~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sour Grapes?
I know, being a participant in the MoveOn.org primary, that this statement is absolutely untrue:
"This was a made-for-Howard-Dean primary,'' Kerry spokesman Robert Gibbs said, adding Kerry saw the poll as a tool to increase interest and build his donor and e-mail lists."
From: NY Times /Reuters
Dean Wins Democratic Online Poll
Internet muse.
Daring, bold, never sold.
My daily weblog of politics, humor, philosophy...and a constant and nagging reminder of the existence of universal love....
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Friday, June 27, 2003
Read this book-Corporateering: How Corporate Power Steals Your Personal Freedom-- And What You Can Do About It
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have you read this yet?
Corporateering: How Corporate Power Steals Your Personal Freedom-- And What You Can Do About It
by Jamie Court
see author interview: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporate/nw/nw003390.php3
Steven T Jones wrote in a recent SanFrancisco Bay Guardian review of the book:
"Court sees our most cherished democratic values being subsumed by corporate domination, and he’s calling on all of us to fight back.
How? Well, we start with the language we use to define the problem.
Behind the word corporateer are important ideas and distinctions. We can evaluate a given corporation to see whether it is corporateering, and if so, whether the public interest might be better served by regulating or even destroying that corporation.
That’s a revolutionary notion in this era of the hallowed “free market,” but maybe a revolution is what we need right now. Pamphleteers llike Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson awoke their compatriots to the injustices suffered under King
George III, and perhaps it will be author-activists like Court who help us again declare our independence and assert our sovereignty. (Steven T. Jones)
Have you read this yet?
Corporateering: How Corporate Power Steals Your Personal Freedom-- And What You Can Do About It
by Jamie Court
see author interview: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporate/nw/nw003390.php3
Steven T Jones wrote in a recent SanFrancisco Bay Guardian review of the book:
"Court sees our most cherished democratic values being subsumed by corporate domination, and he’s calling on all of us to fight back.
How? Well, we start with the language we use to define the problem.
Behind the word corporateer are important ideas and distinctions. We can evaluate a given corporation to see whether it is corporateering, and if so, whether the public interest might be better served by regulating or even destroying that corporation.
That’s a revolutionary notion in this era of the hallowed “free market,” but maybe a revolution is what we need right now. Pamphleteers llike Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson awoke their compatriots to the injustices suffered under King
George III, and perhaps it will be author-activists like Court who help us again declare our independence and assert our sovereignty. (Steven T. Jones)
MoveOn.org primary: Most votes to Dean... followed by Kucinich, Kerry
MoveOn.org primary: Most votes to Dean... followed by Kucinich, Kerry
Howard Dean received the most votes...winning the MoveOn.org primary by a wide margin!
Results:
Howard Dean received the highest vote total with 43.87% of the vote (139,360 votes); followed by Dennis Kucinich with 23.93% (76,000 votes); and John Kerry with 15.73% (49,973 votes).
The rest of the field was in single digits: John Edwards, 3.19% (10,146 votes); Richard Gephardt, 2.44% (7,755 votes); Bob Graham, 2.24% (7,113 votes); Carol Moseley Braun, 2.21% (7,021 votes); Joe Lieberman, 1.92% (6,095 votes); and Al Sharpton, 0.53% (1,677 votes).
**My comment: MoveOn.org chose to only endorse a candidate IF that candidate were to have received 50% or more of the vote, which is up to them. However, we may look at reality:
Since when is 43.87 NOT a majority when you have nine candidates and you compare the actual results? I realize MoveOn.org's main goal is to bring a grassroots movement to life, but I think their 50% mark was unrealistic (in a field of nine candidates) and I hope they haven't shot themselves in the foot by setting such a mark. I don't doubt there were forces out there who made sure Dean did not reach the 50%. Their failure to be able to endorse a candidate makes them appear just as wobbly on the Democrats as most of the media-at-large appears nowadays. You cannot expect Big Media to run with the story when the CLEAR winner of the primary doesn't even get an endorsement from the organization that has proven who the clear winner was. **
A note about today's MoveOn.org result from a Howard Dean supporter --seen today on Howard Dean's weblog:
"We have begun a new era. When FDR first used the radio to reach millions of Americans it changed everything. When JFK used television to inspire a generation it changed everything. Dr. Dean has changed everything today. To you other 139,359 people who voted for Dean in the moveon.org primary, congratulations we just made history. There will be many books written about this campaign. Mark this day well, it is the day we changed America. I am so proud to be a part of it. I have waited so long.
peace,
billy
June 27, 2003 01:25 PM
Results:
Howard Dean received the highest vote total with 43.87% of the vote (139,360 votes); followed by Dennis Kucinich with 23.93% (76,000 votes); and John Kerry with 15.73% (49,973 votes).
The rest of the field was in single digits: John Edwards, 3.19% (10,146 votes); Richard Gephardt, 2.44% (7,755 votes); Bob Graham, 2.24% (7,113 votes); Carol Moseley Braun, 2.21% (7,021 votes); Joe Lieberman, 1.92% (6,095 votes); and Al Sharpton, 0.53% (1,677 votes).
**My comment: MoveOn.org chose to only endorse a candidate IF that candidate were to have received 50% or more of the vote, which is up to them. However, we may look at reality:
Since when is 43.87 NOT a majority when you have nine candidates and you compare the actual results? I realize MoveOn.org's main goal is to bring a grassroots movement to life, but I think their 50% mark was unrealistic (in a field of nine candidates) and I hope they haven't shot themselves in the foot by setting such a mark. I don't doubt there were forces out there who made sure Dean did not reach the 50%. Their failure to be able to endorse a candidate makes them appear just as wobbly on the Democrats as most of the media-at-large appears nowadays. You cannot expect Big Media to run with the story when the CLEAR winner of the primary doesn't even get an endorsement from the organization that has proven who the clear winner was. **
A note about today's MoveOn.org result from a Howard Dean supporter --seen today on Howard Dean's weblog:
"We have begun a new era. When FDR first used the radio to reach millions of Americans it changed everything. When JFK used television to inspire a generation it changed everything. Dr. Dean has changed everything today. To you other 139,359 people who voted for Dean in the moveon.org primary, congratulations we just made history. There will be many books written about this campaign. Mark this day well, it is the day we changed America. I am so proud to be a part of it. I have waited so long.
peace,
billy
June 27, 2003 01:25 PM
From the Howard Dean weblog: A Letter About a Lost Friend--A Plea for Change
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the Howard Dean weblog:
A Letter About a Lost Friend--A Plea for Change
Dear Dr. Dean:
I know this isn't exactly on topic, but I need a place to put this.
My friend died today.
My best friend, Lance Corporal Gregory MacDonald of the United States Marine Corp died in Iraq when his vehicle overturned while rushing to aid a group of fellow Marines who were being ambushed.
I met Greg when we were both in graduate school at American University. He was studying Arabic and Near East affairs with a focus on the Palestian-Israeli conflict and Iraq.
During the entire build-up to the war in Iraq, Greg argued forcefully and logically that the case being outlined was false and not consistent with any expert opinion on the subject. He was also a man in the finest tradition the USMC has ever produced, and when called to serve with his Recon unit (one of the most dangerous positions, even for the USMC), he did not hesitate to answer the call of duty.
As a final act defiance before setting out to fight a war he knew was wrong, Greg was interviewed on the radio explaining why the President had not made his case for war. He did the interview on condition of anonymity because he did not want his fellow Marines to think he wasn't 100 percent committed to their mission.
Dr. Dean, we need you more than ever. Something is wrong with this country when our best warrior-philosophers are thrown into the cauldren of Iraq by a President who went AWOL from national guard duty. Something is wrong with this country when an actual expert on the subject of Iraq is sent to war by a cynical, unscupulous Vice President who had "other priorities" when it came his turn to serve.
I'm tired of the chickenhawks who lie while our best men pay the consequences.
Greg told me many times that he would support any candidate who stood up forcefully against this war because it was wrong and was not sold on evidence, but lies and ideology.
Greg would have supported you, Dr. Dean.
And I support you Dr. Dean, because I can think of no other way to better honor the memory of a man ten times greater than our President, even when he plays dress-up in a flight suit - unintentially mocking those who fought and died in uniform.
Thank you
SZ
_________
Companion story from the Washington Post here
From the Howard Dean weblog:
A Letter About a Lost Friend--A Plea for Change
Dear Dr. Dean:
I know this isn't exactly on topic, but I need a place to put this.
My friend died today.
My best friend, Lance Corporal Gregory MacDonald of the United States Marine Corp died in Iraq when his vehicle overturned while rushing to aid a group of fellow Marines who were being ambushed.
I met Greg when we were both in graduate school at American University. He was studying Arabic and Near East affairs with a focus on the Palestian-Israeli conflict and Iraq.
During the entire build-up to the war in Iraq, Greg argued forcefully and logically that the case being outlined was false and not consistent with any expert opinion on the subject. He was also a man in the finest tradition the USMC has ever produced, and when called to serve with his Recon unit (one of the most dangerous positions, even for the USMC), he did not hesitate to answer the call of duty.
As a final act defiance before setting out to fight a war he knew was wrong, Greg was interviewed on the radio explaining why the President had not made his case for war. He did the interview on condition of anonymity because he did not want his fellow Marines to think he wasn't 100 percent committed to their mission.
Dr. Dean, we need you more than ever. Something is wrong with this country when our best warrior-philosophers are thrown into the cauldren of Iraq by a President who went AWOL from national guard duty. Something is wrong with this country when an actual expert on the subject of Iraq is sent to war by a cynical, unscupulous Vice President who had "other priorities" when it came his turn to serve.
I'm tired of the chickenhawks who lie while our best men pay the consequences.
Greg told me many times that he would support any candidate who stood up forcefully against this war because it was wrong and was not sold on evidence, but lies and ideology.
Greg would have supported you, Dr. Dean.
And I support you Dr. Dean, because I can think of no other way to better honor the memory of a man ten times greater than our President, even when he plays dress-up in a flight suit - unintentially mocking those who fought and died in uniform.
Thank you
SZ
_________
Companion story from the Washington Post here
AT THE PICKRICK
Scene One: "The Pickrick"
Enter: Lester Maddox
Maddox: "IS this heaven.... or is this 1950s "just-in-case-some-of-you-Communists, Socialists and Integrationists-have-any-doubt ,-The-Pickrick-will-never-be- Integrated" Georgia?
Enter: A Mysteriously glowing figure. Lester rubs his eyes...is he dreaming?
Mysterious Glowing Figure: "Well, hello, Lester! I just arrived this morning. How about a plate of grits and eggs for a kindred spirit?"
May the angels carry them.
Enter: Lester Maddox
Maddox: "IS this heaven.... or is this 1950s "just-in-case-some-of-you-Communists, Socialists and Integrationists-have-any-doubt ,-The-Pickrick-will-never-be- Integrated" Georgia?
Enter: A Mysteriously glowing figure. Lester rubs his eyes...is he dreaming?
Mysterious Glowing Figure: "Well, hello, Lester! I just arrived this morning. How about a plate of grits and eggs for a kindred spirit?"
Nuke component unearthed in Baghdad back yard
OR......alternate story title....
"PARTS IS PARTS"
So Mahdi from Bag-dahdi led us to his 12-year old
rose bush.
An anonymous official tells us it's NOT a
smoking gun
But you can bet your fanny the Bush administration will use these parts to validate the entire preemptive strike on Iraq.
As if those 12-year old parts under Madhi's rosebushes were an imminent threat to us!!
Jeez, I'll bet they weren't even a threat to the grubs crawling all around them for these past 12-plus years!
I wonder if spreading this around as if it's an actual validation for the Blair/Bush lies is a trick David Kay has up his sleeve.
It's coming out terribly soon after his arrival on the scene.
Who?? ME??
You've gotta love THIS statement from the article linked below......read it and think about it
while FOX news is blathering ad nauseum about these rusty useless pieces of scrap which Mechanic Mahdi from Bag-dahdi
stuck in a buried barrel under the flowers....
"Gen. Abizaid told the Armed Services Committee that he is confident that evidence
"at some point ... will lead us to ACTUAL weapons of mass destruction."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030625-102141-6927r.htm
Former UN weapons inspector David Albright has said:
"In a sense, the program was in hibernation.
*(ZZZZZZ)
He {Mahdi} was the key to the restart of this centrifuge program,
and he never got the order.
So in that sense it doesn't show at all that Iraq had a nuclear program.
And Obeidi told me that he never worked on a nuclear program after 1991."
So Mahdi from Bag-dahdi led us to his 12-year old
rose bush.
An anonymous official tells us it's NOT a
smoking gun
But you can bet your fanny the Bush administration will use these parts to validate the entire preemptive strike on Iraq.
As if those 12-year old parts under Madhi's rosebushes were an imminent threat to us!!
Jeez, I'll bet they weren't even a threat to the grubs crawling all around them for these past 12-plus years!
I wonder if spreading this around as if it's an actual validation for the Blair/Bush lies is a trick David Kay has up his sleeve.
It's coming out terribly soon after his arrival on the scene.
You've gotta love THIS statement from the article linked below......read it and think about it
while FOX news is blathering ad nauseum about these rusty useless pieces of scrap which Mechanic Mahdi from Bag-dahdi
stuck in a buried barrel under the flowers....
"Gen. Abizaid told the Armed Services Committee that he is confident that evidence
"at some point ... will lead us to ACTUAL weapons of mass destruction."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030625-102141-6927r.htm
Former UN weapons inspector David Albright has said:
"In a sense, the program was in hibernation.
*(ZZZZZZ)
He {Mahdi} was the key to the restart of this centrifuge program,
and he never got the order.
So in that sense it doesn't show at all that Iraq had a nuclear program.
And Obeidi told me that he never worked on a nuclear program after 1991."
Targeting Lobbyists Pays Off For GOP
Targeting Lobbyists Pays Off For GOP
Another method being utilized to murder American democracy.
Beefing up the GOP through the influence of the Special Interest.
"A Republican National Committee official recently told a group of GOP lobbyists that 33 of 36 top-level Washington positions he is monitoring went to Republicans, according to someone who attended the meeting. The trend could deeply influence Washington politics, policy and fundraising
for years..."
This is not the America envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
This is corruption...plain and simple.
An additional commentary is provided by NY Times' Paul Krugman in a recent column:
"Why isn't the ongoing transformation of U.S. politics — which may well put an end to serious two-party competition — getting more attention? Most pundits, to the extent they acknowledge that anything is happening, downplay its importance. For example, last year an article in Business Week titled "The GOP's Wacky War on Dem Lobbyists" dismissed the K Street Project as "silly — and downright futile." In fact, the project is well on the way to achieving its goals."
Another method being utilized to murder American democracy.
Beefing up the GOP through the influence of the Special Interest.
"A Republican National Committee official recently told a group of GOP lobbyists that 33 of 36 top-level Washington positions he is monitoring went to Republicans, according to someone who attended the meeting. The trend could deeply influence Washington politics, policy and fundraising
for years..."
This is not the America envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
This is corruption...plain and simple.
An additional commentary is provided by NY Times' Paul Krugman in a recent column:
"Why isn't the ongoing transformation of U.S. politics — which may well put an end to serious two-party competition — getting more attention? Most pundits, to the extent they acknowledge that anything is happening, downplay its importance. For example, last year an article in Business Week titled "The GOP's Wacky War on Dem Lobbyists" dismissed the K Street Project as "silly — and downright futile." In fact, the project is well on the way to achieving its goals."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Administration, Yellowstone Staff at Odds on Park Threats
Link here
"Tinkering with scientific information, either striking it from reports or
altering it, is becoming a pattern of behavior," said Roger G. Kennedy, a
former director of the National Park Service."
Wait----is this an article about the decision to go to war with Iraq--or is this an article about the rape of Yellowstone?
It could be either, on the surface.
This administration perverts all information made available to them in order to fit its ugly, ugly agenda.
A malleable Congress with a partisan majority facilitates the perversion.
I fear for Yellowstone.
I fear for the soldiers risking ALL in Iraq.
I fear for our American democracy.
"Yellowstone is no longer in danger," Paul Hoffman, an Interior Department
official, wrote in an April 7 letter to the World Heritage Committee of the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization."
Neither is our American democracy, if you ask anyone from the Bush administration.
Tinkering with the sanctity of nature...the sanctity of the lives of our troops and their families...tinkering with
the true freedoms we've known and enjoyed for so long (thanks to the lifeblood of American democracy)....
Bush is tinkering toward the death of all the above.
Administration, Yellowstone Staff at Odds on Park Threats
Link here
"Tinkering with scientific information, either striking it from reports or
altering it, is becoming a pattern of behavior," said Roger G. Kennedy, a
former director of the National Park Service."
Wait----is this an article about the decision to go to war with Iraq--or is this an article about the rape of Yellowstone?
It could be either, on the surface.
This administration perverts all information made available to them in order to fit its ugly, ugly agenda.
A malleable Congress with a partisan majority facilitates the perversion.
I fear for Yellowstone.
I fear for the soldiers risking ALL in Iraq.
I fear for our American democracy.
"Yellowstone is no longer in danger," Paul Hoffman, an Interior Department
official, wrote in an April 7 letter to the World Heritage Committee of the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization."
Neither is our American democracy, if you ask anyone from the Bush administration.
Tinkering with the sanctity of nature...the sanctity of the lives of our troops and their families...tinkering with
the true freedoms we've known and enjoyed for so long (thanks to the lifeblood of American democracy)....
Bush is tinkering toward the death of all the above.
Thursday, June 26, 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The NY Times----are they going to bring up the MoveOn.org online primary at any point in time?
They are quick to bring up right weblog activism (see William Safire's article about the Gray Davis recall campaign).
SAFIRE QUOTE: "If enough voters are egged on by TV advertising, talk-showboating and Weblog fury, the governor's recall will be on the ballot along with a separate list of potential successors."
All I see at the NY Times website is this AP article which includes a highly interesting and questionable quote:
"If I were a Democrat, I would be looking at this as something that's not helpful,'' said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. ``People have got to begin to have a longer term perspective than maneuvering for position six to eight months before the first real primary.''
I say: Why not?
WHY NOT?
We already have a Republican candidate for 2004.
Why pretend Democrats don't yet care about the candidate they think will do the best job of leading their nation?
Why do we wait until the last moment?
What is the fear all about, really?
You have to REALLY wonder why the New York Times is remiss in taking note of the MoveOn.org historic grassroots effort to involve the voting community via the internet. My opinion is that the NY Times is afraid of getting on the wrong side of history. Meanwhile, history rolls right past their noses, which are apparently firmly stuck up the asses of the powers-that-be. They lost their nerve and their professional intuition after 9-11.
The New York Times, along with a lot of other forms of corporate media, is fast on the road to historic irrelevance.
Meanwhile, on other websites, Joe Lieberman is WELL aware of the MoveOn.org primary....and is apparently worried.
His quote from this ridiculous article(from "Republicans for Sharpton"):
"Officials in Joe Lieberman’s campaign said they received several calls and e-mails Tuesday from supporters who got an error message after trying to cast electronic ballots. As it turns out, the system blocked out the blonde candidates as well.
"It's been problematic," said Sen. Lieberman "We've heard from dozens of supporters who have either signed up to get an e-mail and haven't gotten it or can't get online or can't get on the site."
The NY Times----are they going to bring up the MoveOn.org online primary at any point in time?
They are quick to bring up right weblog activism (see William Safire's article about the Gray Davis recall campaign).
SAFIRE QUOTE: "If enough voters are egged on by TV advertising, talk-showboating and Weblog fury, the governor's recall will be on the ballot along with a separate list of potential successors."
All I see at the NY Times website is this AP article which includes a highly interesting and questionable quote:
"If I were a Democrat, I would be looking at this as something that's not helpful,'' said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. ``People have got to begin to have a longer term perspective than maneuvering for position six to eight months before the first real primary.''
I say: Why not?
WHY NOT?
We already have a Republican candidate for 2004.
Why pretend Democrats don't yet care about the candidate they think will do the best job of leading their nation?
Why do we wait until the last moment?
What is the fear all about, really?
You have to REALLY wonder why the New York Times is remiss in taking note of the MoveOn.org historic grassroots effort to involve the voting community via the internet. My opinion is that the NY Times is afraid of getting on the wrong side of history. Meanwhile, history rolls right past their noses, which are apparently firmly stuck up the asses of the powers-that-be. They lost their nerve and their professional intuition after 9-11.
The New York Times, along with a lot of other forms of corporate media, is fast on the road to historic irrelevance.
Meanwhile, on other websites, Joe Lieberman is WELL aware of the MoveOn.org primary....and is apparently worried.
His quote from this ridiculous article(from "Republicans for Sharpton"):
"Officials in Joe Lieberman’s campaign said they received several calls and e-mails Tuesday from supporters who got an error message after trying to cast electronic ballots. As it turns out, the system blocked out the blonde candidates as well.
"It's been problematic," said Sen. Lieberman "We've heard from dozens of supporters who have either signed up to get an e-mail and haven't gotten it or can't get online or can't get on the site."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
HOWARD DEAN
Speech
June 25, 2003
Council on Foreign Relations
Washington DC
See text here.
HOWARD DEAN
Speech
June 25, 2003
Council on Foreign Relations
Washington DC
See text here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A compelling plea for rightists (too often blind Bush supporters)
to speak out against the FCC-facilitated BigMedia takeover of America's local press/radio/TV- -
Can rightists break the chain of blind partisanship and see what they stand to lose?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/opinion/26SAFI.html
""There has to be a clear perception of public outrage," says Burr. And to move Bush and DeLay, that expression of snail mail and e-mail outrage must come from the right — from believers in strong local say about the means and content of communication, acting while there is still time."
A compelling plea for rightists (too often blind Bush supporters)
to speak out against the FCC-facilitated BigMedia takeover of America's local press/radio/TV- -
Can rightists break the chain of blind partisanship and see what they stand to lose?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/opinion/26SAFI.html
""There has to be a clear perception of public outrage," says Burr. And to move Bush and DeLay, that expression of snail mail and e-mail outrage must come from the right — from believers in strong local say about the means and content of communication, acting while there is still time."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear GOD!
This is downright catty...
"MEOWWWWWWW", hisses William Saletan, "MEOWWWWWWW!!"........
A prime example of Corporate Media in action...biased action!
ABSOLUTE HOWARD
"For months, I've been scratching my head over the Howard Dean problem...."
*Hey, kitty girl, if you scratch that dome of yours as hard as your scratching at Howard Dean, you're going to have one bloody scalp!*
This is a further indication that media is just a lame extension of the 2004 Bush campaign!
Dear GOD!
This is downright catty...
A prime example of Corporate Media in action...biased action!
ABSOLUTE HOWARD
"For months, I've been scratching my head over the Howard Dean problem...."
*Hey, kitty girl, if you scratch that dome of yours as hard as your scratching at Howard Dean, you're going to have one bloody scalp!*
This is a further indication that media is just a lame extension of the 2004 Bush campaign!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Judith Miller---What WERE you thinking?
When embedded journalism becomes incestuous between Military and journalist...it's an embedding indeed.
Embedded Reporter's Role In Army Unit's Actions Questioned by Military
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
"The April trip to Chalabi's headquarters took place "at Judy's {Judith Miller's} direction," one officer said...."
"This was totally out of their {MET Alpha's} lane, getting involved with human intelligence," said one military officer who, like several others interviewed, declined to be named because he is not an authorized spokesman. But, the officer said of Miller, "this woman came in with a plan. She was leading them. . . . She ended up almost hijacking the mission."
"Asked why Chalabi didn't simply call his official Pentagon liaison to turn over an important Iraqi, Sethna said they wanted to make sure that Sultan was transported quickly and safely and that he was "very surprised" when MET Alpha agreed to take the prisoner..."
***HMMMMMMM......this sounds like fodder for the National Enquirer...***
"Miller formed a friendship with MET Alpha's leader, Chief Warrant Officer Gonzales, and several officers said they were surprised when she participated in a Baghdad ceremony in which Gonzales was promoted. She pinned the rank to his uniform, an eyewitness said, and Gonzales thanked Miller for her contributions. Gonzales did not respond to a request for comment...."
Judith Miller---What WERE you thinking?
When embedded journalism becomes incestuous between Military and journalist...it's an embedding indeed.
Embedded Reporter's Role In Army Unit's Actions Questioned by Military
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
"The April trip to Chalabi's headquarters took place "at Judy's {Judith Miller's} direction," one officer said...."
"This was totally out of their {MET Alpha's} lane, getting involved with human intelligence," said one military officer who, like several others interviewed, declined to be named because he is not an authorized spokesman. But, the officer said of Miller, "this woman came in with a plan. She was leading them. . . . She ended up almost hijacking the mission."
"Asked why Chalabi didn't simply call his official Pentagon liaison to turn over an important Iraqi, Sethna said they wanted to make sure that Sultan was transported quickly and safely and that he was "very surprised" when MET Alpha agreed to take the prisoner..."
***HMMMMMMM......this sounds like fodder for the National Enquirer...***
"Miller formed a friendship with MET Alpha's leader, Chief Warrant Officer Gonzales, and several officers said they were surprised when she participated in a Baghdad ceremony in which Gonzales was promoted. She pinned the rank to his uniform, an eyewitness said, and Gonzales thanked Miller for her contributions. Gonzales did not respond to a request for comment...."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Norman Solomon- One of Our Most Gifted Political Writers
TILTING DEMOCRATS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE
By Norman Solomon / Creators Syndicate
The corporate Democrats who greased Bill Clinton's path to the White House are now a bit worried. Their influence on the party's presidential nomination process has slipped. But the Democratic Leadership Council can count on plenty of assistance from mainstream news media.
For several years leading up to 1992, the DLC curried favor with high-profile political journalists as they repeated the mantra that the Democratic Party needed to be centrist. Co-founded by Clinton in the mid-1980s, the DLC emphasized catering to "middle class" Americans --
while the organization filled its coffers with funding from such non-middle-class bastions as the top echelons of corporate outfits like
Arco, Prudential-Bache, Dow Chemical, Georgia Pacific and Martin Marietta.
In a 1992 book, "Who Will Tell the People," political analyst William Greider noted that the Democratic Leadership Council's main objective was "an attack on the Democratic Party's core constituencies -- labor, schoolteachers, women's rights groups, peace and disarmament activists, the racial minorities and supporters of affirmative action." During the eight years that followed, President Clinton "moderately" shafted many of those constituencies.
Clinton proved to be a political survivor. But his presidency led to the destruction of Democratic majorities in both the House and
Senate.
Now, the Los Angeles Times reported in late June, "the centrist 'New Democrat' movement is struggling to maintain its influence in the
party as the 2004 presidential race accelerates." DLC stalwart Sen. Joe Lieberman is getting nowhere. Other DLC-friendly candidates, such as Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards, are hardly catching fire.
One of the key "New Democrats" is DLC favorite John Breaux, a senator from Louisiana who distinguished himself by trying to protect deregulation measures approved in early June by the Federal Communications Commission. Breaux unsuccessfully proposed amendments to help TV networks to further consolidate media ownership. His efforts were even too flagrantly corporate for many Republicans on the Senate Commerce Committee.
Despite its setbacks, the Democratic Leadership Council need not despair. Most of the nation's political journalists, including pro-Democrat pundits, insist that the party should not nominate someone too far "left" -- which usually means anybody who's appreciably more progressive than the DLC. That bias helps to account for the frequent mislabeling of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has risen to the top tier of contenders for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.
After seven years as governor, the Associated Press described Dean as "a moderate at best on social issues and a clear conservative on fiscal issues." The news service added: "This is, after all, the governor who has at times tried to cut benefits for the aged, blind and disabled, whose No. 1 priority is a balanced budget."
When Dean officially announced his presidential campaign on June 23, some news stories identified him with the left. It's a case of mistaken identity. "He's really a classic Rockefeller Republican -- a fiscal conservative and social liberal," according to University of Vermont political scientist Garrison Nelson.A recent memo by a pair of DLC honchos, Al From and Bruce Reed, linked the party's progressive-leaning activists with "elitist, interest-group liberalism." The salvo is laughable. It would be difficult to find any organization of Democrats more deserving of the "elitist, interest-group" tag than the DLC, which has long been funded by oil, chemical, insurance and military-contracting corporations -- and has served their interests.
As a fiscal conservative, Dean is aligned with the status quo of extreme inequities. That alignment was on display during a pair of June 22 appearances.
In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Dean delivered a one-two punch against economic justice. He advocated raising the retirement age
for Social Security, and he called for slowing down the rate of increases for Medicare spending.
Later in the day, at a Rainbow/PUSH Coalition forum, Dean went out of his way to emphasize support for out-of-control military spending
after a rival candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, said that "the only way we're really going to close the (digital) divide in this country is to
start cutting the Pentagon budget and put that money into education." Dean's response: "I don't agree with Dennis about cutting the Pentagon
budget when we're in the middle of a difficulty with terror attacks."
The next day, at his official campaign kickoff, Dean gave a 26-minute speech and didn't mention Iraq at all. It was a remarkable
performance from someone who has spent much of the last year pitching himself as some kind of anti-war candidate.
Dean is already sending a message to his announced supporters among peace and social-justice advocates: Thanks, suckers.
Usually, major-party candidates wait until they have a lock on the presidential nomination before diving to the center. Eager to avoid
being hammered by the national press corps for supposed liberalism, Dean hasn't bothered to wait.
My own comment: Howard Dean cannot afford to wait. If he is going to "trip" the media system, he must act as quickly as they do. We live in an ADHD-induced media atmosphere. Americans seem to follow the flow of the never-ending influx of media babble..the loud and constant ramblings of the "here and now" ...and they tend to forget what they heard just the day before. In this Information Age, a politician must adjust to the known public tendency to be fickle (in a media-infuence sense). We must learn to be open to affording our Democratic candidates some level of forgiveness for the necessity to fight the media flow.....for it must be done until the media changes..and I don't see that happening anytime soon!
We need to understand that, without giving up important democratic principles, candidates like Howard Dean must appeal to more than the idealists
in order to win the 2004 election. Taking the office from its unrightful owner George Bush is the goal. We should not forget that for a moment!
Other particularly important and relevant writings from Norman Solomon:
http://www.juicycerebellum.com/solomon027.htm
http://www.mediamonitors.net/solomon19.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1018-07.htm
A collection of Norman Solomon:
http://www.alternet.org/alsoby.html?Author=2874
TILTING DEMOCRATS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE
By Norman Solomon / Creators Syndicate
The corporate Democrats who greased Bill Clinton's path to the White House are now a bit worried. Their influence on the party's presidential nomination process has slipped. But the Democratic Leadership Council can count on plenty of assistance from mainstream news media.
For several years leading up to 1992, the DLC curried favor with high-profile political journalists as they repeated the mantra that the Democratic Party needed to be centrist. Co-founded by Clinton in the mid-1980s, the DLC emphasized catering to "middle class" Americans --
while the organization filled its coffers with funding from such non-middle-class bastions as the top echelons of corporate outfits like
Arco, Prudential-Bache, Dow Chemical, Georgia Pacific and Martin Marietta.
In a 1992 book, "Who Will Tell the People," political analyst William Greider noted that the Democratic Leadership Council's main objective was "an attack on the Democratic Party's core constituencies -- labor, schoolteachers, women's rights groups, peace and disarmament activists, the racial minorities and supporters of affirmative action." During the eight years that followed, President Clinton "moderately" shafted many of those constituencies.
Clinton proved to be a political survivor. But his presidency led to the destruction of Democratic majorities in both the House and
Senate.
Now, the Los Angeles Times reported in late June, "the centrist 'New Democrat' movement is struggling to maintain its influence in the
party as the 2004 presidential race accelerates." DLC stalwart Sen. Joe Lieberman is getting nowhere. Other DLC-friendly candidates, such as Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards, are hardly catching fire.
One of the key "New Democrats" is DLC favorite John Breaux, a senator from Louisiana who distinguished himself by trying to protect deregulation measures approved in early June by the Federal Communications Commission. Breaux unsuccessfully proposed amendments to help TV networks to further consolidate media ownership. His efforts were even too flagrantly corporate for many Republicans on the Senate Commerce Committee.
Despite its setbacks, the Democratic Leadership Council need not despair. Most of the nation's political journalists, including pro-Democrat pundits, insist that the party should not nominate someone too far "left" -- which usually means anybody who's appreciably more progressive than the DLC. That bias helps to account for the frequent mislabeling of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has risen to the top tier of contenders for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.
After seven years as governor, the Associated Press described Dean as "a moderate at best on social issues and a clear conservative on fiscal issues." The news service added: "This is, after all, the governor who has at times tried to cut benefits for the aged, blind and disabled, whose No. 1 priority is a balanced budget."
When Dean officially announced his presidential campaign on June 23, some news stories identified him with the left. It's a case of mistaken identity. "He's really a classic Rockefeller Republican -- a fiscal conservative and social liberal," according to University of Vermont political scientist Garrison Nelson.A recent memo by a pair of DLC honchos, Al From and Bruce Reed, linked the party's progressive-leaning activists with "elitist, interest-group liberalism." The salvo is laughable. It would be difficult to find any organization of Democrats more deserving of the "elitist, interest-group" tag than the DLC, which has long been funded by oil, chemical, insurance and military-contracting corporations -- and has served their interests.
As a fiscal conservative, Dean is aligned with the status quo of extreme inequities. That alignment was on display during a pair of June 22 appearances.
In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Dean delivered a one-two punch against economic justice. He advocated raising the retirement age
for Social Security, and he called for slowing down the rate of increases for Medicare spending.
Later in the day, at a Rainbow/PUSH Coalition forum, Dean went out of his way to emphasize support for out-of-control military spending
after a rival candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, said that "the only way we're really going to close the (digital) divide in this country is to
start cutting the Pentagon budget and put that money into education." Dean's response: "I don't agree with Dennis about cutting the Pentagon
budget when we're in the middle of a difficulty with terror attacks."
The next day, at his official campaign kickoff, Dean gave a 26-minute speech and didn't mention Iraq at all. It was a remarkable
performance from someone who has spent much of the last year pitching himself as some kind of anti-war candidate.
Dean is already sending a message to his announced supporters among peace and social-justice advocates: Thanks, suckers.
Usually, major-party candidates wait until they have a lock on the presidential nomination before diving to the center. Eager to avoid
being hammered by the national press corps for supposed liberalism, Dean hasn't bothered to wait.
My own comment: Howard Dean cannot afford to wait. If he is going to "trip" the media system, he must act as quickly as they do. We live in an ADHD-induced media atmosphere. Americans seem to follow the flow of the never-ending influx of media babble..the loud and constant ramblings of the "here and now" ...and they tend to forget what they heard just the day before. In this Information Age, a politician must adjust to the known public tendency to be fickle (in a media-infuence sense). We must learn to be open to affording our Democratic candidates some level of forgiveness for the necessity to fight the media flow.....for it must be done until the media changes..and I don't see that happening anytime soon!
We need to understand that, without giving up important democratic principles, candidates like Howard Dean must appeal to more than the idealists
in order to win the 2004 election. Taking the office from its unrightful owner George Bush is the goal. We should not forget that for a moment!
Other particularly important and relevant writings from Norman Solomon:
http://www.juicycerebellum.com/solomon027.htm
http://www.mediamonitors.net/solomon19.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1018-07.htm
A collection of Norman Solomon:
http://www.alternet.org/alsoby.html?Author=2874
Crossroads
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The United States is at a crossroads....
The choice is so big....
Bush & the End of Reason
By Nat Parry
Bush & the End of Reason
By Nat Parry
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
art by Kazimierz Dzyga
“Far away in the sunshine are my highest aspirations. I may not reach them, but I can look up and see their beauty, believe in them, and try to follow where they lead.”
-- Louisa May Alcott
-- Louisa May Alcott
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Has anyone noticed the state of the economy is pathetic? Or is it just me?
There is really no sign of a revival in business investment
spending ...U.S. Durables Orders Fell in May for a Second Month
...the Fed's likely to lower rates to a 45-year low...the reality is sinking in after the myth of the expected postwar economic boom... the tech
slump is causing grief in our desperate American cities.. Phoenix, for example....not since the Great Depression has the United States suffered through such a protracted hiring slump as it has the past 27 months....the Silicon Valley is but a shadow of its former economic self....and tell me--what IS consumer confidence? I seem to have forgotten!
And the good news is......
* Oh---stop looking for it, already!!! I was only being sarcastic! *
Has anyone noticed the state of the economy is pathetic? Or is it just me?
There is really no sign of a revival in business investment
spending ...U.S. Durables Orders Fell in May for a Second Month
...the Fed's likely to lower rates to a 45-year low...the reality is sinking in after the myth of the expected postwar economic boom... the tech
slump is causing grief in our desperate American cities.. Phoenix, for example....not since the Great Depression has the United States suffered through such a protracted hiring slump as it has the past 27 months....the Silicon Valley is but a shadow of its former economic self....and tell me--what IS consumer confidence? I seem to have forgotten!
And the good news is......
* Oh---stop looking for it, already!!! I was only being sarcastic! *
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Downing Street's second dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
caused an "embarrassment" for the Government, Foreign Secretary Jack
Straw conceded today."
Poor Jack Straw's embarrassed.
Hundreds of our faithful troops have died...
Screw Jack Straw.
"Straw concedes 'substantial error' in Iraq weapons document"
"Downing Street's second dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
caused an "embarrassment" for the Government, Foreign Secretary Jack
Straw conceded today."
Poor Jack Straw's embarrassed.
Hundreds of our faithful troops have died...
Screw Jack Straw.
"Straw concedes 'substantial error' in Iraq weapons document"
Senator Byrd Says Stop Covering Up!
Senator Byrd Says Stop Covering Up!
Senator Byrd says "The Road to Coverup is the Road to Ruin".
A Champion of Truth
Senator Byrd says:
"Well, Mr. President, this is no game. For the first time in our history, the United States has gone to war because of intelligence reports claiming that a country posed a threat to our nation. Congress should not be content to use standard operating procedures to look into this extraordinary matter. We should accept no substitute for a full, bipartisan investigation by Congress into the issue of our pre-war intelligence on the threat from Iraq and its use.
The purpose of such an investigation is not to play pre-election year politics, nor is it to engage in what some might call "revisionist history." Rather it is to get at the truth. The longer questions are allowed to fester about what our intelligence knew about Iraq, and when they knew it, the greater the risk that the people – the American people whom we are elected to serve – will lose confidence in our government.
This looming crisis of trust is not limited to the public. Many of my colleagues were willing to trust the Administration and vote to authorize war against Iraq.
Many members of this body trusted so much that they gave the President sweeping authority to commence war.
As President Reagan famously said, "Trust, but verify." Despite my opposition, the Senate voted to blindly trust the President with
unprecedented power to declare war. While the reconstruction continues, so do the questions, and it is time to verify."
Senator Byrd has a good point, I think....wouldn't you agree?
Senator Byrd said this...and tell me..can you reasonably argue with this statement?
Senator Byrd's statement is exactly what I had said yesterday in my "Hans Blix Gives It To The Bush Administration" entry:
Senator Byrd has a way with words. I love the use of the word "massaged" in this part of Sen Byrd's speech..it was quite colorful:
Senator Byrd isn't afraid of pouring out truth (unlike many of his shameful Congressional colleagues).
Senator Byrd is one of my heroes.
Senator Byrd says "The Road to Coverup is the Road to Ruin".
Senator Byrd says:
"Well, Mr. President, this is no game. For the first time in our history, the United States has gone to war because of intelligence reports claiming that a country posed a threat to our nation. Congress should not be content to use standard operating procedures to look into this extraordinary matter. We should accept no substitute for a full, bipartisan investigation by Congress into the issue of our pre-war intelligence on the threat from Iraq and its use.
The purpose of such an investigation is not to play pre-election year politics, nor is it to engage in what some might call "revisionist history." Rather it is to get at the truth. The longer questions are allowed to fester about what our intelligence knew about Iraq, and when they knew it, the greater the risk that the people – the American people whom we are elected to serve – will lose confidence in our government.
This looming crisis of trust is not limited to the public. Many of my colleagues were willing to trust the Administration and vote to authorize war against Iraq.
Many members of this body trusted so much that they gave the President sweeping authority to commence war.
As President Reagan famously said, "Trust, but verify." Despite my opposition, the Senate voted to blindly trust the President with
unprecedented power to declare war. While the reconstruction continues, so do the questions, and it is time to verify."
Senator Byrd has a good point, I think....wouldn't you agree?
Senator Byrd said this...and tell me..can you reasonably argue with this statement?
"If we are going to hit first, based on perceived dangers, the perceptions had better be accurate."I just don't think you can argue with that.
Senator Byrd's statement is exactly what I had said yesterday in my "Hans Blix Gives It To The Bush Administration" entry:
"We have heard a lot about revisionist history from the White House of late in answer to those who question whether there was a real threat from Iraq. But, it is the President who appears to me to be intent on revising history."
Senator Byrd has a way with words. I love the use of the word "massaged" in this part of Sen Byrd's speech..it was quite colorful:
"Whether or not intelligence reports were bent, stretched, or massaged to make Iraq look like an imminent threat to the United States, it is clear that the Administration's rhetoric played upon the well-founded fear of the American public about future acts of terrorism. But, upon close examination, many of these statements have nothing to do with intelligence, because they are at root just sound bites based on conjecture. They are designed to prey on public fear."Senator Byrd said something that I believe is important to remember:
" These are the President's words. He said that Saddam Hussein is "seeking a nuclear bomb." Have we found any evidence to date of this chilling allegation? No."
Senator Byrd isn't afraid of pouring out truth (unlike many of his shameful Congressional colleagues).
Senator Byrd is one of my heroes.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Blogtracking sites I have noticed...(cached)
1- http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:XwIwc8HVE_gJ:blogpulse.com/03_06_07/keyPeople.html+Iddybud&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
2- http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:eaGTXJ0lP7oJ:dev.myelin.co.nz/ecosystem/blogs/http_3a_2f_2fiddybud_2eblogspot
_2ecom_stats.html+Iddybud&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
3- http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:aWnqZ1mwpxwJ:www.rootblog.com/Recent/%3Frub%3D34+Iddybud&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
4- http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:cqOomY-eVDQJ:blogs.law.harvard.edu/stats/referers+Iddybud&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
5- http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:9GoBKwwmK28J:www.inspectedby12.blogger.com/+Iddybud&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Blogtracking sites I have noticed...(cached)
1- http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:XwIwc8HVE_gJ:blogpulse.com/03_06_07/keyPeople.html+Iddybud&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
2- http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:eaGTXJ0lP7oJ:dev.myelin.co.nz/ecosystem/blogs/http_3a_2f_2fiddybud_2eblogspot
_2ecom_stats.html+Iddybud&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
3- http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:aWnqZ1mwpxwJ:www.rootblog.com/Recent/%3Frub%3D34+Iddybud&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
4- http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:cqOomY-eVDQJ:blogs.law.harvard.edu/stats/referers+Iddybud&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
5- http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:9GoBKwwmK28J:www.inspectedby12.blogger.com/+Iddybud&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IS BUSH A LIAR--OR SIMPLY IGNORANT?
RELAX--THERE'S NO NEED TO CHOOSE!
"Oye--Sooo many choices!"
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084730/
IS BUSH A LIAR--OR SIMPLY IGNORANT?
RELAX--THERE'S NO NEED TO CHOOSE!
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084730/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HANS BLIX GIVES IT TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Yesterday, soon-to-be retired chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix stated to the Council on Foreign Relations(NYC) that "the longer the United States and Britain occupy Iraq without finding weapons of mass destruction,
the more conceivable it is that Baghdad destroyed them after the first Gulf War in 1991".
Blix also stated: "``It is sort of fascinating that you can have 100 percent certainty about weapons
of mass destruction and zero certainty of about where they are.''
Blix also threw out this wry comment (targeting the Bush administration): ``Three-and-a-half months for new inspections was a rather short
time before calling it a day and especially when we now see the U.S. government is saying,
'look, you have to have a little patience, you know these things take time". "All right!''
If Bush was someday to be asked why his administration kept saying " we need to have patience" when looking for the WMD's..
when, for all intents and purposes, he gave Blix the bum's rush when he appealed for ample time,
Bush would probably say: "That's simply revisionist history."
Just wait until Mr Blix writes a book about this period in history.
Future generations will look back and understand just who the revisionists of history were...and why.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-iraq-blix.html
HANS BLIX GIVES IT TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Yesterday, soon-to-be retired chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix stated to the Council on Foreign Relations(NYC) that "the longer the United States and Britain occupy Iraq without finding weapons of mass destruction,
the more conceivable it is that Baghdad destroyed them after the first Gulf War in 1991".
Blix also stated: "``It is sort of fascinating that you can have 100 percent certainty about weapons
of mass destruction and zero certainty of about where they are.''
Blix also threw out this wry comment (targeting the Bush administration): ``Three-and-a-half months for new inspections was a rather short
time before calling it a day and especially when we now see the U.S. government is saying,
'look, you have to have a little patience, you know these things take time". "All right!''
If Bush was someday to be asked why his administration kept saying " we need to have patience" when looking for the WMD's..
when, for all intents and purposes, he gave Blix the bum's rush when he appealed for ample time,
Bush would probably say: "That's simply revisionist history."
Just wait until Mr Blix writes a book about this period in history.
Future generations will look back and understand just who the revisionists of history were...and why.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-iraq-blix.html
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear God...what have Bush and Blair gotten us into ?
Six British Troops Killed in String of Iraq Attacks
"Six British troops were killed and several were wounded in Iraq on Tuesday in the biggest daily death toll sustained
by U.S. and British forces since March 23, three days after the start of the war to topple Saddam Hussein."
Dear God...what have Bush and Blair gotten us into ?
Six British Troops Killed in String of Iraq Attacks
"Six British troops were killed and several were wounded in Iraq on Tuesday in the biggest daily death toll sustained
by U.S. and British forces since March 23, three days after the start of the war to topple Saddam Hussein."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Denial and Deception
By PAUL KRUGMAN
From The New York Times, 6/24/03:
"There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush administration
officials deceived us into war.
The key question now is why so many influential people are in denial,
unwilling to admit the obvious."
"...the political and media establishment is in denial, finding excuses for the administration's efforts to mislead both Congress and the public..."
"....We're not talking about a business dispute that hinges on the fine print of the contract; we're talking about the most solemn decision a nation can make..."
"..if we can't find people willing to take the risk — to face the truth and act on it — what will happen to our democracy? "
Denial and Deception
By PAUL KRUGMAN
From The New York Times, 6/24/03:
"There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush administration
officials deceived us into war.
The key question now is why so many influential people are in denial,
unwilling to admit the obvious."
"...the political and media establishment is in denial, finding excuses for the administration's efforts to mislead both Congress and the public..."
"....We're not talking about a business dispute that hinges on the fine print of the contract; we're talking about the most solemn decision a nation can make..."
"..if we can't find people willing to take the risk — to face the truth and act on it — what will happen to our democracy? "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
American taxpayers:
I hope you enjoyed the embedded
journalism in Iraq.
You paid for it.
"..Who paid for this media training, transportation and equipment? Unwittingly, American taxpayers picked up the tab for these and many other expenses in the military's embedded media program...."
"..To provide a minimum daily ration of two meals-ready-to-eat (MREs) and two 16-ounce bottles of sterilized water for a month,
the cost to the military is more than $500 per journalist, based on figures from the Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia.
Free shelter saved embeds the cost of a tent ($130 retail), sleeping bag ($100 retail) or hotels in Kuwait City and Baghdad ($100 nightly minimum).
They also took no-cost loans of gas masks ($179-$329 retail) and nuclear/biological/chemical suits ($45-$59 retail).
And, yes, protection courtesy of the U.S. armed forces. To hire a former British Royal Marine from Centurion to escort you to Baghdad,
the charge is around $400 a day....."
SLIGHTLY?!?
"..Almost every major news organization has a strict policy against journalists accepting anything free from people they cover.
Freebies undercut the public's perception of their independence and objectivity...."
"..In future military conflicts, will this many journalists embed if they have to pay?"
American taxpayers:
I hope you enjoyed the embedded
journalism in Iraq.
You paid for it.
"..Who paid for this media training, transportation and equipment? Unwittingly, American taxpayers picked up the tab for these and many other expenses in the military's embedded media program...."
"..To provide a minimum daily ration of two meals-ready-to-eat (MREs) and two 16-ounce bottles of sterilized water for a month,
the cost to the military is more than $500 per journalist, based on figures from the Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia.
Free shelter saved embeds the cost of a tent ($130 retail), sleeping bag ($100 retail) or hotels in Kuwait City and Baghdad ($100 nightly minimum).
They also took no-cost loans of gas masks ($179-$329 retail) and nuclear/biological/chemical suits ($45-$59 retail).
And, yes, protection courtesy of the U.S. armed forces. To hire a former British Royal Marine from Centurion to escort you to Baghdad,
the charge is around $400 a day....."
"..Almost every major news organization has a strict policy against journalists accepting anything free from people they cover.
Freebies undercut the public's perception of their independence and objectivity...."
"..In future military conflicts, will this many journalists embed if they have to pay?"
Monday, June 23, 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See former Vt. Governor Howard Dean's Presidential campaign kick-off speech here:
"THE GREAT AMERICAN RESTORATION"
http://www.deanforamerica.com/docs/GreatAmericanRestoration.pdf
"YOU have the power!"
- - - - - Howard Dean Declararation Rally - Photo by Jim Brayton - Burlington, Vt. 6-23-03
See former Vt. Governor Howard Dean's Presidential campaign kick-off speech here:
"THE GREAT AMERICAN RESTORATION"
http://www.deanforamerica.com/docs/GreatAmericanRestoration.pdf
- - - - - Howard Dean Declararation Rally - Photo by Jim Brayton - Burlington, Vt. 6-23-03
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A God for Bloggers -
Ralph Waldo Emerson
by blogger Christopher Lydon
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lydon/2003/06/21#a131
Adding one of my own favorites by Emerson:
"The Bohemian Myth"
In many forms we try
To utter God's infinity
But the boundless hath no form
And the Universal friend
Doth as far transcend
An angel as a worm.
The great Idea baffles wit
Language falters under it
It leaves the learned in the lurch
Nor art nor power nor toil can find
The measure of the eternal mind
Nor hymn nor prayer nor church.
* * * * * * * * * *
A God for Bloggers -
Ralph Waldo Emerson
by blogger Christopher Lydon
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lydon/2003/06/21#a131
Adding one of my own favorites by Emerson:
"The Bohemian Myth"
In many forms we try
To utter God's infinity
But the boundless hath no form
And the Universal friend
Doth as far transcend
An angel as a worm.
The great Idea baffles wit
Language falters under it
It leaves the learned in the lurch
Nor art nor power nor toil can find
The measure of the eternal mind
Nor hymn nor prayer nor church.
* * * * * * * * * *
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A definitive article from The New Republic-essential to those who care about Bush's alarming and criminal exaggerative admonitions about Iraq.
(Oooo--I'm trying so hard not to say "lies"..yikes...I went and said it again!)
THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR.
The First Casualty
by John B. Judis & Spencer Ackerman
"..'The democratic processes ... are subverted when intelligence is manipulated to affect decisions by elected officials and the public.'
..If anything, this principle has grown even more important since September 11, 2001...."
"It is up to the president and his administration....to portray the intelligence community's findings honestly. If an administration represents the intelligence unfairly, it effectively forecloses an informed choice about the most important question a nation faces: whether or not to go to war.
That is exactly what the Bush administration did when it sought to convince the public and Congress that the United States should go to war with Iraq..."
A definitive article from The New Republic-essential to those who care about Bush's alarming and criminal exaggerative admonitions about Iraq.
(Oooo--I'm trying so hard not to say "lies"..yikes...I went and said it again!)
THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR.
The First Casualty
by John B. Judis & Spencer Ackerman
"..'The democratic processes ... are subverted when intelligence is manipulated to affect decisions by elected officials and the public.'
..If anything, this principle has grown even more important since September 11, 2001...."
"It is up to the president and his administration....to portray the intelligence community's findings honestly. If an administration represents the intelligence unfairly, it effectively forecloses an informed choice about the most important question a nation faces: whether or not to go to war.
That is exactly what the Bush administration did when it sought to convince the public and Congress that the United States should go to war with Iraq..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Report Cast Doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection
From: Washington Post
WELL---- DUH!
This is the problem with the media.
This story could have come out BEFORE the war.
It's no wonder the polls prove so often that the public is so misinformed!
This proves an important point. Journalists should INDEED watch what they say..
and they should say it often and not be afraid of what they are watching themselves saying!!!
Stop giving this administration a Teflon-coated free pass!
Yes, Washington Post---this intelligence information was classified...and you were too afraid to talk about your gnawing doubt about the truth
of the lack of evidence regarding the Iraq-AlQaeda connection BEFORE the war....when it really would have counted.
Excerpt:
"In a nationally televised address last October in which he sought to rally congressional support for a resolution authorizing war against Iraq, President Bush declared that the government of Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the United States by outlining what he said was evidence pointing to its ongoing ties with al Qaeda.
A still-classified national intelligence report circulating within the Bush administration at the time, however, portrayed a far less clear picture about the link between Iraq and al Qaeda than the one presented by the president, according to U.S. intelligence analysts and congressional sources who have read the report."
Report Cast Doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection
From: Washington Post
WELL---- DUH!
This is the problem with the media.
This story could have come out BEFORE the war.
It's no wonder the polls prove so often that the public is so misinformed!
This proves an important point. Journalists should INDEED watch what they say..
and they should say it often and not be afraid of what they are watching themselves saying!!!
Stop giving this administration a Teflon-coated free pass!
Yes, Washington Post---this intelligence information was classified...and you were too afraid to talk about your gnawing doubt about the truth
of the lack of evidence regarding the Iraq-AlQaeda connection BEFORE the war....when it really would have counted.
Excerpt:
"In a nationally televised address last October in which he sought to rally congressional support for a resolution authorizing war against Iraq, President Bush declared that the government of Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the United States by outlining what he said was evidence pointing to its ongoing ties with al Qaeda.
A still-classified national intelligence report circulating within the Bush administration at the time, however, portrayed a far less clear picture about the link between Iraq and al Qaeda than the one presented by the president, according to U.S. intelligence analysts and congressional sources who have read the report."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Interesting blogstats
http://www.daypop.com/cached?q=link:iddybud.blogspot.com/&url=http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/interestingblogs.html&time=20030622193631
http://www.myelin.co.nz/ecosystem/
Interesting blogstats
http://www.daypop.com/cached?q=link:iddybud.blogspot.com/&url=http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/interestingblogs.html&time=20030622193631
http://www.myelin.co.nz/ecosystem/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review- Bloggers Rate the Most Influential Blogs
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/glaser/1056050270.php
USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review- Bloggers Rate the Most Influential Blogs
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/glaser/1056050270.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~
An article by Ron Brownstein from June 21- Centrists Losing Ground in Democratic Tug of War -shows that the act of blurring differences between Republicans and Democrats may have worked for Bill Clinton, but it's not going to fly in 2004. It's nothing more than piss-warm political pablum. We need a giant step forward if we're going to once again recognize the America for which our forefathers fought and died. Bush has really shown us what hard right looks like. Why would we want to remain anywhere close to that perilous tilt with a "new" Democrat?
I mean, come on, DLC... Bush is Hitleresque-- without the mass genocide...oh--and also without the mustache. Who needs genocide when Americans are malleable and complacent? Why the hell would the DLC want to play into the politics of hard right? If you show the American people that you understand what American democracy means and point out the naked Texas emperor at every opportunity, the American people will "get it". The DLC seems to have NOT so much lost faith in their OWN
once-closely held principles....more alarmingly, they've lost faith in the American people's ability to think for themselves...a misjudgement that will either be their undoing...or American democracy's undoing if the people don't wake up.
Here is another great opinion on the topic from the Memphis Flyer website:
http://www.memphisflyer.com/onthefly/onthefly_new.asp?ID=2434
"The Democratic Party may have had all the “moderate” it can stand. There’s nothing “moderate” about George W. Bush and the Republican Party. As a matter of fact, a larger agenda of fundamentally changing the role of government is taking place in Washington, and no one is doing anything to stop it.
The problem isn’t that Democrats are on the wrong side of the issues. They are afraid to make an issue of being on the right side - not to mention directly in the middle of mainstream America."
.
An article by Ron Brownstein from June 21- Centrists Losing Ground in Democratic Tug of War -shows that the act of blurring differences between Republicans and Democrats may have worked for Bill Clinton, but it's not going to fly in 2004. It's nothing more than piss-warm political pablum. We need a giant step forward if we're going to once again recognize the America for which our forefathers fought and died. Bush has really shown us what hard right looks like. Why would we want to remain anywhere close to that perilous tilt with a "new" Democrat?
I mean, come on, DLC... Bush is Hitleresque-- without the mass genocide...oh--and also without the mustache. Who needs genocide when Americans are malleable and complacent? Why the hell would the DLC want to play into the politics of hard right? If you show the American people that you understand what American democracy means and point out the naked Texas emperor at every opportunity, the American people will "get it". The DLC seems to have NOT so much lost faith in their OWN
once-closely held principles....more alarmingly, they've lost faith in the American people's ability to think for themselves...a misjudgement that will either be their undoing...or American democracy's undoing if the people don't wake up.
Here is another great opinion on the topic from the Memphis Flyer website:
http://www.memphisflyer.com/onthefly/onthefly_new.asp?ID=2434
"The Democratic Party may have had all the “moderate” it can stand. There’s nothing “moderate” about George W. Bush and the Republican Party. As a matter of fact, a larger agenda of fundamentally changing the role of government is taking place in Washington, and no one is doing anything to stop it.
The problem isn’t that Democrats are on the wrong side of the issues. They are afraid to make an issue of being on the right side - not to mention directly in the middle of mainstream America."
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ann Coulter starts blogging today.
Duck!
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-ann.php
Ann Coulter starts blogging today.
Duck!
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-ann.php
Sunday, June 22, 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jay Rockefeller is a wimp...and other assorted stories....
"On Friday, senators on the intelligence committee cut a deal that lets "a thorough review" — i.e. a Republican whitewash — go forward into whether the spy community ginned up prewar intelligence. The Democrats, already Fausted by their prewar fear of being pantywaists, naturally caved on open hearings.
Open, closed, who cares? Congress is looking in the wrong place. They're scrutinizing those who gathered the intelligence, rather than those who pushed to distort it."
Maureen Dowd
Where Are WMDs? Where's Congress?
*Apparently, Congress is far, far more worried about polls and re-election than they are about
the American people's damaged trust in the administration's decision to send of nearly 200 American troops to their death in Iraq.*
Is anyone out there losing faith in Congress to represent the best interest of
democracy and the interest of the American people.....or is it just me?!
Jay Rockefeller is a wimp...and other assorted stories....
"On Friday, senators on the intelligence committee cut a deal that lets "a thorough review" — i.e. a Republican whitewash — go forward into whether the spy community ginned up prewar intelligence. The Democrats, already Fausted by their prewar fear of being pantywaists, naturally caved on open hearings.
Open, closed, who cares? Congress is looking in the wrong place. They're scrutinizing those who gathered the intelligence, rather than those who pushed to distort it."
Maureen Dowd
Where Are WMDs? Where's Congress?
*Apparently, Congress is far, far more worried about polls and re-election than they are about
the American people's damaged trust in the administration's decision to send of nearly 200 American troops to their death in Iraq.*
Is anyone out there losing faith in Congress to represent the best interest of
democracy and the interest of the American people.....or is it just me?!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My letter to General Wesley Clark:
Dear General Clark,
I am very impressed with your recent comments about your own view of leadership in America. I have the utmost respect for you and I wish you success in any decision you choose to make regarding a run for the Presidency. I believe you would make a fine President.
The world has drastically changed since the 9-11 attack.
In my opinion, President Bush had a SOLID golden opportunity to bring the entire world to a better understanding of America and the average American's courage and determination to be united resolutely after the once-unimagineable terrorist attack on our own soil.
We realize there has long been anti-American sentiment overseas...especially in the Middle East.
Today, that anti-American sentiment has increased a thousandfold.
I often wonder... how could this have happened?
The answer leads me to understand the principles of what America leadership should NOT be.
An American leader should not drive the good will of the world away from his already gravely-misunderstood people, especially in times of the greatest sorrow-- in an aftermath of a senseless suicide attack which takes the lives of 3000 of his people.
An American leader would take pains to maintain the semblance of open government after such a heinous attack. An American leader would not create an impression that he had something to hide by shutting out victims' families when they ask myriad reasonable questions and plead for an independent investigation.
An American leader would not use questionable/dubious intelligence information to convince the American public that an
elective war was necessary. An American leader would not use that same dubious intelligence information as part of his State of the Union address. An American leader would not give a different reason almost every day in his lead-up to a preemptive attack on another nation; instead he would give clear, passionate, concise reasons...otherwise, he might expect the American public to wonder why he changed his mind so often.
An American leader would foster the spirit of freedom in every way..especially free speech. Dissent should not be something about which citizens are made to be fearful as they are told they'd best be "careful of what they say..."
An American leader would use the Miltary with the greatest of care, consideration, and discernment.
An American leader might realize that a "war on terror" is potentially an eternal war. Hatred has not been eradicated since the dawn of mankind. An American leader might be viewed as a war-opportunist if he uses the "war on terror" as a reason for any war toward which he elects to adventure.
An American leader would understand that the trust of his people means EVERYTHING. That American leader might have been expected to have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by now..especially if we look back upon all that immediacy and certainty in which citizen-trust was fiercely engendered by the current administration before the Iraq war began.
We were "led" to believe. Now we are not quite so sure.
We won't be so trusting in the future.
We need a leader we can trust.
We need a leader who is not afraid to open his door and show us that he means what he says...and that he does what he does because he has sound reason for it!
We need a leader who has a political agenda which fosters freedom of speech amongst all citizens and sends a far more solid democratic message.
We need a leader who does not obviously want to systematically starve the economic life out of Social Security.
We need a leader that will not fraudulently attempt to connect AlQaeda with a foreign government any and every time he wishes to change that government's regime.
Honesty means everything.
The current American leader has failed to promote basic respect and diplomacy in the world. I realize the task was monumental after 9-11, but an American leader should not have alienated the good will of so much of the world after such an attack. It seems that most of the world should have been directly by our side..a truly good leader would not have rested until it was so.
General Clark, I truly believe you are an honest man.
I hope you enter the political arena.
You would be a fine American leader.
Jude
http://www.leadershipforamerica.org/board/viewtopic.asp?forumid=6&id=7&page=3
_________________________
My letter to General Wesley Clark:
Dear General Clark,
I am very impressed with your recent comments about your own view of leadership in America. I have the utmost respect for you and I wish you success in any decision you choose to make regarding a run for the Presidency. I believe you would make a fine President.
The world has drastically changed since the 9-11 attack.
In my opinion, President Bush had a SOLID golden opportunity to bring the entire world to a better understanding of America and the average American's courage and determination to be united resolutely after the once-unimagineable terrorist attack on our own soil.
We realize there has long been anti-American sentiment overseas...especially in the Middle East.
Today, that anti-American sentiment has increased a thousandfold.
I often wonder... how could this have happened?
The answer leads me to understand the principles of what America leadership should NOT be.
An American leader should not drive the good will of the world away from his already gravely-misunderstood people, especially in times of the greatest sorrow-- in an aftermath of a senseless suicide attack which takes the lives of 3000 of his people.
An American leader would take pains to maintain the semblance of open government after such a heinous attack. An American leader would not create an impression that he had something to hide by shutting out victims' families when they ask myriad reasonable questions and plead for an independent investigation.
An American leader would not use questionable/dubious intelligence information to convince the American public that an
elective war was necessary. An American leader would not use that same dubious intelligence information as part of his State of the Union address. An American leader would not give a different reason almost every day in his lead-up to a preemptive attack on another nation; instead he would give clear, passionate, concise reasons...otherwise, he might expect the American public to wonder why he changed his mind so often.
An American leader would foster the spirit of freedom in every way..especially free speech. Dissent should not be something about which citizens are made to be fearful as they are told they'd best be "careful of what they say..."
An American leader would use the Miltary with the greatest of care, consideration, and discernment.
An American leader might realize that a "war on terror" is potentially an eternal war. Hatred has not been eradicated since the dawn of mankind. An American leader might be viewed as a war-opportunist if he uses the "war on terror" as a reason for any war toward which he elects to adventure.
An American leader would understand that the trust of his people means EVERYTHING. That American leader might have been expected to have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by now..especially if we look back upon all that immediacy and certainty in which citizen-trust was fiercely engendered by the current administration before the Iraq war began.
We were "led" to believe. Now we are not quite so sure.
We won't be so trusting in the future.
We need a leader we can trust.
We need a leader who is not afraid to open his door and show us that he means what he says...and that he does what he does because he has sound reason for it!
We need a leader who has a political agenda which fosters freedom of speech amongst all citizens and sends a far more solid democratic message.
We need a leader who does not obviously want to systematically starve the economic life out of Social Security.
We need a leader that will not fraudulently attempt to connect AlQaeda with a foreign government any and every time he wishes to change that government's regime.
Honesty means everything.
The current American leader has failed to promote basic respect and diplomacy in the world. I realize the task was monumental after 9-11, but an American leader should not have alienated the good will of so much of the world after such an attack. It seems that most of the world should have been directly by our side..a truly good leader would not have rested until it was so.
General Clark, I truly believe you are an honest man.
I hope you enter the political arena.
You would be a fine American leader.
Jude
http://www.leadershipforamerica.org/board/viewtopic.asp?forumid=6&id=7&page=3
_________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the conservative handbook of how to respond to a post from a moderate,
liberal or anyone with whom you disagree.
1. Don't do any research yourself. Demand the poster provide verifiable
proof.
2. If proof is provided attack the source or author of the "proof." The
source or author can be dismissed by referring to their sexual orientation
or calling their patriotism into question. Name calling is allowed as long
as it invokes an emotional response from the poster causing them to divert
from the facts.
If this does not work:
3. Attack the umbrella organization where the "proof" was located. Refer to
the newspaper or organization (ACLU, ADL, NOW, etc.) as not being
communists, homosexual or traitorous. Make baseless accusations the poster
will have to defend. Remember: don't do ANY research. It takes no time to
make a baseless accusation. If the poster is able to defend the source and
umbrella organization, ignore the proof and go to the next step or go to
step 6 depending on the amount of time you want to waste.
4. Counter the facts with your opinions. NEVER EVER provide any
contradictory sources of argument since the poster can easily turn the
tables at this point and you will have to defend your sources. Remember
don't get caught up in the facts.
If this does not work:
5. Attack the poster. The purpose of this action is get the poster off the
subject and forget about the facts of the original post. Name calling is in
order. Remember sexual innuendo is the best weapon.
If this does not work:
6. State flatly you don't believe anything they have written. Demand more
proof and keep demanding more proof. When the poster no longer responds you
have WON the argument!!!! Don't worry if they add you to their kill file.
Wear it like a badge of HONOR.
From the conservative handbook of how to respond to a post from a moderate,
liberal or anyone with whom you disagree.
1. Don't do any research yourself. Demand the poster provide verifiable
proof.
2. If proof is provided attack the source or author of the "proof." The
source or author can be dismissed by referring to their sexual orientation
or calling their patriotism into question. Name calling is allowed as long
as it invokes an emotional response from the poster causing them to divert
from the facts.
If this does not work:
3. Attack the umbrella organization where the "proof" was located. Refer to
the newspaper or organization (ACLU, ADL, NOW, etc.) as not being
communists, homosexual or traitorous. Make baseless accusations the poster
will have to defend. Remember: don't do ANY research. It takes no time to
make a baseless accusation. If the poster is able to defend the source and
umbrella organization, ignore the proof and go to the next step or go to
step 6 depending on the amount of time you want to waste.
4. Counter the facts with your opinions. NEVER EVER provide any
contradictory sources of argument since the poster can easily turn the
tables at this point and you will have to defend your sources. Remember
don't get caught up in the facts.
If this does not work:
5. Attack the poster. The purpose of this action is get the poster off the
subject and forget about the facts of the original post. Name calling is in
order. Remember sexual innuendo is the best weapon.
If this does not work:
6. State flatly you don't believe anything they have written. Demand more
proof and keep demanding more proof. When the poster no longer responds you
have WON the argument!!!! Don't worry if they add you to their kill file.
Wear it like a badge of HONOR.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FYI: A link to retired General Wesley Clark's website
WES CLARK
"Leadership for America is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to fostering the national dialogue about America’s future. Through a wide range of activities, the organization aims to stimulate discussion about America and offer solutions to the challenges our country faces today..."
FYI: A link to retired General Wesley Clark's website
WES CLARK
"Leadership for America is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to fostering the national dialogue about America’s future. Through a wide range of activities, the organization aims to stimulate discussion about America and offer solutions to the challenges our country faces today..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Weblogs At Harvard Law
Hosted by: the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
What makes a weblog a weblog?
Fri, May 23, 2003; by Dave Winer.
From: Weblogs At Harvard Law
Hosted by: the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
What makes a weblog a weblog?
Fri, May 23, 2003; by Dave Winer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Democrats.com
The proposition (posted on the "2004 President forum") was this:
"Lets join together and urge Hillary Clinton to run for the Democratic nod. You can help in this effort by signing the following petition:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/hillary/petition.html"
********** ********** ********* ************
Here is my contribution to the discussion..which can be found at:
http://community.democrats.com/forums/topics.cfm?forumid=48
"I think Esther had a very good point. We shouldn't have to be prodding our candidates to run.
If they are truly passionate about 2004...the most important election in history for the LIFEBLOOD of democracy...
then they should be QUITE clear and committed by now.
I admire Hillary Clinton; I think she could make a good President. I have to say, with all honesty, that I don't understand her support of the Iraq resolution. Also, her coy allusion to potentially running in 2008 only leads me to believe she doesn't CARE what happens this next election....and that greatly disturbs me.
I ask myself..would Hillary rather wait until a politically convenient time for herself....and secretly hope the
2004 Democrat fails to win? Perhaps that is not true, but I cannot stop myself from constantly asking
myself the very question.
After close consideration, I have decided to back Howard Dean.
He is a man of great passion, compatible ideology, and in the most reasonably pragmatic sense...electable.
*Unless you let the media tell you he's not.*
After watching a CSPAN poll yesterday where a question was asked: "Who do you THINK will win in 2004?"..I heard one too many Democrats stating that they HOPED a Dem would win (many mentioned Howard Dean), but that they THOUGHT it would be Bush.
This showed me that there is a lack of faith amongst Democrats.
Where are the true believers?
When you have entertainment cable news telling you what a groovy guy Bush is and how the Dems don't have a prayer in 2004...and when you start believing that...then I think you've lost faith in that for which the Democratic party stands.
It's time to get a shot of the "religion" back into the Democratic party. (Ideologically speaking).
I think Howard Dean is passionate and might just make believers of us once again.
There's no harm in pleading for Hillary to run....just understand that she seems to want to wait to see what happens in 2004...and that should dismay you if you really want to see Bush ousted.
Jude"
__________
Howard Dean did a great job on Meet the Press this morning.
He didn't let Tim Russert get him flustered or make him appear ineligible to be a potential military
Commander-in-Chief for not being able to recite military statistics..nice try, Tim/NBC!
Howard Dean also didn't let the partisan lying Treasury Department statistics stand in his way of explaining exactly how and why Bush's tax cuts
will need to be repealed. Nice try, Bush administration!
From Democrats.com
The proposition (posted on the "2004 President forum") was this:
"Lets join together and urge Hillary Clinton to run for the Democratic nod. You can help in this effort by signing the following petition:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/hillary/petition.html"
********** ********** ********* ************
Here is my contribution to the discussion..which can be found at:
http://community.democrats.com/forums/topics.cfm?forumid=48
"I think Esther had a very good point. We shouldn't have to be prodding our candidates to run.
If they are truly passionate about 2004...the most important election in history for the LIFEBLOOD of democracy...
then they should be QUITE clear and committed by now.
I admire Hillary Clinton; I think she could make a good President. I have to say, with all honesty, that I don't understand her support of the Iraq resolution. Also, her coy allusion to potentially running in 2008 only leads me to believe she doesn't CARE what happens this next election....and that greatly disturbs me.
I ask myself..would Hillary rather wait until a politically convenient time for herself....and secretly hope the
2004 Democrat fails to win? Perhaps that is not true, but I cannot stop myself from constantly asking
myself the very question.
After close consideration, I have decided to back Howard Dean.
He is a man of great passion, compatible ideology, and in the most reasonably pragmatic sense...electable.
*Unless you let the media tell you he's not.*
After watching a CSPAN poll yesterday where a question was asked: "Who do you THINK will win in 2004?"..I heard one too many Democrats stating that they HOPED a Dem would win (many mentioned Howard Dean), but that they THOUGHT it would be Bush.
This showed me that there is a lack of faith amongst Democrats.
Where are the true believers?
When you have entertainment cable news telling you what a groovy guy Bush is and how the Dems don't have a prayer in 2004...and when you start believing that...then I think you've lost faith in that for which the Democratic party stands.
It's time to get a shot of the "religion" back into the Democratic party. (Ideologically speaking).
I think Howard Dean is passionate and might just make believers of us once again.
There's no harm in pleading for Hillary to run....just understand that she seems to want to wait to see what happens in 2004...and that should dismay you if you really want to see Bush ousted.
Jude"
__________
Howard Dean did a great job on Meet the Press this morning.
He didn't let Tim Russert get him flustered or make him appear ineligible to be a potential military
Commander-in-Chief for not being able to recite military statistics..nice try, Tim/NBC!
Howard Dean also didn't let the partisan lying Treasury Department statistics stand in his way of explaining exactly how and why Bush's tax cuts
will need to be repealed. Nice try, Bush administration!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not alone!
People are searching for Anonymoses!
*see Anonymoses' blog--find out why!
I'm not alone!
People are searching for Anonymoses!
*see Anonymoses' blog--find out why!
Saturday, June 21, 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/2003_06_15_interestingtimes_archive.html#200433686
Who cares if Bush lied?
Sgt. Atanacio Haromarin died because Bush lied.
Spc. Kyle Griffin died because Bush lied.
Spc. Nathaniel A. Caldwell died because Bush lied.
Lt. Col. Dominic R. Baragona died because Bush lied.
Capt. Andrew David La Mont died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jason William Moore died because Bush lied.
1st Lt. Timothy Louis Ryan died because Bush lied.
Infantry Sgt. Kirk Straseskie died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Aaron Dean White died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Douglas Jose Marencoreyes died because Bush lied.
Spc. Rasheed Sahib died because Bush lied.
Master Sgt. William Lee Payne died because Bush lied.
Spc. David T. Nutt died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Nicholas Brian Kleibocker died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Patrick L. Griffin died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jakub H. Kowalik died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Jose Franci Gonzalez Rodriguez died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Matthew R. Smith died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Cedric E. Bruns died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Richard P. Carl died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Hans N. Gukeisen died because Bush lied.
Brian K. Van Dusen died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Marlin T. Rockhold died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Sean C. Reynolds died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Jesse A. Givens died because Bush lied.
1st Sgt. Joe J. Garza died because Bush lied.
1st Lt. Osbaldo Orozco died because Bush lied.
Spc. Narson B. Sullivan died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Troy D. Jenkins died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Andrew T. Arnold died because Bush lied.
Spc. Roy R. Buckley died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Robert W. Channell Jr. died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Alan D. Lam died because Bush lied.
Cpl. John T. Rivero died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Johnny Brown died because Bush lied.
Spc. Thomas Arthur Foley III died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Armando Ariel Gonzalez died because Bush lied.
Spc. Richard A. Goward died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Joseph P. Mayek died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jason David Mileo died because Bush lied.
Spc. Gil Mercado died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jesus A. Gonzalez died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. David Edward Owens Jr. died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Riayan A. Tejeda died because Bush lied.
Gunnery Sgt. Jeff Bohr died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Terry W. Hemingway died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Henry L. Brown died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Juan Guadalupe Garza Jr. died because Bush lied.
Sgt. 1st Class John W. Marshall died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Jason M. Meyer died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Scott D. Sather died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Robert A. Stever died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Andrew Julian Aviles died because Bush lied.
Capt. Eric B. Das died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Lincoln Hollinsaid died because Bush lied.
2nd Lt. Jeffrey J. Kaylor died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jesus Martin Antonio Medellin died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Anthony S. Miller died because Bush lied.
Spc. George A. Mitchell died because Bush lied.
Major William R. Watkins III died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Gregory P. Huxley Jr. died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Kelley S. Prewitt died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Stevon Booker died because Bush lied.
Spc. Larry K. Brown died because Bush lied.
1st Sgt. Edward Smith died because Bush lied.
Capt. Tristan N. Aitken died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Wilfred D. Bellard died because Bush lied.
Spc. Daniel Francis J. Cunningham died because Bush lied.
Capt. Travis Ford died because Bush lied.
Cp. Bernard G. Gooden died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Devon D. Jones died because Bush lied.
1st Lt. Brian M. McPhillips died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Duane R. Rios died because Bush lied.
Capt. Benjamin Sammis died because Bush lied.
Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Chad Bales Metcalf died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Wilbert Davis died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Mark A. Evnin died because Bush lied.
Capt. Edward J. Korn died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Nino D. Livaudais died because Bush lied.
Spc. Ryan P. Long died because Bush lied.
Spc. Donald S. Oaks Jr. died because Bush lied.
Sgt. 1st Class Randall S. Rehn died because Bush lied.
Capt. Russell B. Rippetoe died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Todd J. Robbins died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Erik H. Silva died because Bush lied.
Capt. James F. Adamouski died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Brian E. Anderson died because Bush lied.
Spc. Mathew Boule died because Bush lied.
Master Sgt. George A. Fernandez died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Christian D. Gurtner died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Erik A. Halvorsen died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Scott Jamar died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Michael Pedersen died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Eric A. Smith died because Bush lied.
Lt. Nathan D. White died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Jacob L. Butler died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Joseph B. Maglione died because Bush lied.
Spc. William A. Jeffries died because Bush lied.
Spc. Brandon Rowe died because Bush lied.
Capt. Aaron J. Contreras died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Michael V. Lalush died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Brian McGinnis died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. James Cawley died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Michael Curtin died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Diego Fernando Rincon died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Michael Russell Creighton-Weldon died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. William W. White died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Eugene Williams died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Fernando Padilla-Ramirez died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Roderic A. Solomon died because Bush lied.
Gunnery Sgt. Joseph Menusa died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jesus A. Suarez Del Solar died because Bush lied.
Maj. Kevin G. Nave died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Francisco A. Martinez Flores died because Bush lied.
Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class Michael Vann Johnson Jr. died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Donald C. May Jr. died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Patrick T. O'Day died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Robert M. Rodriguez died because Bush lied.
Maj. Gregory Stone died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Evan James died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Bradley S. Korthaus died because Bush lied.
Spc. Gregory P. Sanders died because Bush lied.
Spc. Jamaal R. Addison died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Edward J.ÝAnguiano died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Michael E. Bitz died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Brian Rory Buesing died because Bush lied.
Sgt. George Edward Buggs died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Tamario D. Burkett died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Kemaphoom A. Chanawongse died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Donald John Cline died because Bush lied.
Master Sgt. Robert J. Dowdy died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Ruben Estrella-Soto died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. David K. Fribley died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jose A. Garibay died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Jonathan L. Gifford died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jorge A. Gonzalez died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Nolen R. Hutchings died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Howard Johnson II died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Phillip A. Jordan died because Bush lied.
Spc. James Kiehl died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Patrick R. Nixon died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Johnny Villareal Mata died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Lori Piestewa died because Bush lied.
2nd Lt. Frederick E. Pokorney Jr. died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Brendon Reiss died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Randal Kent Rosacker died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Brandon Sloan died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Thomas J. Slocum died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Donald Walters died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Michael J. Williams died because Bush lied.
Lt. Thomas Mullen Adams died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Eric J. Orlowski died because Bush lied.
Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert died because Bush lied.
Spc. Brandon S. Tobler died because Bush lied.
Maj. Jay Thomas Aubin died because Bush lied.
Capt. Ryan Anthony Beaupre died because Bush lied.
2nd Lt. Therrel S. Childers died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Brian Matthew Kennedy died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Waters-Bey died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Thomas A. Blair died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Nicolas M. Hodson died because Bush lied.
http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/2003_06_15_interestingtimes_archive.html#200433686
Who cares if Bush lied?
Sgt. Atanacio Haromarin died because Bush lied.
Spc. Kyle Griffin died because Bush lied.
Spc. Nathaniel A. Caldwell died because Bush lied.
Lt. Col. Dominic R. Baragona died because Bush lied.
Capt. Andrew David La Mont died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jason William Moore died because Bush lied.
1st Lt. Timothy Louis Ryan died because Bush lied.
Infantry Sgt. Kirk Straseskie died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Aaron Dean White died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Douglas Jose Marencoreyes died because Bush lied.
Spc. Rasheed Sahib died because Bush lied.
Master Sgt. William Lee Payne died because Bush lied.
Spc. David T. Nutt died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Nicholas Brian Kleibocker died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Patrick L. Griffin died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jakub H. Kowalik died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Jose Franci Gonzalez Rodriguez died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Matthew R. Smith died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Cedric E. Bruns died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Richard P. Carl died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Hans N. Gukeisen died because Bush lied.
Brian K. Van Dusen died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Marlin T. Rockhold died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Sean C. Reynolds died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Jesse A. Givens died because Bush lied.
1st Sgt. Joe J. Garza died because Bush lied.
1st Lt. Osbaldo Orozco died because Bush lied.
Spc. Narson B. Sullivan died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Troy D. Jenkins died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Andrew T. Arnold died because Bush lied.
Spc. Roy R. Buckley died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Robert W. Channell Jr. died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Alan D. Lam died because Bush lied.
Cpl. John T. Rivero died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Johnny Brown died because Bush lied.
Spc. Thomas Arthur Foley III died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Armando Ariel Gonzalez died because Bush lied.
Spc. Richard A. Goward died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Joseph P. Mayek died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jason David Mileo died because Bush lied.
Spc. Gil Mercado died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jesus A. Gonzalez died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. David Edward Owens Jr. died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Riayan A. Tejeda died because Bush lied.
Gunnery Sgt. Jeff Bohr died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Terry W. Hemingway died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Henry L. Brown died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Juan Guadalupe Garza Jr. died because Bush lied.
Sgt. 1st Class John W. Marshall died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Jason M. Meyer died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Scott D. Sather died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Robert A. Stever died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Andrew Julian Aviles died because Bush lied.
Capt. Eric B. Das died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Lincoln Hollinsaid died because Bush lied.
2nd Lt. Jeffrey J. Kaylor died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jesus Martin Antonio Medellin died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Anthony S. Miller died because Bush lied.
Spc. George A. Mitchell died because Bush lied.
Major William R. Watkins III died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Gregory P. Huxley Jr. died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Kelley S. Prewitt died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Stevon Booker died because Bush lied.
Spc. Larry K. Brown died because Bush lied.
1st Sgt. Edward Smith died because Bush lied.
Capt. Tristan N. Aitken died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Wilfred D. Bellard died because Bush lied.
Spc. Daniel Francis J. Cunningham died because Bush lied.
Capt. Travis Ford died because Bush lied.
Cp. Bernard G. Gooden died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Devon D. Jones died because Bush lied.
1st Lt. Brian M. McPhillips died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Duane R. Rios died because Bush lied.
Capt. Benjamin Sammis died because Bush lied.
Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Chad Bales Metcalf died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Wilbert Davis died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Mark A. Evnin died because Bush lied.
Capt. Edward J. Korn died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Nino D. Livaudais died because Bush lied.
Spc. Ryan P. Long died because Bush lied.
Spc. Donald S. Oaks Jr. died because Bush lied.
Sgt. 1st Class Randall S. Rehn died because Bush lied.
Capt. Russell B. Rippetoe died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Todd J. Robbins died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Erik H. Silva died because Bush lied.
Capt. James F. Adamouski died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Brian E. Anderson died because Bush lied.
Spc. Mathew Boule died because Bush lied.
Master Sgt. George A. Fernandez died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Christian D. Gurtner died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Erik A. Halvorsen died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Scott Jamar died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Michael Pedersen died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Eric A. Smith died because Bush lied.
Lt. Nathan D. White died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Jacob L. Butler died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Joseph B. Maglione died because Bush lied.
Spc. William A. Jeffries died because Bush lied.
Spc. Brandon Rowe died because Bush lied.
Capt. Aaron J. Contreras died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Michael V. Lalush died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Brian McGinnis died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. James Cawley died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Michael Curtin died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Diego Fernando Rincon died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Michael Russell Creighton-Weldon died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. William W. White died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Eugene Williams died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Fernando Padilla-Ramirez died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Roderic A. Solomon died because Bush lied.
Gunnery Sgt. Joseph Menusa died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jesus A. Suarez Del Solar died because Bush lied.
Maj. Kevin G. Nave died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Francisco A. Martinez Flores died because Bush lied.
Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class Michael Vann Johnson Jr. died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Donald C. May Jr. died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Patrick T. O'Day died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Robert M. Rodriguez died because Bush lied.
Maj. Gregory Stone died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Evan James died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Bradley S. Korthaus died because Bush lied.
Spc. Gregory P. Sanders died because Bush lied.
Spc. Jamaal R. Addison died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Edward J.ÝAnguiano died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Michael E. Bitz died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Brian Rory Buesing died because Bush lied.
Sgt. George Edward Buggs died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Tamario D. Burkett died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Kemaphoom A. Chanawongse died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Donald John Cline died because Bush lied.
Master Sgt. Robert J. Dowdy died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Ruben Estrella-Soto died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. David K. Fribley died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jose A. Garibay died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Jonathan L. Gifford died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Jorge A. Gonzalez died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Nolen R. Hutchings died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Howard Johnson II died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Phillip A. Jordan died because Bush lied.
Spc. James Kiehl died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Patrick R. Nixon died because Bush lied.
Chief Warrant Officer Johnny Villareal Mata died because Bush lied.
Pfc. Lori Piestewa died because Bush lied.
2nd Lt. Frederick E. Pokorney Jr. died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Brendon Reiss died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Randal Kent Rosacker died because Bush lied.
Pvt. Brandon Sloan died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Thomas J. Slocum died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Donald Walters died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Michael J. Williams died because Bush lied.
Lt. Thomas Mullen Adams died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Eric J. Orlowski died because Bush lied.
Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert died because Bush lied.
Spc. Brandon S. Tobler died because Bush lied.
Maj. Jay Thomas Aubin died because Bush lied.
Capt. Ryan Anthony Beaupre died because Bush lied.
2nd Lt. Therrel S. Childers died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez died because Bush lied.
Cpl. Brian Matthew Kennedy died because Bush lied.
Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Waters-Bey died because Bush lied.
Lance Cpl. Thomas A. Blair died because Bush lied.
Sgt. Nicolas M. Hodson died because Bush lied.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blogs of Interest:
http://unmedia.blogspot.com/
http://thesentimentalist.com/
http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/
Blogs of Interest:
http://unmedia.blogspot.com/
http://thesentimentalist.com/
http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proud to be an American?
I am!
I love America!
But---guess what?
I'm not aGWBush supporter in any way, shape or form.
Guess what else?
I'm perfectly free NOT to be!
I'm saddened to see where he's leading this country.
I am an American.
My own grandfathers fought for our freedoms in the American Revolution.
I will not stand idly by and see this
inefficient and devious "leader" take our country down the drain to the sewer of lost democratic civilizations.
Will you?
If you love America, then help to save it!
I am!
I love America!
But---guess what?
I'm not aGWBush supporter in any way, shape or form.
Guess what else?
I'm perfectly free NOT to be!
I'm saddened to see where he's leading this country.
I am an American.
My own grandfathers fought for our freedoms in the American Revolution.
I will not stand idly by and see this
inefficient and devious "leader" take our country down the drain to the sewer of lost democratic civilizations.
Will you?
If you love America, then help to save it!
Friday, June 20, 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'You've been drafted'
By Rob Kall
"The questions are:
What can you do?
What have you done today?
How passionate are you about committing to fighting to make the change happen?
How big a change in your life are you willing to institute?
You know that the assault on America, on democracy on the working and middle class is nothing less
than a full blown pearl harbor attack, a declaration of war.
Will you sit passively and cooperate like the vast majority of Poles and French did during world war two?"
**Sign up for news mailing lists so you know what is going on in the world-- like the OpEdNews.Com mailing list, MoveOn.org and True Majority**
'You've been drafted'
By Rob Kall
"The questions are:
What can you do?
What have you done today?
How passionate are you about committing to fighting to make the change happen?
How big a change in your life are you willing to institute?
You know that the assault on America, on democracy on the working and middle class is nothing less
than a full blown pearl harbor attack, a declaration of war.
Will you sit passively and cooperate like the vast majority of Poles and French did during world war two?"
**Sign up for news mailing lists so you know what is going on in the world-- like the OpEdNews.Com mailing list, MoveOn.org and True Majority**
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Most Dangerous Lie
"There comes a moment when the only option is to look the liar directly in the eyes and confront him,
not with his lies, but with his reasons for telling them.
There comes a moment when we must realize that time is running out, that if we wait much longer,
the shame that currently prevents the widespread and open advocacy of an unconscionable agenda will be gone."
The Most Dangerous Lie
"There comes a moment when the only option is to look the liar directly in the eyes and confront him,
not with his lies, but with his reasons for telling them.
There comes a moment when we must realize that time is running out, that if we wait much longer,
the shame that currently prevents the widespread and open advocacy of an unconscionable agenda will be gone."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: "Get Your War On"
*See website: Donate $125 to fund land mine removal in Iraq and receive a FREE "My New Fighting Technique is Unstoppable" print.
*See website: Donate $125 to fund land mine removal in Iraq and receive a FREE "My New Fighting Technique is Unstoppable" print.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MAKE NO MISTAKE--HOWARD DEAN IS HIS OWN MAN
http://www.startribune.com/stories/465/3944452.html
"National politics briefly comes to Minnesota with the arrival of President Bush today.
Bush's visit will be followed on Friday and Saturday by a parade of yawns, also known as the field of Democratic presidential candidates.
The one Democrat in that parade who seems to have any buzz factor is Dean.."
MAKE NO MISTAKE--HOWARD DEAN IS HIS OWN MAN
http://www.startribune.com/stories/465/3944452.html
"National politics briefly comes to Minnesota with the arrival of President Bush today.
Bush's visit will be followed on Friday and Saturday by a parade of yawns, also known as the field of Democratic presidential candidates.
The one Democrat in that parade who seems to have any buzz factor is Dean.."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What Did You Do in the Postwar, Daddy?
By Rick Horowitz
"The newscasters read what's put in front of them. The parts that I notice sound roughly like this:
"American soldiers encountered stiff resistance today outside the Iraqi village of Such-and-Such, in some of the heaviest fighting since the war ended."
Or...
"The Pentagon reported the capture today of Just This Many Iraqis, in the biggest American military operation since the war ended."
Or...
"A U.S. soldier was shot and killed early this morning by Iraqi sniper fire, the Somethingth American to die in Iraq since the war ended."
If the newscasters find any of this troublesome, they don't let on. I, on the other hand, find myself sitting there with forehead furrowed and nostrils flared. If there's heavy fighting, I say to myself, if there are large military operations, if there are dozens of fatalities "since the war ended" --
Maybe the war hasn't ended!
I mean, not to be a party pooper or anything, but does any of this sound like peace to you?
________________________
Rumsfeld says it's cool...after all, it's just like any other day on any other US urban battlefield
"You've got to remember that if Washington, D.C., were the size of Baghdad, we would be
having something like 215 murders a month," Rumsfeld said. "There's going to be violence in a big city."
What Did You Do in the Postwar, Daddy?
By Rick Horowitz
"The newscasters read what's put in front of them. The parts that I notice sound roughly like this:
"American soldiers encountered stiff resistance today outside the Iraqi village of Such-and-Such, in some of the heaviest fighting since the war ended."
Or...
"The Pentagon reported the capture today of Just This Many Iraqis, in the biggest American military operation since the war ended."
Or...
"A U.S. soldier was shot and killed early this morning by Iraqi sniper fire, the Somethingth American to die in Iraq since the war ended."
If the newscasters find any of this troublesome, they don't let on. I, on the other hand, find myself sitting there with forehead furrowed and nostrils flared. If there's heavy fighting, I say to myself, if there are large military operations, if there are dozens of fatalities "since the war ended" --
Maybe the war hasn't ended!
I mean, not to be a party pooper or anything, but does any of this sound like peace to you?
________________________
Rumsfeld says it's cool...after all, it's just like any other day on any other US urban battlefield
"You've got to remember that if Washington, D.C., were the size of Baghdad, we would be
having something like 215 murders a month," Rumsfeld said. "There's going to be violence in a big city."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From "Meet the Press" transcript
June 15, 2003
Tim Russert interviewing guest Gen Wesley Clark:
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK (RETIRED), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: ...All of us in the community who read intelligence believe that Saddam wanted these capabilities and he had some. We struck very hard in December of ’98, did everything we knew, all of his facilities. I think it was an effective set of strikes. Tony Zinni commanded that, called Operation Desert Fox, and I think that set them back a long ways. But we never believed that that was the end of the problem. I think there was a certain amount of hype in the intelligence, and I think the information that’s come out thus far does indicate that there was a sort of selective reading of the intelligence in the sense of sort of building a case.
TIM RUSSERT: Hyped by whom?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I...
MR. RUSSERT: The CIA, or the president or vice president? Secretary of Defense, who?
GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks* and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.
From "Meet the Press" transcript
June 15, 2003
Tim Russert interviewing guest Gen Wesley Clark:
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK (RETIRED), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: ...All of us in the community who read intelligence believe that Saddam wanted these capabilities and he had some. We struck very hard in December of ’98, did everything we knew, all of his facilities. I think it was an effective set of strikes. Tony Zinni commanded that, called Operation Desert Fox, and I think that set them back a long ways. But we never believed that that was the end of the problem. I think there was a certain amount of hype in the intelligence, and I think the information that’s come out thus far does indicate that there was a sort of selective reading of the intelligence in the sense of sort of building a case.
TIM RUSSERT: Hyped by whom?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I...
MR. RUSSERT: The CIA, or the president or vice president? Secretary of Defense, who?
GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks* and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.anshellmedia.com/anshell_home.htm
LIBERAL RADIO ON THE HORIZON!
Employment opportunity!
http://www.anshellmedia.com/anshell_home.htm
LIBERAL RADIO ON THE HORIZON!
Employment opportunity!
Thursday, June 19, 2003
Q: DO YOU THINK THIS HAPPENED IN IRAQ?
"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
"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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_Investigative_Report_Texas.pdf
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!
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_Investigative_Report_Texas.pdf
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.
See:
http://www.newleftblogs.blogspot.com/
Found another interesting website while reading the Sound and the Fury blog.
See:
http://www.newleftblogs.blogspot.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a natural consequence of misleading your people to war..leaders and media alike...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13087653_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-US%2DTROOPS%2DADMIT%2DSHOOTING%2DIRAQI%2DCIVILIANS-name_page.html
"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 http://www.thismodernworld.com/*
This is a natural consequence of misleading your people to war..leaders and media alike...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13087653_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-US%2DTROOPS%2DADMIT%2DSHOOTING%2DIRAQI%2DCIVILIANS-name_page.html
"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 http://www.thismodernworld.com/*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Too strange. Too, too strange. I hope the Padilla family hears from Benjamin soon.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/727family030619.html
Too strange. Too, too strange. I hope the Padilla family hears from Benjamin soon.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/727family030619.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Found an interesting website while reading the Sound and the Fury blog.
See:
http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/otm061303.html
Found an interesting website while reading the Sound and the Fury blog.
See:
http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/otm061303.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
ETHICS FOR A NEW MILLENIUM
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."
ETHICS FOR A NEW MILLENIUM
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."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Stop.
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
"Stop.
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 Détournement-Guy-Ernest Debord
"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 Détournement-Guy-Ernest Debord
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George W Bush.....Have You Forgotten?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/06/18/911/index_np.html
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.
George W Bush.....Have You Forgotten?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/06/18/911/index_np.html
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."
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."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
STRIKING!
"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?**
"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 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."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'M BEGINNING TO WONDER.....
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?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/crook2003-06-17.htm
"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."
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.
**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?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/crook2003-06-17.htm
"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
By JIM KRANE
Salon.com
Rights Group Says U.S. Soldiers Twice Used Excessive Force
By DAVID ROHDE
NY Times
From Human Rights Watch:
VIOLENT RESPONSE:
THE U.S. ARMY IN AL-FALLUJA
Human Rights Watch: U.S. troops used excessive force
By JIM KRANE
Salon.com
Rights Group Says U.S. Soldiers Twice Used Excessive Force
By DAVID ROHDE
NY Times
From Human Rights Watch:
VIOLENT RESPONSE:
THE U.S. ARMY IN AL-FALLUJA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)