Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
Molly Ivins on Tom DeLay -- 09 Apr 2006
The Northern Marianas Islands are a U.S. protectorate (so it can label goods "Made in the USA") in the Pacific being used as a sort of labor gulag, with workers imported from China and elsewhere and paid pitiful wages. Jack Abramoff had a contract with the government of the Marianas to lobby against stopping the flow of immigrant labor to the islands and to prevent a minimum-wage bill from getting to the floor of the House.
The islands are home to classic sweatshops. In 1996 and 1997, Abramoff billed the Marianas for 187 contacts with DeLay's office, including 16 meetings with DeLay. In December 1997, DeLay, his wife and their daughter went on an Abramoff-arranged jaunt to the Marianas. DeLay brunched with the Marianas' largest private employer, textile magnate Willie Tan.
Tan had to settle a U.S. Labor Department lawsuit alleging workplace violations. According to the book "The Hammer" by Lou Dubose and Jan Reid, among the violations common on the islands is forbidding women to work when they are pregnant, thus leading to a high abortion rate.
Evidently, DeLay didn't have time to look into such allegations, since he was busy playing golf and attending a dinner in his honor, sponsored by Tan's holding company. According to The Washington Post, it was at this dinner that DeLay called Abramoff "one of my closest and dearest friends." He also reminded those present of his promise that no minimum wage or immigration legislation affecting the Marianas would be passed.
"Stand firm," he added. "Resist evil. Remember that all truth and blessings emanate from our Creator." He then went with Tan to see a cockfight.
This is why DeLay's professions of Christianity make me sick. He was there. He could have talked to the workers. Instead, he chose to walk with the powerful and do real harm to the very people Jesus mandated we especially care for.
(You'd think a Christian wouldn't be able to misinterpret "Thou Shalt Not Steal" in the first place, wouldn't you?)
The first day of spring was once the time for taking the young virgins into the fields, there in dalliance to set an example in fertility for Nature to follow. Now we just set the clock an hour ahead and change the oil in the crankcase. --Elwyn Brooks White, 1899-1985
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
"Multilateralists, take note."(Score:1) by GregS* (2813) on Sunday March 05, @05:49PM (#24194) ( http://www.shush.ws/ | | Last Journal: Tuesday March 07, @11:30AM )
I can't imagine what its like to hate someone so much but in case you're interested (probably not) you might want to read this. --
President was well received in India(Score:1) by Daniel (325) on Sunday March 05, @06:06PM (#24195) ( | Last Journal: Friday March 10, @10:43AM )
From what I understand, the President's overtures and deals with India were well received in some quarters:
The immediate compulsions and long-term reasons for Mr Bush and Ms Rice to favour India in such a marked fashion are far too many to list here. Yet, for India, it would be silly to ignore this amazing diplomatic advantage that has come the way of this country. Whatever one may think of Mr Bush and his monumental misadventures like Iraq, no country can afford to fritter away such a golden opportunity that has stupendous implications on the economic and technological
Granted there were protests in India, but they seemed less bitter than the ones in Pakistan.
"No doubt another may also think for me; but it is not therefore desirable that he should do so.." - Thoreau
Bush makes mockery of Democracy(Score:1) by kmccook (393) on Sunday March 05, @06:40PM (#24196) ( http://librarianoutreach.blogspot.com/ | | Last Journal: Tuesday March 07, @07:46AM )
Musharraf ousted the elected Pakistani government. Doesn't Bush recognize that? People die when Bush visits. Protesters are put in jail. He landed with his lights off. "Police in the city of Karachi fired tear gas to disperse hundreds of protesters trying to march on the U.S. consulate where on Thursday a suicide car bomber killed himself and three other people including the U.S. diplomat, a witness said." http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?
Re:"Multilateralists, take note."(Score:1) by MJG (5104) on Tuesday March 07, @03:25AM (#24225) ( http://purl.org/net/leftwing | | Last Journal: Tuesday March 07, @03:30AM )
A Pro-Bush article in the National Review? NO WAY! ;)
Re:"Multilateralists, take note."(Score:1) by GregS* (2813) on Tuesday March 07, @11:06AM (#24230) ( http://www.shush.ws/ | | Last Journal: Tuesday March 07, @11:30AM )
I hate to break it to you but the harshest and most well thought-out criticisms of Bush come from the Right.
Re:"Multilateralists, take note."(Score:1) by MJG (5104) on Tuesday March 07, @12:26PM (#24236) ( http://purl.org/net/leftwing | | Last Journal: Tuesday March 07, @03:30AM )
Thank you for bringing much-needed (Right) Light into my life. I now see the true way of things!
Re:President was well received in India(Score:1) by birdie (56) on Wednesday March 08, @06:56PM (#24275) ( http://www.inmybook.com/ | | Last Journal: Thursday March 09, @09:34AM )
Sorry, Daniel, but now, a few days have gone by, and now bombings and threats of further violence have begun in India too. Whatever his message, his visits invite mayhem, hatred and death.
In this case, McLuhan had it right...the medium is the message and the message is "we Americans have it all and we're in charge".
Re:"Multilateralists, take note."(Score:1) by Fang-Face (37) on Thursday March 09, @01:32PM (#24297) ( http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/dreamweaver/index.html | | Last Journal: Saturday February 18, @12:05PM )
I can't imagine what its like to hate someone so much . . .
Just listen to your own right-wing foaming at the brain about Bill Clinton, John Kerry, McCain, people who lost family in the WTC attack and still don't agree with the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. . . .
Save the easily offended: ban everything.
Re:"Multilateralists, take note."(Score:1) by Fang-Face (37) on Thursday March 09, @02:14PM (#24298) ( http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/dreamweaver/index.html | | Last Journal: Saturday February 18, @12:05PM )
. . . the harshest and most well thought-out criticisms of Bush come from the Right.
Oh, absolutely! I mean, imagine! -- you go through all the bother of manipulating, smearing, and election fraud to put your puppet in the Oval Office and he turns out to be so monumentally inept and foolish he makes you look bad. I'd be critical of Bush too if I was politically slanted. But his former supporters? -- well!
At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody's a Critic By Dana Milbank The Washington Post Wednesday 08 March 2006
If the ancient political wisdom is correct that a charge unanswered is a charge agreed to, the Bush White House pleaded guilty yesterday at the Cato Institute to some extraordinary allegations. "We did ask a few members of the Bush economic team to come," explained David Boaz, the think tank's executive vice president, as he moderated a discussion
between two prominent conservatives about President Bush. "We didn't get that."
Now why would the administration pass up such an invitation?
Well, it could have been because of the first speaker, former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett. Author of the new book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," Bartlett called the administration "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept." It might also have had something to do with speaker No. 2,
conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan. Author of the forthcoming "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It; How to Get It Back," Sullivan called Bush "reckless" and "a socialist," and accused him of betraying "almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for."
Nor was moderator Boaz a voice of moderation. He blamed Bush for "a 48 percent increase in spending in just six years," a "federalization of public schools" and "the biggest entitlement since LBJ."
But you know it's really bad when those who gulled you into illegally invading and occupying a largely defenceless country, desert you after you've done their bidding:
Neo-Con Allies Desert Bush Over Iraq The Independent UK
William Buckley Jr.:
"One can't doubt the objective in Iraq has failed ... Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an army of 130,000 Americans. Different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgement of defeat."
"By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training
ground and an operational base for jihadists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at."
"The military campaign and its political aftermath were both passionately debated within the Bush administration. It got the war right and the aftermath wrong We should have understood that we needed Iraqi partners."
"The world has learnt a tough lesson, and it has been a lot tougher for those tens of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis ... than for
a few humiliated pundits. The correct response is not more spin but a sense of shame and sorrow."
"Almost three years after the invasion, it is still not certain whether, or in what sense, Iraq is a nation. And after two elections and a referendum on the constitution, Iraq barely has a government."
Yessiree! -- there's nobody more straight than a reformed crook. --
Save the easily offended: ban everything.
Re:"Multilateralists, take note."(Score:0, Flamebait) by GregS* (2813) on Thursday March 09, @09:46PM (#24304) ( http://www.shush.ws/ | | Last Journal: Tuesday March 07, @11:30AM )
"Just listen to your own right-wing foaming at the brain about Bill Clinton, John Kerry, McCain, people who lost family in the WTC attack and still don't agree with the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. . . . "
Mr. Nellis, you are a liar and you are scum.
Re:"Multilateralists, take note."(Score:1) by Fang-Face (37) on Friday March 10, @07:16AM (#24307) ( http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/dreamweaver/index.html | | Last Journal: Saturday February 18, @12:05PM )
Mr. McClay, you prove my point.
Save the easily offended: ban everything.
Re:"Multilateralists, take note."(Score:1) by GregS* (2813) on Friday March 10, @10:33AM (#24308) ( http://www.shush.ws/ | | Last Journal: Tuesday March 07, @11:30AM )
You lie without any attempt to substaniate, you lie that I hate and foment about the families of victims 9/11 who might disagree with me and I prove your point? I don't hate you Mr. Nellis, I just think you're lying scum.
And to whatever coward labeled my previous post as flamebait but gave scum like Nellis a pass, go fuck yourself.
Re:"Multilateralists, take note."(Score:1) by Fang-Face (37) on Friday March 10, @11:13AM (#24310) ( http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/dreamweaver/index.html | | Last Journal: Saturday February 18, @12:05PM )
I did not name you in that message, Mr. McClay, I identified your country's right-wing. If you choose to identify yourself with the hate-filled elements of your society, that is your choice, not mine. And everything you say only goes to show that you are very much one of that group. "Actions speak louder than words." By your actions, you prove that you pay no more than lip service to the ideals of liberty and free speech and an open and democratic society. If anybody has fucked themselves, it
Once, again: Mr. McClay, you prove my point.
Save the easily offended: ban everything.
Were you born? Have you died? If so the Bush regime plans to make the records of these life events the property of the U.S. government with access to those records severely restricted. Why?
Damn! -- that's a good question. The only answer appears to be data mining. And not only is the federal government effectively nationalizing your vital records, but it apparently plans to make states, counties, and towns pay for the move out of their pockets. In his article, Information Is Power, Jeff Allen reports:
Buried within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 is a regulation that bars most public access to birth and death certificates for 70 to 100 years. In much of the country, these records have long been invaluable tools for activists, lawyers, and reporters to uncover patterns of illness and pollution that officials miss or ignore.
In These Times has obtained a draft of the proposed regulations now causing widespread concern among state officials. It reveals plans to create a vast database of vital records to be centralized in Washington, and details measures that states must implement-and pay millions for-before next year's scheduled implementation.
Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, is quoted in the article: "That information will dovetail with the Real ID Act of 2005. Real ID cards are the other shoe that is scheduled to drop in three years."
Somebody make things clear for me here: The Bush regime fails to be Orwellian in what regard, exactly? You need to control information about when people died to stop terrorism how, exactly?
Well, if there's any doubts left among free thinkers as to whether or not the Bush regime is an organized crime syndicate, the latest development in the Tom DeLay scandal should seriously defray them. Despite DeLay being a thoroughly unprincipled and unethical scoundrel, the Republican Party has rewarded him with a plum posting to -- get this -- the Appropriations Committee.
Yes, people! Your tax dollars are now being disbursed by a man who operates with a criminal mentality (I mean more criminal than usual for polticians), and who is already under indictment.
See this article reprinted at CommonDreams.org. What's so ironic about this situation is that comes about due to the resignation of Randy Cunningham, R-Calif. He pled guilty last November to charges relating to accepting $2.4 million in bribes.
Top Ten Myths About the Illegal NSA Spying Program
MYTH: This is merely a "terrorist surveillance program."
REALITY: When there is evidence a person may be a terrorist, both
the criminal code and intelligence laws already authorize
eavesdropping. This illegal program, however, allows electronic
monitoring without any showing to a court that the person being
spied upon in this country is a suspected terrorist.
MYTH: The program is legal.
REALITY: The program violates the Fourth Amendment and Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and will chill free speech.
MYTH: The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows
REALITY: The resolution about using force in Afghanistan doesn't
mention wiretaps and doesn't apply domestically, but FISA does--it
requires a court order.
MYTH: The president has authority as commander in chief of the
military to spy on Americans without any court oversight.
REALITY: The Supreme Court recently found the administration's claim
of unlimited commander in chief powers during war to be an
unacceptable effort to "condense power into a single branch of
government," contrary to the Constitution's checks and balances.
MYTH: The president has the power to say what the law is.
REALITY: The courts have this power under our system of government,
and no person is above the law, not even the president, or the rule
of law means nothing.
MYTH: These warrantless wiretaps could never happen to you.
REALITY: Without court oversight, there is no way to ensure innocent
people's everyday communications are not monitored or catalogued by
the NSA or other agencies.
MYTH: This illegal program could have prevented the 9/11 attacks.
REALITY: This is utter manipulation. Before 9/11, the federal
government had gathered intelligence, without illegal NSA spying,
about the looming attacks and at least two of the terrorists who
perpetrated them, but failed to act.
MYTH: This illegal program has saved thousands of lives.
REALITY: Because the program is secret the administration can assert
anything it wants and then claim the need for secrecy excuses its
failure to document these claims, let alone reveal all the times the
program distracted intelligence agents with dead ends that wasted
resources and trampled individual rights.
MYTH: FISA takes too long.
REALITY: FISA allows wiretaps to begin immediately in emergencies,
with three days afterward to go to court. Even without an emergency,
FISA orders can be approved very quickly and FISA judges are
available at all hours.
MYTH: Only liberals disagree with the president about the program.
REALITY: The serious concerns that have been raised transcend party
labels and reflect genuine and widespread worries about the lack of
checks on the president's claim of unlimited power to illegally spy
on Americans without any independent oversight.
Alberto "yes it's okay to torture as long as nobody loses an eye" Gonzales sure came up with beaut of a stupid line. This one is so classic I'm surprised they didn't save it for King George the Pathetic himself. According to an entry posted by Joshua Holland at the Alternet web log, on 06 Feb, at a hearing, Gonzo Gonzales opined:
President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale.
No wonder the Amurcan gubmint can't learn the lessons of history . . . it's totally unclear on the entire concept of history to begin with.
According to a report posted at CommonDreams.org, originally from The Independent,
the first US corruption conviction relating to the occupation of Iraq is Robert Stein, a contractor working for the now disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority, who pleaded guilty on 02 Feb to stealing more than two million dollars of reconstruction funds and taking more than one million dollars worth of contract kickbacks under a deal with an American businessman.
The ill-gotten gains financed a lavish spending spree. Mr Stein used them to buy - among other things - Lexus and Porsche cars, a Cessna light aircraft, watches, jewels, guns and grenade launchers as well as two plots of land in his native North Carolina. For his part, Mr Bloom is said to have provided his benefactors with money, first-class air tickets, and sexual favours provided by women kept in a villa in Baghdad.
Given that this story has only been mentioned in America by an indy media site, I think we can look forward to this being one of the most underreported stories of 2006.
And just to get in a political jab: the hysterically screaming anti-Clintonites of the American right-wing never did get any convictions against Slick Willy in eight years of trumped up charges. But the Republican gubmint of King George the Pathetic has Enron, Tom, Delay, the Valerie Plame Affair, Abramoff, spying on private citizens, propangandizing to the American people, New Orleans . . .
Seen on the bottom of a LISNews page:
"This is an outrage! I demand to know what happened to the plucky lawyer and her compellingly short garments." -alien
Lur; from Omicron Persii VIII. Futurama: When Aliens Attack.
Just another nugget of totally useless information.
There was an article about the likely financial costs of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq posted to CommonDreams.org. For those who belief that only the corporate press can be a valid source of "information", War's Stunning Price Tag,
by Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz, was originally published in the Los Angeles Times. The authors wrote, in part:
Last week, at the annual meeting of the American Economic Assn., we presented a new estimate for the likely cost of the war in Iraq. We suggested that the final bill will be much higher than previously reckoned - between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, depending primarily on how much longer our troops stay. Putting that into perspective, the highest-grossing movie of all time, "Titanic," earned $1.8 billion worldwide - about half the cost the U.S. incurs in Iraq every week.
Like the iceberg that hit the Titanic, the full costs of the war are still largely hidden below the surface. Our calculations include not just the money for combat operations but also the costs the government will have to pay for years to come. These include lifetime healthcare and disability benefits for returning veterans and special round-the-clock medical attention for many of the 16,300 Americans who already have been seriously wounded. We also count the increased cost of replacing military hardware because the war is using up equipment at three to five times the peacetime rate. In addition, the military must pay large reenlistment bonuses and offer higher benefits to reenlist reluctant soldiers. On top of this, because we finance the war by borrowing more money (mostly from abroad), there is a rising interest cost on the extra debt.
Has anybody stopped to ask themselves just how the U.S. is supposed to recoup the cost of this "investment"?
I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy.
. . . even though pride as hubris is one of the seven deadly sins and we are actually unable to differentiate between real pride and hubris or arrogance of power.
Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals.
. . . which means that we are dogmatic but do not understand that we cannot become completely static so that we will not grow and evolve, although we do change with the times despite our best efforts, but we still do everything we can to remain forever fixed; like a pool of stagnant pond scum.
We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them.
. . . and we are the only ones who can be; no non-conservative who acts, agitates, or speaks out against injustice can possibly be confident or energetic no matter how far they go to promote justice and equality for all.
We believe in individual liberty,
. . . as long as we get to preselect what choices you will make . . .
. . . as applies to big business interests who line the pockets of elected officials while lobbying . . .
. . . which is what we call avaricious corporatism . . .
the rule of law,
. . . as long as I'm not the one being busted for being a doper . . .
. . . my faith my way, and you better believe in it the way I tell you to . . .
a color-blind society
. . . as long as that color is white Anglo-Saxon protestant . . .
and national security.
. . . which we will enforce with totalitarian zeal and thoroughness.
We support school choice,
. . . as long as you can afford to pay the tuition for a private school . . .
. . . formed by confiscating your private property . . .
. . . for those rich enough to make campaign contributions . . .
. . . which means cutting benefits to the useless and non-productive who already aren't getting by; what do we need with a bunch of whorish welfare moms we would forbid to get abortions or even to use contraceptives, anyway . . .
. . . nevermind that entangling church and state is a clear and present violation of the Bill of Rights we say we love to espouse . . .
. . . as long as it kisses George Bush's ass and panders to our prejudices . . .
. . . unless Wal-Mart or some other transnational corporation wants your property to build on, or if you express within your property lines political speech that might offend a good, conservative neighbour . . .
and the war on terrorism.
. . . pissing away a bazillion dollars in an effort to eradicate sociological phenomena in which we play our part to bring to fruition, these United States being the largest terrorist state in the world.
And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution.
. . . despite all our efforts to repeal or have struck down the Bill of Rights.
Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural
right to be free,
. . . even though the Bible doesn't say anything about a right to be free, and, in fact, Adam and Eve were sorely tried and punished for exercising their right to choose to eat the forbidden fruit; and that is why we need to protect the rights and freedoms of people today by forbidding some choices some people might make . . .
it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.
. . . never mind that the founding fathers frequently spoke out against a church controlled state, but that we conservatives are too butt-stupid to understand simple and straight-forward English; never mind that we are working to recreate the oppressive establishment that our ancestors fled and repudiated.
We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles.
. . . where "strong" means more dogmatic and more vicious and violent than those wimps and namby-pambies who think personal liberty is a good thing; after all, it's not persecution when one of use murders a physician for respecting the right of women to control their reproductive faculties by performing abortions, but it is persecution when they forbid us to dominate and posses women the way man was meant to.
And that's the nature of our current debate over the nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution?
. . . and interpret it the way we need her to to get it out of the way? Will she respect our right to make laws respecting a Christo-fanatic Establishment and force infidels to pray the way we tell them to? To use our Bible and interpret it as narrowly and as arbitrarily as we need to?
Will she be an originalist who will
. . . do what she is told to do instead of thinking for herself . . .
accept the limited role of the judiciary to interpret and uphold it,
. . . and give the judiciary over to political oversight instead of maintaining judicial independence without which there can be no justice . . .
and leave the elected branches--we, the people--to set public policy?
. . . and act as the rubber stamp we want her to be instead of keeping the playing field level?
Given the extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the representative parts of our government,
. . . in its efforts to create a more perfect union by constraining government, nevermind that we keep saying we love to limit government in a way that liberal, activist judges don't . . .
this is no small matter.
. . . in fact, our inability to browbeat judges who render decisions counter to our demands is not only not a small matter, it is the single largest stumbling block to building a more repressive state.
Roe v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism.
. . . ignoring the fact that "judicial activism" is just a buzz-word used by petty and spiteful power tripping control freaks who lost their cases in court, and that Roe v. Wade epitomizes the individual liberty of choosing for one self how to live one's life; one of those liberties we love but must control so the People don't become immoral.
Regardless of one's position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their pro-abortion views on the nation.
. . . this authority should be granted instead to the vocal and hatefilled ultra-religious minority, a minority of approximately one third to one quarter, who know the One Real Truth that is above and beyond all the other One Real Truths that others profess to have.
The Constitution empowers the people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state legislatures, to make this decision.
. . . and it is certainly in no wise the place of any court to interpret laws in such a way as to remove government authority over the private lives of We the People and actually give that authority to individuals.
Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us.
. . . nevermind that I have the personal liberty to choose for myself whether or not to abort a pregnancy in the privacy of my own life since I would choose not to; the right for others to make their own choices in this matter, however, must belong to lawyers in suits who are taking bazillions of dollars in bribes through campaign funds and favors from lobbying, such as duck hunts and weekends at posh lodges, and who are more easily influenced by the noise generated by that minority that knows better than you how to live your life.
The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay
. . . and we all know that civil liberties and due process rights are only for those who don't break the law . . .
and benefits on illegal immigrants.
. . . which makes it harder for us to keep down those damned ethnics who immigrated here legally.
It has ruled that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech,
. . . just because it is rational to assume that no crime has been committed if no child was molested in the production of this pornography . . .
but certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal;
. . . which makes it more difficult for us to engage in election fraud . . .
it has held that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building,
. . . even though none of us conservatives really obey them anyway; after all, what is confiscation of private, residential-zoned property with a house on it to turn it into a big box store if not theft; or how does it honour my mother and father to be a pill-popping dope-head . . .
but they can be displayed outside a public building;
. . . which situation is intolerable because it respects the separation clause of the First Amendment which we love so much . . .
and the court has invented rationales to skirt the Constitution,
. . . which it is not supposed to do in ways that promote liberalism, only in ways that promote ultra-conservatism . . .
such as using foreign law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen states.
. . . quite ignoring the fact that Age of Majority is circumvented when it becomes an inconvenience that doesn't let us execute a 14 year old (and who says we shall not kill, anyway?), but that we uphold most vociferously when we don't want the little bastards to read Judy Blume or Where's Waldo or have sex with an older partner even if that partner is still a legal minor.
For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct threat to our
Constitution and our form of government.
. . . quite ignoring the fact that some of our efforts are actually bent on overthrowing both by abusing judicial process.
The framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy.
. . . actually, they didn't create the kind of corporatist oligarchy that we promote either, but, of course, our kind of oligarchy is okay since it is ours.
They created a representative republic.
. . . which is supposed to represent only those whose political prejudices mirror ours.
Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep.
. . . because we can't win on a level playing field.
We've witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have nominated the wrong candidates to the court,
. . . actually nominating moderates and progressives who rule in favour of We the People instead of giving us carte blanche to control their lives like they need them to be controlled . . .
and we want more assurances this time--some proof.
. . . which means that we are disappointed, Mr. President, that you haven't gone far enough in tearing down the separation of church and state they way you implicitly promised you would, and if you don't smarten up and fly right and show us that you will we are going to lose faith in you; I certainly hope you don't think that all of your promises on the campaign trail were merely campaign promises.
The left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda.
. . . an agenda which would constrain government and big business from shitting all over private citizens; an agenda that respects and promotes civil liberties and an individual's right to be whomever he or she is without being discriminated against by church, state, or the corporations.
They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda.
. . . which is why they have to come across as virtually indistinguishable from us conservatives, although we don't seem to be able to come up with a unique issue they can't co-opt.
So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat.
. . . even though the sole function of the courts is to interpret laws that can only be passed by the legislative branch, and that for a court to actually make a law would egregiously violate the separation of powers the way President Bush did in issuing some of his Executive Orders.
It's time to call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected when the president made his nomination.
. . . because we are sick and tired of not being able to enslave the free people of this great country under the Holy Banner of the Protestant Crucifix and Bible.
Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right. They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP.
. . . even though such splits cannot possible exist, since "we conservatives are proud of our philosophy", which means we must be proud of it to the last man, woman, and child in the same way every Borg drone is proud of its place in the hive.
They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term
. . . and the President's falling popularity numbers, his wholesale incompetence in responding to Hurricane Katrina, and his ensnaring us in another Viet Nam type quagmire have nothing to do with such predictions . . .
and gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006.
. . . while we know that denying the existance of reality is the way to control it; along with a healthy dose of election fraud.
As usual, liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.
. . . whereas we understand that liberals are not with us, therefore they are all with the terrorists and unAmerican unpatriots.
The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement.
. . . which we are guessing since Miers is not clarifying her political leanings, so we assume she is one of us since she is stonewalling and obfuscating the way one of us would.
This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives.
. . . and any so-called conservatives who don't go along will be viciously punished for their lack of faith.
And we are organized to advance them.
. . . after all, even the evil liberal press admits that the left has its head jammed far up its ass; all our minions have to do is to blindly march and scream when, where, and what we tell them to.
The purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction.
. . . which only we can divine because we are the only ones with the One Real Truth; and making noise about this issue will distract everybody from other serious problems.
And when all is said and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it,
. . . just as happened with Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Chairman Mao . . .
just in time for 2006 and 2008.
. . . when we will perpetrate other rounds of wholesale election fraud and re-enshrine our holy right-wing in power.
Lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two massive landslides.
. . . we rooked them before, and we'll do it again; and keep on suckering them like the sheep We the People actually are!
The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org.
. . . we, of course, use right-wing computer geeks like family values groups to promote assimilation into the right-wing rather than to disseminate information.
It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer.
. . . I mean, who does this fool think he is daring to exercise his freedom of thought and freedom of speech to criticize our holy and infallible republican government in its imperial pursuit to perpetrate atrocities and instill hatred in the uncivilized that will be expressed against us as terrorism? And then to run for president as if he were living in some kind of democracy where just anybody could do something like that?
Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy
. . . Who should have been assassinated along with his brothers, but as a kind, compassionate, and christian person I would never say such a thing . . .
and new propagandists like Michael Moore.
. . . who is easy to smear because he is fat, doesn't shave, looks ugly and stupid as a result, and isn't any match for our propagandist, Karl Rove, anyway, or the impact of using the presidential bully-pulpit to illegally propagandize to the American sheeple.
Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton.
. . . who we have vilified as a cheap slut for being a woman who is not sufficiently subservient to men.
And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton.
. . . against whom we were never able to make any charges stick, except for one lousy marital pecadillo, but we can hold him in contempt simply because he's not one of us, so who needs an excuse, really?
The Democratic Party today is split over the war
. . . which is what it gets for allowing its members to choose for themselves instead of making them blindly toe the party line, again: we Borg do not have that problem, and if anyone tries something like that they are declared irrelevant (and traitors, unpatriotic, and unAmerican) . . .
and a host of cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion.
. . . which are just two of the civil liberties we must forbid to We the People in an effort to limit government and to promote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,
It wants to raise taxes,
. . . and make the rich support the poor and middle-class, instead of them supporting us . . .
but dares not say so.
. . . for the same reason that we dare not fail to create a corporate-welfare-bum and wealthy class-welfare state; it would cost us contributions.
It can't decide what message to convey to the American people or how to convey it.
. . . because trying to understand and explain issues in-depth is confusing the people who are too stupid to get anything except our bivariate typology where you are: either/or.
And even its once- reliable allies in the big media
. . . the liberal press, those officious, self-rightous hack scribblers who insist on reporting facts about us instead of what we tell them to . . .
aren't as influential in promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past.
. . . because We the People have lost as much faith in the press as they have in government of which they perceive the press to be subservient to.
The new media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard documents.
. . . except we won't go into the fact that much of those new media are alternate media which debunk our lies, smears, and propaganda about Rather and everybody else we savagely smear in an attempt to fuck them over.
Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.
. . . although not nearly as fast as the President's approval rating.
The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory
. . . just like we are, after all, we still stupidly insist that we are the party of Abraham Lincoln even though he's been dead for a hundred forty-odd years; but if we can deny the reality of biological evolution we can certainly deny that we have changed and evolved as a political party.
They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam,
. . . never mind the clear and present parallels between them . . .
the entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate
. . . just because he was appointed to office by those lousy judicial activists on the Supreme Court; lousy slackers; what have they done for us since then, huh? . . .
and Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression.
. . . since what happened there was only partly due to a failure of the Bush administration to fund the maintenance of facilities and works that were protecting the city; those funding failures were started by previous administrations anyway, and the predictions by experts about worsening weather patterns couldn't have been right since they meant cutting back on global corporatism and conspicuous consumption.
Beyond looking to the past for their salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even themselves.
. . . while we are obviously above that sort of thing since we are us and they are not.
None of their comparisons are true.
. . . but don't pay attention to the fact that our conservativist rhetoric and propaganda is not true either.
Meanwhile, we conservatives will continue to focus on making history.
. . . even though everything we do shows we have absolutely no capacity to learn the lessons of history, and we are, thereby, condemned to repeat them endlessly; even though we don't understand the dynamics of history any better than we understand that there can be a third position on issues, where someone can be against us as well as against the terrorists; even though the idea that only we can do something historic and others can't doesn't make any sense; even though . . . well . . . never mind.
Mr. Limbaugh is a radio-show host.
Rush Limbaugh is a loud-mouth blowhard with a bitch but no brains who is so woefully ignorant of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution it is laughable; he once said that the First Amendment was first for a reason, that the founding fathers had planned it that way, even though it was the third proposed amendment to be voted on and in light of the fact that the Eighth Amendment clearly states that all rights and freedoms listed in the American Bill of Rights are coeval.
This is the latest in our occasional series.
Further attacks and propagandizing will be forth coming as soon as some soft-on-terror, Godless commie liberal says something the right-wing feels is a threat to it.
Question: Mr. President, what is your view on Roe versus Wade?
Answer: I really don't care how the folks get out of New Orleans, just as long as they evacuate.
Post-9/11 secrecy: pervasive and dangerous Inside the First Amendment
By Paul K. McMasters First Amendment Center ombudsman 09.11.05
If you sort the millions of pages, documents and computer disks stamped secret by federal employees last year into stacks each as high as the Washington Monument, you would have a dozen or more monuments to government stonewalling obscuring the skyline of this nation's capital.
When you take into account that as many as half of those new secrets don't deserve to be secret, as a federal official conceded in
congressional testimony not long ago, then you have monumentally darkened the landscape of our open society.
These thoughts are provoked by the release of a new report, "Secrecy Report Card 2005: Quantitative Indicators of Secrecy in the Federal Government," by OpenTheGovernment.org, a coalition of public-interest, consumer and press organizations.
This report fairly crackles with damning data. Government workers made 15.6 million classification decisions in 2004, a stunning 81% more than
the year before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. American taxpayers forked over $460 each time a government worker wielded the secrecy stamp last year, shelling out a total of $7.2 billion to keep all of those secrets secure; that compares to $3.8 billion in 1997.
The government spent $148 making new secrets for every dollar it spent unmaking old ones; for comparison, the government spent $20 on classification for every $1 spent on declassification from 1997 to 2001. [...]
King George the Pathetic has been talking up the incipient constitution of Iraq and bragging about how it will magically bring peace and democracy to a country that was and is illegally occupied by military misadventurism characterized by imperialism, the arrogance of power, and the rape of natural resources by various of the corporate powers behind the throne. However, according to Distortions of The Times, by Matthew Rothschild,
21 Aug 2005:
August 20, a [The New York Times] page 8 story by Dexter Filkins, "Sunni Election Workers Seized and Killed in Mosul."
In paragraph 19 of this story, a separate discussion begins about how the negotiations for the Iraqi constitution are going. Included here is the crucial nugget that a tentative agreement "would prohibit the passing of any legislation that contradicted" Islam.
The next paragraph says that tentative agreement would "relegate marriage and family matters to adjudication by clerics," a concession that would be devastating to women's rights in Iraq.
And paragraph 21 notes that U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad brokered the agreement and backed "a more expansive role for Islam."
So Georgie-porgie is still spreading lies and propaganda about Iraq, which are easily the equivalent of his lies about the nonexistent Iraqi Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons, the nonexistent Saddam/bin Laden link, and the nonexistent collusion of Iraq in the World Trade Center attack.
Oh, and let's not hear any bullshit about the "liberal" press. Kindly take note that Rothschild is critiquing the New York Times habit of burying information embarrassing to the regime rather deeply in stories that are themselves buried in the back pages.
Oh, and one more thing . . . if you're wondering why I bother pointing this out, it is because this is another indication of how the Bush regime is too stupid to be educated by the lessons of history; any of them; the lessons of Sep. 11, or the lessons of the Taliban. What will happen in Iraq in a religious state will parallel what happened in Afghanistan. And it puts the lie to Bush's sententious yammering about freedom for Iraqi citizens. This consitution, if it passes, will only mean that
Iraqis will trade the politically based tyranny of Saddam for a religious based tyranny of priests. Who, like Saddam was, will be blessed by the American Imperial State as long as they continue to kiss its ass.
As long as the Bush regime is calling for the teaching of intelligent design in the interest of "scientific balance", it should also advocate, under the same rubric, the teaching of Unintelligent Design.
How does one explain all the misguided, unwise, sometimes outright boneheaded things the Bush administration has done since taking over nearly five years ago, and continues to do on a pretty much daily basis? How is it possible for a group of supposedly intelligent, experienced individuals to take this many wrong turns? Wouldn't you think that once in a while, even by accident, that George W. Bush and his advisers would make a decision that made sense?
Can this much mismanagement happen totally at random? Would the occupants of the Bush White House have us believe that all these things, these missteps, these miscalculations, these attempts to deceive, that they all, you know, just kind of happened?
I'm not so sure. And I'm not the only one starting to ask questions. More and more, it seems unlikely that mere human beings could make this many mistakes without some sort of misguiding force, a kind of supernatural entity that has trouble remembering where it put its car keys.
That's where unintelligent design comes in. --Linwood Barclay
by Maurice Ogden
Into our town the Hangman came
Smelling of gold and blood and flame
And he paced our bricks with a diffident air
And built his frame on the courthouse square.
The scaffold stood by the courthouse side,
Only as wide as the door was wide;
A frame as tall, or little more,
Than the capping sill of the courthouse door.
And we wondered, whenever we had the time,
Who the criminal, what the crime,
The Hangman judged with the yellow twist
Of knotted hemp in his busy fist.
And innocent though we were, with dread
We passed those eyes of buckshot lead;
Till one cried: "Hangman, who is he
For whom you raise the gallows-tree?"
Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye,
And he gave us a riddle instead of reply:
"He who serves me best," said he,
"Shall earn the rope of the gallows-tree."
And he stepped down, and laid his hand
On a man who came from another land,
And we breathed again, for another's grief
At the Hangman's hand was our relief;
And the gallows-frame on the courthouse lawn
By tomorrow's sun would be struck and gone.
So we gave him way, and no one spoke,
Out of respect for his Hangman's cloak.
The next day's sun looked mildly down
On roof and street in our quiet town,
And stark and black in the morning air,
The gallows-tree on the courthouse square.
And the Hangman stood at his usual stand
With the yellow hemp in his busy hand;
With his buckshot eye and his jaw like a pike
And his air so knowing and businesslike.
And we cried: "Hangman, have you not done
Yesterday with the alien one?"
Then we fell silent, and stood amazed;
"Oh, not for him was the gallows raised..."
He laughed a laugh as he looked at us:
"...Did you think I'd gone to all this fuss
To hang one man? That's a thing I do
To stretch the rope when the rope is new."
Then one cried "Murderer!" One cried "Shame!"
And into our midst the Hangman came
To that man's place. "Do you hold," said he,
"With him that was meat for the gallows-tree?"
And he laid his hand on that one's arm,
And we shrank back in quick alarm,
And we gave him way, and no one spoke,
Out of fear of his Hangman's cloak.
That night we saw with dread surprise
The Hangman's scaffold had grown in size:
Fed by the blood beneath the chute
The gallows-tree had taken root;
Now as wide, or a little more,
Than the steps that led to the courthouse door,
And tall as the writing, or nearly as tall,
Halfway up on the courthouse wall.
The third he took, we had all heard tell,
Was a usurer and infidel;
And "What," said the Hangman, "have you to do
With the gallows-bound, and he a Jew?"
And we cried out, "Is this one he
Who has served you well and faithfully?"
The Hangman smiled: "It's a clever scheme
To try the strength of the gallows-beam."
The fourth man's dark, accusing song
Had scratched our comfort hard and long;
And "What concern," he gave us back,
"Have you for the doomed -- the doomed and Black?"
The fifth. The sixth. And we cried again,
"Hangman, Hangman, is this the man?"
"It's a trick," he said, "that we hangmen know
For easing the trap when the trap springs slow."
And so we ceased, and asked no more,
As the Hangman tallied his bloody score;
And sun by sun, and night by night,
The gallows grew to monstrous height.
The wings of the scaffold opened wide
Till they covered the square from side to side;
And the monster cross-beam, looking down,
Cast its shadow across the town.
Then through the town the Hangman came
And called in the empty streets my name --
And I looked at the gallows soaring tall
And thought, "There is no one left at all
For hanging, and so he calls to me
To help pull down the gallows-tree."
And I went out with right good hope
To the Hangman's tree and the Hangman's rope.
He smiled at me as I came down
To the courthouse square through the silent town,
And supple and stretched in his busy hand
Was the yellow twist of the hempen strand.
And he whistled his tune as he tried the trap,
And it sprang down with a ready snap;
And then with a smile of awful command
He laid his hand upon my hand.
"You tricked me, Hangman!" I shouted then,
"That your scaffold was built for other men...
And I no henchman of yours," I cried,
"You lied to me, Hangman, foully lied!"
Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye:
"Lied to you? Tricked you?" he said. "Not I.
For I answered straight and I told you true:
The scaffold was raised for none but you.
For who has served me more faithfully
Than you with your coward's hope?" said he,
"And where are the others that might have stood
Side by your side in the common good?"
"Dead," I whispered, and amiably
"Murdered," the Hangman corrected me:
"First the alien, then the Jew...
I did no more than you let me do."
Beneath the beam that blocked the sky
None stood so alone as I;
And the Hangman strapped me, and no voice there
Cried "Stay!" for me in the empty square.
Copyright Maurice Ogden, date unknown
A former CIA analyst speaks up in the hopes of freeing his former colleague, Valerie Plame, from the RNC's 'malicious smear campaign.'0
Editor's Note: Below is testimony presented by former CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson on July 22nd, 2005 in hearings held by Senate and House Democrats on the national security implications of the Rove CIA leak.
I submit this statement to the Congress in an effort to correct a malicious and disingenuous smear campaign that has been executed against a friend and former colleague, Valerie (Plame) Wilson.
Neither Valerie, nor her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, has asked me to do anything on their behalf. I am speaking up because I was raised to stop bullies. In the case of Valerie Plame she is facing a gang of bullies that is being directed by the Republican National Committee.
I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 as a member of the Career Trainee Program. Senator Orin Hatch had written a letter of recommendation on my behalf, and I believe that helped open the doors to me at the CIA. From the first day, all members of my training class were undercover. In other words, we had to lie to our family and friends about where we worked. We could only tell those who had an absolute need to know where we worked. In my case, I told my wife. Most of us were given
official cover, which means that on paper we worked for some other U.S. Government agency. People with official cover enjoy the benefits of an official passport, usually a black passport -- i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity, the black passport was a get-out-of-jail-free card. It accords the bearer the protections of the Geneva Convention.
Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. At the time I knew her only as Valerie P. Even though all of us in the training class held Top Secret Clearances, we were asked to limit our knowledge of our other classmates to the first initial of their last name. So, Larry J. knew Val P. rather than Valerie Plame. Her name did not become a part of my consciousness until her cover was betrayed by the government officials who gave columnist Robert Novak her true
Although Val started off with official cover, she later joined a select group of intelligence officers a few years later when she became a NOC, i.e. a Non-Official Cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. She was using cover, which we now know because of the leak to Robert Novak, of the consulting firm Brewster-Jennings & Associates. When she traveled overseas she did not use or have an official passport. If she had been caught
engaged in espionage activities while traveling overseas without the black passport, she could have been executed.
We must put to bed the lie that she was not undercover. For starters, if she had not been undercover, then the CIA would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department. Some reports, such as one in the Washington Times that Valerie Plame's supervisor at the CIA, Fred Rustman, said she told friends and family she worked at the CIA and that her cover was light. These claims are not true. Rustman, who supervised Val in one of her earliest assignments, left the CIA in 1990 and did not
stay in social contact with Valerie. His knowledge of Val's cover is dated. He does not know what she has done during the past 15 years.
Val only told those with a need to know about her status in order to safeguard her cover, not compromise it. Val has never been a flamboyant, insecure person who felt the need to tell people what her "real" job was. She was content with being known as an energy consultant married to Joe Wilson and the mother of twins. Despite the repeated claims of representatives for the Republican National Committee, the Wilson's neighbors did not know where Valerie really worked until Novak's op-ed
I would note that not a single member of our training class has come forward to denounce Valerie or question her bona fides. To the contrary, those we have talked to have endorsed what those of us who have left the CIA are doing to defend her reputation and honor.
As noted in the joint letter submitted to Congressional leaders earlier this week, the RNC is repeating the lie that Valerie was nothing more than a glorified desk jockey and could not possibly have any cover worth protecting. To those such as Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, P. J. O'Rourke, and Representative Roy Blunt, I can only say one thing: you are wrong. I am stunned that some political leaders have such ignorance about a matter so basic to the national security structure
of this nation.
Robert Novak's compromise of Valerie caused even more damage. It subsequently led to scrutiny of her cover company. This not only compromised her "cover" company, but potentially every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company or with her.
Another false claim is that Valerie sent her husband on the mission to Niger. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report issued in July 2004, it is clear that the Vice President himself requested that the CIA provide its views on a Defense Intelligence Agency report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger.
The Vice President's request was relayed through the CIA bureaucracy to the Director of the Counter Proliferation Division at the CIA. Valerie worked for a branch in that Division.
The Senate Intelligence Report is frequently cited by Republican partisans as "proof" that Valerie sent her husband to Niger because she sent a memo describing her husband's qualifications to the Deputy Division Chief. Several news personalities, such as Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly, continue to repeat this nonsense as proof. What the Senate Intelligence Committee does not include in the report is the fact that Valerie's boss had asked her to write a memo outlining her husband's
qualifications for the job. She did what any good employee does: she gave her boss what he asked for.
The decision to send Joe Wilson on the mission to Niger was made by Valerie's bosses. She did not have the authority to sign travel vouchers, issue travel orders, or expend one dime of U.S. taxpayer dollars on her own. Yet she has been singled out by the Republican National Committee and its partisans as a legitimate target of attack. It was Karl Rove who told Chris Matthews, "Wilson's wife is fair game."
What makes the unjustified and inappropriate attacks on Valerie Plame and her reputation so unfair is that there was no Administration policy position stipulating that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in February 2002. That issue was still up in the air and, as noted by SSCI, Vice President Cheney himself asked for more information.
At the end of the day we are left with these facts. We went to war in Iraq on the premise that Saddam was reacquiring weapons of mass destruction. Joe Wilson was sent on a mission to Niger in response to a request initiated by the Vice President. Joe Wilson supplied information to the CIA that supported other reports debunking the claim that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger.
When Joe went public with his information, which had been corroborated by the CIA in April 2003, the response from the White House was to call him a liar and spread the name of his wife around.
We sit here more than two years later, and the storm of invective and smear against Ambassador Wilson and his wife, Valerie, continues. I voted for George Bush in November of 2000 because I wanted a President who knew what the meaning of "is" was. I was tired of political operatives who spent endless hours on cable news channels parsing words. I was promised a President who would bring a new tone and new ethical standards to Washington.
So where are we? The President has flip-flopped and backed away from his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a leak. We now know from press reports that at least Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are implicated in these leaks. Instead of a President concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a President who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans
like Valerie and Joe Wilson. This is wrong.
Without firm action by President Bush to return to those principles he promised to follow when he came to Washington, I fear our political debate in this country will degenerate into an argument about what the meaning of "leak" is. We deserve people who work in the White House who are committed to protecting classified information, telling the truth to the American people, and living by example the idea that a country at war with Islamic extremists cannot expend its efforts attacking other
American citizens who simply tried to tell the truth.
Larry C. Johnson is a former CIA analyst.
[This material is reposted here in its entirety under the understanding that statements made to a government body are public domain. Meanwhile, here's how CIA agents who operate illegally on behalf of the Bush regime go about it. --MN]
Wed Jul 20, 9:02 AM ET
The word "fail" should be banned from use in British classrooms and replaced with the phrase "deferred success" to avoid demoralizing pupils, a group of teachers has proposed.
Members of the Professional Association of Teachers (PAT) argue that telling pupils they have failed can put them off learning for life.
A spokesman for the group said it wanted to avoid labeling children. "We recognize that children do not necessarily achieve success first time," he said.
"But I recognize that we can't just strike a word from the dictionary," he said.
The PAT said it would debate the proposal at a conference next week.
If the phrase "deferred success" means the same thing as "failed", then what word will they come up with to replace "deferred success" when that becomes synonymous with "loser"?
Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right, and we are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law.
America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
--George Bush, 26 Jun 2005
This is the second most montrous lie told by this self-righteous hypocrite. The first being the lie he told about Iraq and Hussein.
This quotation is from an article by Reuters, entitled Bush Says US Seeks to Eliminate Torture Worldwide. What will it take for the U.S. to eliminate torture? For starters: A president who will stand up and flatly declare and command that no American serviceman or intelligence operative or officer is to inflict torture on anyone at any time, or to remove detainees to those countries which do practice torture.
But that president sure as Hell isn't going to be Bush.
Bush lies, and liberty dies.
FBI & 9/11 By Sibel Edmonds Just a Citizen.com
Monday 20 June 2005
Over four years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990 provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer
in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan, he received information that:
The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing "302" forms, and the translator, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, Thomas Frields, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were
told to "keep quiet" regarding this issue.
(That was April 2001; Bush was president, not Clinton. --MN)