Thursday, June 19, 2003


"You could say it was an ambush," he said. "When they got fired upon they said 'Hell with it' and pulled away." Someone in the crowd fired several rounds of ammunition at them, but they were not hit. Two of them were, however, injured by the flying objects."

Check here for answer

See the DHS Inspector General's report on the wacky Texas Democrat hunt....
...uh....if you can figure out what any of it means after reading around all the black-outs!

Found another interesting website while reading the Sound and the Fury blog.


This is a natural consequence of misleading your people to war..leaders and media alike...

"Describing the scene during combat Richardson admitted shooting injured soldiers and leaving them to die.
He said: "S***, I didn't help any of them. I wouldn't help the f******. There were some you let die. And there were some you double-tapped."
Making a shooting sign with his hand he went on: "Once you'd reached the objective, and once you'd shot them and you're moving through, anything there, you shoot again. You didn't want any prisoners of war. You hate them so bad while you're fighting, and you're so terrified, you can't really convey the feeling, but you don't want them to live."
And despite there being no link between Iraq and the September 11 attacks Richardson admitted that it gave him his motivation to fight Iraqis.
"There's a picture of the World Trade Centre hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my flak jacket. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think, 'They hit us at home and, now, it's our turn.' I don't want to say payback but, you know, it's pretty much payback."

*commentary also on*

Too strange. Too, too strange. I hope the Padilla family hears from Benjamin soon.

Found an interesting website while reading the Sound and the Fury blog.

By His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama

An excerpt:

"Consider the following. We humans are social beings. We come into the world as the result of others’ actions. We survive here in dependence on others. Whether we like it or not, there is hardly a moment of our lives when we do not benefit from others’ activities. For this reason it is hardly surprising that most of our happiness arises in the context of our relationships with others. Nor is it so remarkable that our greatest joy should come when we are motivated by concern for others. But that is not all. We find that not only do altruistic actions bring about happiness but they also lessen our experience of suffering. Here I am not suggesting that the individual whose actions are motivated by the wish to bring others’ happiness necessarily meets with less misfortune than the one who does not. Sickness, old age, mishaps of one sort or another are the same for us all. But the sufferings which undermine our internal peace anxiety, doubt, disappointment these things are definitely less. In our concern for others, we worry less about ourselves. When we worry less about ourselves an experience of our own suffering is less intense.

What does this tell us? Firstly, because our every action has a universal dimension, a potenial impact on others’ happiness, ethics are necessary as a means to ensure that we do not harm others. Secondly, it tells us that genuine happiness consists in those spiritual qualities of love, compassion, patience, tolerance and forgiveness and so on. For it is these which provide both for our happiness and others’ happiness."
You've found it.
This is the place.
Americana HQ.
Patriotism in a giant tin bucket.
This is where souls recoil
...children wail
....dreams die

Hilarious commentary...
...and true!"

"In A Wal-Mart Kind Of Hell"
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist June 18, 2003



"At a time when liberationist, decentralizationist, and anti-governmental views are becoming increasingly prominent, postmodernists must become aware of their own political traditions. Without such an awakening of awareness, our political future may well be reduced to a choice between the paranoid individualism of the right and the simulatory practices of "democratic representation."

"Historicizing the Spontaneous Revolution: Anarchism and the Spatial Politics of Postmodernism"
Nicholas Spencer
University of Nebraska, Lincoln

"I propose to make a small contribution to this process of
historicization by seeking to find clues to the true
politics of postmodernism within leftist traditions of the
past one hundred and fifty years....."

Companion links:

Situationist International

Rosa Luxemburg

Essay-Methods of D├ętournement-Guy-Ernest Debord


George W Bush.....Have You Forgotten?

No, Mr. Bush...these are not images of anti-Americans.
These are not liberals who hate you because you stole an election.
These are people who represent the best of the heart and soul of America.
And they want to know why you have smothered every attempt to get to the bottom of the outrageous intelligence failures
that took place on your watch on 9-11-2001.
Look at the faces in the photographs they hold dearly.
It's all they have left to hold on to.


Hall of Mirrors
by John Chuckman
Interactivist Info Exchange

"Power is power, regardless of how it is conferred, whether elected or not. When an American President wants something produced or an attitude assumed by the intelligence services, intellectual integrity and notions of independence soon melt in the furnace of his wishes."

"It is impossible for a director of intelligence to long resist a President's demands without being put in an untenable position: the appointed official of a secretive organization unresponsive to the elected President of a democratic society."

" We can assume, always, with events holding the world's attention, as with the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, that the White House orders support for the arguments it wants to make. Of course, generally, a President will not demand nor will the intelligence people produce material that is immediately absurd or embarrassingly inaccurate. It's up to all those clever people with unlimited resources to provide something suitable, something that only detailed study might reveal as faulty."



"It's a striking finding," said Steve Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which asked the weapons questions during a May 14-18 poll of 1,256 respondents.He added, "Given the intensive news coverage and high levels of public attention, this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance...

.....That is, having their beliefs conflict with the facts...."

"A third of the American public believes U.S.
forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according
to a recent poll. And 22 percent said Iraq actually used
chemical or biological weapons.
Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis
were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001."

**What the hell's wrong with the American people?**

Iraq scandal a threat to democracy
June 16 2003
Robert Manne / Professor of politics at La Trobe University

"..To achieve greater certainty, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz created inside the Pentagon a new body called the Office of Special Plans, under the leadership of a neocon former Cold Warrior, Abram Shulsky. As Seymour Hersh has argued in a recent article in The New Yorker, it was through uncritical acceptance or even manipulation of intelligence supplied by Iraqi defectors that the Office of Special Plans was able to deliver the concrete evidence concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that the case for war required.
If Hersh is right, it was on the basis of this kind of highly politicised intelligence that Bush, Blair and Howard claimed to know for certain that Saddam Hussein had amassed a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons that were ready for use; that the production of such weapons was increasing in tempo; and that it was almost certain that within a short few years Saddam Hussein would be in possession of nuclear weapons as well.
It now appears that every part of this assessment was false. If so, the conclusion seems inescapable.
The anglophone democracies invaded Iraq on the basis of a lie."



Iraq: WMD In Dispute, 'Teflon Tony' Takes The Heat While Bush Unscathed

"....Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute said the Bush administration need not worry about the current row. "Americans give their presidents considerable latitude in foreign policy once a basic level of trust has been established. Bush didn't have that trust before [11 September 2001], he clearly has it now, his marks on handling foreign policy on war issues are extraordinarily high. it's unlikely to dent his armor. [There are] people who think he deliberately misled the nation, there are some people who see political motivations in it, there are others who thing the intelligence has been bad all along, but [it's] just unlikely to affect him," Bowman said.

"She said the hearings in Congress would have to come up with something "really explosive" to inflict any damage."

**So... the near-daily deaths of U.S. troops based on a war of greed, dishonesty, and out-and-out lies to the public is not explosive?
What the hell is wrong with the American people?**


Why, all of a sudden, does it seem that the press is smearing only Tony Blair and giving Bush a virtual free pass?

"But what of the issue of good faith? The salient question is not whether the two governments genuinely believed that Iraq possessed WMD, but whether, so believing, they then embroidered or even invented "intelligence" in order to bring public opinion more firmly around to the same conclusion....."
"Deliberately misleading voters, even in a cause as good as the destruction of Saddam Hussein, is bad in itself. It may very well prove counterproductive as well—especially if America and its allies are right to suppose that the war against the West's enemies is only just beginning. In prosecuting this long war, the electorate's trust is a vital strategic asset. George W. Bush's stock of credibility with voters seems ample, for now. But what happens next time when Tony Blair, clutching bulging dossiers of intelligence, asks Britain to trust his assessment of national security and to go to war? Unless danger by then is staring them in the face, his audience is going to take an awful lot of convincing."

**Why the hell is the press promoting benefit of doubt for Bush in "hopes that it just won't happen again"? Haven't they learned anything from Bush's offense? There has been an unforgiveable abuse of the American people. The utmost good faith is required of the American President in light of the sheer power of the Executive office. Bush has broken faith with the American people. How could we ever trust him again? What is the press afraid of?


Australian PM Now Taking Heat for Bush's War Lies


Why don't we care about the WMD?
"So far, Americans are giving Bush a pass about the lies used to justify the Iraq war. But will fear, ignorance, and
faith in the president's integrity keep him Teflon-coated forever?"
"...The question, then, is whether American democracy can survive a citizenry that either doesn't know or doesn't care if its leaders tell the truth.
At the very least, observe some experts, public ignorance, apathy or denial could change the kind of democracy under which Americans live."


Human Rights Watch: U.S. troops used excessive force

Rights Group Says U.S. Soldiers Twice Used Excessive Force
NY Times

From Human Rights Watch: