A trial in Manhattan's Criminal Court has begun for June Brashares, the Code Pink activist who was mauled on the floor of the Republican National Convention when young GOP goons realized she had gotten in with an anti-Bush sign. They ganged up on her and attacked her, literally dragging her from the convention hall. They're trying to say she had shoes on and kicked a man, but June has sworn she was weaering no shoes at the time - and an ABC reporter will be able to attest to that fact. Worse, June was injured herself - and it was captured on camera. You may wish to follow the developments of this case. The RNC would love to crucify her, I'm sure.
I'd recommend Rox Populi for a blogger's insight. There is a statement from Brashares at the blog, icluding this excerpt:
"..the courts shouldn’t be going after people for expressing their opinions at political events, we need justice in regards to the U.S. Administration that has lied and is lying about its actions that have resulted in the unnecessary death of thousands upon thousands of people."
DSM: White House Can't Raise a Reasonable Defense So they spin and hope the media will comply, as they have in the past
White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said that the Conyers letter was "simply rehashing old debates that have already been discussed."
What do you do when "old debates" about a President's deliberate (political) intent to lie our nation into war, risking hundreds of thousands of precious lives, which was something we'd suspected he was doing all along, are confirmed by an official set of documents, leaked straight from the British government?
What if you'd suspected that someone had deliberately poisoned your family dog and, two years down the line, you received official evidence of the intentional killing? Would you simply say, "Aw, heck - that was something we'd discussed a long time ago" and forget about asking any more questions or seeking justice and/or reparation?
Come on, people. I don't think so.
There are some very lame defenses coming from the lips of Scott McLellan. The White House must be terribly worried about this Downing Street memo leak.
"1,700 dead U.S. soldiers and 100,000-plus dead Iraqis, and [the Iraq war's] $300-billion price tag, was based on fabrications and plain old-fashioned lies."
..and another citizen writes:
"Years from now when our children and their children ask us what we did when we discovered that all the killing, maiming and destruction done in our names was based on faulty information, what will we say?"
Scott McLellan and the White House would tell you to tell your children it was just an old debate and that it never deserved to be revisited. I find no honor in that type of argument. How about you?
Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey told MSNBC's Hardball host David Gregory that "fixed," the word used in the Downing Street memo, does not mean "cooking the books." Woolsey's defense is "British usage" of the word "fixed." Yet, British sources have confirmed the meaning of "fixed" and it isn't any different than the good old American definition. In the Downing Street memo, no matter how Bush-defenders slice and dice it, the word "fixed" envelops the scope of deliberate political manipulation...moving the masses toward a war they knew they were going to wage - a war that would be inevitable because, in the words of one of the British documents:
"In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon."
Woolsey told Hardball that he doesn't think there is really any basis for the allegation that "fixed" means "fixed", in the sense which we all understand the word. The contents of the documents prove his ridiculous claim as wrong. Media Matters provides a list of sources with information that directly refutes Woolsey's shallow defense.