Russian-Made Missle brought down US Chopper

It is horrible, but ironic nonetheless. I can remember the glee with which the US's "stinger" missiles were touted with driving the Russians from Afghan skies.

Those who refuse to learn from it are doomed to repeat history.

-T

Mr. David Corn,

"For with this strike, the Bush administration essentially aided the enemy, who now can point to this episode as proof that Bush does not give a damn about innocent Muslim lives (which is what many people in the Arab world already suspect)."

I think more than a few are convinced and were so before we ever started.

Thanks!

Kirk

Oh, and when ANY questioning of ANY motives of this misAdministration is allowed to be labeled "aiding the enemy", then all hope for this "demoCRAZY" is lost.

-T

Whistling in the Wind

It's gotten so bad for whistleblowers in the Bush era that the federal agency designed to protect them has whistleblowers of its own.

Gabe Bruno is a 29-year veteran of the Federal Aviation Administration. A dedicated, faithful, and -- in retrospect, he believes -- "naive" public servant, Bruno learned the hard way that blowing the whistle within the federal government is at best, a futile endeavor, and at worst, a career-destroying choice. He agreed to share his story with AlterNet under the safeguards of the Whistleblower Protection Act.

In 1998, Bruno, a field manager at the FAA's Orlando, Fla., Flight Standards District Office, was assigned to oversee safety standards during the merger between Valujet and AirTran, shortly after the former airline suffered a tragic accident that killed all 110 passengers on board. In the aftermath of the Valujet crash, the FAA carried out a 90-day safety review and created a new inspection program for all airlines to comply with. To Bruno's amazement, however, the FAA never applied this new program to AirTran (which had absorbed Valujet) itself. Bruno made numerous attempts to address the problem, but was "actively denied" by the FAA.

*****end of clip*****

Clip is just the first two paragraphs. A better piece than the clip.

capt

"DemoCRAZY"

Funny on so many levels.

HA!

capt

IF the Iraq war becomes an issue?? It should be THE issue! I will never vote for anyone that does not forcefully denounce this war, and any others in the works, and demand that our troops get back here to defend our borders, where they belong. This war for empire is ILLEGAL! I have read dozens of articles and comments voicing concern for the constitution and it's potential demise, but you know what, IT'S ALREADY DEAD! It died 5 years ago, all that's left is the funeral.

Maybe the game plan is working perfectly. Mess up so many things that the public cannot zero in on any one issue. The chaos theory. So many real and important issues going unnoticed or are diluted by the sheer number of crimes and screw-ups. A little assist from the corporate propaganda arm of the SCLM and the only question is: "Do you like your distraction shaken or stirred?"

capt

David:

Nice post. The fact our government refused to count Iraqi civilian deaths from the start and obstructs any attempt to show the coffins of dead servicemen underscores their contempt for any human life but their own. Add to that their willingness to send the sons and daughters of those they do not know into a battle based upon, at best, flimsy evidence of WMD and no planning, shows they do not discriminate in whom they subject to death and injury. It is not just invisible villagers they do not care about, but their own citizens whom they do not know.

The best way to find out the truth and how to act as a patriotic American is to believe just the opposite of what Bush rants, and do just the opposite of what he says. I often wake up at night in a cold sweat realizing that my nightmare about his regime being in power is reality.

Failing to call for Bush's impeachment at this point is to throw our democracy to the wolves. This is not a liberal, conservative, or progressive issue. The only true patriots in this Country are those who stand up to Mr. Bush and his fellow criminals. Facts speak louder than rhetoric, smears, etc., and they all point to ridding ourselves of this failed President and his administration.

I haven't read the post yet. Sorry David. Will do so shortly.

this post is to Happy.

HAPPY

My husband came home yesterday and told me that another firm has decided to outsource its programming department. Not my husband's firm. We've been through that. This time the firm is sending their internal workings to the Philippines. They told one guy at the firm to train the people who would be working on the data and he walked out. The people in the Philippines who will be taking over will have had one weeks training on what was described to my husband as 'extensive and complicated work'. Do the people making the decisions understand that? No. Do they care? No. This company is willing to put their internal information and all the computer work in a country thousands of miles away. They are willing to run a business on two different continents. Why? Because people like you want to be able to say, "I made three cents today on a dividend. Ooooh my stock went up."

Happy, your mentality and the results it encourages are part of the problem in America today.

Funny the chimpy cabal keeps accusing its opponents of aiding the enemy when they themselves are the real enemyof the world. George Bush has been CONVICTED by the International Criminal Tribunal for Afganistan but do we hear about that? what would the Veterans of Foriegn Wars think if they knew that, would they have been so gracious? The troops fighting the "enemy" in Afganistan and Iraq will be facing a new enemy right in their own bodies from DU. They will come home but the occupants of the countries we are forcing democracy on whether they want it or not, will be spending the rest of their lives surrounded by DU. Festering sores, birth defects, and death will surround them for thousands of years. Ah the Bush legacy coming home to roost. All in the name of fighting terrorism. Please read the link and pass it on to others so they may know what the chimpy cabal has done, to all of us, especially the most vulnerable, the children.

So, what is Bush's mission anyway? I haven't figured it out yet. It's hard to tell with sociopaths. It changes when a new target comes into range.

Ooops, I bet this is irresponsible debate.

# 9 Jeanne

My wife's current & immediate past ompanies both have some IT work performed overseas so this entire outsourcing issue is `personal' as well.
What many companies have failed to do is plan the transitions well. The trend has been going on forever and not likely to stop.

Where do you suppose American Imperialism is derived from? The sale of Americana all around the globe; be it simple Coke, movies, jeans, music, et. al. And for a long time, American companies have had foreign presence.

What the Left universally fails to recognize is that America was unique during the period after WWII when we were the only developed country left standing. That unchallenged post-war prosperity led to most of us being here today.

The world has changed dramatically! While Globalization has been around a long time, it has become much more pronounced today. China & India's embrace of Capitalism within the past 2 decades will impact all of our lives.

Capitalism has many issues but it does not seek to keep everyone poor or dependent on an inefficient state sector. The only countries that can afford Socialism, in all its theoretical glory, are countres like OPEC where the world will pay through the nose for a God-given commodity that none of its citizens created.

I believe the American people are as competitive as any on earth. Look at our unrivaled love of so many kind of sports. The problems that we face is education and the dominence of time-wasting endeavors like mass TV and to some extent, political/chat/BS blogs like this. The education establishment isn't interested in our kids but their own agendas.

I need to be going!

# 4
Capt,
That article reminds me of Katrina all over again. Everything this administration touches it breaks. All of the agencies they are destroying are not only vital to the health of the nation but also vital to saving lives.

"We believe in the digity of every human life" - bullshit.

#13
Oh man, irresponcible debate again.

The only countries that can afford Socialism, in all its theoretical glory, are countres like OPEC where the world will pay through the nose for a God-given commodity that none of its citizens created.

How do you explain Western Europe?

This is a great post.

Don't make me puke by telling me Bush believes in the dignity of every human life. Where is his efforts to help eliminate malnutrition, disease, human trafficking, economic and social exploitation.

Mariana Islands are a Commonwealth of the United Nazis of America. The repugnants want the islands to serve as a model for the United Nazis America. The workers work 12 to 14 hour days, 7 days a week for $350 a year. A Commonwealth is not a state and so it can be exploited by our country, the United Nazis of America.

So the MSM decides that gonzo spew has more relevance than Al Gores speech? Chimpy trumps both? Where has my country gone? Remember when dissent was an active part of politics especially during the Vietnam conflict? Good article at Lew Rockwell addressing that very topic.

Gore is right

Rape

I awake each day more horrified how much we have Nazified ourselves as Nazi Americans. We rape people and plunder the land and Nazi Americans are not horrified. Yes, we really are the mirror image of Hitler Bush.

Don@15,

Do you mean Western Europe, with its 10% unemployment and 1% GDP growth?

Do you mean the Western Europe that has a negative native birth rate?

The Western Europe that can't even afford to defend itself?

The Western Europe where no one goes to church?

The Western Europe where the health care system costs are about to crush all the countries?

That Western Europe is the model you're holding out as a shining example of Socialism?

FUTURE PC's
check these out

Is Bush a Total Idiot

The Price Tag

Howard Dean does not stand by you Don & Robert

Looks like Howard Dean has revised his statement about no Democrat taking money from Abramoff. He now says after being shown the list of 40 congressman who have received money, that he meant to say "pratically none" have taken money.

Funny how the truth has to be forced out of the left.

James, WAAAAYY COOOL! I always appreciate new tools!

Hey Gerald, you smell something?

David, be careful using those FRENCH words...bush may try to get you for using FRENCH (l'OH, non !), as he did David Gregory when Gregory dared to ask a question bush did not like. bush may decide by presidential fiat that using FRENCH is emboldening the enemy!

“The guy memorizes four [French] words,” Bush said referring to Gregory, “and he plays like he’s intercontinental.” Then, added: “I’m impressed. Que bueno. Now I am literate in two languages.”
+++++
hahaha...bush literate in two languages!?

LBH,

Provide proof that any Democrats ever accepted a donation directly from Abramoff and I will let you say "I told you so."

You can't provide any such proof because none exists. You keep parroting the clowns at NewsMax and the Washington Times who repeat the mantra that Dems are dirty too because they've taken money from groups or organizations with even the most tenuous of links to Abramoff. I'm telling you to refrain for your own good because it makes you look really stupid. You just don't understand the issue, so give it up.

Bill@20
what makes you think western europe's unemployment rate is 10%?
do you think that a negative native birth rate at this stage of human evolution is a negative thing?
who told you that no one goes to church in western europe?
and does western europe at least HAVE universal health care?

order the FREE DVD::
'CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE: Reopen The 911 Investigation'

WIN $1,000,000. by proving the govt's "pancake theory" of WTC collapse correct

Honest Leadership Petition

Honest Leadership Petition - January 2006

Our demand is simple. We want truly democratic government, served by elected representatives who uphold the highest standards of honesty and integrity. We demand sweeping reform to return our government to its basic responsibility: serving all the people of this great nation.

American history tells a story of expanding democracy, opportunity, and accountable governance. Throughout our history, the American people have demanded that their government reflect our nation’≥ highest ideals of openness and honesty, transparency and integrity and -- above all else -- a clear commitment to protecting the interest of the American people, not powerful special interests.

*****end of clip*****

More keyboard activism.

capt

Bill,

I apologize for being less than clear. I am not going to get into a futile long-winded argument about economic systems with someone who considers OPEC to be a country. I'll make my point and be done with it.

You wrote:

The only countries that can afford Socialism, in all its theoretical glory, are countres like OPEC where the world will pay through the nose for a God-given commodity that none of its citizens created. [emphases mine]

Certainly the countries of western Europe have problems, but they aren't going to be switching over to laissez faire capitalism any time soon - and neither is the U.S., for that matter.

cont'd from #32

Sorry, hit post accidentally before I finished.

I wanted to point out how ridiculous it is to suggest that the citizens of western Europe democracies with socialist policies don't produce their own goods.

OK, now I'm done!

Poignant article Mr. Corn. Thank you for producing such well-written and passionate essays. "The problems that we face is education and the dominence of time-wasting endeavors like mass TV and to some extent, political/chat/BS blogs like this. The education establishment isn't interested in our kids but their own agendas." Hahaha! Mass TV is a direct result of mass consumption - how else are consumers going to be brainwashed to buy a bunch of junk they could easily do without? Most popular politics involves non-issues: gay marriage, intellectual property rights, keeping braindead people alive, etc, upon which the masses feed because it keeps them divided, confused, and irresponsible. Most politicians are funded by big business who have a stake in laws and the outcomes of elections. Sometimes pesky citizens get in the way by demanding clean air and water, so corporations hire politicians that will vote against laws requiring emissions standards. The "education establishment" indoctrinates children with national pride, a desire to compete, the understanding that they are insignificant, and the skills they need to work in today's workforce (and nothing more). All of these things are caused by, encouraged by, or otherwise augmented by capitalism. People like the money/achievement aspect of it, but they think that all the ills it causes are completely unrelated. Concentration of capital leads to concentration of power. Citizens do not run this country any more, businesses and corporations do. Sure, we vote as individual citizens, but only for candidates supported and funded by big companies. The current misadministration is a very good example of this disconnect with reality.

Don 28, they're still repeating the Iraqi WMD hogwash too. They have them in some secret hidey hole dontcha know! Probably in Iran, that's why we have to go kick their butt too, why must you make thinks SO complicated?? ;-)

If we attack Iran we are going to be real surprised quickly and also suffer a lot in the "homeland". Think gas prices, or actual shortages, inflation, and general bad times for a long time. Yep, if our current fuck up president can do something completely boneheaded this will be it, and I don't see any signs that he will do any different. Geez, maybe if he was a leader, like getting in front of the troops for once we could get lucky.

I suggest we rename the war on "terror" as the war on "Those who refuse to be victimized by Bush aggression". Then we can include those in the U.S., as well as those in foreign countries, who have their rights as human beings violated.
I am surprised that the media still lends credibility to a man who is a chronic liar.

Don#28

Howard Dean just admitted it! You wouldn't except the truth if it bit you in the ass!

Assclown #38,

What did Howard Dean "admit" and where did he "admit" it? Provide a link and if you're right, I will admit it.

But you can't. So I won't.

According to shrub this whole Iraq thing is a war on terrorism. Well he seems to have fooled alot of people into believing this. Since we are fighting in Iraq that would mean most of the terrorists must be in Iraq right? Is it just that Iraqi people are predisposed to being terrorists? Hey wait a minute, were those guys on 9/11 mostly Saudi? I think the shrub pulled a bait and switch on the public. I keep telling people the reason behind this whole war was to get shrub reelected. If you examine this administration's pre 9/11 rhetoric they were already lying about WMDs.

NASA people working on the recovery of the particles of the Stardust mission. It's still pictures refreshed every minute, so you can't really see alot. Still, it's pretty neat.

live Stardust webcam

Capt, here's another site with historical speeches I had in my 'favs' list. I like the "American Rhetoric" site better tho.

History and Politics Out Loud

In "Clear and Present Danger" the President got in big trouble for blowing up civilians in a strike on drug cartel leaders in the "War on Drugs". Not so in real life huh?

Cell transplant may cure diabetes
Diabetic children have to undergo daily insulin injections
Trials of a new treatment for diabetes could lead to a cure for the disease within 10 years, researchers say.

Doctors at Oxford's Churchill Hospital are trying to perfect the transplant of insulin-producing clusters of pancreas cells (islets) into patients' livers.

The cells then enable the patient to make their own insulin, which regulates blood sugar levels, like non-diabetics.

It is hoped the new treatment may end the need for patients to have pancreas transplants or daily insulin jabs.

The research team hopes its trials, in adult patients with type 1 diabetes, will lead within the next five to 10 years to the perfecting of a simple operation that can reverse the condition in both children and adults.

The technique involves the removal of the clusters of cells - known as islets - from a donated pancreas in highly sterile conditions.

The cells are then injected directly into the patient's liver in what is a fairly simple procedure.

Jeanne, apparently all the regulars were kidnapped by trolls, check post times.

#26 DEN, what I smell are the SADISTIC repugnant farts.

Gerald, have you seen this? Illuminati devil worshippers, worse than nazis. I dont know if the author is credible however

Devils. No Den, just spoiled rotten children who physically grew up but unfortunately stopped maturing mentally around the age of 13.

Thus the manic desire to bike ride.

Spend a little time at infowars.com

Prober blasts Bill

WASHINGTON - A special prosecutor's long-delayed report charges that a coverup at senior levels of the Clinton administration killed a tax fraud case against ex-cabinet member Henry Cisneros, the Daily News has learned.
David Barrett's 11-year, $23 million probe, which will be released tomorrow, states in stinging terms that this Clinton coverup succeeded.

Cisneros was forced to admit in 1999 that he had made secret payments to a mistress before serving as Clinton's secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Barrett investigated tax fraud charges stemming from those under-the-table payments.

Then-IRS Commissioner Peggy Richardson, a close friend of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), was involved in efforts to quash the probe, a source close to the case alleged.

But Richardson's role was cut from Barrett's report, which went through 26 drafts, because Democratic law firm Williams & Connolly successfully pressured Barrett to remove a section of the report naming her, a source said.

The law firm represents Cisneros, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

A Williams & Connolly attorney declined to comment.

Before Cisneros' 1999 guilty plea, Barrett's office began a second phase based in part on allegations in a 1997 memo to IRS headquarters by whistleblower John Filan, an IRS criminal investigations chief in Texas.

In a memo obtained by The News, Filan accused top Clinton officials, including senior IRS lawyer Barry Finkelstein, of covering up Cisneros' tax fraud case by transferring it to two inexperienced lawyers in Washington.

Filan wrote that the two got orders "to kill the case from Barry Finkelstein at the outset."

Reached last night, Finkelstein declined to comment.

One of Cisneros' then-defense attorneys, Cono Namorato - who is now chief of IRS internal affairs - referred a reporter to Barrett's report
--------------------
I'm posting this so the trolls don't have to.

David, thank you for mentioning Lovelock's article about the earth's "morbid fever."

It has occurred to me that with our attentions focused on all the horrible things humans are doing to other humans, we don't focus enough on all the horrible things humans are doing to make the earth sick.

Even if we were to heal the deranged behavior of humankind, Gaia may be too ill to provide us humans with a home much longer. John (?) Lovelock sets himself apart on environmental changes because he is an advocate for nuclear energy, which he sees as a safe, reliable energy source -- but also, he sees nuclear energy as a means to counter the rising sea levels and lethal heat waves.

Wouldn't that be something if Iran just wanted to produce nuclear energy to help save the Earth?

Micki,
I've always heard that is what Iran wants to do.

Not One Dime

A radical plan to Abramoff-proof politics.

By James Carville and Paul Begala

Republicans are trying to run away from the growing Abramoff scandal like the devil runs from holy water. And who can blame them? While the GOP tries lamely to pretend that the lobbying scandal is bipartisan, the truth is that the pay-for-play politics that Abramoff exemplifies has become central to the GOP's governing model, in a way it has not been for either party in decades. That's why the officials so far snared are all Republican. The House GOP Leader, Tom DeLay, is indicted and disgraced. The White House's chief procurement officer, an Abramoff ally, has also been indicted. Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham has already pleaded guilty to corruption, and the feds are said to be hot on the heels of several of his colleagues.
This is shaping up to be the biggest political scandal in a decade, and the GOP knows it. And so Republicans have been jumping on the same "lobbying reform" bandwagon that many (though alas not all) Democrats have been driving for months. Each party has its laundry list of worthy procedural changes, from making retiring politicians wait an extra year before becoming lobbyists to ending the free lunches, dinners, and football tickets politicians accept from K Street.

Many of these ideas are fine, as far as they go. But we think they don't go anywhere near far enough. Indeed, they are likely to meet the same fate as the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill. McCain-Feingold, which was reluctantly signed into law by President Bush in 2002, was an honest effort to limit the influence of big money in politics. But it has not succeeded. Politicians are spending more time than ever scrambling for money, and the influence of lobbyists and corporations has hardly declined.

*****end of clip*****

Not one dime is what I would like to see!

capt

David...I have tried to take Fitzgeralds advice for the public that he expressed during the Oct press conference. He said "take a step back, take a deep breath, and let the process take place"...He went onto say "TRUTH IS THE ENGINE OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM".

Oh how I want to believe in what he said. There is still plenty of time for Rove and Cheney to be "frog marched" out of the White HOuse.

I have heard George Will on Stephanapolous's "This Week" infer that Cheney may resign due to health problems. Both times this was mentioned in the last few months the group then discussed who would take his place...Rice....McCAin?

#7 Capt...Rovian Rules listed in "Bush's Brain"
1. Hit your enemy as hard as you can. Be ruthless.
2. Never, ever admit that you have LIED. NEVER,
3. Keep the news and issues spinning, spinning...keep the distracted...distracted, so that they are never able to focus on one issue.
SURE SEEMS TO WORK

#11 Jeanne...It is difficult to figure out just what the "mission" is. Bankrupt the country, regime change in the middle east, beat down the middle class, outsource jobs, bust the social security system, completely support mult-nationals, increase arms sales for a long, long time, fleece the taxpayers...

ALL OF THE ABOVE

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is hard business. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.": Rudyard Kipling - (1865-1936)

=
"Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them." : John Stuart Mill - (1806-1873) English philosopher and economist - Source: On Liberty, 1859

=
"The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of government power.": General Douglas MacArthur - (1880-1964) WWII Supreme Allied Commander of the Southwest Pacific, Supreme United Nations Commander

===

Thanks ICH Newsletter!

#52 Exactly. I was engaging in a bit of Socratic irony.

Iran Claims New Nuclear Breakthrough

Iran announced it has made another breakthrough in its controversial nuclear programme by successfully using biotechnology to extract purer uranium from its mines. A report on state television said researchers from Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, after six years of research, had mastered the technique of employing microbes to purify uranium ore in mines prior to mining.

It said "using biotechnology substantially decreases the cost, increases optimisation and prevents environmental contamination" in the process that leads to the production of yellowcake, or concentrated uranium oxide.

The report, quoting a senior researcher, said the microbes were "successfully used in experimental stages" in central Iran's uranium mines.

"This bacteria is very valuable" and makes the production of yellowcake "100 to 200 times cheaper", he said.

*****end of clip*****

Iran has uranium mines so they have uranium. The enrichment is the sticking point with regard to the NPF.

Kind of like telling a country they can drill oil but not distill gasoline from their crude.

capt

micki & Jeanne, it is too bad our Nazi thugs in the WH do not want to save planet, Earth, with good deeds.

DEN & Jeanne, I have heard of the Illuminati from Alex Jones on infowars .com but I prefer to fill my thought processes with Jesus' love for you and me.

#57 capt, do you suppose the Nazis at 1600 PA ave. want Iran's uranium, oil, and brain power because Bush is greedy and totally brain dead?

#323 Hajji (prior post) The best book I have read on the topic of enviromental/cancer factors is a book by Sandra Steingraber called "LIVING DOWNSTREAM". In this book she targets the OHio River Valley several times(home of many coal burning power plants). This book is really worth reading.

As I said I tried to get both Bill Moyers and a doctor that was in a documentary Moyers did on the plastics industry. Doctor Landrigan and his medical crew, traveled around to cancer hot spots. They would come in and do blood test on the local population for heavy metals and particulate matter.

I called Sandra Steingraber to try to bring her into our area to address these issues. Her fee was too high to consider at that time. She is incredible, knowledgeable, compassionate and very concerned about enviromental factors involved with poor health.

It would have been great to turn the national health spotlight on APPALACHIA. Although as you know, it is difficult to get national attention in this part of the country unless it is a disaster (the recent coal mine tragedy).

STeingrabers book is worth reading.

DEN47
here is a whole gang of articles by that same guy

James, all things for this dude check out, sure has eye opening power.

THE FRANKLIN COVERUP SCANDAL The Child sex ring that reached Bush/Reagan Whitehouse

James check yer e-mail THX

Have you ever run across any psycopaths who felt that they were at fault for anything? GW Bush knows deep down in his bones that he is right and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong. He will blame everyone for else for any misforune that befalls America. We need to move on and impeach the son of a bitch.

In Your Face: The Globalists' Language is Hidden in Plain View

Fascinated by symbolism and numerology, the globalists' favorite tactic is to leave blueprints to their plans "hidden in plain view." From messages delivered to the masses through the media and films to Time Warner's all-seeing eye, we are repeatedly reminded by the illuminati themselves that they are controlling us and are omnipresent. World leaders from Clinton to Prince William have been photographed proudly flashing the sign of the devil. Architecture around the globe is laid out to represent their occult icons or structured based on occult numerology (like the pyramid Mitterand had constructed at the Louvre, which is made of 666 pieces of gold glass). The New World Order's symbolism is everywhere and there are globalist fingerprints all over the September 11th attacks as well as the Madrid train bombing.

Below are just some of the examples of how the Global Overlords are throwing their language and intent in our faces:

*****end of clip*****

A good page with some disturbing information.

capt

There's nobody to do the impeaching. Add to that we're now going to have a 5/4 righty Supreme Court. The Dems could have made a stink and didn't. We're so doomed.

Flan, did you the synopsis you requested on the January 13th thread? Post #835.

See. Forgot the word, see. Sheesh.

a little humor about our pro football team (they suck and had the worst record this year)

** NAME CHANGE **
The Houston Texans will be changed to the "Houston Tampons" as they are
only good for one period and have no second string.

** COACHING CHANGES **
Dom Capers will be replaced by Monica Lewinsky. She will no doubt blow a few, but she certainly won't choke on the big ones!!!

This is from Howard Dean...

"Enough is Enough"

Many Americans sense that our government has been bought and paid for by powerful interests with deep pockets. They sense that our government's priorities are being dictated by something other than the public interest.

They are right.

Republican leaders in Washington have deliberately and shamelessly built a money-for-influence machine unlike anything our democracy has ever endured. Many Democrats have spoken out about this Republican culture of corruption over the past months and years. But today our party takes a giant step forward -- with a single voice, we demand sweeping reform.

Right now in Washington our leaders in the House and Senate are unveiling the Honest Leadership & Open Government Act -- a set of specific reforms that will completely change business as usual in Washington. Democrats in the House and Senate are united behind this legislation, which aims to fulfill a specific promise: to return power to the American people.

Change in Washington requires more than the support of Democrats in Congress or Republicans scrambling to save face. Making real change will require an outpouring of support for that change by ordinary Americans. Democrats across the country and in the halls of Congress must speak with a single voice.

Please join the demand for honest leadership on this historic day:

http://www.democrats.org/honesty

It's not just Washington that needs a change.

I am writing to you from Ohio, where this morning I stood with Democratic state legislators demanding the same honesty and accountability in a state where Republican officials have defrauded the public and infected everything from the budget to the voting process with cronyism and corruption.

Our work together building the Democratic Party in all 50 states will ensure that we have a potent, organized political force making the case for clean government everywhere.

The first step is to get everyone you know who is ready to say, "enough is enough" on board. Sign on to the demand for honest leadership and get the message out in your community:

http://www.democrats.org/honesty

This fight will not end today, and this demand will not go away. Every single Democrat in Congress will be pressing for this reform legislation, and everyone from governors to mayors to challengers running against incumbent Republicans will be carrying the banner of change.

Today Democrats across the country are united on the way forward. But as we head into this election year, there is one thing you should remember.

This legislation won't change anything for those elected leaders who have already demonstrated that they will break the law in their quest for money and power. One Republican leader has already pleaded guilty to bribery, another has been indicted for money laundering, and still more are under investigation.

We need a higher standard for all of our elected leaders. But when it comes to Republicans who have already broken the law, we need to clean house.

Let's do it together.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

#58 Gerald, forgive me if you have already mentioned this, but have you read Jimmy Carter's new book? I think you would find it an interesting, compelling read.

David:

On `Hiding Behind the Troops', you made several statements that seem, `desperate', in trying to convey something more than there really exist.

Exhibit #1:
"And this botched operation has severely undermined the Pakistani government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf,...

I doubt that seriously but time will tell! Current levels of demonstration seems small and confined! al Queda and those who harbor and host them, may not be as popular as before.

Exhibit #2:
"Hunting mass-murdering terrorists who live among civilians is indeed hard and nasty work, which most people find morally justifiable."

While you went off on another direction after this sentence, most Americans would follow with " And in order to get these SOBs that hide among family & other civilians, it is unfortunate that some non-terrorists will very probably die".

Is it any wonder the Left do not have what it take to deal seriously w/terrorism?

Exhibit #3:
"Bush and his commanders in the war on terrorism are willing to waste non-terrorists to kill terrorists. Right or wrong, that is not caring about the dignity of every life."

The first sentence was wonderful and true! The main consideration after getting the terrorists is to minimize collateral deaths. Given the long effort, so far unsuccessful, to get the top level terrorists, if we had anything remotely `reliable', Bush or whoever is the CIC, better damned go for the Kill! Your second/last sentence is, IMO, a cheap shot!

ABC claimed they learned that four of the victims were 'higher-ups' in al Qaeda, including a master bombmaker. Ya think? Or is this something 'leaked' (before any so called DNA tests results) to influence public opinion?

Didn't Jimmy Carter visit the Bohemian Grove? Ah yes, here it is. I wonder why this professed Christian would ever step foot onto such overtly pagan and covertly evil ground. I know, I'm just a silly conspiracy theorist.

Alan, do you STILL believe in ALCIADA? Do you think that's who they're after? HMMMMM. Awful damn convenient.

Well yeah, kinda. I don't think it's a real organization though. "The Base" seems to me, would cover one hella lot of Muslims pissed off at us... millions more than before March '03. I believe our missle was intended for a terrorist, the Z-man, but they murdered innocent people just the same. I don't care how 'successful' they think it was, it's damn sure not winning hearts 'n minds!

and this isn't winning anything, PERIOD.

US officer tried over Iraqi death

The court-martial of a US officer charged with murdering an Iraqi general who was being held in custody has begun in Colorado.

Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr denies murdering Maj-Gen Abed Hamed Mowhoush in 2003.

Sal, I forgot your email strips out 'inserted' pictures. That joke I sentcha was...

If big-breasted women work at Hooters, where do one-legged women work?

IHOP

Feeling Bohemian

It's camp time!

President Herbert Hoover dubbed it "the greatest men's party on earth." Others have called it the most exclusive summer camp in the world. Every July, the top movers, shakers and hotshots retire to the depths of the redwood forests of Sonoma for a top secret, completely hush-hush retreat. (No chicks allowed, by the way —†the camp is strictly Boys Only.) Situated seventy miles north of San Francisco on the Rusian River, the campground takes up 2,700 acres of redwood forest. And while there are extensive precautions to make sure regular Americans can’¥ get anywhere near it sentries "scan the outside areas with binoculars" and "infra-red sensors protect the perimeters" some shadowy tales of the goings on have leaked out. Here are some of the stories:

The club has approximately 2,500 members, with a combined wealth of an estimated $100 billion. Every Republican president since Coolidge has been a member, as well as a few on the other side of the aisle as well. Members include directors of Fortune 1000 companies, corporate CEOs, top government officials and business elites. The waiting list is 3,000 men strong and the average number of years spent on that list is anywhere from 15 to 20.

The list of former and current Grove campers is long and varied. Former guests include Henry Kissinger, Hearst, George Schultz, James Baker, Richard Nixon, the George Bushes, Newt Gingrich, members of the Bechtel family. In 2000, George Bush asked Cheney to be his running mate at the Bohemian Grove.

So, what do you do at the exclusive Grove? The men produce skits, musical acts, listen to speakers, eat drink and socialize. The last night of camp, the men put on an elaborate play with a cast of hundreds. Members stay in cabins with names like "Toyland," "Dog House," "Cave Mans" and "Sons of Toil." (Last year, George H.W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stayed in "Hill Billies.") But make no mistake, this is definitely a rich man’≥ playground, with private chefs, servants and waiters. And according to the New Statesmen, the no-girls-allowed policy means peeing on trees is all the rage.

*****end of clip*****

Mayberry Machiavellians = Bohemian Hill Billies

HA!

capt

#79
Alan,
You are so sad.

Speaking of sleight of hand, Mr. Corn...

Either our efforts in Iraq are a noble cause or they are not, irrespective of what motivated the Bush administration when it led the charge in and whatever motivated Congress when it overwhelmingly approved it. By all accounts, the vast majority of the servicemen and women "in country" believe it is a noble cause. And by all accounts, the troops view attacks on whether the cause is noble as harmful to their morale.

Does that mean we cannot question whether it is a noble cause? I think not. We can and should, in honest debate. I trust that our servicemen and women would not shy away from that debate and I trust that the vast majority of Americans do see it as a noble cause.

But two things should be kept in mind: First, regardless of your view on whether our actions are right or wrong, disagreement should come with a recognition that we are there and that bad consequences necessarily follow if we pull out without finishing the job. If one wants to nonetheless argue the good of withdrawing outweighs the bad, well that's honest debate. Have it, but acknowledge that until a majority agrees, we all stand 100% behind those men and women putting it on the line.

Second, to attack Bush's motives is either (1) a cheap shot to avoid the question of whether the cause is noble or (2) an indirect attack on whether the cause is noble that necessarily distracts the debate from that question to the ancillary issue of proper motivation. Either way, by ignoring the core issue of whether the cause is noble, it impugns why we are there. It says to our armed forces that we believe they are not fighting for a noble cause but for oil, or Haliburton, or Israel, or some other lie. It tells them they are foolishly deceived. If you instead tell them you disagree that what they are doing is a noble cause, then they can proudly disagree or agree with that assessment. But they are not made out to be fools for believing in the cause.

Human Rights Watch Says US Policy Undermines Global Human Rights

A leading human rights organization has accused the Bush administration of using torture and inhuman treatment of detainees as a deliberate strategy in its war on terror. Human Rights Watch charges in a new report that the treatment of detainees has undermined the United States' ability to champion human rights around the world.

Human Rights Watch says policy decisions from senior Bush administration officials have created an atmosphere tolerant of abuse. The organization's executive director, Kenneth Roth, says it became clear this past year that torture and inhuman treatment are not simply the unintentional byproducts of these policy decisions.

"It's not simply a matter of neglect, or command failure," he said. "Rather the use of torture and inhuman treatment was the Bush policy. It was reflective of a deliberate decision by the most senior Bush administration officials to fight terrorism without regard to one of the most basic prohibitions there is in international human rights law."

The White House dismissed the report's criticism, saying the United States does not torture terror suspects.

THE AFGHAN EXIT STRATEGY

I want YOU to do it

As a result of the Afghan war, Pakistan's internal stability has seriously suffered - perhaps irretrievably. Washington is on a warpath with Tehran today. Iranians have alleged that their soldiers on the border with Pakistan were kidnapped 10 days ago in a covert US operation. Is the US stoking the flames of Balochi sub-nationalism in Pakistan with the objective of setting Iran's adjacent Balochistan region on fire?

Above all, in the overall climate of violence and anarchy, it is becoming increasingly futile to draw dividing lines in terms of political affiliations or ideologies - or in terms of Taliban and non-Taliban. In the mayhem of the sort that the Taliban seem to be getting ready to trigger, prevailing equations can change overnight. Things may look calm on the surface, but the undercurrents can be vicious.

The power calculus in Kabul that Washington thought it had astutely worked out was far too contrived and out of tune with Afghan ground realities to survive unless backed by an assertive US military presence for years to come. That is how the Afghan bazaar views the spectrum. The security guards in the presidential palace in Kabul let that be known when Cheney came calling.

Official US agency paints dire picture of 'out-of-control' Iraq

Analysis issued by USAid in reconstruction effort
Account belies picture painted by White House

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday January 18, 2006
The Guardian

An official assessment drawn up by the US foreign aid agency depicts the security situation in Iraq as dire, amounting to a "social breakdown" in which criminals have "almost free rein".

The "conflict assessment" is an attachment to an invitation to contractors to bid on a project rehabilitating Iraqi cities published earlier this month by the US Agency for International Development (USAid).

The picture it paints is not only darker than the optimistic accounts from the White House and the Pentagon, it also gives a more complex profile of the insurgency than the straightforward "rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists" described by George Bush.

The USAid analysis talks of an "internecine conflict" involving religious, ethnic, criminal and tribal groups. "It is increasingly common for tribesmen to 'turn in' to the authorities enemies as insurgents - this as a form of tribal revenge," the paper says, casting doubt on the efficacy of counter-insurgent sweeps by coalition and Iraqi forces.

Meanwhile, foreign jihadist groups are growing in strength, the report said.

*****end of clip*****

I do not see how this illegal and unwise mess is anything but a mistake. It is bad, it has only gotten worse. If this is what Bunnypants calls progress I would hate to see what he calls a miserable failure.

capt

Well Brian, I disagree with almost everything you said. It's not a noble cause. Faked evidence of WMDs isn't a noble cause at all. We were lied into it, and we need to get our soldiers home. Supporting the troops has nothing to do with trying to keep them there getting killed for lies. You're a pretty good spinner, but no amount of spin will make me believe that trying to get them home safe is 'bad for morale', or 'undermines the troops'. That's just b/s, like your whole post.

Brian,
We can pull out now having not accomplished anything or next year having not accomplished anything. Bush and his gang screwed up. The war is not winnable. There is nothing noble about it. Bush and his crew are using the military in a very deceitful way and without, I might add, the equipment they need to stay alive. They are using contractors who in some cases have ignited anger with the Iraqi people and then the military has to go in as the enemy instead of in a peace time capacity.
I stand 100% behind the troops but not behind the President. He has deceived the military and their families. He deceived the Congress. He lied to the American people. What do you think the Iraqis think about the fact that Bush lied to get us into war?
I was around during Viet Nam. There was no winning that war. Reality finally hit when Walter Cronkite said so. The Vets from that era and the first gulf war are the ones who are saying it this time. The military coming home from the war zone are saying it. This administration is incompetent. They don't care about casualties. They care about the bottom line. Money, money, money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html

Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations
Abramoff Issue's Fallout May Extend Beyond the GOP

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek Willis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 3, 2005; Page A01

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers to act on their clients' behalf.

But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.

Democrats are hoping to gain political advantage from federal and Senate investigations of Abramoff's activities and from the embattled lobbyist's former ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). Yet, many Democratic lawmakers also benefited from Abramoff's political operation, a fact that could hinder the Democrats' efforts to turn the lobbyist's troubles into a winning partisan issue.

"It wouldn't surprise me to see the Abramoff controversy impact both parties," said Tony Raymond, co-founder of PoliticalMoneyLine.com, which gathers lobbying and campaign finance information.

Democratic lawmakers who responded to inquiries for this article said that any money they received from the tribes had nothing to do with Abramoff. They were quick to say they did not know the man.

Federal investigators are examining the millions of dollars in lobbying and public relations fees that Abramoff received from the tribes. They are also looking into his dealings with members of Congress and their staffs, lawyers involved in the inquiry said.

Most lobbying firms here are bipartisan, to give their clients access to key lawmakers of both major parties. Abramoff's group was no exception. Although he was recognized as a Republican lobbyist who was close to DeLay and other party leaders, Abramoff was careful to add at least two Democratic lobbyists to his group during his five years at Greenberg Traurig. By the end, seven of his lobbyists were Democrats.

"Lobbying shops typically direct contributions to both parties because they want contacts on both sides of the aisle," said David M. Hart, a professor of public policy at George Mason University. "Lawmakers in the minority can also have a lot of clout."

According to documents and tribal officials familiar with the Abramoff team's methods, the lobbyists devised lengthy lists of lawmakers to whom the tribes should donate and then delivered the lists to the tribes. The tribes, in turn, wrote checks to the recommended campaign committees and in the amounts the lobbyists prescribed. The money went to incumbents or selected candidates in open seats.

Because of the makeup of his team and the composition of Congress, the Abramoff lobbyists channeled most of their clients' giving to GOP legislators, according to a review of public records. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), chairman of an Appropriations subcommittee that frequently deals with Indian matters, received the largest amount from the tribes as well as from the Greenberg Traurig lobbyists who helped direct those donations: $141,590 from 1999 to 2004, the study showed.

But Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) ran second, with $128,000 in the same period. From 1999 to 2001, Kennedy chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which solicited campaign donations for House candidates.

The Indians' largess flowed to higher-ranking Democrats as well. Senate Democratic leaders Reid and Daschle each received more than $40,000 from the tribes and from lobbyists on Abramoff's team during the period. Gephardt got $32,500.

Of the 18 largest recipients of tribe contributions directed by Abramoff's group, six, or one-third, were Democrats. These included Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2001 to 2002, and Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), a leader in Indian affairs legislation.

Over that period, while Abramoff and his lobbyists directed nearly $4 million in funds from the tribes to lawmakers, they also gave from their own pockets. Two-thirds of the total went to Republicans and one-third was handed out to Democrats, according to The Post's calculations.

The six wealthiest tribes that had hired Abramoff's group were the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana and the Tigua Indian Reservation.

Greenberg Traurig declined to comment. An Abramoff spokesman said: "Each tribe has its own protocol for approving political contributions made by the tribe. Mr. Abramoff and his team provided recommendations on where a tribe should spend its political dollars, but ultimately the tribal council made the final decision on what political contributions to make."

Democratic lawmakers sought to distance themselves from Abramoff.

A spokesman for Kennedy said the congressman's donations from the tribes "have nothing to do with Abramoff." Kennedy traces the money's genesis to his family's long-standing commitment to Indian causes, to the fact that he co-founded the Congressional Native American Caucus in 1997, and to his personal relationship with Mississippi Choctaw Chief Philip Martin, whom Kennedy met in 1999 on a fundraising trip for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "They just became close friends," said Kennedy spokesman Sean Richardson.

James Patrick Manley, Reid's spokesman, also asserted that Reid's connection to tribes was remote from Abramoff. He said that Reid does not know Abramoff. But Abramoff did hire as one of his lobbyists Edward P. Ayoob, a veteran Reid legislative aide. Manley acknowledged that Ayoob helped raise campaign money for his former boss. Lawyers close to the Abramoff operation said that Ayoob held a fundraising reception for Reid at Greenberg Traurig's offices here.

"There's nothing sinister here," Manley said. Reid is a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee with strong relations with Indian tribes, he explained.

Daschle was familiar with another of Abramoff's Democratic lobbyists, Michael Smith. According to Steve Hildebrand, who was Daschle's campaign manager last year, Smith "helped with a lot of Democratic campaigns." In addition, Daschle was a favorite of Indian tribes and received donations from 64, including five Abramoff clients. "We took about $150,000 in this last election cycle from Indian tribes around the country," Hildebrand said. "Tom is viewed as a champion of Indian issues. We have nine tribes in South Dakota, and they worked hard for him."

Murray also was said to have never laid eyes on Abramoff. "Our office has not had any contact with Jack Abramoff," said the senator's spokeswoman, Alex Glass. "She's been active in Indian health care and in supporting their sovereign governments; that is why they decided to contribute to her. They see her as an advocate."

During the time Murray chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Abramoff's major tribes were significant contributors. Election reports show that the grand total from the tribes to that committee in 2001-2002 reached $175,500.

In March 2001, Dorgan held a fundraising event during a hockey game in a skybox leased by an Abramoff company at MCI Center. But the senator said he believed that the box was controlled by Greenberg Traurig. The event was organized by Smith, the Democratic fundraiser, he added.

"I was unaware that Abramoff was involved," Dorgan said.

So yes Don, democrats did receive donations from Ambramoff.

Who ever said that the Left can not be trusted on the war on terror because they are more concerned with unintentional civillian casulties. I could not have said it better! So these Leftists would rather spare bin Laden's life in order to save civillians!?!? They are overly concerned with civillian casulties. The greater good is served by bringing the terrorists to justice. No one wants civillians to die, but it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to prevent civillian casulties in some instances. But does that mean we should just stop killing terrorists?? Hell no!

I don't even know why I'm posting this on this blog, since 90% of these liberal posters think the U.S. is waging a war OF terror.

I just wanted to say, Capt, Robert Schwartz, Saladin, you guys are the republicans' best friends!! With your kooky conspiracy theories, moral relativism and anti-American sentiment. The majority of Americans don't want to be associated with people who the America is a terrorist nation or that President Bush is a terrorist. And yes, despite your denial, he won both the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Alan, as Brian said, you're telling the troops that they're dying for lies!! The war was not based on a lie, and it was not just based on WMDs. Secondly Alan, what is Bush to believe when every intelligence agency in the world thought Iraq had WMDs, even former President Clinton thought he did?? It was also remove Saddam Hussein because of his violation the 1991 cease fire agreement, his violation of 17 U.N. resolutions and because of his support for terrorism. Last, but not least, to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. Alan, see this is why liberalism is based on emotion, not logic!! So Alan, would you PREFER to continue to have innocent Iraqis killed and beaten and raped by not pursuing action to REMOVE Saddam Hussein??? Far more Iraqi's would have been killed if Saddam Hussein was left in power than what anything the U.S. has done. But no, that doesn't fit your agenda, you WANT to be able to say that America is a bad country!!

Just returned from hearing Ohio Congressman Sherrod Brown who is running against Paul Hackett in the Democratic primary for Senate. Who ever wins the primary will be running against Republican Senator Dewine. Long overdue to send this guy on his way home... permanently

They are both incredible candidates. I really wish Hackett would choose to run against Schmidt again instead of having two terrific candidates running against one another.

After Schmidt stuck her foot in her mouth with her outrageous comment in regard to Representative Murtha taking a stand on the quagmire in Iraq. Hackett would win this time in the Republican dominated area around Cincinnati Ohio. It would be a "slam dunk".

HMMM...Where have I heard that before?

What is happening in peoples home states in regard to Senate primaries?

#82 Brian our americans soldiers were sent to Iraq based on complete and utter LIES. You can continue to attempt to spin the LIES into a noble cause, but LIES ONLY SPIN INTO MORE LIES.

The right wing radicals that took us into the war in Iraq believe firmly in the NOBLE LIE...that the means justify the end...that the end justifies the means. The means were complete and utter LIES.

We have to support our troops, by supplying all of their military needs, supporting not cutting their benefits, by providing for their care both mentally and physically, and by providing the truth and the means to get out of Iraq...

Hopefully Hopefully all of this does not cause more death and destruction for the people of Iraq who have suffered so much.

What is all this stuff I'm hearing bout "Bohemian Grove?" I mean come on! Its'old. That song was made in the 70's for Christ sake and by a band with the silly name of "Queen." Why, if it weren't for comedy movies and reunion concerts in Wembly Arena, nobody would even hear the song. And the guy who sang it, isn't even alive anymore! It's just..

"Voiceoverus interruptus"

"Emily, the song you are referring to is "Bohemian Rhapsody." "Bohemian Grove" is a place where a number of supposed grown up men go to be not so grown up for reasons no normal person would understand, or remotely try to understand."

Nevermind!

Senator's 'tainted money' rejected by tribes

Burns can't give away Abramoff-linked cash; ex-staffer's Bowl trip probed

WASHINGTON - Montana Republican Senator Conrad Burns is having a hard time giving away campaign cash he received that was linked to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

In recognition that much of the money distributed by Abramoff had been siphoned from Native Americans, Burns had tried to give the money to Indians in his home state. However, a meeting Tuesday evening of the Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council rejected Burns' donation of $111,000, which was made up of contributions from Abramoff, his associates and his tribal clients. Burns was present during some of the proceedings.

James Steele, chairman of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, would not elaborate as to why tribal leaders rejected the offer. However, tribal officials familiar with last night's vote said that they did not want to appear to have "bailed out the senator." They described the offer from Burns as being "tainted money."

*****end of clip*****

Tainted money REJECTED (OUCH! that has got to sting) The tribes do not want that foul lot of chump change.

HA!

capt

Tim L, you're just ate up with it. There were NO TERRORISTS in Iraq. We had NO REASON to go there. Saddam was a terrible tyrant, but so are a few others, and we didn't invade them, did we? All that b/s you cited is just that, b/s. There were weapons inspectors in Iraq right up until Doofus had 'em pulled out because it was uncovering his lies. Wake tha fk up and support our troops by bringing them home!

Kathleen, believing something to to be true that turns out not to be true, is NOT a lie, it is a mistake.

I guess when a weather man makes says what the forcast will be, and it turns out not to be, it is a lie???

Ex-heads of EPA blast Bush on global warming

Republicans, Democrat say president is neglecting environment

WASHINGTON - Six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency —†five Republicans and one Democrat —†accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.

"I don’¥ think there’≥ a commitment in this administration," said Bill Ruckelshaus, who was EPA’≥ first administrator when the agency opened its doors in 1970 under President Nixon and headed it again under President Reagan in the 1980s.

Russell Train, who succeeded Ruckelshaus in the Nixon and Ford administrations, said slowing the growth of "greenhouse" gases isn’¥ enough.

*****end of clip*****

Busheney cannot service big oil and their pals AND protect the environment so too bad for the planet.

capt

Have fun, I will return.

Did you hear that an outfit called the Cybercast News Service questioned the circumstances surrounding the awarding of two Purple Hearts to John Murtha? No vet in government that opposes old Bush is safe. Not far down the road one of the guys in Iraq will run for and win some office and he'll be a Democrat. Will they besmirch him/her too? So much for "supporting" our troops. That's kind of like "their" preoccupation with a fetus until it's an actual person. Just wait until one of our Iraqi "heroes" gets in their face.

#76 Saladin ...fill me in on the "ALCIADA". Tell me where to go and read more.

What were all of the arrest quite a while ago in Italy of CIA agents. Do these arrest tie into the source of the NIger documents?

hahaha Here's a shot from Tim L's article he just posted, dated from June '05

Over that period, while Abramoff and his lobbyists directed nearly $4 million in funds from the tribes to lawmakers, they also gave from their own pockets. Two-thirds of the total went to Republicans and one-third was handed out to Democrats, according to The Post's calculations.

Nevermind that we've seen the whole list of Abramoff's personal contributions, from the FEC records... and there were NO DEMOCRATS on that looooooong-azz list.

Timmieeeee! Wake up Timmieeeee!

Alan, your intellectual dishonesty and deceit is UNBELIEVABLE!!! The bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that YOUR party called for(!!!) concluded that Iraq DID have ties to terrorism, as did the bipartisan 9/11 commission that YOUR party called for!!

Bohemian Grove? That's the faggiest goddamn thing I've ever seen!

-Richard M. Nixon

show me, Tim L, where the 911 commission concluded that Iraq had ties to terrorism.

Bullshyt Timmieeee! They found no such thing. Did you read them yourself?? I bet you're waiting on pins and needles for Phase 2, aren'tcha?

Oh yeah, and since you brought it up... why did Doofus fight tooth 'n nail to NOT HAVE a 9/11 Commission? AND, if his cause was so 'noble', why couldn't Doofus testify under oath and without his baby-sitter? hahaha

#101
That's the first time I've ever agreed with Nixon.

Alan would you go to the Bohemian Grove?

James,

Did nixon really say faggiest?

Must have been when he was on Laugh In

Tim ...I sincerely believe that many in the Bush administration have committed very serious crimes sending american soldiers into an unnecessary war.

As Alan pointed out until Phase 2 of the SSCI is completed and the OSP (the Office of Special Plans) turns over all records...the spin will continue.

I hope I linked El Baradei's March 7the 2003, speech at the UN.

I am such a klutz when it comes to the simplest of computer skills.

Alan would you go to the Bohemian Grove?

say wha? haha

I'd never be invited for one, and hell naw, I wouldn't go. LOL
A hunting camp is as close as I've come to a male-only event.
Was that a serious question?

Tim click my name and read El Baradei's words.

#109
My husband wouldn't go near the place either. These rich boy clubs are kinda weird.

Lassie! How ya doin' girl? *pats head*

What is it girl? *concerned look*

Has Timmie fallen in a well?!!
Has Timmie hurt himself in the barn?!!
What is it girl?? Take me to him!
----
----
What was it this time, Hon?
Ehhh, Timmie got his foot caught in his mouth again. He's ok now. We got him squared away... till next time. *shrug*

"Good girl Lassie!"
*more pats on the head*
(end of story)

Transcript of ElBaradei's U.N. presentation

Here you go Kathleen.

Poor Lassie.

Jeanne,

I think Alan would prefer Coconut Grove!

I beg your pardon, mama, what did you say?
My mind was drifting off on Martinique Bay.
It's not that I'm not interested, you see;
a gusty Georgia is just no place to be.

think Jamaican in the moonlight.
Sandy beaches, drinking rum every night.
We got no money, mama, but we can go;
We'll split the difference, go to Coconut Grove.

Keep on talking, mama, I can hear
Your voice, it tickles down inside of my ear.
I feel a tropical vacation this year,
Might be the answer to this hillbilly fear.

Think Jamaican in the moonlight.
Sandy beaches, drinking rum every night.
We got no money, mama, but we can go;
We'll split the difference, go to Coconut Grove.

Voila! An American Dream.
Well, we can travel girl, without any means.
When it's as easy as closing your eyes
And dream Jamaica is a big neon sign.

Just keep talking, mama, I like that sound.
It goes so easy with that rain falling down.
I think a tropical vacation this year,
Might be the answer to this hillbilly fear.

Just think Jamaican in the moonlight.
Sandy beaches, drinking rum every night.
We got no money, mama, but we can go;
We'll split the difference, go to Coconut Grove.

The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band recorded this song.
What famous female recording artist performed on the song with them?

Well, when I want a beach, it's only about 35 minutes away. More if I take the ferry to the Bolivar Penninsula. The 'cool' place now isn't Galveston, or Freeport... it's Crystal Beach.
Ferry is free too. hey

Oh, for the love of God, it's Tim L again.

So yes Don, democrats did receive donations from Ambramoff.

No, Tim L, Democrats did not receive donations directly from Abramoff. The article that you so rudely posted in it's entirety (I have to believe you don't link purposely) says no such thing. You and LBH share the trait of poor reading comprehension. Accepting campaign donations from native American tribes who did business with Abramoff is not illegal.

Dance, dance, dance, Timmy. Back when the dirt started becoming public, Republicans denied repeatedly that there were widespread problems. Then Jack started singing and now the RNC talking point becomes "Dems did it too!"

As I have stated, over and over again, if there are dirty Democrats involved, throw them out on their asses. Unfortunately for wingnut apologists like you, Tim, this is primarily (if not entirely) a Republican scandal and the efforts at obfuscation aren't fooling anyone.

Jeanne, Alan, kathleen:

Tim L has already given the responses that show why I rarely engage in these comment debates. The ties to terrorists were ubiquitous, as the 911 Commission and Senate Select Commission on Intelligence (along with others) determined. All indications (including the Kay report for the Iraq Survey Group) also found plenty of WMD components, precursors and programs. Saying otherwise doesn't change the facts. I have trouble finding true mistakes of fact, let alone lies.

On WMDs, the only thing not found were large stockpiles of WMDs ready for deployment. Only three possible conclusions: (1) All of the world's intelligence agencies were wrong. (2) They were spirited away to Syria. (3) Saddam destroyed and hid them all in the last days. Neither (1) nor (2) gives any comfort, and (3) doesn't cause any regrets or guilt.

But really beside the point, isn't it? Motives and even past mistakes can be argued about later (just like the congressional hearings on how we blew the Pearl Harbor intellegince waited until after WWII). Attacking the motivations (lies! money!): distractions or cheap shots.

The only real question is whether the cause is noble. To be clear: this question exists independent of the motives (lies! money! oil!) that may or may not have motivated the Bush administation and Congress when they brought us into this war. If the end is good and the means justified, then motives can be questioned later. That's not lies spinning into lies. That's a realization that good can come from bad.

Jeanne asserts the cause is not noble, but without any reasons or basis. kathleen dodges it with more accusations of improper motives, but without any reason to believe that improper motives taint a good result accomplished through justified measures "in country". Perhaps the intention is not to further the debate (in which case, its just more of the distrations and cheap shots), but I wasn't convinced.

Reports from the soldiers on there and politicians who have visited have overwhelmingly praised the Iraqis who are developing liberal institutions (with their own Islamic character), creating incredible economic growth, seizing opportunities they never had and taking up arms against the terrorists indiscriminately slaughtering them. That kind of "give me liberty or give me death" attitude certainly inspires awe in me. And I find it immeasurably superior to the indignity (not to mention unwanton slaughter) under Saddam's tyrannical regime.

Will it all far apart? I can't say for certain whether it will or not (Jeanne seems to know it will accomplish noting, but chooses not to share her inside scoop with the rest of us). But I am cautiously optimistic. 2005 saw the adoption of a reasonably decent, liberal constitution and election of a democratic parliament with high turnout -- and even now, after the results are questioned, Iraqis are choosing to resolve the election problems through democratic negotiation rather than sectarian violence. The "clear and hold" military strategy seems to be working. Recruitment for Iraqi armed services remains high and their effective ever increasing. The economy is growing at an incredible pace. These signs point to success, not failure.

As for Vietnam (right or wrong), whether that was first lost on the battlefield or on the home front remains an open question which will never be answered with certainty. But one thing is certain: losing on the home front will inevitably result in losing on the battlefield. This war can be ended by destroying the morale of our troops, which can be accomplished by repeating over and over that they are risking it all for a lie rather than to help Iraqis acheive a small piece of the liberty and prosperity we enjoy or by telling them that they - not the bombers targeting mosques and markets and childen - are terrorizing the Iraqis (as John Kerry recently did). But if those are the tactics chosen to bring this conflict to an end, how is it any better than what you think got us into it? If you believe the Iraqis do not deserve the liberty we have or are incapable of (or unwilling to) take advantage of the opportunities we offer them, or that the cost in American blood and treasure is not worth providing the opportunity for others to enjoy our liberty, or that the seeds of liberty we are planting in Iraq and Afghanistan and American will not take root and will not spread liberal society to other places in the Middle East or deter others willing to harbor and support terrorists (and have had nothing to do with shutting down the Pakistan nuclear bizzare, Libya's WMD program, Lebanon's cedar revolution, female voting in Kuwait, democratic reforms in the UAE, etc.), or that the US armed forces are outmatched by the terrorists, make your case. And explain what distinguishes this from WWII, where we were willing to expend far more blood and treasure to dislodge facist, totalitarian regimes because we did not act sooner (or tell us why that too was wrong).

Without that, it is not honest debate. It is sliming motives and demoralizing the troops without advancing justification for the agenda of retreat. It is the ultimate sleight of hand.

Jeanne thanks...great article about Iran by Pat Buchanan at anti.war.com. jan 18

Micki... While I do not want to argue with you...I have to say our little disagreement had me thinking. And I do apologize for anything that you took personally. I have to say you shot first, and if you have noticed I do not back down.

The truth is that I struggle with this issue of whether I believe that americans make much effort at being well informed, responsive or more importantly act resposibly in regard to the rest of the world. I know we do not.

I blame the middle class and the upper middle class ...the ones who have access, the leisure time. The ones who would rather go to a mall, watch a reality shows etc. etc. , than spend the time participating or protesting this god awful war or our policies.

While those with less access to capital, education, health care, fair pay scales. I just do not think they are as quilty.

What I am ultimately afraid of is believing that americans JUST DO NOT CARE. That they do not hold other peoples lives as valuable as their own.

THE EVIDENCE OF THIS IS EVERYWHERE....AND THIS HAS ME DEEPLY TROUBLED.

Does one stay in this country ...or leave? This is truely the question I am struggling with.

I've heard of misprints, but this is a good one!

"Theft: On Jan. 10, a resident of Wire Bridge Road reported that someone went to his home and stole a green Yamaha Grizzly 600 four-wheeler that was parked under his deck. The vehicle, with a one-ton wench, is valued at $7,240."--"Oconee Police Blotter," Athens (Ga.) Banner-Herald, Jan. 18

I find it odd they didn't even bother to report the value of the wench.

I have to admit, Brian, the theory of "accidental nobility" as a justification for preemptive war is a new one to me. You go ahead and work that. Me, I don't have to agree that the occupation of Iraq is noble in order to support the troops. As the kids say, your mileage may vary.

Jeanne, thanks for posting #113. I've read the transcripts before (you or Kathleen, or somebody posted them a long time ago), but it was well worth another read.

* Rove Still in the Woods? Congress in Deep Doo-Doo?/Hiding Behind the Troops
* Black America's Pat Robertson?
* Can Karen Hughes Spin the CIA Attack in Pakistan?
* Alito: The End/Ending (Small-R) Republican Government?
* Is There a Case for Impeachment?

Why are all the titles of Mr. Corn's latest posts written as interrogative statements? Let's try to be a little more forthright, lest we embolden the enemy by allowing them to think that we are spineless liberals.

Timmiee, Dude!!! You haven't been around in a while. Hiding out while the Republican Congress runs the country into the ditch? How patriotic.

I don't know if you noticed but I've matured a lot since you last came around. I don't say mean things to the Bushbutts anymore. I'm being all civilized and shit.

I hate to tell you (again) that you are flat out wrong in your defence of W(uss)'s lies. You said,
"believing something to to be true that turns out not to be true, is NOT a lie, it is a mistake."

You've argued that W(uss) could not be a "liar" because he did not know that what he was saying was bullshit. How do you know this? Can you show us the transcript where he claimed this and his aides affirmed this? Can you point us to a tape recording or video where he says this and his staff affirms this? Can you point to any testimony given under oath where he feigns ignorance?

YOu and I both know that the answer to each question is no. Why?

Because Chimpy is a chickenshit liar (sorry if that makes you UnHappy -- but it's the sad truth). He didn't want a 911 Commission until the victim's families shamed him into it. He refused to testify under oath, refused to go in without President Cheney to hold his hand, refused to allow a tape recording, refused to allow his testimony to be videotaped, refused to allow a transcript to be created of his testimony.

How can you claim that he didn't know the facts when he hasn't given testimony that we can examine?

Why do I call congressional investigation the Senate Whitewash Committee? not because I didn't like the report. It gave lots of incriminating evidence of the incompetence of the Cheney administration. It was a Whitewash because they didn't do a real investigation into what Chimpy knew and when he knew it. That comes in phase II of the investigation. As I type this, a merry band of imaginative imps are inventing it out of wholecloth. It's getting harder to write that report as the FBI, DOJ and Fitzilla tear down the wall of lies and expose the criminality of the Cheney Administration. Senator Roberts doesn't want to include fanciful lies that are so obvious that they will get swatted down as soon as they are published. Why ruin his own career by defending the lies of King George the Clueless?

Why do I have to be so harsh on Chimpy? I like it and he deserves it. He says, "I know there are folks out there saying mean things about me and my decision to invade Iraq. Well, fire away. I'm fair game. I can take it."

As for the Abramoff scandal. Again, I will type this slowly so that you can follow along. Taking money from Indian Tribes is not illegal.

Read the article that you linked carefully, dude:
"An Abramoff spokesman said: 'Each tribe has its own protocol for approving political contributions made by the tribe. Mr. Abramoff and his team provided recommendations on where a tribe should spend its political dollars, but ultimately the tribal council made the final decision on what political contributions to make.'"

If Abramoff didn't pull the trigger, he couldn't be bribing Dems. Any of dem Dems.

Taking money from DeLay and Abramoff is not illegal UNLESS there is an exchange of political favors for money. That's called taking a bribe. And not a soul is claiming that the Dems lifted a finger for Abramoff or DeLay for the money they took. The same cannot be said of Republican Ney, Republican Pombo, Republican Bandow the propagandist, or Republican Senator Vitter, Ms. Federici who was a conduit to Norton and Griles, Failed Bush nominee for Dpty. Atty. Gen. Flanigan, Republican (former) Deputy Sec. in the Interior Dept. Griles, Republican Secretary of the Interior Department Gale A. Norton, or Rovie's doorkeeper and keymaster Ms. Ralston. That's a LOT of Republican Bribetakers. The Grand Ol' bribing Party? The Grand Ol' criminal Party? The Grand Ol' sellout Party. Yes, I like that one.

Timmie, please help us find any Dems who took bribes from Abramoff and DeLay. We want to remove them from office. Your amigo, Bill, seems to think that Senator Reid is getting investigated. He also seems to think that HoHo is backing down on this claim that only Republicans took money from Abramoff; but he can't provide any evidence. Can ya' help a brother out?

Do attorneys have more civil rights?

"A crackdown on jaywalkers in the Los Angeles Civic Center resulted in nearly 250 citations in the past six months--and a $500,000 civil-rights lawsuit claiming that attorneys were being unfairly targeted by county police officers," reports the Los Angeles Daily News:

The lawsuit filed by Beverly Hills attorney Robert W. Hirsh says he has seen officers from the Los Angeles County Police cite lawyers jaywalking across Hill Street, between a parking garage and the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, while ignoring fellow law enforcement officers doing the same thing.

"It's wrong for them to play gotcha with attorneys, but turn a blind eye to their law enforcement brethren," said Hirsh, who was not ticketed himself. "When the police have the temerity to violate the civil rights of attorneys, then no one in a free society is safe."

Let us not forget that most politicians are
attorneys

Alan:

You can try pages 61 (al Qaeda and Ansar al Islan) and 66 (al Qaeda) of the 911 Commission's final report. While they conclude they have not eveidence that the contacts developed into "a collaborative operational relationship," the contacts are there.

Of course, outside the 911 Commission report, the evidence is indisputable. Saddam himself proudly and publicly offered martyr payments to suicide bombers, and that's only one of the ties to terrorism.

More B/S from Brian. You're completely drunk on the kool-aid. Compare this clusterfk to World War 2?? sheeeeshhh! And everything is going rosy too! My gawd man, where do you get this shyt? Bill O'Reilly, right? Go back and click on that pretty blue link at #85, a report from on of our own agencies.
Save the long-winded 'rove-colored' posts for one of you guyz neo-con websites, ok?

Kathleen,

From one American to another, stay. I am sure that you love your country but disagree with its' leaders. That is nothing new. But leaving does nothing to affect change. The choice is not to stay or to go, but do you love your country enough to stay and fight for change? I think you do.

Saddam himself proudly and publicly offered martyr payments to suicide bombers...

And that was for Palestinian 'terrorists'. I don't think they attacked us on 9/11. *smirk*
Me thinks Saddam wanted to insure a little good graces with other Islamic countries, so they wouldn't hate his secular azz as much. Remember, he wasn't a face east 'n pray five-times-a-day islamic fanatic.
Now, after you read post #85 on the current situation over there, read the excellent post at #113 for what it was like before we invaded. Spin THAT!

Don, I don't think our troops see anything accidental about their nobility. I have heard from servicemen themselves that they see it as their purpose and cause, their strength while there and their motive for re-enlisting in such high numbers. There is nothing accidental about my belief that the opportunities for liberty and individual dignity we are providing is a noble cause.

If you and I saw someone drowning, Don, but neither of us could save him alone, and we agreed to jump in together to save them, is that a noble thing if you did it out of altruism and I did it because he had $200 of mine in his wallet? I would say objectively that saving him is the right thing to do even if my motives were "impure." Which is to say, the important questions are the end and the means. The motives in such a decision are only relevant insofar as they indicate bias ex ante. Ex post, while motives can be analyzed, the time to do so is not while we are in the water dragging the drowning guy out.

soo... That's a great article at Tom Paine, except that one of the terrorists bagged was a co-commander of Afghan operations for al-Qaeda, another the chief bomb expert, and the third was responsible for al-Qaeda in that part of Pakistan. Really, as far as "collateral damage", 12 persons who were questionably innocent (hosting al-Qaeda leadership could certainly be considered conspiring or at least aiding and abetting - in legal terms) but definitely civilians, 2 al-Qaeda bodyguards, and 3 al-Qaeda generals. I sure hope we botch more like that one!

Investor's Business Daily
Abramoff Democrats
Friday January 6, 7:00 pm ET
Ibd

http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/060106/issues01.html?.v=1

Campaign Finance: Nearly all Senate Democrats took money steered their way by Jack Abramoff, and Hillary Clinton's fundraising committee has agreed to a $35,000 fine. Republicans aren't the problem. The system is.
It's absurdly hypocritical for Democrats to try to use the Abramoff scandal against Republicans. Any recent instance of Republicans playing fast and loose with campaign laws can be topped by a similar case on the part of prominent Democrats.

Sen. Clinton, for instance, was under investigation by the Federal Election Commission starting in 2001 for understating in-kind donations. Last week, The New York Sun reported that her "New York Senate 2000" fundraising organization conceded the falsity of its campaign filings and agreed to pay a penalty of tens of thousands of dollars for underreporting donations.

The in-kind contributions of shady entrepreneur Peter Paul, who was convicted of three drug and fraud felony counts in the 1970s and 1980s and has also admitted to stock manipulation, were understated in the committee's filings by nearly $722,000. Paul claims he spent nearly $2 million on an August 2000 celebrity concert at a Brentwood, Calif., estate for President and Mrs. Clinton.

Then there's Sen. Charles Schumer, head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) no less, who in 2003 quietly paid a $130,000 FEC fine, plus $120,000 in refunds to 77 donors, for violations by his 1998 campaign. But with a $26 million war chest and facing an unknown, cash-strapped GOP challenger, it was hardly a bump on the road in Schumer's 2004 re-election. He got 72% of New Yorkers' votes.

The DSCC and Hillary's campaign jointly set up the New York Senate 2000 committee for the express purpose of bypassing the $2,000 limit on contributions from individuals. It's that phony limit that empowers the likes of Abramoff, whose clients and associates gave Sen. John Kerry close to $100,000, according to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid apparently got nearly $70,000 from Abramoff sources, and Schumer himself benefited to the tune of nearly $30,000. All but five Democratic senators have taken Abramoff cash, says the NRSC.

And how about Charles Rangel, ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, who took $36,000 from Abramoff's Indian clients, then gave the New York Post a Marx Brothers skit in response: "I don't know Abramoff, have never met Abramoff and have never accepted a political contribution from Abramoff. But if I do find that any contribution I have received was made at the behest of Abramoff, I will return it."

Abramoff -- and all the sleazy middlemen who may never be caught -- are byproducts of the misguided post-Watergate campaign reforms that actually encourage political money laundering. We need an end to individual contribution limits and to stealthy political action committees. We also need full and immediate transparency regarding those who give -- personal details, occupation, etc.

Only a system based on public visibility will prevent future Abramoffs -- and make sure those we elect aren't being bought off.

Smirk? That's my cue to go spend time with the grown-ups.

(Note neither Tim L nor I asserted above -- or in my case ever; can't speak for Tim L -- that Saddam was linked to 911. I believe other terrorist attacks are equally as bad, and vary only in degree of harm. As for post 85, I acknowledge there are plenty of problems; that doesn't mean they outweigh the good now, let along the potential. Not sure what the point of your reference to 113 is. That is so 2003. Yes, the IAEA was not finding smoking guns on nukes. Okay. Doesn't contradict anything I've said. Or the "16 words" for that matter.)

Hey Alan, if Saddam and al Qaeda HATED each other so much, then why did they MEET on numerous occasions between the years of 1993 and 1999 as the bipartisan 9/11 commission concluded??? Hmm, so Alan says that Saddam and al Qaeda hated each other, but they met several times in a 6 year period!?!? Defies logic!! But then again, liberals don't use logic!

Brian,
The problem is...Bush dumped the guy in the water. He started the war based on lies. Now you're saying we should save Iraq. We are destroying it to save it. That makes no sense. There is no nobility in that. BTW, Murtha has talked to brass. They are not happy with what is occurring in the military.

#118 Brian what a great writer. But I find your arguments for the war being for a noble cause...weak and inconsistent. If the U.s. were truely concerned about democracy, human rights, spreading freedom. We would have gone into Rwanda in 1994, into Darfur now. We would have gone into Ethiopia, Zimbabwe etc. etc. So many genocides that we have selectively ignored.

It is this selective humanitarian concern that the Bush administration applies (the Clinton administration is at fault here also) that is incredibly hypocritical and immoral.

This is why so many around the world hate us..it is this arrogant, selective value put on peoples lives...this disregard and disrespect not only for their lives for their cultures and beliefs that stirs up and maintains this hatred towards us.

How can we forget our history?

You said "motives and even past mistakes can be argued about later". Brian the right wing radicals war train has been grinding down the tracks towards Iran and Syria as soon as they were successful at pushing and lying our nation into a pre-emptive, illegal and immoral war in Iraq.

This illegal war needs to be endlessly discussed and di-sected. People should be outraged....hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, american and coaliton soldiers are dead and injured. Those responsible for those LIES must be held accountable...they are pushing for our nation to repeat some of those mistakes again in Iran.

By the way go watch the video of Congressman Murtha and Morans meeting in Virginia. The solders who had served in Iraq are coming out of the woodwork against this war.

http://bushspeaks.com/home.asp

See what a real man says - the truth is the clear sound you hear - if you can listen

86-43

Doesn't contradict anything I've said. Or the "16 words" for that matter.)

ahhh, but it does!
READ it this time. He politely said that the uranium purchase forgeries were a pile of shyt. He debunked the alluminum tubes lie too. See, no reason to invade, there was no threat of 'mushroom clouds', and they were all over Iraq digging for evidence. Couldnt' find anything, not a thing. Doofus lies, built on lies, and he got the inspectors outta there so he could invade on them lies.
*singin'* And them rovvvvvve colored glasses,
that I'm loooooookin' through...

why did they MEET on numerous occasions between the years of 1993 and 1999 as the bipartisan 9/11 commission concluded???

I've got my copy of the 9/11 Commission report in the other room. You tell me what page you read that on. You, or some reactionary web site made that up. They couldn't even confirm the ONE report they had of them meeting.
Set that Kool-aid glass down!! It's killing ya!... or at least making ya look stoooooopid!

1-800-Go-Army If it's a noble cause, why aren't you over there fighting?

#127 TRH...I appreciate your insights. I don't mind saying I am 53, and have been politically active for a long time. I am just plain tired.

I live in a country with 45 million uninsured people, an education system where a kid in an upper class neighborhood has 12,ooo spent on them and just across town 5,ooo spent on a poor kid. Where CEO's make 300 times the amount of the working people in that same corporation. And where our leaders have sent over 150,ooo soldiers (that have killed innocent Iraqi people) into harms way based on a pack of lies

I live in Appalachia, many folks here are truely struggling, with no hope in sight.

The gap has widened and as Zbigniew Bryzinski(sp?) said when he spoke here at OHio University recently "we may have turned a corner and we may not be able to turn back".

Hey I'll snap out of this. Although I must say I have never in my life considered leaving so seriously. Many of those right wingers would say...great!

Early doubts about uranium sale to Iraq

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2006


WASHINGTON A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, according to a secret memo that was recently declassified by the State Department.

Among other problems that made such a sale improbable, the assessment by the State Department's intelligence analysts concluded, was that it would have required Niger to send "25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailers" filled with uranium across 1,000 miles and at least one international border.

The analysts' doubts were registered nearly a year before President George W. Bush, in what became known as the notorious "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address, said that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

The White House later acknowledged that the charge, which played a part in the decision to invade Iraq in the belief that Baghdad was reconstituting its nuclear program, should not have been included in the speech and relied on faulty intelligence. And two months ago, Italian intelligence officials concluded that a set of documents at the center of the purported Iraq-Niger link had been forged by an occasional Italian spy.

A handful of media reports, along with the Robb-Silberman report last year on intelligence failures in Iraq, have previously made reference to the early doubts expressed by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research in 2002 concerning the reliability of the Iraq-Niger uranium link.

But the intelligence assessment itself, including the analysts' full arguments in raising wide-ranging doubts about the credence of the uranium claim, was declassified only recently as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that has sought access to government documents on terrorism and intelligence matters. The group, which received a copy of the 2002 memo among several hundred pages of other documents, provided a copy of the memo to The New York Times.

*****end of clip*****

I know, Busheney never lied.

capt

Timmiee, I forgot to mention that Chimpy may have taken bribes from Abramoff, and as they say, the investigation continues. Yikes! And keep cutting and pasting information about money that Democrats received. It won't do you any good. We need information of bribes, man. Bribes are illegal. Click on my links and you'll see lots of info on bribes that lead right through the back door of the White House.

Brian sez,
"Speaking of sleight of hand, Mr. Corn..."

Then engages in almost the exact same thing.

He says,
"Either our efforts in Iraq are a noble cause or they are not,"

This ignores the more vital questions of whether it was the most prudent thing to do, whether it is a worthwhile cause, or whether it is good for any Democracy to be lead to war under false premises.

President Cheney's warning after the first Gulf War that Iraq would descend into chaos if we tried to occupy it proves that they knew it was an imprudent thing to do (never mind the jihadi playground that it has turned into). The fact that we have created a Muslim theocracy, ruined their infrastructure and will soon stop rebuilding (since money will no longer be appropriated to that end) despite promises to rebuild the country, and delivered the country into the hands of Iran all show that it wasn't really worthwhile. Folks in the international community are beginning to realize (like Britain and Spain have proven) that the invasion has done nothing to curb the proliferation of WMD or to deter terrorists on the world stage.

Then Brian points out,
"By all accounts, the vast majority of the servicemen and women "in country" believe it is a noble cause. And by all accounts, the troops view attacks on whether the cause is noble as harmful to their morale."

Which is more than a little shifty since by all accounts you provide no factual substantiation and by all accounts Americans in general don't support the Administration's position.

Then he makes a good point,
"But two things should be kept in mind: First, regardless of your view on whether our actions are right or wrong, disagreement should come with a recognition that we are there and that bad consequences necessarily follow if we pull out without finishing the job."

A corollary of this recognition should be that the Cheney Administration has mismanaged the entire enterprise to the point that there is probably no way to finish the job satisfactorily. And President Cheney and his lying enablers deserve all the blame for this.

Sadly he notes,
"we all stand 100% behind those men and women putting it on the line."

Yeah, right.

he continues,
"Second, to attack Bush's motives is either (1) a cheap shot to avoid the question of whether the cause is noble or"

No one is avoiding that question. As I pointed out before, there are more relevant questions to answer. Would you say that breaking the chain of illiteracy is a noble cause? Even if it means removing that child from the home of illiterate parents? Would you say that providing a child with a higher standard of living is a noble cause? Even if it means removing that child from the care of impoverished, uneducated parents living in Darfur? There's more to judging a decision than the nobility of its inspiration.

It gets worse,
"(2) an indirect attack on whether the cause is noble that necessarily distracts the debate from that question to the ancillary issue of proper motivation .... It tells them they are foolishly deceived."

So if they are living under the delusion that because their cause is noble, the war is justified, we are doing them a disservice by informing them of the truth? That does not necessarily follow logically. If I were deluded in thinking that Bushbots could be deprogrammed and that deprogramming would save our dying Democracy and protect the Constitution, my friends here would be the first to tell me that I was wasting my time with . . . Oh, wait.

As for your drowning man analogy, if you knew that diving in to save the man would allow your child to die closer to shore, the choice isn't so clear. It doesn't matter if he has 200 or 2 million dollars in his pocket. Keep humping that straw man, but watch out for cooties.

Kathleen,

I've not really ever been politically active but I have had a keen interest in politics and government since 73/74 when one of our teachers in grade school thought the beginning of the impeachment hearings was important enough for the whole school to actually watch on TV. And we did!

I do not think the country is any more divided now than it was then. The difference today is that you have it thrown into your life everyday via 24 hour news services, talk radio, newspapers that have become more political and the internet. There use to be a saying that you should never discuss Politics or Religion at social functions etc, but that seems to be the topic of discussion at many functions. Have we reached the point of no return? I don't think so. The percentage of voting-age citizens in this country that actually vote is still pretty pathetic. Especially in non-presidential year elections. There is still hope, and this is one right-winger that would never consider it "great" that you would want to or actually leave.

Okay, kathleen's thoughtful post 135 is prompting one more from me -- to express some whole-hearted agreement but disagreement on the conclusion.

After WWII, when the scope of genocide against the Jews was fully appreciated, the Western world stood up and said "Never again!" But as you point out, kathleen, we have repeatedly ignored that. You mention Rwanda, Dafur, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia. You could add Bosnia, Cambodia, China and others -- even North Korea today where Kim il-Jong has been committing genocide against his own people with forced starvation and "reeducation" death camps. We, the entire Western world, with all of our power and wealth, should be ashamed of ourselves for not doing more. Our leaders, all across the political spectrum, have failed to lead and we the people have failed to force them to act.

(I am thankful for the generousity of the American people that showed itself over the last year in the wake of the tsunami and the Pakistani earthquake. In both cases, Americans individually and through their government gave incredible amounts.)

But where I cannot agree is that our failure to consistently intervene somehow argues against any intervention. I will stand up to be counted in support of what is being done whenever we take action in the face of such barbarity and oppression and will stand up in opposition to complacency when we fail to act against it.

To return to my drowning analogy, that we let someone drown last week doesn't make it right to let the next guy drown this week.

(I'm not sure I get Jeanne's analogy in #134 -- the Iraqi people were drowning long before Bush became president -- but even accepting the analogy, I miss how the fact that Bush pushed the guy in the water somehow justifies letting him drown.)

On the costs of the current conflict, I am going to have to disagree on the facts - the "hundreds of thousands" of deaths. The numbers certainly are hard to pin down, but the only source I've seen for that was that UK human rights group report (drawing a blank on the name at the moment), which had serious methodology flaws. IraqBodyCount has decent methodology (probably prone to some double-counting, and certainly not distinguishing sufficiently between deaths resulting (directly or indirectly) from US actions and deaths that may have occurred anyway, and including all of the terrorist victims), and it doesn't put the number nearly that high. In fact, those numbers are more in line with the numbers killed under Saddam's regime.

Saw the Moran/Murtha video, btw. There certainly are military opponents, which makes it hard to sort out where the general thrust of military views points. But the Moran/Murtha meeting also had the soldier who wondered who Murtha and Moran had been talking to, because morale in his unit was high and they believed in the cause. With the contradictory evidence, the best data point seems to be re-enlistment rates (far more objective than collecting anectdotal evidence on either side), which remain very high.

#142 TRH ..thanks again for a small glimmer of hope. You may be on the right. But the guy Michael Ledeen is a right wing radical.

THIS IS WHAT KARL ROVES BRAIN LOOKS LIKE ON DRUGS........LEDEEN


January 18, 2006, 8:43 a.m.
Do the Right Thing
Let’≥ avoid making a catastrophe out of an embarrassment.

Bit by bit we are getting to the inevitable showdown with Iran. This administration, like every other Western government, has hoped against hope that it would not come to this. President George W. Bush, for reasons good and bad, threw in with the Europeans' phony-negotiation scheme, even though he knew it would fail. Like the others, he hoped that revolution would erupt, and that decisive action on our part would not be necessary. Like the others, he preferred not to face the hard fact that revolutions rarely succeed without external support. Had Ronald Reagan been around, he would have told W. that the democratic revolution that ended the Cold War only finally succeeded when the United States supported it.

The failure to craft an effective Iran policy has plagued this administration, and indeed the entire American political class, for five long years. Calls of "faster, please" were dismissed, in large part because they failed to resonate in the policy community, aside from a few brave souls in Congress (Jon Kyl, John Cornyn, Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, Illeana Ros-Lehtinen come to mind. No thanks to the nominal leaders, Henry Hyde and Richard Lugar, both in full denial, in lockstep with Foggy Bottom and Langley).

Wishful thinking still dominates global "leadership." The pathetic Jack Straw intones, "I don't think we should rush our fences here. There are plenty of examples where a matter is referred to the Security Council and the Security Council takes action and that action is followed without sanction." And he wistfully adds: "the fact that Iran is so concerned not to see it referred to the Security Council underlines the strength of that body."

This, at a moment when Iran, which either possesses or will soon have atomic bombs and excellent intermediate-range ballistic missiles, scoffs at the Security Council, threatens to drive oil prices through $100 per barrel, and chants that the West needs Iran more than Iran needs the West. Meanwhile, Secretary Rice, trying to put a brave face on a potentially catastrophic policy failure, happily claims that Iran "is isolating itself" in the world community.

But it is not so. Iran has powerful defenders and apologists (Russia, China, and often Saudi Arabia), and, far from isolating itself, Iran's ability to intimidate her neighbors is growing relentlessly. Just a few days ago, when Iraqi patrol boats attempted to stop Iranian oil smugglers, Iranian naval vessels opened fire, killing several Iraqi sailors and enabling the smugglers to proceed. Such events do not register against the din of empty words directed at our feckless demands that Iran cease arming herself.

We now hear cries for violent action from those once aptly characterized by Senator Henry Jackson as "born-again hawks," Democrats and Republicans suddenly willing to talk tough about sanctions and military strikes against Iran. This is only to be expected. Having failed to pursue serious policies in the past, we are left with distasteful options today, and the pundits' and solons' chest pounding shows it. They do not expect the "hard options" to be embraced; this is posturing to the crowd, this is political positioning of the most cynical sort.

You want sanctions? When have sanctions ever "worked" against hostile countries? Did they bring Saddam to heel? With one exception (Reagan's embargo of military technology against the Soviet Empire), they have only altered the behavior of regimes that wanted to be part of our world, countries like South Africa and Chile. For the rest, sanctions cut primarily against the oppressed peoples of our tyrannical enemies, and the tyrants could care less. Sanctions, even if you accept the fantasy that the West en bloc accepts them and enforces them, would do more harm than good. We should want to help the Iranian people, who are overwhelmingly pro-American, and bring down the mullahcracy, which is our outspoken, fanatical, and bloodthirsty enemy. No sanctions.

You want to bomb the nuclear facilities? Do you really believe that our intelligence community is capable of identifying them? The same crowd that did all that yeoman work on Saddam's Iraq? The CIA that once received accurate information on Iranian schemes in Afghanistan, only to walk away from the sources that provided it? The CIA that, three times in the past 15 years or so, seems to have had its entire "network" inside Iran rolled up by the mullahs? And even if you believe that we have good information about the nuclear sites, are you prepared to deal with the political consequences, in Iran and throughout the region? Do we even know, with any degree of reliability, what those are? Look at the problems we now face in Pakistan, after a handful of innocents were killed in an assault against a presumed terrorist gathering. Then imagine, if you can, the problems following hundreds, or thousands of innocents killed in raids inside Iran. Are you prepared for that?

These are the questions that define our current plight. Having kicked the Iranian can down the road for many years, having failed to purge the intelligence community the morning after 9/11, and having failed to support democratic revolution in Iran and Syria, we are between various hard and alarmingly sharp rocks.

Worse yet, the current panicky rhetoric is yet one more distraction from the real problems, one more flight from the hard facts. For the central problem represented by the Islamic republic of Iran is terror, not technology. Iran is, and has been for decades, the driving engine of the terror war against us. Iran actively seeks our destruction, above all across her eastern and western borders, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Listen to the wise words of "Mohammed" at Iraq The Model:

I think that now it seems that the greatest danger facing Iraq is not al-Qaeda because rejecting this organization by the Iraqi people was just a matter of time; the greatest danger right now is the possible interference of the neighbors in Iraq's internal affairs to destabilize the country and impede the political process in the effort to escape the pressure applied by the international community on those neighbors...

Afghanistan's President Karzai has made similar remarks. Iraqis and Afghans know that the mullahs' greatest nightmare is free, stable countries on the doorstep to Tehran, because, far more than military attack from abroad, the schemers and torturers fear revolution, which is part of the national DNA. There were three political revolutions in Iran in the last century, and another one is simmering today. There is a lot of fighting going on right now in the Arab regions, just across from southern Iraq. And interestingly enough, the regime is not using regular forces to quell the demonstrations, or even the shock troopers of the Revolutionary Guards, or even the fanatical Basiji. Instead, the mullahs have called in the killers from the Lebanese Hezbollah, and from the Badr Brigades in Iraq. True to its essence, the regime is unleashing its terrorists against the demonstrators. It is reminiscent of the Chinese response to the uprising in Tiananmen Square, when Beijing called in soldiers from remote regions instead of relying on the local rank and rile. Both are signs of unease, and additional confirmation that tyrants fear their own people above all others.

The mullahs know it, but the West seems not to. Our failure to support revolution in Iran is already a terrible embarrassment, and risks becoming an enormous catastrophe. Almost everyone who writes about the chances for revolution takes it for granted that it would take a long time to come to fruition. Why must that be so? The revolutions in countries like Georgia and the Ukraine seem to have erupted in an historical nanosecond. Nobody foresaw them, everyone was surprised. Who imagined the overnight success of the Lebanese people? How long did that take? The entire region is awash with revolutionary sentiment, and nowhere more than Iran. Why assume —†because no one can possibly "know" such things —†that it would take a long time?

And even if you believe that revolution cannot possibly succeed before the successful completion of the mullahs' nuclear project, is that a reason to abandon the policy altogether? On the contrary, it seems self-evident that it would be even more urgent to support revolution in a nuclear Iran than earlier, doesn't it? So why not start now? The Iranian people may be ready. We won't know until we try.

On the other hand, we do know what will happen if we continue to dither, if we continue to act as if the United Nations could possibly have a decisive effect, and if we continue to put up with the sly appeasement of Iran that is practiced by the spent forces of Europe. Terror against our troops and our friends will increase; nuclear blackmail will become a commonplace in the Middle East; the fanatics of Tehran may very well fulfill their promise to wipe Israel from the map.

Is that better than supporting democratic revolutionaries? Such a program has an additional benefit, one that is not subject to the doubts and uncertainties that attend the others: It is the right thing to do, and it would be even if Iran had no nuclear program, and was not the world's leading terrorist supporter. It is part and parcel of our national mission, and it is the ultimate example of doing well by doing good.

How about it?

—†Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute

kathleen -- You know what? I missed this on the other thread. I went back after reading your "apology" to refresh my memory on how this had all started, and saw that you had posted this...for the life of me, I cannot fathom why you said this. Or maybe someone else posted this using your name?

"Micki How old are you anyway? Are you so naive that you are unable to imagine that people are burdened with the care and cost of raising families and surviving. Quite frankly you sound like a complete SNOB.

Were you really unable to take in that I have spent hours engaging with people who are struggling. Were you really unable to take that in?

Why don't you share with us what you do besides criticize others on this site. Tell me exactly how you are involved with changing things?
I continue to spend many hours setting up forums, bringing speakers to this university and our town. Have spent hundreds of hours registering voters etc. etc. etc

I call into shows focused on particular issues. It often takes repeating things over and over to get action. I have been successful at getting guest on many of these shows and also getting these programs to cover certain stories.

So instead of pointing the finger Micki let's hear what you have been doing. We know you can hand out the insults. But what are you actually doing to change things?"

911 ALERT!

What's strange is that, after the initial orgy of endless replay, 9/11 footage has entered the realm of taboo. so much of what happened that day has been sanitized , filed away in the video vault, flushed down the memory hole. When TV runs a library clip of the towers falling, it's usually a high-altitude telephoto shot that confers grandeur from afar. The collapse looks stately, self-contained, silently majestic - shrouded in inevitability. The climactic fall appears self-actuating, as if the buildings had wearied of their own existence and detonated themselves. The events of 9/11 inflicted the most visible trauma in mankind's history, and yet a veil has been dropped over it, as if Americans must hug the official findings of the 9/11 commission and keep their mitts off Pandora's box.

-vanity fair

"a high altitude telephoto shot from afar"
good old history channel, ya? the over-all traumatic view to keep us hating those that hate our freedoms.

and yet, if one views close ups of the collapses from the different angles that are actually available, and reads what professors of physics and demolition experts have to say as well as eyewitness firemen and janitors, one can only determine that the 3 WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
and if one puts that together with the knowledge that the combined U.S. air defenses stood by and did nothing while 4 supposedly highjacked (by terrorist agents who were well aquainted with the FBI/CIA no less) airliners flew an obviously very well choreographed flight path for over an hour before hitting targets that they couldn't have found on a map much less from above the clouds, one can only come to the conclusion that 911 was an inside job.
and I didn't even mention the FACT that in 1976 congress commissioned a plan from the pentagon that would use highjacked planes to ram into the WTC, complete with boxcutter wielding highjackers.

and people are worried about NSA spying? and lobbyist kickbacks and graff? ha.

click my name to order the FREE DVD:
'CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE: Reopen 911'

Brian #129,

Which is to say, the important questions are the end and the means.

But you see, Brian, I question both the end and the means in regards to Iraq. I do not question whether the men and women of this country are noble, but I do question the nobility of our civilian leaders.

Quick clarification on my views:

1) When I query whether "the cause is noble," I encompass within that question both whether the end is just and the means justified. While implicit in my first post, it may not have been clear enough; I said so explicitly in #118. Both are essential and relevant to the inquiry. Questions of motives I believe not to be, for the reasons above.

Of course, availability of means has to be taken into the equation. A cause may be the most just, and the means that could be taken perfectly justified, but nothing can be done if those means are not available or if given limited means other causes are more justified. That would be an interesting argument to see in the context of the Iraq war; I haven't really seen it (other than from the far left and far left isolationist, America-firsters, but that is based more on a view Iraqis are not worth it than really about availability of means).

2) While it was clear to me, it may not have been to a reader (and apparently wasn't to at least a reader): I see an important distinction between telling someone "you are living under a dellusion and here are the reasons why your view is wrong" and telling them "you are living under a dellusion and you were tricked into it (the lies)!" The former is a search for truth; that's good. The latter seems to say "I'm not going to even credit your intelligence enough to tell you why I believe your view is wrong; in fact, its so stupid you hold only because you were tricked into it, not because you could possibly believe it on your own."

#129 Brian. I respect that you feel so strongly about the value of all of life not just americans. The reports about how many Iraqi civilians have been killed have been covered by the Lancet Report, John Hopkins, and Iraqi Body count. Robert Fisk has written about the loss of life a fair amount.

Still the obvious disregard for Iraqi human life was demonstrated when Bush FINALLY mentioned the loss of Iraqi life. " around 30,ooo more or less".

Well what is it George more or less? This comment further illustrates my point about the selective focus by the Bush administration on the value of life. (the accumulative number is not mentioned on the MSM).

If this cause is so bloody noble why is it that they can tell us over and over again how many Iraqi people were killed by Saddam. Yet somehow can not come up with the numbers of how many our soldiers/coaliton/U.S. have killed. So disrespectful...so brutal...so selective. This NOBLE CAUSE argument just does not fly.

The AMERICAN FRIENDS website has the best video/commercial about the dead both Iraqi and americans (it is very moving).

Goodnight and GOD BLESS EVERYONE.....

Don 147 - I too question the nobility of our leaders. I think our departure point on that is when is it most beneficial to do so. So long as the course of action is just and justified, i.e., a noble cause, questions of nobility which go to motives for choosing the course of action are best deferred until the action has been completed. So while we are still engaged in the present conflict is not the time to question their nobility, which is to say to question their motives, because of its negative effects.

If the true concern is that the course of action is itself not noble, i.e, not just and not justified, then I think the best course is to tackle that head-on -- to say what is going on in Iraq is not worthwhile, is too costly, is too risky a gamble, or whatever the basis for the believe may be. But that doesn't require calling into question the motives of our leaders (lies! oil! Israel!), which inherently calls into question the motives of others who support (personally or, more importantly, actually in the line-of-fire) the cause. (See 148 above, point 2.)

Timmie, you have questions and like RadioShack, we have answers.

Why did Al Qaeda reps meet with Saddam? So that Saddam could get them off his ass. Alan was right. They hated each other. From page 61 of the 911 Commission Report:

"Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control."

We've been around and around in circles over this. Chimpy chose to attack a secular nation with minimal ties to Terrorism, no WMD, no nuclear program and lots of yummy oil when we still had not finished our mission to kick Osama's ass.

Moreover, we did all of that attacking while ignoring the REAL threat in the ME, who had funded the attacks on the Khobar towers, given tons of money to terrorists, harbored lots of Taliban after the invasion of Afghanistan, has a real Nukes program (not an imaginary one) was the homeland and inspiration for Hezbollah, is a full blown Muslim Theocracy, and is a major source of instability in Iraq to this day -- IRAN!!

Where is Osama? Are we going after his ass? No. After repeatedly killing Al Qaeda's #3 man, we have finally gotten numbers 37, 82, 143 and maybe #344 in the Al Qaeda hierarchy. On the bright side we got that #143. He was moving up the list quickly because he was the one who read JAmes Risen's article in the New Pravda (NYTimes to you Bushbots) giving AQ all the juicy details on how Chimpy was spying on us. He had received many accolades and was quickly ascending the ranks by keeping Osama appraised of the clever ways that Uncle Sammy spies on us . . . er, them. No wonder we can never catch him. But we put a stop to that Egyptian MoFo. Kaboom! (plus a few innocent folks)

What about the Noble Cause that we undertook to avenge the deaths of all of our friends and neighbors in the twin towers and that flight in PA? When can we seriously undertake that NOBLE cause?

And there's more straw man to be eviscerated . . . Brian sez:"
The latter (telling them 'you are living under a dellusion [sic] and you were tricked into it [the lies]!') seems to say 'I'm not going to even credit your intelligence enough to tell you why I believe your view is wrong; in fact, its (sic) so stupid you hold (sic) only because you were tricked into it, not because you could possibly believe it on your own.'"

No, if I understand your hurried(?) writing, you are projecting there. Just because you think that you are stupid for being tricked into believing the bs, doesn't mean that everyone else feels (or would feel) stupid. I could work up a righteous indignation at the thought of being deceived. Why can't you?

And Brian, all snark aside, truly, when you say,
"the best data point seems to be"

You could make that point more convincingly if you shared that data instead of leaving it in your head where we aren't likely to find it. We want to agree with you. You could win us over with factual substantiation. Otherwise, your contentions seem like so many talking points (bs). It's a reality-based thing.

"The Associated Press asked the four lawmakers who lead the ethics committees whether they would make a commitment to investigate ethical wrongdoing if, as expected, the information Abramoff supplies exposes misconduct by a number of lawmakers. Each of the four - two Republicans and two Democrats - declined, through his spokesmen, to do so."

The four lawmakers in question are Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) and Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD). They are charged with enforcing ethics rules - and yet when asked whether they will actually enforce those rules, they refuse to comment.

The new box needs a new seal.

The neoconmen were so liberal with the phrase flip - flop a clear history and meaningful record is necessary to remind some of the truth. It is impossible for bubble-boy to convince anybody he is the comic book hero he would like to be so he awards himself a couple of unearned medals and adds the the list of lies.

From the mouths of babes mommy help the current great economy will never touch the Clinton administrations numbers. Nothing good grows under a Bush.

capt

seen this in the comments at one of Pande's links above...

Does the word justice mean anything to you? Are the features of a lie beginning to come through?-Jackson Browne

Brian,
You came up with the water analogy not me. You said we had to save the drowning man. I'm telling you to take it back to before the man got in the water. How did he get there? In this case Bush and his gang dumped him there. Bush started a war with lies and then demanded that the country rally behind it. He botched every single aspect of the war and he now demands that we "support the troops" at a time when his numbers are tanking. He's hiding behind the military. He's using them to shore up his faltering numbers and the growing disenchantment with the the war effort.
You're telling me to save the guy in the water. That it is the noble thing to do. And I'm telling you that our method of saving the guy is to put lead weights on him and watch him sink. We are doing nothing to reconstruct the cities in most parts of Iraq. We have dumped so much DU in the country that we've made it a waste dump. We've encouraged Islamic rule. We are promoting a civil war just by being there. The nation has made it clear they want us OUT.
How are we helping a drowning Iraq?
I personally don't see how our being there is helping in any way, shape or form.

Hey, I missed this:
"I will stand up to be counted in support of what is being done whenever we take action in the face of such barbarity and oppression and will stand up in opposition to complacency when we fail to act against it."

So Brian, will you stand up to be counted in opposition to the complacency when we fail to act against the barbarity of 911? When will Chimpy make a serious effort to get Osama? Will you speak out against the complacency of the Cheney Administration even when the war in Iraq caused us to deploy a substantial number of troops out of Afghanistan and into Iraq? That is why I amended your analogy. You would rather save the drowning man than your child who is closer to shore. I fail to see the nobility in that.

More Brian Bullshit...

"...So long as the course of action is just and justified, i.e., a noble cause, questions of nobility which go to motives for choosing the course of action are best deferred until the action has been complete..."

It is the action, itself that is enriching and bolstering the criminal/politician who concieved and executed the action.

Why should the questioning of the motive be delayed for ANY reason when the action ITSELF escalates the power AND intention of BUSHCO to not only continue such murderous actions, but to continue to reap the profits?

You might as well say, "Let the psycho keep firing the machine gun over the heads of the children on the playground...they're enjoying the fireworks of the tracer rounds!"

...but you do have a gift for spinning words. Too bad you lack the moral fiber to demand accountability!

kisses,
-T

Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps

_______________________
The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday.

The Congressional Research Service opinion said that the amended 1947 law requires President Bush to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of such intelligence activities as the domestic surveillance effort.

The memo from national security specialist Alfred Cumming is the second report this month from CRS to question the legality of aspects of Bush's domestic spying program. A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.

Yesterday's analysis was requested by Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, who wrote in a letter to Bush earlier this month that limiting information about the eavesdropping program violated the law and provided for poor oversight.

_________________

I'm a'thinkin' congresscritters are lookin' to return the "bend over and take it, fellers...I AM THE LAW IN THESE Heah PARTS!" favors bestowed on the from behind by BUSHCO these past few years.

Lotsa re-erection bids gonna fall flat if congresscritters get caught cozy with the K-street side OR the 1600 side of spyin' on John and Jane Q!

-T

I dunno wtf I'm doing, but the beajoulais makes it more fun!

Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps

Oh, YEAH if I "preview" it before I post it...I might figgur it out! Go Figgur!

-T

Timmie sez,
"I just wanted to say, Capt, Robert Schwartz, Saladin, you guys are the republicans' best friends!!"
Posted by: Tim L at January 18, 2006 09:12 PM

I resent the fact that when bushbots come here to complain about my friends, I'm never included on the list of voices that piss people off. I want to be the republicans' (notice Timmie uses the small r) best friend. I could be bought much like the majority of Republican Congressmen. And on the plus side, bribing me won't get ya' jail time.

Timmie, didja find that transcript or tape or video of Chimpy's testimony before the 911 committee where we can verify that he didn't know anything about the lack of WMD in Iraq? You may be right. Maybe he is the world's biggest mushroom (kept in the dark and fed shit all day). But then again, until he grows a pair and decides to testify and let us see what he says, you'll never know. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one, if'n you know what I mean. LOL.

Hasta . . .

Pande,

I get "left" out too! Am I not acerbic enough?

-T

One article on re-enlistment; plenty more out there if you want to look:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1110/p02s01-usmi.html

The Islamic fascism that breeds terrorism is widespread, and the result have been equally widespread. 911 was the most deadly of the attacks. But the African embassy bombings, Khobar Tower, the Cole, Bali I and Bali II, Spain train bombings and London tube bombings are equally as evil, if not as successful. Same goes for the Lebanon barracks bombing, German disco bombing and Lockerbie. And for the Bangladesh attack, the assaults in southern Thailand, the attacks on Christians in Indonesia, Jews in Israel, the Jordanian hotel bombing and the numerous attacks in Iraq by al Qaeda in Iraq. While not terrorism, I am also appalled by the hangings of homosexuals in Iran, the stoning of adulturers under the Taliban and the widespread practice of so-called "honor killings." These share a common root cause, and its radical, Islamic fascism.

That is what needs to be stopped; mere vengeance on bin Laden for 911 (while I would find it emotionally satisfying) isn't enough. We cannot ignore the threat, because it will not go away.

Disagree if you please, but I see our gamble in Iraq as the best opportunity to do this. The only thing that will address this in the long-term is reformation within Islam. The only way I see to expedite that is the introduction of liberal institutions in the Middle East, which will help free thought to flourish and isolate the extremist, fascist views. While I believe those eventually would develop on their own, waiting is too costly with the scope of terrorism the world faces. So I have come to the view that there is no choice but to speed that process along. We started in Afghanistan. Where to next?

Iraq was the obvious choice. Not because it was the worst after the Taliban. Saudi Arabia is worse. Syria is worse. Iran is worse. But Iraq had two things to make it the most likely next target: (1) casus bellis and (2) a large segment of society (in country and expats) that was secular and educated, making it ripe for an attempt at introducing liberal institutions. (Iran had (2), but not (1).) So we struggle there and move on to the next one. Talk of motivations is, to me, a distraction. It doesn't matter whether there were WMD stockpiles or only precursors and programs. It doesn't matter whether Iraq sought uranium from Niger, as the Brits still believe (which is all Bush said in the 16 words), or not, as the IAEA seems to believe. It doesn't matter whether Saddam had connections to 911, although he certainly did to terrorists and terrorism, whatever his motive. All questions of motives of one person or the next that do not answer the question of whether it is a noble -- and necessary -- cause. It was right to do, just to eliminate a genocidal, authoritarain, international outlaw.

But it also was the right option. Its a huge gamble which may or may not pay off (although the crowd here seems pretty convinced it won't). I hope it does. Because if it doesn't, what's plan B? If we throw all our resources at bin Laden and get him, then what? What has that solved? It's good; it removes an important figure in terror. But it doesn't end it. The Islamic fascism feeding terror is too widespread. If we succeed, however, we have eliminated that root cause -- which will make not only us safer, but the world, for that's the scale on which the Islamic fascists are bringing death and destruction -- and brought liberty to millions. Already it seems to be spreading (Lebanon, UAE, Kuwait, etc.). It may all come crashing down; or it may all fall a part. But I think the chance of success is much higher if we remain engaged in Iraq than if we flee.

So I'm a true believer. Probably more so than Congress or the adminstration, who I do think have been complacent -- not for failing to get bin Laden, but for failing to support democrats in Iran and Syria more; for failing to stand together; for failing to better articulate the long-term strategy; for failing to sufficiently mobilize the American people for the challenge. These are the failings that risk the endeavor. Commitment and dedication and perseverence, on the other hand, are essential to success.

Snarkiness, name calling and stupidity accusations may win points on the playground and provide personal satisfaction, but they do little to advance the real debate or win people over. In fact, rather than being a part of finding and implementing a successful course, they tend to cause others to discount a potential contribution to the search for truth since the incivility is such a turn-off. Thanks to those who did not engage in that during my visit to this blog tonight.

The only exception in the law applies to covert actions, Cumming found, and those programs must be reported to the "Gang of Eight," which includes House and Senate leaders in addition to heads of the intelligence panels. The administration can also withhold some operational details in rare circumstances, but that does not apply to the existence of entire programs, he wrote.

Unless the White House contends the program is a covert action, the memo said, "limiting congressional notification of the NSA program to the Gang of Eight . . . would appear to be inconsistent with the law."

Hajji,
Man, I re-read that again, and I'm still not clear if it's showing Doofus where the wiggle room is. But then, how 'bout the part where he can withhold some details, but not "the existence of entire programs."? Doesn't look like any wiggle room there. He's fkn BUSTED !

BTW,

Spec.Spanky landed in Kuwait, today, ostensibly on the road to Tal Afar.

Anybody who wants to discuss the dichotomy of a soldier's honor and his own doubts about his CIC and his mission, I'll be here at the house. Spank'll be updating us as he can. Sgt. Karl's the voice of mission past.

Now...the arms of Morpheus reach out to me....

G'nite!

-T

Alan,

It has only been the follow-through by congress and the media that has kept the bastard free to keep plundering the people thus far.

Even if only to increase re-election chances, should congresscritters force the issue on this for the perspective of distance, surely MORE has to be revealed in the undertaking. (heh, heh BURY 'IM said the undertaker!)

Poor Brian, feelings got hurt? His posts remind me of that Michael-Sumpthin' Sumpthin' guy's New World Order-meets-the Borg..."ends justify the means" crappola...He'd feed his grandmother's limbs to the wolves to save her life...but when the new pups are born...what are THEY to be fed?

Gawd...I gotta sleep.

really...'gnite!

-T

So I have come to the view that there is no choice but to speed that process along. We started in Afghanistan. Where to next?

Sorry, but that's as far as I got on your latest b/s post, mr. Brian. You can stop right there. I mean, if the rest of the post is based on the b/s above, then it's all b/s. Whatever the hell your point is in trying to justify the war in hindsight, I might add, won't quite cut it. Ya think that reason would've flown with the American people and Congress before going in, as a valid reason to invade? Ha! That's just crazy. Are you Hitler or something? Repeat after me... he scared us with "mushroom clouds over our cities" and all the other b/s and lies. That was the only way he could sell us a bag of goods and he knew it. You've got a hella way with words, but I still have to ask... how is somebody so smart, so stoooooopid?

uhm..LACK of follow-through....

see?

Since Tim L. Fudd has returned, I think it might be appropriate to review the distinction between a lie and a mistake:

When Poppy Bush told Beelzebabs that she wouldn't get knocked up if they did the horizontal mambo vertically instead, that was a lie.

Dubya Bush was the mistake that resulted.

Ciao, all. Those trees won't peck themselves, you know.

Always happy to help, Ivory Bill Woodpecker

Ever consider how much hot air is released in political blogs? Find a way to convert endless political diatribes and pontificating, prosteletising puffed up Patriots And Prophets.

Energywise, its Shock and awe Baby.

Then hack all the computers.

Seems like the only ones exempt from cell phone spying are illegal aliens. Who the hell knew?

New American Century my ass.

This is Orwell on steroids.

Im reminded of a Bob Marley song..."How can they kill our prophets, while we stand aside and look, some say it's just a part of it, we've got to fullfill the book, So won't you help to sing, these songs of Freedom, its all I Ever had, redemption songs, theses songs of Freedom."

"REDEMPTION SONGS"

And that reminds me of Bill Gates helping the Chinese erase words like freedom and liberty and human rights from their computers.

And that makes me think about Chinese military bases springing up in South America and both ends of the Panama Canal.

And that makes me wonder how this could have happened without my notice.....Then I started to think about the "news".

I should never have gone there I can tell you, because my conclusions depressed the crap out of me.

MSN is a joke. It's probably been going to the Carribian with Jack for 10 years.

It has taken the trips, eaten the meals and sailed on the yachts. Its.............GONE.

I heard a report today that said there were 50-60 lobbiests per Rep. How the hell can we expect elected officials to do their job with this many bee's buzzing in their ears???? We can't.

So I will say the same DIRTY WORDS I have been saying for the last ten years:

THIS COUNTRY NEEDS MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM RIGHT THE HELL NOW.

Checks and balances MUST be restored or Democracy as we know it will be "dissapeared" like hundreds, perhaps thousands of people currently imprisoned without inditement...GOD know's where...

As a Nation we have become Wiley Coyote, and the road runner is poised to drop an anvil on our ass.

Next?

Don't blame Corky for me, do blame me for Corky.

Peace out.

uh huh Now look at this.

Early Warning

The Army's Buying PR

Word comes from RL that the Army has hired PR firm Hass MS&L of Detroit to offer "exclusive editorial content" to blogs willing to run government propaganda.
---
---
So, our tax dollars are going to get used so the Army can just add to its propaganda machine, shoveling "content" to like-minded bloggers?

It all smacks of just another losing PR effort by a desperate team who seems to think that the only way it is going to get good press is to buy it or plant it. Hass MS&L's claim to fame in the blogging world as far as I can tell is that they maintain the General Motors' corporate blog. Did the Army have to hire the PR firm for a dying corporation as its new agent?

I laughed my azz off !

TDS - taint

It's all very simple. Saddam never had WMDs.

Scenario:

Man A stabs man B while in Iraq, then gives the knife to man C. Man C smuggles the knife out of the country and hides the knife. Men D E F & G stay in Iraq and look for the knife. Men D E F & G can't find the knife.

This means that man A was never stabbed, even though he has a hole in his stomach. Man B is innocent of stabbing man A, because if men D E F & G were unable to find the knife, the knife never existed.

As I said, it's so simple. Because we haven't yet found the WMDs, no WMDs ever existed. Saddam is a really nice guy, and American Soldiers are the real terrorists. Duh, how much more clear does it have to be?

A Challenge That Cannot Be Ignored

Once Bush places Sam Alito on the Supreme Court, he will have a high-court majority friendly to his claims that his executive powers are not constrained by congressional statutes or judicial rulings. Once a president is held to be above the law, whether for reasons of his role as commander in chief or any other, he can no longer be held accountable.

Conservatives should fear this more than anyone. The separation of powers and our civil liberties are our most precious property rights. They are our patrimony from the Founding Fathers. We are stewards of these rights, which we hold in trust for our descendants. How can any conservative fail to realize that Bush's attack on these rights is the ultimate attack on property? It is astonishing to watch conservatives wave the flag while they are transformed into subjects to be dealt with as presidential authority decides.

Gore challenged the American people to step up to the task of defending the Constitution, a task abandoned by the media, the law schools, and the Democratic and Republican parties. If we fail, darkness will close around us.

*****end of clip*****

As I always say, no real conservative or true American patriot supports Commander Codpiece over the constitution. Only neocons and the hopelessly blind neochronic.

capt

Rethinking Nuclear Nonproliferation

Regardless of the Bush administration's weak case that Iraq would transfer WMD to terrorists, the logic of its argument creates a dilemma for those who believe that preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries also prevents the transfer of such weapons (or materials, or technology) to terrorists. The only way out of this corner for the arms control and nonproliferation community is a willingness to explore "failed" nonproliferation efforts as an acceptable (but undesirable) outcome, while still developing successful ways to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists.

What become the criteria, then, for determining whether a nuclear-armed state is also a terrorist risk? Does having known ties to terrorist groups automatically make a country an unacceptable risk? Does it matter what terrorist groups a government is linked to? Even if a particular regime is considered a state sponsor of terrorism, does that necessarily mean that the regime would provide nuclear weapons to terrorists? What are the incentives and disincentives for any country to give nuclear weapons to terrorists?

These are hard questions, and there are no easy answers. But this is no different than during the Cold War, when the wizards of Armageddon thought about the unthinkable: nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The current situation with Iran also requires thinking about the unthinkable –†in this case, the possibility of a nuclear-armed fundamentalist Islamic state (which is not the same thing a radical Islamist regime, but because al-Qaeda's radical Islamist ideology is also fundamentalist, many people don't see any difference between the two). While seeking to prevent this possible outcome, the United States must also be prepared for its eventuality. As is the case with North Korea, the other member of the axis of evil, the United States should be more focused on ensuring that Iran will not proliferate nuclear-weapons technology should it acquire nukes.

*****end of clip*****

An insightful discussion of the real issue(s) regarding nuclear capabilities and some of the stark truths about nonproliferation.

capt

The Military Recruiter's Lament

Americans aren't afraid to put their lives on the line for a worthy cause. It is not military service that is being rejected, but rather military service in support of a cause not deemed worthy of the sacrifice expected. The military today has degenerated into an entity that is viewed by many in the American public as no longer serving the larger interests of the American people, but rather the play toy of a political elite who use the U.S. military as a tool to impose their ideology on others around the world, as opposed to "upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States," the mission assumed when one is sworn into military service.

It is not just the fighting and dying in Iraq that creates an image problem. The military today is involved in a variety of activities that not only insult American sensibilities abroad (such as the illegal invasion of sovereign states, and the illegitimate occupation and oppression of sovereign peoples), but also assault at home the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold and defend. Americans should not overlook the fact that the agency at the heart of the illegal warrant-less wiretaps that have been ordered by President Bush is the National Security Agency, or NSA, run out of the Department of Defense.

Likewise, a lesser known but equally disturbing attack on the individual civil liberties enjoyed by American citizens -- the ongoing collection of "domestic intelligence information" by a Department of Defense agency known as the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA. CIFA has, for several years, been operating a new reporting mechanism known as TALON (for Threat and Local Observation Notice). TALONs report on "non-validated domestic threat information" derived from a variety of means, including a process known as 'data mining' -- a similar process used by the NSA to spy on American citizens as part of the president's illegal warrantless eavesdropping campaign. "Data mining" allows the agency involved to access as much data as it can from any and all available sources -- emails, internet chatter, phone calls, newspapers, etc. -- in an effort to collate and correlate information on suspected potential threats.

The 'necessary' dichotomy

The Bush apologists will, as they have in the past, call it preposterous to suggest, but the "reasoning" offered by Bush's pet legal scholars - that the Constitution authorizes the President to do anything "necessary" to save America - would permit suspension of national elections, if "necessary" in Bush's opinion, to "save" America from a terrorist threat. But how preposterous is it that an American President would declare an American to be a "non-citizen," in direct violation of the 14th Amendment? Ask Hamdi, Padilla, and any other American citizen declared by Bush to be an "enemy combatant" not entitled to any constitutional rights.

That is why Bush has gone on the offensive linking operation of secret spying on American citizens on American soil to renewal of the Patriot Act's authorization of greater executive power to the now-traditional bombast of endangering American lives. Bush described the NSA's spying in a radio address as "critical to saving American lives." He described the Senate's refusal, so far, to reauthorize sections of the Patriot Act as "irresponsible" and "endanger[ing] the lives of our citizens."

Rome used a similar "logic" to conquer the entire Mediterranean region two thousand years ago, and a variation was popular during the Vietnam war - "we had to destroy the village in order to save it." Thus, Bush originally said he invaded Iraq in self defense, to prevent Hussein from using WMD's against America. Similarly, any action, including total subversion of the Constitution, can be justified by saying, "would you rather that the terrorists destroyed America?"

I don't accept his dichotomy. If Bush and his administration cohorts are able to set up an either/or question of safety and civil liberties, they will continue their reshaping of the balance of power—Æot only between the supposedly coequal branches of government, but the dominion of the executive branch over the American people. But I don't think that safety demands that our constitutional rights be thrown out the window. I don't accept that the only, let alone the best, way of protecting Americans is to give the government carte blanche to violate their privacy at will.

*****end of clip*****

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..." ~ George Bush - Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect

capt

The congressman & the hedge fund

One day after a New York investment group raised $110,000 for Republican Rep. Jerry Lewis, the House passed a defense spending bill that preserved $160 million for a Navy project critical to the firm. The man who protected the Navy money? Lewis.

The fundraiser, which took place July 7, 2003, and the subsequent vote illustrate the kind of relationship between congressman and contributor that's under increased scrutiny in the nation's capital.

A fellow California Republican, Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, resigned in November after admitting he helped steer Pentagon contracts to two of four businessmen who paid him more than $2.4 million in bribes. Former top GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty last month to using gifts and political donations in a conspiracy to bribe public officials. Both investigations continue.

*****end of clip*****

Forget the avian influenza we have a corruption epidemic in the GOP!

capt

Brian sez,
"One article on re-enlistment; plenty more out there if you want to look"

and there are just as many that disagree if you want to look.

More Brian,
"mere vengeance on bin Laden for 911 (while I would find it emotionally satisfying) isn't enough. We cannot ignore the threat, because it will not go away."

No one argued it would, MORE straw man? It's about Justice for the families of the dead, man.

Brian sez,
"Disagree if you please, but I see our gamble in Iraq as the best opportunity to do this. The only thing that will address this in the long-term is reformation within Islam."

cf. the crusades, when has a boot on the neck been persuasive?

Brian:
"The only way I see to expedite that is the introduction of liberal institutions in the Middle East, which will help free thought to flourish and isolate the extremist, fascist views."

I disagree, as do many conservative writers like this guy. And still more.

Brian sez,
"Iraq was the obvious choice. Not because it was the worst after the Taliban. Saudi Arabia is worse. Syria is worse. Iran is worse. But Iraq had two things to make it the most likely next target: (1) casus bellis and (2) a large segment of society (in country and expats) that was secular and educated, making it ripe for an attempt at introducing liberal institutions. (Iran had (2), but not (1).)"

Ah, you lost it at the end there. Yes, there were more compelling reasons to invade other countries, to democratize them. If you look at what I wrote about Iran, those were the same reasons that were given to invade Iraq. How could you say that Iran had no causus belli if the same conditions held for Iran as for Iraq?

Brian:
"But it also was the right option. Its a huge gamble which may or may not pay off (although the crowd here seems pretty convinced it won't)."

As I pointed out, there are reasonable people on the Right who agree with our assessment.

Brian:
"Islamic fascists are bringing death and destruction -- and brought liberty to millions. Already it seems to be spreading (Lebanon, UAE, Kuwait, etc.). "

Seems, and yet Hamas and Hezbollah and various Islamic fundamentalist parties are taking over the democratic institutions that you hail. And women STILL don't get a fair shake there. Women in Iraq aren't all that thrilled about the "one step forward two steps back" program that we've initiated for them.

Brian:
"Commitment and dedication and perseverence, on the other hand, are essential to success."

Mencken sez:
"To die for an idea; it is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler it would be if men died for ideas that were true! "

Kettle or Pot, can't tell which:
"Snarkiness, name calling and stupidity accusations may win points on the playground and provide personal satisfaction, but they do little to advance the real debate or win people over."

132
"Smirk? That's my cue to go spend time with the grown-ups."
Posted by: Brian at January 18, 2006 11:12 PM

Pot --> Kettle.

Brian,
"In fact, rather than being a part of finding and implementing a successful course, they tend to cause others to discount a potential contribution to the search for truth (sic) since the incivility is such a turn-off. Thanks to those who did not engage in that during my visit to this blog tonight."

You're most welcome. So when does your search for Truth begin?

TIme to hit the road....

Just $6?

Americans for Campaign Reform is building a grassroots movement to eliminate the influence of big money on our country’≥ leadership. We believe that the best way to accomplish our goal is to enact the voluntary public funding of all federal elections–êthe White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Together we can give control of our government back to the voters and make our leaders accountable only to us. No longer will half of all Senators be millionaires. No longer will we have only one black member of the Senate. And no longer will women hold only 14% of the seats in Congress.

With public funding, many of our country’≥ finest leaders who were repulsed by the specter of raising big money will be able to seek public office. And, once they’≤e elected, they’¨l be free to focus on our country's significant problems rather than wasting time raising money for their next election.

The cost to make this happen is just $1.8 billion a year, just a fraction of the wasted federal expenditures given as rewards to the special interests. That works out to Just $6 per citizen.

Help us get our message out by signing up and contributing to our cause.

*****end of clip*****

It is late, maybe too late but I like what they are trying to do. Check out the "honorary chairs."

capt

Geez knife, what are you smoking? Simplistic arguments don't mean a thing. The UN inspectors couldn't find any WMD and said that they weren't there. We sold them to Saddam, they blew up a good portion of them at al nassariyah in the first war, hence a contamination of our troops. Plus how about not securing the sites if we were serious about WMD? Or did we just give up 275 TONS of RDX blow up for grins. Just to keep the insurgents (Iraqis by the way) in ammo? Want to see some real fun, let's bomb Iran, then watch the outcome, gonna need a lot of bullet stoppers after that.

Mounting evidence proves White House lied about relationship with corrupt lobbyist

White House claims that President George W. Bush doesn't know corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff may soon rank up there with "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" as a blatant public lie destroyed by mounting evidence.

Although McClellan claims Bush did not meet with Abramoff, another White House spokesman, Erin Healy, said last year that "they may have met on occasion. After the Abramoff scandal broke, Healy amended her statement to add that the President "did not consider him a close friend" and claimed the White House had limited contact with the lobbyist. McClellan Tuesday claimed he could find only two contacts between the White House and Abramoff.

Yet public lobbying records filed by Abramoff's firm show the lobbyist made 195 lobbying contacts with the administration on issues for the Marianas islands alone during Bush's first 10 months in office. Abramoff lobbied to preserve the American territorial islands -- notorious for their "Made in the USA" sweatshops -- as exempt from federal minimum wage standards.

In fact, Abramoff's close ties with Bush go back to 1997 when the then Governor of Texas wrote a letter on the lobbyist's behalf supporting his Marianas island client's school choice proposal.

"I hope you will keep my office informed on the progress of this initiative," Bush said in the July 18, 1997, letter, which included a CC to an Abramoff deputy.

"What the Republicans need is 50 Jack Abramoffs," Grover Norquist, another Bush confidant, told The National Journal in 1995.

"I know Jack Abramoff," admitted former National Republican Committee chairman Ed Gillespie, who adds that lobbyists like Abramoff "are Republicans; they were Republicans before they were lobbyists."

In April 2002, The National Journal reported: "Last summer, in an effort to raise the visibility of his Indian clients, Abramoff helped arrange a White House get-together on tax issues with President Bush for top Indian leaders, including Lovelin Poncho, the chairman of the Coushattas." Poncho first denied the meeting took place, but later changed his story in an interview with the Texas Observer. He now confirms Abramoff attended the meeting with Bush and says Bush greeted the lobbyist warmly "like an old friend."

Poncho says his tribe paid Abramoff $25,000 to arrange the May 2002 meeting with Bush.

Abramoff came up through GOP ranks with Norquist and conservative Christian leader Ralph Reed. All enjoyed unfettered access to Bush and worked closely with Bush's Machiavellian political advisor Karl Rove.

*****end of clip*****

Sure, Busheney never even heard of the guy, they never knew Jack Abramoff or Ken Lay.

Scotty says two contacts, when "195 lobbying contacts with the administration on issues for the Marianas islands alone" - I am sure Scotty just counted incorrectly, must not have carried a one or something.

capt

Prosecutor wants charge against DeLay reinstated

Prosecutors in the case against Rep. Tom DeLay sought Wednesday to revive a criminal conspiracy charge against the former House majority leader.

A judge dismissed a conspiracy to violate state election law charge against DeLay after defense attorneys argued that the conspiracy law did not apply to election law in 2002. Prosecutors want the 3rd Court of Appeals to reconsider the dismissal.

Two charges against DeLay remain _ conspiracy and money laundering. The case against DeLay and two of his associates was put on hold last month until the appeal is resolved.

DeLay was forced to relinquish his House leadership post after he was indicted in September.

Prosecutors allege that in 2002, DeLay conspired to funnel $190,000 in corporate money through his political action committee to the national Republican party and back into several Texas legislative races.

Texas law allows the use of corporate money only for administrative expenses in political campaigns.

Defense attorneys next will file briefs before the appeals court.

*****end of clip*****

GOP corruption - the gift that keeps on giving.

capt

US told its abuse of rights recruits terrorists

WASHINGTON: The Bush Administration had undertaken a deliberate strategy of abusing terrorism suspects in ways that undercut broader US interests, Human Rights Watch has warned.

The advocacy group's criticism drew an unusually direct rebuff from the White House on Wednesday.

"In the course of 2005, it became indisputable that US mistreatment of detainees reflected not a failure of training, discipline or oversight, but a deliberate policy choice," Human Rights Watch said in a sweeping critique in its annual report. "The problem could not be reduced to a few bad apples at the bottom of the barrel."

The group said the US's detainee practices, along with the accusations that torture has possibly taken place at secret camps, had, together with what it said was a tendency of some Europeans to put business ahead of rights concerns, produced a "global leadership void" in defending human rights.

*****end of clip*****

Making enemies faster than we can kill them.

capt

Grover Norquist's brother picked to be CFO for DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. Maybe he's qualified, but isn't there ANYONE a little further distanced from this crowd who could do the job?

Gee, Bob Newhart played an accountant. How about him?

There's always room for another conspiracy idea...did anyone notice that the Washington Post (in previous reporting -- waaaaaay previous!) had mentoned that Jack Abramoff was a lobbyist with Preston Gates & Ellis, the Seattle law firm of Bill Gate's father? WaPo, helpfully, told readers that William Gates was Bill Gates dad, etc.

Then when MELINDA FRENCH GATES, Bill's wife, was elected to the board of directors at The Washington Post, WaPo stopped mentioning the connection.

Just an observation...probably just a coincidence.

Hmmmmmm...Could Karl Rove's destruction of our CIA network by releasing the identity of a covert agent be considered "irresponsible debate"?

I think the omsbudsman at the Washington Post is on the Armstrong Williams plan.

For all of you:

So Hillary Clinton thinks the House of Representatives is being "run like a plantation." And, she added, "you know what I'm talking about."

First of all: Think about what a weird coincidence it is that Hillary would have made these remarks in a black church in Harlem on Martin Luther King Day. What are the odds? Did she even know it was a holiday? Bravely spoken, Senator. I haven't been this surprised since finding out Hollywood likes a movie about gay cowboys.

As Hillary explained, the House "has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

Yes, that's what was really missing on plantations during the slavery era: the opportunity to present a contrary view. Gosh, if only the slaves had been allowed to call for cloture votes. What a difference that would have made!

Madam Hillary also said the Bush administration "will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country." While Hillary is certainly qualified to comment on what the all-time worst presidential administrations were, having had firsthand experience in one of them, I think she might want to avoid the phrase "go down in history."

All I can say is: It's a good thing we had a stealth candidate like Harriet Miers to tiptoe past these powerful, scary Democrats! Sorry if that sounds churlish, but after Judge Samuel Alito's magnificent performance last week, I think Republicans can stop being afraid of their shadows when it comes to our judicial nominees.

Ever since Bork, Republicans have been terrified of nominating candidates with something in their background that might possibly suggest the nominee did not get down on his knees (another phrase Hillary should avoid) and thank God for Roe v. Wade every night. That's how we ended up with mediocrities like David Hackett Souter and Anthony "Third Choice" Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

Besides being stunningly qualified, the characteristics of the current stellar Supreme Court nominee include these:

— His mother immediately told the press, "Of course he's against abortion."

— He had expressed support for the Reagan administration's positions on abortion in a 1985 memo.

— He refused to accede to the Democrats' endless browbeating and tell them that Roe was "settled law."

And the Democrats couldn't lay a finger on him. Sam Alito marks the final purging of the Bork experience.

All the Democrats could do was scream about his inactive membership — back in the '70s — in CAP, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which had a magazine called Prospect, which once ran an article, apparently satirical, complaining about Princeton admitting co-eds. In my mind, the only potentially disqualifying aspect of Alito's record was that he wasn't a more active member of CAP, a group opposed to quotas, set-asides and the lowering of academic standards at Princeton.

Then this week, we found out Sen. Teddy Kennedy still belongs to an organization that doesn't admit women.

Oh — also, he killed a girl.

I'm fairly certain I've mentioned that before — I don't recall, Mr. Chairman — but I don't understand why everyone doesn't mention it every time Senator Drunkennedy has the audacity to talk about how "troubled" and "concerned" he is about this or that nominee. I bet Mary Jo was "troubled" and "concerned" about the senator leaving her in trapped in a car under water while he went back to the hotel to create an alibi.

It's not as if Democrats can say: OK, OK! The man paid a price! Let it go! He didn't pay a price. The Kopechne family paid a price. Kennedy weaved away scot-free.

But the Democrats are "troubled" about Sam Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton 30 years ago. If they're "concerned" about lifetime appointments for people with memberships in "troubling" organizations, wait until they hear about Bob Byrd! (Former Kleagle, Ku Klux Klan.)

They're a rotten bunch, these Democrats, and I'm happy to see an end to their reign of terror.

Now that Zell Miller is out of office, the only office-holding Democrat I like anymore is Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans. I had never heard of him until Hurricane Katrina, but after his "gaffe" this week, he's my favorite Democrat. I like a politician who casually spouts off insanely politically incorrect remarks in front of large audiences and TV cameras.

Nagin cheerfully told a crowd gathered for a Martin Luther King Day celebration that New Orleans would soon be "Chocolate City" again. I don't know who's supposed to be offended by that. I'm not. Perhaps all the white mayors who know they couldn't have said it. True, life's unfair. Oh well.

When it comes to choice-of-word crimes, I'd prefer detente to mutually assured destruction. Lead us off the chocolate plantation, Mayor Nagin!

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

I think the omsbudsman at the Washington Post is on the Armstrong Williams plan.

Clinton raped Aliens!!! Ted Kennedy drinks gasoline!!!

I loved how Ann Coulter got booed off the stage the last time she was out spreading lies and propaganda for Emperor Bush.

Ray Nagin is an idiot!

ITS ALIVE!!! Osama speaks! After over a year of silence, The worlds number one "Most Wanted" is reported to want to trade attacks on us for getting out of Iraq. Where is the logic here? I suspect this is a ploy to silence the war opponents, by whom? OBL suddenly appearing out of proverbial nowhere at this point in time would bolster the reichs program. Suddenly wiretaps are OK, the war is OK, everything the reich has been pumping out their misinformation machine is OK. OMG! OMG! OBL is going to strike us again, OOOOOONNNOOOOOO! We must be scared the reich insists. Since 9/11 has NEVER been proven to be a OBL operation, we must critically analyze the lack of logic here. Fear is a great uniter and has been used with precision by the reich in the past, do we really think it will not work now? The coming weeks will spent whipping up FEAR, fear of another attack, let the hand wringing begin.

Wow, Bill=Happy=LBH is cornblogger of the month!

Congratulations Bill, you have spent more time at this post than any one in history.

And he still has not talked himself into believing all of Bush's lies!

Pandemoniac post # 151

"Timmie, you have questions and like RadioShack, we have answers.

Why did Al Qaeda reps meet with Saddam? So that Saddam could get them off his ass. Alan was right. They hated each other. From page 61 of the 911 Commission Report:

"Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control."
_________________________________________________

Once again Pandemoniac, you spewing propaganda. The 9/11 commission also pointed that Saddam Hussein offered safe haven to al Qaeda and vice versa. Now, if they were trying to get each other off of their backs, they wouldn't be offering safe haven to each other lmao!!! They didn't hate each other, they weren't the closest of allies, but they still had contacts which could potentially have been collaberative.

"With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections."

"In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75"

"Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States."

They offered each other safe haven for crying out loud, and you Pande can tell me with a straight face that they HATED each other???

Also, the Clinton administration made 2 links between Iraq and al Qaeda, the 1998 indictment of bin Laden and the Operation Desert Fox, where Clinton ordered the bobming of a pharmacutical plant in Sudan because of Iraq and al Qaeda ties!!! Even Richard Clarke admitted this in 1999 (of course!) Not in 2004 when he was trying to bring down a sitting president!

Plus, Ansar al Islam, operated not only in Northern Iraq, out of Hussein's control, but in Baghdad, Iraq, in Hussein's control!! Ansar al Islam is an al Qaeda affiliate with ties to Saddam Hussein.

Also, Ramsey Youssef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was the nephew and associate of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the MASTERMIND of 9/11!! And guess where Ramsey Youssef got safe haven after he fled in 1993?? Baghdad, Iraq!!! Wait a minute!!! A secularist like Saddam shouldn't be collaberating with a fundamentalist like Youssef!!! They hated each other!!!

And there's no Iraq/al Qaeda link, even after the Clinton administration concluded there was!?!? You're so full of shit!!
But then again, I'm speaking with someone who thought President Clinton waged an aggressive war on terror (LMFAO) treating terrorist attacks as a criminal action, not a military action.

And I'll tell you why Bush COULDN'T have lied about Iraq having WMDs, because the intelligence he cited was BACKED UP by Britain, Russia, Australia, Germany, France, Egypt, Jordan and China, as well as the Clinton administration. So unless your arguement is that these countries were in the tank for the Bush administration, then you're a fool. Plus, France, Russia, Germany and Egypt were AGAINST the Iraq war!! So citing intelligence that was said verbatim by the Clinton administration and backed up by foriegn countries isn't a lie.

We've been around and around in circles over this. Chimpy chose to attack a secular nation with minimal ties to Terrorism, no WMD, no nuclear program and lots of yummy oil when we still had not finished our mission to kick Osama's ass.

Moreover, we did all of that attacking while ignoring the REAL threat in the ME, who had funded the attacks on the Khobar towers, given tons of money to terrorists, harbored lots of Taliban after the invasion of Afghanistan, has a real Nukes program (not an imaginary one) was the homeland and inspiration for Hezbollah, is a full blown Muslim Theocracy, and is a major source of instability in Iraq to this day -- IRAN!!

Where is Osama? Are we going after his ass? No. After repeatedly killing Al Qaeda's #3 man, we have finally gotten numbers 37, 82, 143 and maybe #344 in the Al Qaeda hierarchy. On the bright side we got that #143. He was moving up the list quickly because he was the one who read JAmes Risen's article in the New Pravda (NYTimes to you Bushbots) giving AQ all the juicy details on how Chimpy was spying on us. He had received many accolades and was quickly ascending the ranks by keeping Osama appraised of the clever ways that Uncle Sammy spies on us . . . er, them. No wonder we can never catch him. But we put a stop to that Egyptian MoFo. Kaboom! (plus a few innocent folks)

Just in time too. Like when they released that tape of Osama 2 days before the 2004 "selection".

Dictatorship in America Threat Level:

Code Red

Tim L.

As the leader of the organization who now controls the Republican party, I urge you to stop using all that profanity in your post. God bless you!

I couldn't get back into the comments section after my last post (#147) last night. Pande and Hajji managed to debunk most of Brian's pro-war arguments, so I wasn't needed (my fragile ego was shattered). "Motives are meaningless" indeed. Jesus, he really is a true believer.

However, I couldn't let Tim L get away with that misleading article he pulled off Yahoo from Investor's Business Daily. It looks like an opinion piece from an unnamed writer. I call bullshit.

Campaign Finance: Nearly all Senate Democrats took money steered their way by Jack Abramoff, and Hillary Clinton's fundraising committee has agreed to a $35,000 fine.

First of all, the writer provides absolutely no evidence that Abramoff "steered" any money to any Democrats. Secondly, although I am no fan of HRC and hate being put in a position of defending her, this writer is purposely misleading readers in this sentence by suggesting that there is some link between the Clinton committee's fines and Abramoff's bribes. There isn't. In fact, according to the Washington Post:

New York Senate 2000 lawyer Marc Elias said the agreement ends the investigation and includes a letter from the FEC stating that Clinton did not violate the law.

Continuing:

Republicans aren't the problem. The system is.

It's odd how there was nothing wrong with Republicans or the system until Jack Abramoff started singing.

It's absurdly hypocritical for Democrats to try to use the Abramoff scandal against Republicans.

Yeah, 'cause the Republicans never play politics with Democratic scandals.

Any recent instance of Republicans playing fast and loose with campaign laws can be topped by a similar case on the part of prominent Democrats.

Perhaps. But "playing fast and loose with campaign laws" is but one element of the Abramoff scandal. It's more about bribery and the consolidation of power. It is about the Republican culture of corruption.

The article then goes on to list several Democrats who have taken money from Abramoff "sources and clients." Look, there has been absolutely no evidence that Abramoff directed these "sources and clients" to direct money to Democrats. None. He is not the chief of any native American tribe.

The wingnut corruption apologists posting here just don't get it. Abramoff "clients and sources" aren't necessarily acting on behalf of Abramoff and campaign contributions are not the same thing as bribes.

Of course, the objections from the wingnuts on this blog (as well as others) grow in direct proportion to the negative headlines about their leaders (e.g., when was the last time we heard from Tim L?), so I guess I should take comfort in that.

Well said.

Am I the only one getting tired of these PAID TO BE HERE TROLLS? They have nothing of any value to add, why do so many people try to debate these losers. Soaked in Cool Aid, dripping with BS, engaging these trolls is POINTLESS!

Okay, so this new Osama tape has not been authenticated. It is an audio tape, not a video.
Kinda reminds me of some other MSM fear mongering we have seen recently:

Bomb Found in Starbucks Bathroom.

Terrorists Buy Disposable Cellphones at Walmart.

DEN,

Your tax dollars at work! Better than spending the money on healthcare for poor children!

Hey corky! your sposed to be scared man! OBL-is-a-coming, OBL-is-a-coming! better go buy more guns and ammo before its too late! AIEEEE!

DEN and corky, March is getting close, they will have to whip up an excuse to start the "New and Improved" war against Iran. How they will spin the fact that Iran is not violating any agreements by pursuing nuclear generator power we have yet to see. Has anyone here even once seen a report from any MSM source regarding the oil Bourse? I was watching Bloomberg the other day and they were going round and round about the Iranian nuclear "threat", but not a word about the new trading Bourse. But they never mentioned saddam's intent with the euro either, minor detail I guess, sheer coincidence, right?

From Brian:

Snarkiness, name calling and stupidity accusations may win points on the playground and provide personal satisfaction, but they do little to advance the real debate or win people over....since the incivility is such a turn-off. Thanks to those who did not engage in that during my visit to this blog tonight.

Brian my man, I hope you see this personal thanks! You've said many things that I would have if I: had 48 hours per day, am more up-to-speed on details, am more dexterous navigating the web, cared more about the past, had less activities to tend to, am paid to spend time on this blog,...

To All: I can't believe I spend an hour late last night on this blog catching up now that there are actually posts worth reading. It was so easy to blow by profanity-filled garbage and links to more (civilized) garbage.

I am not done! So many good things in the past 12 hours!

Feds after Google dataRECORDS SOUGHT IN U.S. QUEST TO REVIVE PORN LAW

The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.
The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.
In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.
The Mountain View-based search and advertising giant opposes releasing the information on a variety of grounds, saying it would violate the privacy rights of its users and reveal company trade secrets, according to court documents.
Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's effort ``vigorously.''
``Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching,'' Wong said.
The case worries privacy advocates, given the vast amount of information Google and other search engines know about their users.
``This is exactly the kind of case that privacy advocates have long feared,'' said Ray Everett-Church, a South Bay privacy consultant. ``The idea that these massive databases are being thrown open to anyone with a court document is the worst-case scenario. If they lose this fight, consumers will think twice about letting Google deep into their lives.''
Everett-Church, who has consulted with Internet companies facing subpoenas, said Google could argue that releasing the information causes undue harm to its users' privacy.
``The government can't even claim that it's for national security,'' Everett-Church said. ``They're just using it to get the search engines to do their research for them in a way that compromises the civil liberties of other people.''
The government argues that it needs the information as it prepares to once again defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The law was struck down in 2004 because it was too broad and could prevent adults from accessing legal porn sites.
However, the Supreme Court invited the government to either come up with a less drastic version of the law or go to trial to prove that the statute does not violate the First Amendment and is the only viable way to combat child porn.
As a result, government lawyers said in court papers they are developing a defense of the 1998 law based on the argument that it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn. To back that claim, the government has subpoenaed search engines to develop a factual record of how often Web users encounter online porn and how Web searches turn up material they say is ``harmful to minors.''
The government indicated that other, unspecified search engines have agreed to release the information, but not Google.
``The production of those materials would be of significant assistance to the government's preparation of its defense of the constitutionality of this important statute,'' government lawyers wrote, noting that Google is the largest search engine.
Google has the largest share of U.S. Web searches with 46 percent, according to November 2005 figures from Nielsen//NetRatings. Yahoo is second with 23 percent, and MSN third with 11 percent.
--------------------
Ok...
So now they want to spy on people by going into the google records.

OBL is so powerful he can strike beyond the grave! The cell phones they have in the spirit world can reach across the universe. If he could get his operatives onboard the space shuttle with a few box cutters he could blow up the moon! That would show us what we get for the freedom that he hates! Unfortunately, if bushco keeps it up, we won't have any freedom left to hate, thereby thwarting any future attacks. Mission Accomplished! (TM)
DEN, trying to reason with bushbots is like trying to convince radical religious fundamentalists that the Grand Canyon is indeed more than 10,000 years. No amount of proof or evidence will ever convince them that God did not create the earth in 6 literal days, so why bother? I say, let them spew their crap, they are the ones that look foolish. I catch up so much faster when I can scroll past such idiotic BS.
corky, I've been thinking, bushco doesn't hate poor people, if he did why is he trying so hard to create as many as possible?! ;-)

Sal, the MSM has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt they cannot be trusted to deliver un-altered news. MSM paraded gonzo all around so he could spread his propaganda about wiretaps being OK is a glaring example. Fortunatly for them but unfortunate for us is the crap they feed America on a daily basis is working (for them). Sure they don't have you or I buffaloed, but there are plenty out there that believe whatever they say and more important, what they dont say. MSM is now a propaganda machine for the reich. The bourse issue is very important indeed but revealing it might cause the already fearfull to do something rash like empty their bank accounts and cash in IRAs. The money mongers cant have that can they? so it gets ignored and we the people that see what is happening are written off as crackpots or conspiracy freaks. This very thing is reflected by the postings of the paid trolls that inhabit this site.

Oh wow, I thought we had problems with trolls.

Japan grapples with invasion of giant jellyfish

TOKYO (Reuters) - A slimy jellyfish weighing as much as a sumo wrestler has Japan's fishing industry in the grip of its poisonous tentacles.

Bush doesn't hate poor people. He finds them useful. And when not needed? They don't exist.

new thread guys.

Tim L:

Forgot to also include you in my thanks for being expansive on the Right's behalf!

Come back, ya hear!

180 WTF
Want to see some real fun, let's bomb Iran

Hey, now you're talking. I'm with you on that one. We might have trouble talking some of these fucken traitor liberals into covering our back. They would rather just hide, bitch and let the men do the heavy carrying.

Oh well, what ya gonna do with a bunch of Gutless Traitors like all of these Corn-holes?

Corky,

Here's the thing about the deeply stupid. One is allowed to take two shots over their bow.

Then, they should be summarily ignored. Two shots son, aim well..........and move on. Life is way too short for the deeply stupid.

Navigate around em. Soldier on.

Arguing with idiots is a waste of good brain cells. Reach out to the bright, embrace that which engages your mind, not your ire.

You are in a good place, among good people. Spend very little time on the bots.

You know who they are.

And every one who would take our name and try to impersonate us tells us that we are on the right path.

If a lie exists say so, then move on.

If we need anything at this time we need unity more than divison. Seek unity, ignore division. To devide is to conquer.

Aint happening.

soo... That's a great article at Tom Paine, except that one of the terrorists bagged was a co-commander of Afghan operations for al-Qaeda, another the chief bomb expert, and the third was responsible for al-Qaeda in that part of Pakistan. Really, as far as "collateral damage", 12 persons who were questionably innocent (hosting al-Qaeda leadership could certainly be considered conspiring or at least aiding and abetting - in legal terms) but definitely civilians, 2 al-Qaeda bodyguards, and 3 al-Qaeda generals. I sure hope we botch more like that one!