obsession of this administration since shortly after 9/11. In a January 2002 memorandum to the president, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales pointed out the problem of prosecution for detainee mistreatment under the War Crimes Act. He notes that given the vague language of the statute, no one could predict what future ''prosecutors and independent counsels'' might do if they decided to bring charges under the act. As an author of the 1978 special prosecutor statute, I know that independent counsels (who used to be called ''special prosecutors'' prior to the statute's reauthorization in 1994) aren't for low-level government officials such as CIA interrogators, but for the president and his Cabinet. It is clear that Gonzales was concerned about top administration officials.

Gonzales also understood that the specter of prosecution could hang over top administration officials involved in detainee mistreatment throughout their lives. Because there is no statute of limitations in cases where death resulted from the mistreatment, prosecutors far into the future, not appointed by Bush or beholden to him, would be making the decisions whether to prosecute.

To ''reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act,'' Gonzales recommended that Bush not apply the Geneva Conventions to al-Qaida and the Taliban. Since the War Crimes Act carried out the Geneva Conventions, Gonzales reasoned that if the Conventions didn't apply, neither did the War Crimes Act. Bush implemented the recommendation on Feb. 7, 2002.

When the Supreme Court recently decided that the Conventions did apply to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees, the possibility of criminal liability for high-level administration officials reared its ugly head again.

What to do? The administration has apparently decided to secure immunity from prosecution through legislation. Under cover of the controversy involving the military tribunals and whether they could use hearsay or coerced evidence, the administration is trying to pardon itself, hoping that no one will notice. The urgent timetable has to do more than anything with the possibility that the next Congress may be controlled by Democrats, who will not permit such a provision to be adopted.

Creating immunity retroactively for violating the law sets a terrible precedent. The president takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution; that document requires him to obey the laws, not violate them. A president who knowingly and deliberately violates U.S. criminal laws should not be able to use stealth tactics to immunize himself from liability, and Congress should not go along.

Elizabeth Holtzman, a former New York congresswoman, is co-author with Cynthia L. Cooper of The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens.

Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act

2006-09-24T13:53:00.000-07:00

Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act

Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2006-09-24 14:51. Impeachment

BY ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, Chicago Sun Times

Thirty-two years ago, President Gerald Ford created a political firestorm by pardoning former President Richard Nixon of all crimes he may have committed in Watergate -- and lost his election as a result. Now, President Bush, to avoid a similar public outcry, is quietly trying to pardon himself of any crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of U.S. detainees.

The ''pardon'' is buried in Bush's proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ''pardon'' provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.

Press accounts of the provision have described it as providing immunity for CIA interrogators. But its terms cover the president and other top officials because the act applies to any U.S. national.

Avoiding prosecution under the War Crimes Act has been an obsession of this administration since shortly after 9/11. In a January 2002 memorandum to the president, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales pointed out the problem of prosecution for detainee mistreatment under the War Crimes Act. He notes that given the vague language of the statute, no one could predict what future ''prosecutors and independent counsels'' might do if they decided to bring charges under the act. As an author of the 1978 special prosecutor statute, I know that independent counsels (who used to be called ''special prosecutors'' prior to the statute's reauthorization in 1994) aren't for low-level government officials such as CIA interrogators, but for the president and his Cabinet. It is clear that Gonzales was concerned about top administration officials.

Gonzales also understood that the specter of prosecution could hang over top administration officials involved in detainee mistreatment throughout their lives. Because there is no statute of limitations in cases where death resulted from the mistreatment, prosecutors far into the future, not appointed by Bush or beholden to him, would be making the decisions whether to prosecute.

To ''reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act,'' Gonzales recommended that Bush not apply the Geneva Conventions to al-Qaida and the Taliban. Since the War Crimes Act carried out the Geneva Conventions, Gonzales reasoned that if the Conventions didn't apply, neither did the War Crimes Act. Bush implemented the recommendation on Feb. 7, 2002.

When the Supreme Court recently decided that the Conventions did apply to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees, the possibility of criminal liability for high-level administration officials reared its ugly head again.

What to do? The administration has apparently decided to secure immunity from prosecution through legislation. Under cover of the controversy involving the military tribunals and whether they could use hearsay or coerced evidence, the administration is trying to pardon itself, hoping that no one will notice. The urgent timetable has to do more than anything with the possibility that the next Congress may be controlled by Democrats, who will not permit such a provision to be adopted.

Creating immunity retroactively for violating the law sets a terrible precedent. The president takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution; that document requires him to obey the laws, not violate them. A president who knowingly and deliberately violates U.S. criminal laws should not be able to use stealth tactics to immunize himself from liability, and Congress should not go along.

Elizabeth Holtzman, a former New York congresswoman, is co-author with Cynthia L. Cooper of The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens.

New Yorkers Take to Streets to Protest Bush at the UN

2006-09-19T17:56:00.000-07:00

New Yorkers Take to Streets to Protest Bush at the UN

By Sarah Ferguson | September 19, 2006

Thousands of protesters swamped Dag Hammarskjold Plaza opposite the United Nations Tuesday as President Bush was inside pledging to deliver "democracy" to the Middle East.

Most of the demonstrators were there to demand an end to the US occupation in Iraq. Though the NYPD had told leaders of the antiwar group United for Peace and Justice they could only march on the sidewalk, in the end the cops gave up a traffic lane for the many hundreds who gathered at Herald Square then trekked across midtown amid a sea of familiar signs and banners calling for regime change at home.

"Americans don't want no war, what they hell are we fighting for?" the crowd chanted, drawing approving honks from passing delivery trucks, and a range of thumbs up or shrugs from office workers, who've grown all too accustomed to the din of anti-war protests over the last three years.

At one point the march stretched nearly four blocks across 47th Street. A police captain gave an unofficial estimate of 700 protesters, UFPJ organizers claimed 3,500, while others put the turnout at 1,000 people, or "pretty good for a weekday morning."

WEBprotestersbanner.jpg

UFPJ honcho Leslie Cagan, Clinton challenger Jonathan Tasini, and others at the start of the march

"I'm here for every soldier who wishes they could be on the streets of New York City to tell Bush to bring our troops home," declared Drew Mealing of West Babylon, Long Island, who marched on behalf of his daughter, a US Army specialist who was injured when her base was bombed by insurgents in northern Iraq. "If we thought we had enemies before, when you kill 100,000 more people, guess how many more enemies you have then?" said Mealing, a member of the group Military Families Speak Out. "You can't want to finish something that we should never have been in. Even though we admit we made a mistake about the weapons of mass destruction, people are still there suffering. We should make reparations and get out of there."

WEBmilitaryfamilies.jpg

Not all bystanders were supportive. "They bombed us when Clinton was in office. Does it matter to you people?" shouted sales rep Greg Schneider, referring to the attacks on USS Cole and American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. "They're marching the wrong way. They should be heading downtown. There's 3000 dead American souls there," he said, referring to Ground Zero.

But many of those protesting said it was Bush's recent visit to Ground Zero that inspired them to hit the streets yet again. "Bush talks about security as if it were a campaign issue. But I don't think enough attention is being paid to all the people who are dying right now," said Luis Flores, a legal assistant from Astoria, who took the morning off from work to march with a sign bearing the name of 27-year-old Army lieutenant Nainoa K. Hoe of Hawaii, who died in Iraq. "We keep being reminded of all the people who died at the World Trade Center. With all due respect, that event ruined so many families, but so has this war. I don't know if ruining more families is the answer," Flores said.

WEBdead.jpg

The marchers funneled into the protest pen set up by police in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, where there were already numerous other demonstrators gathered, ranging from opponents of global warming and the ever-vocal 9-11 "truth" crowd, to hunger strikers opposing the military dictatorship in Burma, sparring groups of Pakistanis either for or against General Pervez Musharraf, and a large block of flag-waving Iranians there to denounce their president for being a tyrant.

"The president of the US unleashed the dogs of war and now has the gall to stand at this hallowed ground and act like he's a peace maker," declared Vietnam vet David Cline, president of Veterans for Peace, speaking from a flatbed truck that served as the rally stage.

Inside the UN, Bush pledged to the Iraqi people: "We will not abandon you in your struggle to build a free nation."

But outside, Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi activist now working with the US peace group Global Exchange, accused the Bush administration of undermining Iraqi efforts to run their country. "Eighty-seven percent of the Iraqi population are requesting an end for this illegal occupation," said Jarrar. He noted that a majority of the Iraqi legislators have supported a timeline for US troop withdrawal. But US officials lobbied to strip that language from the "peace" plan approved by the Iraqi Parliament in June. "If this administration doesn't have any strategies to stay in Iraq or to leave Iraq, at least support the strategy that Iraqis are fighting and dying for." Jarrar complained.

"We don't need a babysitter to protect Iraqis from each other."

That sentiment was shared by Tim Goodrich, an airforce pilot who did bombing runs in Iraq in advance of the US invasion. "I get emails all the time from military folks overseas who say keep doing what you're doing, because you guys are going to be the ones who bring us home," says Goodrich, who spoke out as a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. "They don't know what they're fighting for. There's no definition of what success would be, or an exit strategy. All we get is one lie after another."

The rally closed with familiar homilies from Rev. Jessie Jackson, who also supports an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. "We must leave no stone unturned to end this war. It is sapping the soul of our nation," Jackson told the crowd. "We were lied to and spied on. We chose corrupted Iraqi exiles over UN observers. We deserve better leadership and a clearer vision. We are a better nation than this regime."

Backstage, Jackson criticized the Bush administration's refusal to open direct talks with Iran and Syria: "Right now, we are in a kind of isolation. We met with Gorbachev and Kruschev when he banged his shoe on a desk and said he would bring this country down. We talked with South African during the Apartheid regime. Right now there is a danger of war escalating into Iran and Syria. This war is not working. It was based on a false foundation, and now we're in quicksand."

Behind him a crowd of Iranian American's were rallying for sanctions against Iran, even as they denounced the Bush administration's for not backing opposition groups such as the militant but secular People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, which remains on the State Department's terrorist list because of its violent tactics. One bright yellow banner read: "More Delays Give Mullahs the Bomb."

911 ABC Minidrama full of lies !!!!

2006-09-17T20:18:00.000-07:00

- The "911 ABC" minidrama was full of lies and was clearly directed at former president Clinton. Richard Clark publicly has pointed out the lies.
- Another point: Who is paying for the "$40 million cost" of this minidrama?

I hope that are not us taxpayers who will be paying for this.

The only way to overturn this situation is to vote the Bush crime family out of office, so I urge everybody to vote in the 06 and 08 upcoming elections.

Even if everybody vote we still are facing the possibility of "The Bush Crime Family" stealing the elections like 2000 and 2004 !!!!
Peace, Everybody!!

Bush lied all along !!!!

2006-09-08T20:33:00.001-07:00

September 8th, 2006 12:37 pm
Senate panel releases Iraq intel report

By Jim Abrams / Associated Press

WASHINGTON - There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war.

The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."

Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.

The long-awaited report, said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a member of the committee, is "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al-Qaida.

Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC's 9/11 Docudrama

2006-09-07T17:04:00.000-07:00

Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC’s 9/11 Docudrama

On September 10 and 11, ABC is planning to air a “docudrama” called Path to 9/11, billed by writer Cyrus Nowrasteh as “an objective telling of the events of 9/11.”

The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden — even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded. Rush Limbaugh, who refers to Nowrasteh as “a friend of mine,” reviews the action:

So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they’re on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.

So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed…Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. “Are you kidding?” He asked Berger over and over, “Is this really what you guys want?”

Berger then doesn’t answer after giving his first admonition, “You guys go in on your own. If you go in we’re not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,” and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.

ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.

The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”

Tell ABC to tell the truth about 9/11.

Digg It!

Fil

Book the you should read !!!

2006-09-07T16:21:00.000-07:00

by Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!, and David Goodman

From the authors of the New York Times bestseller The Exception to the Rulers comes a new book that pushes back against official lies and spin and gives voice to the silenced majority.

In Static, the sister-brother team of Amy Goodman, journalist and host of the popular international TV and radio news show Democracy Now!, and investigative journalist David Goodman once again take on government liars, corporate profiteers, and the media that has acted as their megaphone. They expose how the Bush administration has manipulated and fabricated news and how the corporate media has worked hand in glove with the powerful to deceive the public. They report on the many people who have taken a stand and are fighting back, but whose stories go too often untold.

Obligations

2006-09-07T16:09:00.000-07:00

September 1st, 2006
Obligations

By Cindy Sheehan

I bought land in Crawford, TX to conduct our Camp Caseys until the horrendous nightmare of an occupation ends in Iraq or/and until our world no longer has to suffer under the Bush Regime. But our land will also be a permanent place for peace and as a bastion of hope and refuge for soldiers whether they want to be in the military or not.

So many other people have literally put their blood, sweat and tears into Camp Casey III and all of the previous Camp Caseys---wonderful peace activists who give up many days, but in most cases, many weeks to come to hot, sweaty, dry, and dusty Crawford, Texas to show BushCo, our country and our world, that there are people in our nation who love peace with freedom so much that they are willing to drop their own lives to make such things realities in our lifetimes.

Camp Casey has not received the media coverage that we enjoyed (or not) last summer---because Cut and Run George has spent less time in Crawford this year than Camp Casey has. For some reason, the media follows him.

All of our hard work and every penny that I have spent was made abundantly worthwhile today when Mark Wilkerson, a 22 year old Army Specialist out of Ft. Hood, who has been AWOL for 19 months heard our call of sanctuary and came to Camp Casey to spend his last few days of freedom before turning himself in to military authorities at Ft. Hood.

After one tour in Iraq, Mark decided that the war, which he initially supported was as illegal and immoral as he was hearing some people say. He tried very hard to go through the proper channels to attain Conscientious Objector status, but he was denied. So instead of being redeployed to Iraq for a 2 nd time, he decided to go AWOL.

He heard our call for sanctuary at Camp Casey and he came. He found a home and a new family who love and support him fully. Mark is anxious to pay whatever price he has to pay for his decision and then to work with us in the Camp Casey Peace Institute and in the peace field.

One question that I heard the media that were there ask him over and over again went something like this: "don't you feel that when you take an oath you have an obligation to fulfill?" Mark handled this question wonderfully stating that he also has an obligation to follow his own conscience. Knowing that this war is both illegal and immoral by all rational and sane standards, he could not morally participate in the war crimes and crimes against humanity forced on everyone by our lying leaders.

I watch a lot of news and I read reports of Bush's rare press conferences, and I have never seen any one ask George Bush the same question asked of Mark. The commander in chief did not fulfill his obligation during the Vietnam War. He was transferred to the Alabama Air National Guard, and despite a reward, that no one has come forward to claim saying anyone saw him there---he never reported for duty. I would like the same question asked of the president as was asked repeatedly of Wilkerson. How can he dare send a 22 year old Spc 4 to Iraq to fight, perhaps die and perhaps kill innocent people in a FUBAR excuse for a war, when he used all of his daddy's connections to get out of the FUBAR excuse of a war that his generation had to fight, die, and kill innocent people for?

Along with most of the Republican Senators, Congresspeople, Executive Branch, and Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney, I have no problem with anyone who did whatever they had to do to not go to Vietnam. What I surely do have a problem with is while they ran from the military industrial complex in the 60's and 70's they feed our children to the ravenous monster in the next century's first war for greed. Congress also abrogated its Constitutional responsibility to declare war and handed the keys to the war machine to an irresponsible deserter and his vice-draft dodger. Additionally, our commander in chief has an obligation to use his troops wisely---not recklessly and negligently. And what about the obligation to tell the truth to your country?

Instead of having the dubious "courage" of asking a brave young man full of integrity and honor the question of fulfilling an obligation, I would love for one of the press corps to ask the same question of Mark and Casey's commander in chief. George had all the advantages of his East Coast birth and daddy's wealth and cronies---so, he just didn't have to show up if he didn't want to. Mark did not have such advantages, he had to live in fear of discovery for over a year and a half. The rich always send the children of the poor to die to make themselves richer.

The peace movement needs to encourage all the soldiers to lay down their weapons and refuse to die or kill innocent people for the cowards in DC and the war machine. We as peace people need to support them with our moral support and monetary support so they feel comfortable doing so. We as peace people need to work on stopping the next war and work on giving families information and alternatives to their children putting on the uniform of the war profiteers. College is too expensive and they have no jobs in their communities, we need to wrest away money from the War Department and give it back to our future: our children.

War will only continue if we keep giving our kids to the war machine to chew up and spit out for their wicked profits.

To find more information on how to help young people get out of going to a war, please go to The GI Rights Hotline.

To find more information on obtaining C.O. Status please go to the Conscientious Objectors Web Site.

To find more information about alternatives to joining the military, please go to American Friends' Service Committee.

I wish I had all of this info before my oldest child came home in a body bag.

Bill Cusack: Osama Bin Laden is Kicking George Bush Ass - Yahoo! News

2006-09-01T11:22:00.000-07:00

An ass kicking isn't just getting bitch slapped, it's getting viciously, relentlessly pummeled to the point where you are forever changed.

To get a handle on how badly

George Bush's ass is being kicked recquires going back at least as far as the early 1990's.

Osama Bin laden, enraged by U.S. efforts to dominate Middle Eastern governments, culture and economics dating back decades, flips his lid when secular

Saddam Hussein, a former U.S. puppet who gassed his people keeping Islamic Iran at bay, invades Kuwait, drawing the U.S. military into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca, Islam's holiest site. He sees Hussein and the Gulf War as proof the U.S. is creating too many problems at the expense of Muslims. In order to remove what he perceives to be a serious threat to the cultural of Islam posed by U.S. military, economic and cultural hegemony, a perception not shared by a majority of Muslims until 2006, he decides the U.S. must be driven from the Middle East.

Neo Cons and conservatives like Bill O'Reilly interpret "driven from the Middle East" to mean "wiped off the face of the earth." You don't wipe 25% of the world's oil market- the economic engine driving explosive growth in oil consumption- off the face of the earth if you come from the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden correctly recognizes Arabs "can't drink the oil." The petroleum industry is the life blood of the Middle East. The fact that America still exists given the vulnerabilities this country faces five years after 9/11 tells you what Al Qaeda wants.

Bin Laden's only way to reduce American influence in the Middle East is to make the cost of dominating the region outweigh the benefit. Bin Laden realizes he can't bankrupt the U.S. with just one attack. America is too vast and strong and supported for even a massive terror attack to create the sustained economic blood letting required to get the U.S. to quit the Middle East. While devastating, any single attack will only wake a sleeping giant, making further attacks on U.S. soil harder and harder to pull off. Each subsequent gashing will be smaller and less effective, only making it harder to bleed America from within. However Bin Laden believes if 9/11 comes off as planned the U.S. will invade

Afghanistan, where he may be able to bleed the US like he did the Soviets in the 80's. If he can gain access to enough U.S. assets on AQ controlled turf he's confident he can prick us to death. Bin Laden knows he will have one shot at an attack on American soil sufficient to lure the U.S. into a decisive military move in the Middle East. It's a weak plan. The U.S. is no Soviet Union. But it's all Al Qaeda has.

Bin Laden said to anyone listening he wants to get the U.S. military en masse in the Middle East. Today's

Iraq shows why he worked so hard to make that happen. The tragedy here is that Bin Laden was wrong- he could never have bled us to death in Afghanistan. Had Bush immediately gone into Afghanistan with overwhelming numbers and sealed the border Bin Laden would be dead by now, he could have forced Pakistand and Saudi Arabia to stop supporting terrorists and 9/11 would not have been a turning point in world history. But Bush, it turns out, wanted Iraq all along, and skimped on Afghanistan so he could have Iraq. When Bush invaded Iraq he made Bin Laden's desperate snow ball's chance in hell strategy pay off. Lucky guy, that Bin Laden. The price of dominating in the Middle East is getting higher by the day- Israel is less secure, oil prices are way up flooding the coffers of terrorist organizations, Iran is now the rising power in the region, Iraq, once under sectarian control is now under the control of radical elements, and Al Qaeda has brushed off Bush's feeble Afghanistan invasion and regained control there. Our government is bankrupt and our power in the region is all but gone. Bush is being forced to quit Iraq, opening the door for Iran to walk right in. America is rapidly becoming a paper tiger. Made of chinese paper. And a chinese type horoscope tiger like on menus in chinese restaurants.

November 2000. The newly elected Neo Con compliments AQ plans quite nicely. Bin Laden knows Neo Con Nation, obsessed with a morality only they understand, wants to use U.S. military power to re-create the world in the likeness of George Bush, especially in the Middle East. Perfect. An attack on the U.S. is far more likely to result in an Afghan invasion with Neo Cons in power. Al Qaeda desperately wants Neo Cons to go for the brass ring. Today Cheney says Ned Lamont's victory emboldens Al Qaeda types. No no no no no. Al Qaeda loves a good Neo Con. Only a Neo Con would invade Iraq after 9/11 and let Afghanistan turn to shit.

Neo Cons believe a zero tolerance confrontational policy will get Radical Islam to re-think their extremist/terrorist tactics and force moderate Muslims to rise up against their radical governments creating a democracy domino effect that will justify all American activities in the Middle East and make the world happy and safe and lovely. Bin Laden knows nothing of the sort will happen. I have no idea why Neo Cons would believe such a thing. There is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. When Muslims, moderates, radicals, whoever, are pushed into a corner they do not shrink and get all shocked and awed and become introspective and go for long morning walks and read Emerson under a tree and mull things over. They swarm like killer bees.

And that's not just crazy ass radical Islam jihad freaks. Anybody would do the same. In 1941 did Americans re-think their policies and overthrow their government after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor? Did the English do anything of the kind during Hitler's blitzkreig? Did the North Vietnamese reconsider communism as American B-52's streaked across their skies? Did North Vietnamese peasants rise up against their leaders after fifteen years of intense almost daily bombing? They weren't interested in hitching their wagons to American wealth. They were under attack. They didn't say "Thank GOD the Americans are attacking us! Now we can drive Buicks!" They moved into rat holes and hung pictures. In 1939 Polish foot soldiers, some of whom were armed only with wooden swords, rushed Hitler's tanks. Presumably they were not caught up in some kind of agonizing reappraisal of their national identity as they went into battle. Nobody has ever responded to an attack the way Neo Cons predicted radical Islam would behave in the face of Shock and Awe. All you smart asses out there are thinking "what about the French?" Fine. But which Muslims, which terrorists, exactly, did Bush and Cheney think were going to get shocked and awed into buying Derek Jeter jerseys? Neo Cons have a serious reality problem resulting in one strategic and tactical disaster after another. If insanity is any distance from reality, Neo Cons are insane. Remember wealth and insanity are not mutually exclusive.

Ten days after Bush is elected, according to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Bush decides to invade Iraq, telling his staff to "find a way to do it." Seeing the preparations taking place all around them, Al Qaeda knows Bush is going to invade Iraq years before he does and possibly whether or not 9/11 succeeds. Plenty of time for Bin Laden to plan, recruit, raise money and stockpile weapons.

At first Al Qaeda is stunned Bush wants Iraq- it plays right into their hands- they never expected such good fortune. From the AQ point of view Iraq is a perfect opportunity to bleed America. The U.S. had just finished neutralizing Hussein in the first Gulf War, and had kept him in check since.

Colin Powell said on 2/23/01" , "I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He then said , "[Saddam] is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" .

Vice President Cheney said on 9/16/01 that Saddam Hussein was not a threat. He said, "Saddam Hussein is bottled up."

The U.S. invading a neutralized oil rich Islamic country with nothing to do with the 9/11 would make it easy for Al Qaeda to claim America did not care for peace or the lives of Arabs but wanted only oil and regional dominance. The world will no doubt support the Afghanistan invasion. Fuck 'em. But Invading Iraq will wash away the sympathy 9/11 will create for America. AQ recruitment will sky-rocket.

Hussein's defenses are no match for American power. That's the good news. The U.S. will establish its presence quickly and permanently- we're building at least twelve permanent military bases in Iraq. That will create plenty of hugely expensive targets. A U.S. invasion will provide an opening into Iraq Al Qaeda and Iran could not create while Hussein was in power. Taking out Hussein did Bin Laden a favor. No doubt Bin Laden has sent Bush a number of expensive thank you cards over the years.

Al Qaeda plans on exploiting five sources of anti-U.S. terror In Iraq: 1) Themselves, 2) the Ba'athists, 3) Iran, 4) Iraqi religious tensions, and 5) Civil War. Al Qaeda knows if they are to be defeated in the Middle East the U.S. will have to kill every last Al Qaeda soldier. Not likely given the recruiting bonanza AQ will have after the invasion. To overcome internal resistance in Iraq they'll have to kill many thousands of innocent people, turning average citizens against U.S. forces. Ba'ath loyalists will work to ruin Bush's post war plans in any possible way they can. To stop Iran's interference Bush will have to invade Iran and do to it what the U.S. and the Soviets did to Germany in World War 2, requiring decades, trillions of dollars and millions of deaths. Iraq has a huge border with Iran, unlike New York City, making it far easier to carry out attacks on U.S. assets. Iraq is nearly bursting with repressed religious hatreds going back hundreds of years, and is held together only by Hussein. Marines who are trained only to kill will have to manage these tensions in order to prevent all out civil war without using Hussein's iron fist tactics. It is easy to see they will fail. Once it is clear the US can't keep a lid on things civil war will explode, further draining U.S. resources. The U.S. will be forced to stay and bleed or cede Iraq to Iran.

If Bush invades Iraq, AQ and Iran will have more targets than ever before, more and better access to those targets, and they will use less resources more efficiently. AQ will be able to count on considerable local support, and will operate with little or no interference of the type found in the U.S. such as a wary, alert public, electronic surveillance and those pesky

FBI, CIA and NSA agents operating on their home turf. There will be no such advantages for the U.S. in Iraq.

The biggest Al Qaeda asset in any U.S. invasion, however, will be Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsy's lean and mean military philosophy will make sure U.S. forces are tired, stretched thin, over worked, constantly under pressure, doing jobs they are not trained to do and exposed to violence - terror - hello - on a daily basis.

For some inexplicable reason, this dreary nightmare scenario is where Bush wants to be. It seems to Al Qaeda Bush is actually cooperating with their plans. Bin Laden knows as early as February of 2000 that it will be impossible for the U.S. to create a functional democratic oil producing Iraqi government. While Afghanistan held little hope to hurt the U.S., Iraq's realities promise great things for Al Qaeda.

9/11/2001. Things go about as well for Al Qaeda as they could hope.

Soon thereafter Bush, rightly, invades Afghanistan. 90% of Americans and most of the world is with him. Bush botches the job. The Taliban gets bitch slapped, but he doesn't kick ass- he goes in late with too few forces and lets Bin Laden escape. Soon Al Qaeda and The Taliban will re-assert themselves.

Within days after 9/11 Bush begins pushing for an invasion of Iraq. Bush takes Al Qaeda's bait hook line and sinker, as if Bush was following an Al Qaeda script. Bin Laden is amazed the US is falling into the trap so easily. Bush talks "Shock And Awe", as if defeating Hussein's army and the Republican Guard will be the main obstacle to securing Iraq, completely ignoring the fact that terrorists don't want to hitch their wagons to U.S. power and will wreak havoc. Only a small occupying force will be in their way. US media makes bold predictions that Iraq will fall in weeks and months. Bonus! Al Qaeda wins yet another psychological advantage: since Bush lets America believe a quick, easy, cheap victory is likely, enormous frustration and resentment will arise when Al Qaeda unleashes waves of self sustaining violence and brings re-construction to a halt.

Bush says the sale of Iraqi oil will pay for turning Iraq into a model democracy, which means the U.S. won't be budgeting money for the occupation. Al Qaeda now knows exactly how to drain the U.S. treasurey and that their efforts will work. Cheney says "greeted as liberators"- which means US officials, incredibly, do not expect the insurgency Al Qaeda and Iran are working towards- yet another advantage. The U.S. will have an inadequate plan to suppress the insurrection. Al Qaeda is positively drooling in anticipation.

The White House insists invading Iraq will make America safer. Why? Because somehow we'll fight Al Qaeda there and not here. Bringing Al Qaeda into Iraq was Bush's plan all along. Guess what Iraq? I'm gonna bring all the worlds' terrorists to your front yard so they aren't in America. No doubt the Iraqi people were thrilled. What a sickening, cowardly, stupid strategy. Bush expected Iraqis to put up with an onslaught of terrorism so terrorists who've spent years embedding themselves in Amercia at enormous risk and expense will uproot themselves and head to Iraq? Nonsense. Even if Al Qaeda wanted to abandon access to trillions of dollars worth of U.S. assets in America to stop an invasion they desperately want, there is no world wide terrorist defensive coordinator moving operatives around like chess pieces. Little Osama didn't grow up playing football. Bin Laden provides strategy, tactics, training, money and equipment, tells his operatives to do their worst as best they can then sets them loose. He's not even in contact with most of them. There are plenty of Al Qaeda soldiers in the Middle East ready to bleed American forces- none from the U.S. would be needed. Iraqis knew as Bush rolled into Baghdad they'd be flooded with terrorists and the U.S. would gain nothing in return. Yet another recruiting advantage for Bin Laden. Today Bush actually wonders why Iraqis aren't grateful for his many gifts to the Iraqi people, like tearing down Hussein's statues. We're fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq all right, but Al Qaeda never left America. We could not have more inept leadership if a cold, greasy bag of freedom fries sat in the Oval Office.

Bin Laden tries to keep his excitement contained- a U.S. invasion of Iraq is a long shot, he figures, incorrectly assuming the U.S. can still act in its best interests. After all, from a U.S. strategic point of view it makes no sense. Surely Americans will see an Iraqi invasion plays to Al Qaeda's strengths. Bush can be counted on to exploit America for his own ends, but what about the U.S. Congress? Will they roll over?

March 2003. The US invades Iraq validating Al Qaeda in the eyes of many Muslims. Bin Laden's dream comes true. He is convinced Allah put Bush in office to bring down America- or is in posession of his body- or something! There must be some explanation for how stupid the U.S. has become. Osama now has access to the U.S. military in not one but two theaters he controls and finally can do something he could never do with Hussein in power- overrun Iraq. As expected, the world, seeing no Iraqi connection to 9/11, does not like the invasion. Even the countries that actually go along with Bush have small percentages of their populations actually supporting the war. The U.S. will be going in alone for all practical purposes.

Things continue to break Al Qaeda's way with stunning ease. Al Qaeda doesn't have to do much of their own killing and dying to put a serious hurt on Uncle Sam- Baath loyalists are fierce, dedicated and unrelenting, do most of the dirty work and require little motivating. Meanwhile sectarian divisions in Iraq fester and boil over without much provocation. Iraqis fight themselves using up more and more U.S. resources that would otherwise be used in Afghanistan and Pakistan to kill Al Qaeda, just as the State Department predicted. The US is now mostly unfocused on Al Qaeda.

Radical Iran, backed by China and largely ignored by wait and see Russia, swoops into Iraq bolstering radical elements and destroying US troops and resources as planned. Al Qaeda has no trouble getting its soldiers into the Iraqi police force and mililtary. Had Bush not disbanded the Iraqi military it would have been much harder to infiltrate. Could this be going any better, Osama asks himself? Now with the war actually on they can recruit, train, secure their supply routes and sources, collect on monies promised in the event Bush invades and stockpile their weapons as other forces drag down the U.S. Ignoring reality, or insane, Cheney says the insurgency is in its last throws.

Al Qaeda goes about re-establishing themselves in Afghanistan and Pakistan with new recruits, money, weapons and updated tactics. Afghanistan rebounds Al Qaeda's way so they begin fomenting simoultaneous unrest all over Iraq. Whenever the US cleans out a city, Al Qaeda, Iran or Iraqi insurgents swoop back in when the exausted troops leave and reestablish themselves easy as pie. The US is constantly moving, stretching, reconquering and rebuilding, exausting its troops physically and emotionally.

By 2004 America is perfectly positioned to bleed to death. "Bring it on!" says Bush as if he is in a position of strength. AQ pours now abundant resources into Afghanistan while the US struggles to keep enough soldiers on the ground as recruitment levels drop and budget deficits sky rocket, further indebting the US to the Chinese. The civil war is now so apparent even Bush has to address the issue. Bush's policies, which delivered the mighty US into the hands of Al Qaeda and Iran, lose credibility, weakening the US's ability to fight a focused, cogent war on terror as Americans debate what to do next.

By July, 2005 Al Qaeda has succeeded in withstanding the best blow the US has to offer (Iraq???) and has come out the other side financially, strategically and spiritually stronger than before, all without expending significant resources. Re-taking Afghanistan is only a matter of time. The mighty US is tied up in a quagmire, weakened and confused. Who'd have thought it would be so easy?

Katrina hits. The entire U.S. Government is focused on Iraq. The national guard is in Iraq. Bin Laden thinks Allah has finally started kicking Great Satan ass. Bush is too blind to recognize he must either admit defeat and let Iran have Iraq or break his country's back. Once he entered Iraq Bush lost everything.

July 2006

With the U.S. neutralized Iran is free to begin their long awaited assault on Israel.

Iran encourages Hezbollah to increase the pressure on Israel, Israel defends itself, Iran fans the flames. The now dramatically impotent US watches with frustration. "Send Kofi down there to straighten things out..." says a dazed, impotent Bush. If the US stretches its resources to try and handle Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel simoultaneously, Iran will have its way with all three. If the US does nothing to help Israel, Israel dies. If the US fully commits its armed forces to the Middle East then

North Korea, fed by China, will become more aggressive. If the US pulls out of Iraq to help Israel, Iran fills the vacuum, takes Iraq, which they couldn't do with Hussein in power, then attacks Israel anyway. Bush is in irons. Invading Iraq has allowed all interests and variations within Radical Islam to take significant steps toward reaching their goals.

At this point the Bush ass kicking has reached the stage where he's losing consciousness. His legs are rubber and his eyes are rolling up in his head, unfocused and empty. His arms uselessly flail at shadows. He's about to drop, and when he does, that's when the real pummeling will start. Since he is the world wide cop there is no one to stop him from getting beat to death.

China financed our $9 trillion budget deficit and continues to pay for our war as they support elements that drain away the money we borrow, forcing us deeper into their debt. China can cut off the cash spigot and pull the plug on our war anytime they want, or dig us deeper into debt by further destabilizing the middle east through Iran. They can violate our intellectual properties, rip off our products, undercut us everywhere, and we'll just have to like it. They have us by the balls. Its as if Bush, like the Manchurian Candidate, is a Chinese puppet put in place to insure Chinese ascendancy. He's either that or the worst geo-political strategist of all time. The Chinese ambassador to the U.S. recently told Rumsfeld to "shut up" about Chinese defense spending. Rummy did just that. Within 50 years the President of The United States will be a Chinese puppet the way the Shah of Iran was once our puppet.

Today Al Qaeda thinks they can break our back by pressuring our allies to withdraw economic and military support. That is why we haven't seen any significant attack pan out on our shores since 9/11. It's got nothing to do with Bush's inept wire tapping bullshit. However, if this approach does not begin to bear fruit soon Bin Laden will refocus his resources directly on us. At that point we'll be in for a rough ride.

George Bush, your ass is being thoroughly kicked. And it's not over yet. Not for you, not for the next President, and not for America.