US tried to plant WMDs, failed: Whistleblower
Daily Times Monitor
Friday, September 26, 2003
"According to a stunning report posted by a retired Navy Lt Commander and 28-year veteran of the Defense Department (DoD), the Bush administration’s assurance about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was based on a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plan to “plant” WMDs inside the country. Nelda Rogers, the Pentagon whistleblower, claims the plan failed when the secret mission was mistakenly taken out by “friendly fire”, the Environmentalists Against War report....."
Iraq: Invasion That Will Live in Infamy
by Noam Chomsky
Dissident Voice
August 12, 2003
"....A reluctant US population had to be whipped to a proper mood of war fever. From September {2002} grim warnings were issued about the dire threat that Saddam posed to the US and his links to al-Qaida, with broad hints that he had been involved in the 9/11 attacks. Many of the charges that had been "dangled in front of [the media] failed the laugh test," commented the editor of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, "but the more ridiculous [they were,] the more the media strove to make whole-hearted swallowing of them a test of patriotism." The propaganda assault had its effects. Within weeks, a majority of Americans came to regard Saddam Hussein as an imminent threat to the US. Soon almost half believed that Iraq was behind the 9/11 terror. Support for the war correlated with these beliefs. The propaganda campaign was just enough to give the administration a bare majority in the mid-term elections, as voters put aside their immediate concerns and huddled under the umbrella of power in fear of a demonic enemy..."
BBC News: No WMD in Iraq, source claims
"The bottom line is that the team has found no weapons of mass destruction."
Andrew Neil
~~~~~~~~~~
US report to be inconclusive on search for Iraqi weapons
By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest, Washington Post, 9/25/2003
"....The weapons inspector, David Kay, is expected to present his report to Congress late next week -- an event that senior US officials had just weeks ago pointed to as providing a possible vindication for the administration's prewar claims that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and had restarted its efforts to build a nuclear bomb.
But officials yesterday sought to play
d
o
w
n
expectations that Kay's report will contain any major revelations.
HEAR THAT??? NO WMDS!!!!!!!
From the Seattle Times:
A fly on the Oval Office wall
By Chuck Sigars
Karl Rove walks into the Oval Office.
"Good morning, Mr. President."
"Hey, Karly boy, what's shakin' besides you?"
Rove laughs politely. "The thing is, sir, I've been looking at some... uh, Mr. President?"
"Shoot, Rover. Let me have it."
"Sir, you're wearing the flight suit again."
"Glad to see you still got that 20/20, KV. You gotta problem with my wardrobe?"
"Uh, no, sir, it's just that — "
"I'm commander in chief, right?"
"Yes, sir, but — "
"I flew jets in the Air Force, didn't I?"
"Um, Air National Guard, yes, sir, not to nit — "
"I can wear whatever I want, can't I?"
"Of course, Mr. President, it's just that it's the fourth time this week, and — "
The president snaps his fingers. "Dang it, Karlito, don't knock it until you've tried it. Most comfortable clothes I've ever had. Thinking of ordering one for Jeb."
Rove sighs. "Anyway, sir, it's about the campaign."
"Is that today?"
"No, sir, I mean the 2004 campaign. Wesley Clark has just entered the race, and it's got me a little worried."
"I thought it was that Jimmy Dean guy from New Hampshire you were fretting about."
"Howard Dean, yes, sir, he's still ahead in the polls, but our internal numbers show that Clark outpolls everybody on the credibility question."
The president raises an eyebrow. "Even me?"
"We haven't run those numbers yet, but let me say, sir, that the American people find you very credible. Very credible indeed. It's just that Clark is sort of impressive. Rhodes scholar, first in his class at West Point — "
"What the hell did he go to West Point for?"
Rove clears his throat. "To, uh, be a soldier, Mr. President. Wesley Clark is a retired Army general."
"You telling me a general in the United States Army is a Democrat?"
"It surprised us, too, sir."
"Boy howdy." The president is silent for a few moments. "What kind of record does he have?"
"Well, sir, he was commander of our forces in Kosovo. And he was a commentator at CNN during the war."
"Iraq?" Rove nods. "For or agin?"
"Well, sir, he did raise some questions — "
"Dang, Karly, what are you worried about, son? Don't you know the American people were behind my war 110 percent? Haven't I fixed the economy and given the people their money back? Didn't I wipe the Taliban and Saddam off the face of the Earth and get revenge for 9-11? Lord, you need to relax."
"Um, those are all good points, sir, very good. It's just that the American public generally views Republicans as more trustworthy than Democrats when it comes to national security and military issues."
"Damn straight. What's your point?"
"Well, sir, it's early yet, but it might be a hard case to make that a four-star general is soft on defense. At least that's our thinking."
The president sits up straight. "Listen, Karlsbad. How many elections have I lost, huh? Answer me. How many elections have I lost?"
"Well, sir, if you count — "
"Presidential elections, Rover! How many dang presidential elections have I lost?"
Karl takes a deep breath. "Well, sir, in my opinion, none."
"Damn straight. I beat Clinton and I'll whup this Army dude or John Dean or whoever." The president stands up and walks to the window. "Karlos, the Lord led me here. You believe that, right?"
"Sir — "
"He's got his hand on my shoulder and a job for me to do. I have faith, K-man, faith with a capital 'F,' and you know I don't use the F-word lightly."
"No, sir."
He goes over and puts his arm around Rove. "What kind of name is Wesley, anyway? That sound like a presidential name to you? Sounds sort of like a sissy. Trust me, we know how to deal with sissies in Texas. Now y'all go crunch some numbers or whatever the hell you do and leave it to me, hear?"
Rove swallows hard, nods, and heads for the door. As he leaves, Donald Rumsfeld enters.
"Good morning, Mr. President."
"Rummy! How's the world?"
"Right on schedule, sir. By the way, great suit."
"Damn straight."
Chuck Sigars is a freelance writer living in Snohomish County
Copyright 2003 Seattle Times
William Safire Questions Clinton Motives in Backing Clark
Re: William Safire: Why have the Clintons anointed Wesley Clark?
For the sake of Democrat solidarity, which is sorely needed today, I think the Clintons are going to have to
answer to this one.
Snippy Safire is making some nasty accusations.
The question is: Are they true?
He HAS to ask these questions, in my opinion.
They're hanging in the air just waiting to be plucked and printed.
You decide. I can't tell you what to believe...I don't know myself.
I'll tell you one thing, though. For the many Howard Dean supporters, it puts the Clintons in a very dismal light.
The Clintons had best speak clearly in response to these allegations...and soon.
By the way, I give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt here.
Safire is almost a complete ass....one example-the obvious bias he has against Dean already:
"As expected, fickle media that had been entranced with Dean (Dr. Lose-the-War) dropped the cranky Vermonter like a cold couch potato and are lionizing Clinton's fellow Arkansan and fellow Rhodes Scholar."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
***UPDATE! THE CLINTONS HAVE SPOKEN!*****
Washington Post: Sen. Clinton Denies Backing Clark
".....Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) yesterday dismissed reports that she and her husband are the agents behind retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark's presidential candidacy, reiterated that she will not run in 2004 and pledged to work for the eventual Democratic nominee, saying the reelection of President Bush would be "an overwhelming setback for this country...."
"....Referring to an account by New York Times columnist William Safire that had sketched out such a scenario, she said, "That's an absurd feat of imagination."
I thought it was just me....
Audience Unmoved During Bush's Address at the U.N.
Once again, our President chose to deny reality. He allowed pride and dependence upon his old, worn-out defenses to cause him to fail to LEAD the world toward compromise. He spoke far more of 9-11, the Taliban, AIDS, Hamid Karzai, and child slavery, than he spent on the subject that was at the forefront of every person's mind...Iraq. He failed our troops in Iraq yesterday at the UN. I was utterly disappointed. I can imagine how families of the troops must have felt.
"...Despite good marks from many for his performance, Mr. Bush did not seem to have advanced his administration toward broadening support for a Security Council resolution to expand the United Nations role in Iraq, a step intended to get more foreign troops and more foreign money for rebuilding.
"He gave a very sincere speech, but I don't think there was anything new," said a diplomat here. "The situation in Iraq is getting more difficult every day, and so is the atmosphere at the United Nations....."
Then again, President Chirac showed he was steadfast in his belief, too. He has reality on his side, though.
"....President Jacques Chirac of France, appearing shortly after Mr. Bush at the General Assembly, was no less apologetic opposing the war than Mr. Bush had been in urging it. He called the divisions over the war one of the gravest threats to multilateral institutions like the United Nations in modern times....."
Judith Miller makes Jayson Blair look like a news editor's dream.
Miller is the Number-One Pentagon Hawk's Flack-Hack
and the latest NY Times-nightmare
IS NY TIMES CREDIBILITY DOWN THE TURDHOLE ON WMDs BECAUSE OF MILLER?
Excerpts from The Editor and Publisher
9-23-03
"....But as with many of Miller's speculative news reports, the Times as of this week has failed to follow up with admission of error or an accounting of new evidence. If informants' or defectors' revelations were news when Miller reported them, surely they should qualify as news if the government or the Times now believes they were disinformation. There has been no follow-up story that amends the record: say, a prominent piece entitled: "Times Erred in Suggesting That Iraq Posed Smallpox Threat."
When I interviewed military officials and journalists located in Iraq regarding the conduct of Miller during the quest for WMD, they did not mince words: "Nobody could stand her." She had an "imperious manner." "She's lucky we didn't shoot her." "She wore a uniform." "She had an exclusive deal with the Pentagon" -- which undoubtedly caused resentment all around......"
".....Did Miller break credible hard news -- or only flack for hawks in the government, an all-too-familiar role for her over the last two years as she wrote a batch of stories supporting allegations that Iraq was developing and producing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons?...."
"....David Kay of the Iraqi Survey Group is back in this country providing an interim report to his superiors who continue to express confidence of major discoveries to come. Will Judith Miller be given the ISG beat at the Times rather than, say, a more balanced colleague such as James Risen? Has the Times conceded this territory to other news outlets, rather than take the WMD star role away from Miller?
So far the CIA is denying access to the ISG in the field, according to reporters with whom I have spoken. But Drogin, Gellman, and Linzer are on the case. The dog will bark, even if The New York Times fails to probe deeply and skeptically into what is bound to be a thick and complex Kay report......"
Howard Dean has turned the tables
on the "establishment Democrats"..
Progressives are seeing the wisdom of his campaign.
The mainstream media is just beginning to catch on.
Dont miss: The Progressive Case for Howard Dean
By Nico Pitney, AlterNet
August 12, 2003
Excerpt:
..."Surprisingly enough, one of the few prominent progressives to make a substantive link between Dean and Kucinich was Ralph Nader, who noted that Bush "is very vulnerable but not if you campaign the way the major candidates – except for Dean and Kucinich – are campaigning."
There is, in fact, good reason to believe that progressive supporters of Dean are well aware of his record, and are choosing to support him despite its flaws. As American Prospect senior editor Garance Franke-Ruta points out, "the most important part of the Dean message is that it makes supporters feel that they have the power to control their own destiny. ... This sense of renewed personal power and hope seemed more important to most posters [to Dean's weblog] than any specific policies that Dean supports or does not support, and few on the threads agreed wholeheartedly with the former governor on all his positions. Most recognized that he is a centrist who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.".....
~~ 
~~
Dean, Driven by the Grass Roots
Bottom-Up Strategy May Turn Politics Upside Down
By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 22, 2003; Page A01
Excerpt:
..."Political strategists say that what began in January as a quirky, long-shot Internet strategy to attract online supporters to the dark-horse candidate could revolutionize presidential politics by minimizing the importance of television media and empowering grass-roots organizers...
...."It's just extraordinary," said Dick Morris, a political consultant who advised Bill Clinton. "It's part of a new era -- back to basics. Howard Dean is using the Internet in an entirely guerrilla marketing approach. By this process, he's developed a massive grass-roots list. It's active and participatory, and people feel engaged. . . . You're brought in by friends and family. It's bottom-up, and people love that; they feel empowered.".....
**Thanks to members of the Syracuse for Dean Yahoo Message Group**
Drudge Report: FCC Chairman Michael Powell to join many other friends who want to "spend more time with the family" *wink*
Joining a few others like:
-Karen Hughes (White House aide)
-Paul O'Neill (Secretary of the Treasury)
-Thomas White (Army Secretary)
-Richard Perle (Chairman, Defense Policy Board)
-Jay Garner (Reconstruction/Iraq Humanitarian Aid)
-Barbara Bodine (US coord. for central Iraq)
-Ari Fleischer (White House press secretary)
-Christine Todd Whitman (EPA Administrator)
-Rand Beers (White House counterterrorism adviser)
-Rosario Marin (U.S. Treasurer)
-General Eric Shinseki (Chief of Staff, US Army)
-John Brady Kiesling (US Diplomat / Greece)
-Martin Sullivan (Bush cultural advisor)
-Eric Schaeffer (head of EPA Regulatory Enforcement)
-General Tommy Franks (Commander/CENTCOM)
-Mitch Daniels (OMB Director)
-Larry Lindsay (Bush Chief Economic Advisor)
-Steve Griles (Dep Int Secy--Well, not yet, but I'll bet he'll be gone soon...as Bill Moyers has said, Griles has more conflicts of interest than a dog has fleas.)
-John Brady Kiesling ( US Diplomat/Greece)
-Victoria Clarke (Pentagon spokesperson)
Very important information for all voters of New York State who are not currently registered Democrats:
You have until October 9th, 2003 to register as Democrat in order to be eligible to vote for your favorite Democratic candidate in the primary.
Go to NY State Board of Elections websitefor instruction.
Here is a clickable map to access information about your local county Board of Elections in NY State.
Dalai Lama Calls War
'Legalized Violence'
By Deepti Hajela / AP Writer
Sept 21, 2003
NEW YORK (AP) -- The Dalai Lama called war "legalized violence" and said Sunday he wished he had visited Iraq and pushed for a better dialogue between countries before the war started in an effort to avert it.
In a speech to thousands of people in Central Park and later in an interview with The Associated Press, the exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader stressed the importance of compassion and peace. He said war is an outdated concept in a global society, and people should instead learn to communicate.
"We have to make every effort to promote human affection," the Dalai Lama said. "While we oppose violence or war, we must show there is another way - a nonviolent way."
He said in an interview he regretted not following the example of his fellow Nobel Peace laureates, Nelson Mandela and President Carter, who visited Iraq before the war. He said maybe together they would have been able to avoid war.
"Violence is very unpredictable," the Dalai Lama said. "Although your motivations may be sincere, violence ... easily can be out of control."
The more I learn about Clark, the more I say "Give Us Howard Dean"
As much as the press and Dean's Democratic rivals like to showcase him as a guy who spouts off and later has to explain himself, I have never seen him waffle on the issue of Iraq.
Regarding Clark, I was dismayed to read this FAIR piece, which says, in part:
".... After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."
Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."...
Pass me the syrup, please.
When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, Mr Bush,
nobody likes being dissed.
Learn from your deathly blunders.
If you don't genuinely have it IN you, at least FAKE a smidgen of humility for the sake of the people you "lead" and "represent".
"..When you think about it, the Congress and the French have about the same reaction to our Iraq policy: 'You didn't ask us, so why should we pay?' "
Lost Trust:
Mr. Bush Has Lied So Many Times We Just Don't Know What to Believe Anymore
This is what Bush said that day on the aircraft carrier, bedecked in the flight suit:
"...... The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 - and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men - the shock troops of a hateful ideology - gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed....
.....The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
....In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th - the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.
When truth takes flight, only an empty suit remains.
....Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all: Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice.
Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.
...Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world - and will be confronted......."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is what he said two days ago after VP Dick Cheney once again misled the public on Meet The Press about the Saddam/9-11 connection:
Bush said there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.
“No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th....What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida....
And al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He’s the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties.”
Note: Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a leader of an Islamic group in northern Iraq called Ansar al-Islam believed to have links to al-Qaeda. He ONCE received medical care in Baghdad. If this and the faulty legend of one of the suicide bombers meeting with Iraqi intelligence (never proven) is all they've got, it's flimsy at best.
In a Sept. 6 interview with The Washington Post, Paul Wolfowitz said hundreds of fighters from al-Qaeda and other groups were now in Iraq....after we took out the Hussein regime. You will note that Wolfowitz acts as if this was an unexpected consequence of taking Saddam out of the picture...but I beg to differ.
Wolfowitz has said: "There are some thousands of former Baathists and some hundreds of al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists who are ... killing Americans and Iraqis and U.N. officials and moderate Shiite leaders in order to destabilize Iraq.''
It seems to me, after we look back at the failure to locate WMDs and the flimsy (highly changeable) reasons and false references to the Iraq/9-11 connection, that the Bush administration had their own reasons for attacking Iraq.
Amazingly, they never bother to share the real reason.
Bush said in his last speech to the nation:
"...Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated."
This leads me to believe Bush intended for Iraq to become the "central front" for the war on terror. It seems we did not go as moral defenders of the people of Iraq...and we know now that Iraq did not pose a significant threat to us...(it's more dangerous for America today than it was before the war).
It seems we went into Iraq because we knew Saddam's regime was weak...and we bet that his people were weakened by years of sanctions. Previously contained, it would be an easy government to roll over.
What we seem to have gone into Iraq for was to PROVOKE terror.
We seem to have desired to make Iraq the central front for terror.
How moral is that?
How just is that for the people of Iraq?
Is this what Bush means by American justice?
Is it any wonder the Iraqis have a groundswell of resistance? (Or "terror", as the Bush administration prefers to call it, being allergic to the word "resistance").
WHY THE HELL DID WE REALLY GO TO WAR, MR. BUSH?
Have you defrauded America?
My darkest moments when considering Wesley Clark--
Serbia 1999
General Wesley's Got Some 'Splainin' to do
There are going to be a lot of hard questions coming from the right in the next few months about both the Waco David Koresh) incident and about NATO operations in Serbia, 1999.
They are questions that I admit are valid and need to be brought to light.
Waco should still bother more than just the ugly right-wingers and the "wacky militia types".
There's a lot of dust America likes to sweep under its carpet.
A genuine patriot cannot let untruths be swept under or go on existing as untruths.
I'll be listening closely to General Clark's replies to the hardest questions.
I dreamt last night that General Clark came to power in this nation and was revered as a hero and a savior of a land that had nearly died from division. In my dream, there was a nation of angry, divided souls without geographic dividing lines from which to create "sides". In the dream, I knew there would never be another conceivable civil war...only chaos and eventual apathy with a citizenry too tired and helpless to resist the money-machine dictatorship of those who disdain the democratic ideals of our forefathers. Our beloved nation, a wee shadow of its former self, was beaten down to
a neo-monarchy...not a lot dfferent from the tyranny from which we had triumphed long ago.
I awoke and wondered if enough people today consider this nation worth saving?
Most people you speak with could care less about what's happening with the powers-that-be in this country.
The ones who DO care are so deeply divided that I can see my dream coming true.
America will die soon..she's on a terminal course.
The only way General Clark can mend us, in my opinion, is to show us that war is an obsolete concept...and that world cohesion does not mean relinquishing your nation's best interests or unification.
We good people of this world all need one another, regardless of our borders.
We need a leader who has integrity and vision for a peaceful and cooperative world.
More than anything, the people of our nation (as well as the people in this world) need an American leader they can trust.
With the shady, lying Bush administration who obviously harbor contempt for the poor in their own country, we don't have leadership we can trust.
Could a man with a military background accomplish something like this?
Will he be able to explain his past without glossing over the hard facts? If he can't, he won't gain my complete trust.
Can he transform these corporations into businesses who will develop alternative energy technologies and 21st-century peace-keeping apparatus?
General Clark is an economist as well as a military man. His upcoming speech on the economy should be very interesting.
But he really has a lot of explaining to do about Waco and Serbia.
My ears are open. If he is right for this country, I want him to succeed.
Illogical Republicans Ensure Renewal of Arms Race
OR:
"What about Box-Cutters?"
"The idea of being able to use a redesigned nuclear weapon to keep a terrorist from hitting us with a nuclear weapon is something we've got to come to grips with because it's part of the war on terrorism''
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The idea of being able to use a redesigned box-cutter to keep a terrorist from hijacking a plane with a box-cutter is something we've got to come to grips with because it's part of the war on terrorism."
Iddybud, Blogstress Extraordinaire.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If smaller, more precise weapons could do the job, wouldn't people of goodwill want it?"
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
One of the more-blatant lies VP Dick Cheney told on Meet The Press Last Sunday:
He Says He Has Cut Financial Ties With Halliburton?
Uh....Sorry, Dick... Don't Think So.
Oil services firm paid Cheney as VP
No Halliburton ties? -- Is he telling lies?
~~~~~~~~~~~
The VP must think we're retarded out here to assume we'd swallow these stories about his distance from and lack of vested interest in Halliburton's fiscal health. He's made far more dough from Halliburton than he's made during his time as VP, regardless of WHY he's raking in the dough.
You can call his statements "word-parsing"...or maybe "misleading"...where I come from, we call them lies.
Prettied-up lies.
When Dick opens that envelope and out pops a fat check from Halliburton and he takes it to the bank....well, is that 'getting paid' or is that 'cutting financial ties'?
You decide!
In truth, Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of Halliburton Co., has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company since taking office while asserting again and again...most recently to Tim Russert...that he has no financial interest in the company.
ZZZZZZAP!
Caught you lying, VP Dick Cheney!
"The vice president needs to explain how he reconciles the claim that he has 'no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind' with the hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred salary payments he receives from Halliburton."
Senator Tom Daschle
U.S. Senate defies Bush, votes to undo FCC media-ownership liberalization-
Senate votes 55-40 to undo changes to Federal Communications Commission regulations
Of course, Mr. Bush is threatening to veto any legislation of this nature...and why wouldn't he?
Think of the Clear Channel pro-war rallies that might be negatively affected by this!
Think of the potential loss of propaganda!
Think of the continuation of those desperate haters out there writing anti-American sentiments in liberal newsrags
like that Madison Capital Times!
"We have to ensure that the marketplace of ideas is not dominated by a few conglomerates at the expense of our citizens and our democracy."
Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
Click HERE to see a cool promo for Salam Pax's new book: "The Baghdad Blog"
"SALAM PAX WAS THE ANNE FRANK OF THE WAR... AND ITS ELVIS"
Peter Maass, Slate
