Thursday, July 31, 2003
Bottom Falls Out of Poindexter Futures Market
CNN reports that there will be one less previously-convicted criminal in the Bush administration soon. He had to go because his "terror futures market" idea was so obviously warped. But then again, so were the tax cuts and the wars: why don't they all just leave?
CNN reports that there will be one less previously-convicted criminal in the Bush administration soon. He had to go because his "terror futures market" idea was so obviously warped. But then again, so were the tax cuts and the wars: why don't they all just leave?
BRING HOME THE TROOPS
There's only one way the war against Iraq could have gone worse: if Bush hadn't been lying about Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. But short of a Manhattan mushroom cloud, it's hard to imagine a darker scenario than the one we're in. No WMDs. No Saddam. Millions of new enemies. Billions in new debt. And an estimated 35,000 guerillas exacting a terrible tithe--one dead American soldier for every day we stay where we don't belong. -- Ted Rall
There's only one way the war against Iraq could have gone worse: if Bush hadn't been lying about Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. But short of a Manhattan mushroom cloud, it's hard to imagine a darker scenario than the one we're in. No WMDs. No Saddam. Millions of new enemies. Billions in new debt. And an estimated 35,000 guerillas exacting a terrible tithe--one dead American soldier for every day we stay where we don't belong. -- Ted Rall
Iraq Casualty Count
Somebody's keeping track.
Somebody's keeping track.
Protecting What Freedom?
If they can take you away and lock you away from your friends, your family, and your attorneys; if they can try you in a court that does not allow you to see all the evidence against you; if they can do all this without review, constraint, or oversight then you are not free. You may not be in jail yet, but that is simply because the government has not yet decided to put you there. If the courts do not put a stop to these actions, then you will live at the government's sufferance, not as a free person. Your freedom will be tolerated, not protected. You will not be free, in any meaningful sense of the word. -- from Lean Left.
He was talking about the Lackawanna defendants pleading guilty recently out of fear that they would be declared "enemy combatants" and disappeared, as I discussed in my post a few days ago.
If they can take you away and lock you away from your friends, your family, and your attorneys; if they can try you in a court that does not allow you to see all the evidence against you; if they can do all this without review, constraint, or oversight then you are not free. You may not be in jail yet, but that is simply because the government has not yet decided to put you there. If the courts do not put a stop to these actions, then you will live at the government's sufferance, not as a free person. Your freedom will be tolerated, not protected. You will not be free, in any meaningful sense of the word. -- from Lean Left.
He was talking about the Lackawanna defendants pleading guilty recently out of fear that they would be declared "enemy combatants" and disappeared, as I discussed in my post a few days ago.
This "enemy combatant" stuff makes me furious--and scared
Same for Nat Hentoff.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (8 to 4) gave George W. Bush a fearsome power that can be found nowhere in the Constitution—the sole authority to imprison an American citizen indefinitely without charges or access to a lawyer.
This case is now on appeal to the Supreme Court, which will determine whether this president—or his successors until the end of the war on terrorism—can subvert the Bill of Rights to the peril of all of us.
Same for Nat Hentoff.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (8 to 4) gave George W. Bush a fearsome power that can be found nowhere in the Constitution—the sole authority to imprison an American citizen indefinitely without charges or access to a lawyer.
This case is now on appeal to the Supreme Court, which will determine whether this president—or his successors until the end of the war on terrorism—can subvert the Bill of Rights to the peril of all of us.
Ain't got no weapons, but they've sure got a WHOLE lot of sand!
Despite vigorous efforts, the U.S. government has been unsuccessful so far in finding key senior Iraqi scientists to support its prewar claims that former president Saddam Hussein was pursuing an aggressive program to develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, according to senior administration officials and members of Congress who have been briefed recently on the subject.
The sources said four senior scientists and more than a dozen at lower levels who worked for the Iraqi government have been interviewed by U.S. officials under the direction of the CIA. Some scientists have been arrested and held for months, others have made deals in return for information and at least one has agreed to be interviewed outside Iraq.
No matter the circumstances, all of the scientists interviewed have denied that Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program or developed and hidden chemical or biological weapons since United Nations inspectors left in 1998. Several key Iraqi officials questioned the significance of evidence cited by the Bush administration to suggest that Hussein was stepping up efforts to develop new weapons of mass destruction programs. -- Washington Post
Despite vigorous efforts, the U.S. government has been unsuccessful so far in finding key senior Iraqi scientists to support its prewar claims that former president Saddam Hussein was pursuing an aggressive program to develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, according to senior administration officials and members of Congress who have been briefed recently on the subject.
The sources said four senior scientists and more than a dozen at lower levels who worked for the Iraqi government have been interviewed by U.S. officials under the direction of the CIA. Some scientists have been arrested and held for months, others have made deals in return for information and at least one has agreed to be interviewed outside Iraq.
No matter the circumstances, all of the scientists interviewed have denied that Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program or developed and hidden chemical or biological weapons since United Nations inspectors left in 1998. Several key Iraqi officials questioned the significance of evidence cited by the Bush administration to suggest that Hussein was stepping up efforts to develop new weapons of mass destruction programs. -- Washington Post
Release the 28 pages!
Senator Ben Brownback (R-KS) has joined Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) in circulating a letter from senators to Bush calling for the declassifying of the 28 pages "redacted" from the Congressional 9/11 Report. According to CNN, approximately 42 senators have signed the letter so far, with Brownback being the only Republican. Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) have also called for the release of the material, although CNN says that Shelby refuses to sign the letter without giving a reason. Unfortunately, two "Democratic" senators, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Diane Feinstein of California, have said that they won't sign the letter. CNN says that a majority vote in the senate would force the declassification of the material.
Maybe folks in California should support Feinstein for governor: get her out of the Senate ASAP! (Better yet, just recall her!)
Senator Ben Brownback (R-KS) has joined Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) in circulating a letter from senators to Bush calling for the declassifying of the 28 pages "redacted" from the Congressional 9/11 Report. According to CNN, approximately 42 senators have signed the letter so far, with Brownback being the only Republican. Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) have also called for the release of the material, although CNN says that Shelby refuses to sign the letter without giving a reason. Unfortunately, two "Democratic" senators, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Diane Feinstein of California, have said that they won't sign the letter. CNN says that a majority vote in the senate would force the declassification of the material.
Maybe folks in California should support Feinstein for governor: get her out of the Senate ASAP! (Better yet, just recall her!)
Bush Blames Tax Cut Failure on March to War
Jeez, I wish I wrote the headlines! I just read the articles from the NY Times and Washington Post, and neither one mentions what I thought was the most outrageous statement that he made in the press conference, which I quoted in my previous post, but is worth repeating here:
Q: What evidence can you point to that tax cuts, at least of the variety that you have supported, are really working to help this economy? And do you need to be thinking about some other approach?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. No, to answer the last part of your question. First of all, let me -- just a quick history, recent history. The stock market started to decline in March of 2000. Then the first quarter of 2001 was a recession. And then we got attacked in 9/11. And then corporate scandals started to bubble up to the surface, which created a -- a lack of confidence in the system. And then we had the drumbeat to war. Remember on our TV screens -- I'm not suggesting which network did this -- but it said, "March to War," every day from last summer until the spring -- "March to War, March to War." That's not a very conducive environment for people to take risk, when they hear, "March to War" all the time.
The headline of this post is what I'd like to see on the front page of every paper in the country:
Bush Blames Tax Cut Failure on March to War
Gee, say Mr. and Ms. America reading that, we might actually have jobs and be able to afford to feed our kids if only it weren't for that stupid war that Bush lied to get us into! Heck, even he said so! And I thought he told us those tax cuts would work! Maybe he should be unemployed too!
Aargh!I just checked the CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and (gag) FoxNews web sites: None of their reports mention this particular Bush excuse. All except Fox just used the AP report! Is that nuts or what? Our idiot president gives only his ninth formal press conference, and the major networks can't be bothered to cover it for themselves.
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
More Bu**sh**
And in order to placate the critics and the cynics about intentions of the United States, we need to produce evidence. And I fully understand that. And I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program. I want to remind you, he actually used his weapons program on his own people at one point in time, which is pretty tangible evidence. But I'm confident history will prove the decision we made to be the right decision. -- aWol, today
Irrelevant, W. That he had a weapons program in the late '80s/early '90s did not constitute a threat in 2003. Hitler had a weapons program, too. If you want to "take out" a world leader who actually has several ongoing WMD programs and has stated a willingness to use them, kill yourself, George.
And don't miss his latest excuse for his tax cuts not working:
Q: What evidence can you point to that tax cuts, at least of the variety that you have supported, are really working to help this economy? And do you need to be thinking about some other approach?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. No, to answer the last part of your question. First of all, let me -- just a quick history, recent history. The stock market started to decline in March of 2000. Then the first quarter of 2001 was a recession. And then we got attacked in 9/11. And then corporate scandals started to bubble up to the surface, which created a -- a lack of confidence in the system. And then we had the drumbeat to war. Remember on our TV screens -- I'm not suggesting which network did this -- but it said, "March to War," every day from last summer until the spring -- "March to War, March to War." That's not a very conducive environment for people to take risk, when they hear, "March to War" all the time.
Hmm...maybe the networks should pay less attention to the president and his minions?
But then there's this:
THE PRESIDENT: I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course. Absolutely.
So, let's recall this quote from July 11:
We need to have an investigation, find out who was responsible for it and fire them. -- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
There's your guy, John. Go get him!
And this:
Q Mr. President, with no opponent, how can you spend $170 million or more on your primary campaign?
THE PRESIDENT: Just watch. (Laughter.) Keep going.
Q Yes, sir. And with 15 fundraisers scheduled between -- for the summer months, do you worry about the perception that you're unduly attentive to the interests of people who can afford to spend $2,000 to see you?
THE PRESIDENT: Michael, I think American people, now that they've realized I'm going to seek reelection, expect me to seek reelection. They expect me to actually do what candidates do. And so, you're right, I'll be spending some time going out and asking the American people to support me. But most of my time, as I say in my speeches -- as I'm sure you've been bored to tears listening to -- is that there is a time for politics, and that's going to be later on. I've got a lot to do. And I will continue doing my job. And my job will be to work to make America more secure.
Bob's translation of W's answer to Michael's question: "No."
And in order to placate the critics and the cynics about intentions of the United States, we need to produce evidence. And I fully understand that. And I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program. I want to remind you, he actually used his weapons program on his own people at one point in time, which is pretty tangible evidence. But I'm confident history will prove the decision we made to be the right decision. -- aWol, today
Irrelevant, W. That he had a weapons program in the late '80s/early '90s did not constitute a threat in 2003. Hitler had a weapons program, too. If you want to "take out" a world leader who actually has several ongoing WMD programs and has stated a willingness to use them, kill yourself, George.
And don't miss his latest excuse for his tax cuts not working:
Q: What evidence can you point to that tax cuts, at least of the variety that you have supported, are really working to help this economy? And do you need to be thinking about some other approach?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. No, to answer the last part of your question. First of all, let me -- just a quick history, recent history. The stock market started to decline in March of 2000. Then the first quarter of 2001 was a recession. And then we got attacked in 9/11. And then corporate scandals started to bubble up to the surface, which created a -- a lack of confidence in the system. And then we had the drumbeat to war. Remember on our TV screens -- I'm not suggesting which network did this -- but it said, "March to War," every day from last summer until the spring -- "March to War, March to War." That's not a very conducive environment for people to take risk, when they hear, "March to War" all the time.
Hmm...maybe the networks should pay less attention to the president and his minions?
But then there's this:
THE PRESIDENT: I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course. Absolutely.
So, let's recall this quote from July 11:
We need to have an investigation, find out who was responsible for it and fire them. -- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
There's your guy, John. Go get him!
And this:
Q Mr. President, with no opponent, how can you spend $170 million or more on your primary campaign?
THE PRESIDENT: Just watch. (Laughter.) Keep going.
Q Yes, sir. And with 15 fundraisers scheduled between -- for the summer months, do you worry about the perception that you're unduly attentive to the interests of people who can afford to spend $2,000 to see you?
THE PRESIDENT: Michael, I think American people, now that they've realized I'm going to seek reelection, expect me to seek reelection. They expect me to actually do what candidates do. And so, you're right, I'll be spending some time going out and asking the American people to support me. But most of my time, as I say in my speeches -- as I'm sure you've been bored to tears listening to -- is that there is a time for politics, and that's going to be later on. I've got a lot to do. And I will continue doing my job. And my job will be to work to make America more secure.
Bob's translation of W's answer to Michael's question: "No."
New blogs on the roll!
I added two new blogs to my list:
I should probably add a lot more, but many of the blogs I have listed already have great blogrolls, especially MouseMusings, MaxSpeak, and Conceptual Guerilla. I know these are great blogrolls because they link to my blog! So if you've got a few days to spare and want to read some good online commentary, start browsing the blogrolls on those three sites.
I added two new blogs to my list:
- Conceptual Guerilla, who champions using the term "cheap-labor conservatives" for Republicans and their ilk; and
- Liberal Oasis, who does a great summary of the Sunday morning talk shows every week, and has a great collections of links to help you get involved in about any cause you'd like.
I should probably add a lot more, but many of the blogs I have listed already have great blogrolls, especially MouseMusings, MaxSpeak, and Conceptual Guerilla. I know these are great blogrolls because they link to my blog! So if you've got a few days to spare and want to read some good online commentary, start browsing the blogrolls on those three sites.
Priorities
Josh Marshall points out that while we're being warned about more possible 9/11 style hijackings, the administration is actually cutting the budget for air marshalls and airport screeners.
Josh Marshall points out that while we're being warned about more possible 9/11 style hijackings, the administration is actually cutting the budget for air marshalls and airport screeners.
Who supports the troops?
Compelling Flash Animation
Compelling Flash Animation
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
A very special measure of gratitude
Executive summary: American POW's tortured in Gulf War I. They win a $1 billion judgement against Iraq. Bush Jr. administration steals $1.7 billion in frozen Iraqi money, refuses to pay POW's claim.
Teaser quote:
One plaintiff, Lt. Col. Richard Dale Storr, now with the Washington Air National Guard, said the administration's position troubled him. Colonel Storr endured beatings in Iraq that broke his nose, dislocated his shoulder and burst his left eardrum.
"It's sending a conflicting message to our troops," he said of the administration's recent court filings. "Congress and the judicial branch say, `Let's protect our guys to the maximum extent possible,' " while the executive branch is "saying the opposite."
"Disappointing," he added, "would be a good way to put it."
Full story.
Executive summary: American POW's tortured in Gulf War I. They win a $1 billion judgement against Iraq. Bush Jr. administration steals $1.7 billion in frozen Iraqi money, refuses to pay POW's claim.
Teaser quote:
One plaintiff, Lt. Col. Richard Dale Storr, now with the Washington Air National Guard, said the administration's position troubled him. Colonel Storr endured beatings in Iraq that broke his nose, dislocated his shoulder and burst his left eardrum.
"It's sending a conflicting message to our troops," he said of the administration's recent court filings. "Congress and the judicial branch say, `Let's protect our guys to the maximum extent possible,' " while the executive branch is "saying the opposite."
"Disappointing," he added, "would be a good way to put it."
Full story.
Okay, I understand this now. But I'm furious!
Yesterday I suggested that Bush didn't have a good way out after a Saudi prince "insisted" that the 28 redacted pages from the 9/11 report be made public without resorting to some seriously dangerous wag the dog action (I'm not talking about Sen. Santorum here).
But then I read Bartcop's report from yesterday, where he said:
Sure, he (the prince) said that after Bush guaranteed them he'd hide the findings from the American voters.
That BartCop hit the nail on the head was confirmed by the prince's statements after meeting with Bush, who "turned down" the request:
"We are disappointed," the prince said of the administration's refusal. "But we understand the reasons."
...
"Anyone who believes that this president would cover up for anyone involved with 9/11 must be out of touch with reality," the prince said as he reasserted that his country is a full partner with the United States in battling terrorism.
Sorry Prince, but anyone who still believes, after he has delayed and hindered any and all investigations for the last two years, that Bush is NOT covering up something is an idiot, a liar, or both.
Clearly, this was one of Karl Rove's masterpieces. Have the Saudis "insist" that the pages be exposed while guaranteeing them that they won't be, protecting them and Bush. Last week the Saudis were saying:
Last week, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, expressed outrage at the decision to keep parts of the report dealing with Saudi Arabia classified.
"Saudi Arabia has nothing to hide. We can deal with questions in public, but we cannot respond to blank pages," the prince said.
He called it "unfortunate that false accusations against Saudi Arabia continue to be made by some for political purposes. -- CNN
Now we're supposed to believe that Bush is some kind of diplomatic genius, quicky defusing the "outrage" and leading the Saudis to "understand the reasons" which even Republican Senator Richard Shelby doesn't understand. What a charade.
Yesterday I suggested that Bush didn't have a good way out after a Saudi prince "insisted" that the 28 redacted pages from the 9/11 report be made public without resorting to some seriously dangerous wag the dog action (I'm not talking about Sen. Santorum here).
But then I read Bartcop's report from yesterday, where he said:
Sure, he (the prince) said that after Bush guaranteed them he'd hide the findings from the American voters.
That BartCop hit the nail on the head was confirmed by the prince's statements after meeting with Bush, who "turned down" the request:
"We are disappointed," the prince said of the administration's refusal. "But we understand the reasons."
...
"Anyone who believes that this president would cover up for anyone involved with 9/11 must be out of touch with reality," the prince said as he reasserted that his country is a full partner with the United States in battling terrorism.
Sorry Prince, but anyone who still believes, after he has delayed and hindered any and all investigations for the last two years, that Bush is NOT covering up something is an idiot, a liar, or both.
Clearly, this was one of Karl Rove's masterpieces. Have the Saudis "insist" that the pages be exposed while guaranteeing them that they won't be, protecting them and Bush. Last week the Saudis were saying:
Last week, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, expressed outrage at the decision to keep parts of the report dealing with Saudi Arabia classified.
"Saudi Arabia has nothing to hide. We can deal with questions in public, but we cannot respond to blank pages," the prince said.
He called it "unfortunate that false accusations against Saudi Arabia continue to be made by some for political purposes. -- CNN
Now we're supposed to believe that Bush is some kind of diplomatic genius, quicky defusing the "outrage" and leading the Saudis to "understand the reasons" which even Republican Senator Richard Shelby doesn't understand. What a charade.
Call Me Irresponsible...
For President Bush and the press corps that covers him, the month of July has been one long cat-and-mouse game. Five times, questioners have invited the president to take responsibility for the Iraq-uranium allegation that found its way into his State of the Union address. Five times, Bush has deflected the question. Dana Milbank, Washington Post
For President Bush and the press corps that covers him, the month of July has been one long cat-and-mouse game. Five times, questioners have invited the president to take responsibility for the Iraq-uranium allegation that found its way into his State of the Union address. Five times, Bush has deflected the question. Dana Milbank, Washington Post
The Bushies had to get this in before announcing Saddam's death
A new audio tape purportedly from ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has acknowledged the death of his sons, Uday and Qusay, killed by US forces last week.
"I mourn to you the deaths of Uday and Qusay and those who struggled with them. You are the honour of this nation," he said on the tape, broadcast by al-Arabiya satellite television on Tuesday. -- BBC
I think they screwed up, though. Wouldn't Saddam also mention by name his fourteen-year-old grandson, who was also supposedly killed in the raid? Saddam probably would, but his body double mourning the deaths of the body doubles of U and Q and the grandson probably wouldn't.
A new audio tape purportedly from ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has acknowledged the death of his sons, Uday and Qusay, killed by US forces last week.
"I mourn to you the deaths of Uday and Qusay and those who struggled with them. You are the honour of this nation," he said on the tape, broadcast by al-Arabiya satellite television on Tuesday. -- BBC
I think they screwed up, though. Wouldn't Saddam also mention by name his fourteen-year-old grandson, who was also supposedly killed in the raid? Saddam probably would, but his body double mourning the deaths of the body doubles of U and Q and the grandson probably wouldn't.
Bush rejects Saudi call to declassify the 28 blank pages -- BBC
Even a southern Republican senator disagrees strongly with Bush on this one:
Bush said, "declassification of that part of a 900-page document would reveal sources and methods that would make it harder for us to win the war on terror. ... It would help the enemy if they knew our sources and methods.''
The top Republican senator on the 9-11 inquiry, Richard Shelby, said Sunday that 95 percent of the classified pages could be released without jeopardizing national security. Bush ignored a reporter's question on Shelby's assessment. -- AP
Bush's "sources and methods" said there were large quantities of WMD's in Iraq, and ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Al Qaeda getting access to these sources and methods might be the simplest way to win the "war on terror."
My response to continued government secrecy is: Assume the worst. For Cheney's Energy Task Force, assume that it was Ken Lay and five oil company executives all sitting around saying how much they hate the environment and how they want to destroy it as quickly as possible while making obscene profits. (Actually, probably pretty close to the truth.) For 9/11, assume that the whole thing was planned in a Bush cabinet meeting in March 2001. Tell them that if they want us to believe otherwise, they need to convince us. Make them DEFEND themselves!
Even a southern Republican senator disagrees strongly with Bush on this one:
Bush said, "declassification of that part of a 900-page document would reveal sources and methods that would make it harder for us to win the war on terror. ... It would help the enemy if they knew our sources and methods.''
The top Republican senator on the 9-11 inquiry, Richard Shelby, said Sunday that 95 percent of the classified pages could be released without jeopardizing national security. Bush ignored a reporter's question on Shelby's assessment. -- AP
Bush's "sources and methods" said there were large quantities of WMD's in Iraq, and ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Al Qaeda getting access to these sources and methods might be the simplest way to win the "war on terror."
My response to continued government secrecy is: Assume the worst. For Cheney's Energy Task Force, assume that it was Ken Lay and five oil company executives all sitting around saying how much they hate the environment and how they want to destroy it as quickly as possible while making obscene profits. (Actually, probably pretty close to the truth.) For 9/11, assume that the whole thing was planned in a Bush cabinet meeting in March 2001. Tell them that if they want us to believe otherwise, they need to convince us. Make them DEFEND themselves!
Whoever bet that the Pentagon's Terror Futures Market Wouldn't Last...
Just made a killing! Was it just another ridiculous idea from the shadow government's Department of Crazy Ideas that was run up the flagpole to distract us?
Just made a killing! Was it just another ridiculous idea from the shadow government's Department of Crazy Ideas that was run up the flagpole to distract us?
Wolfie in Neoconland
"If you're not prepared to act on the basis of murky intelligence, then you're going to have to act after the fact." -- Paul Wolfowitz
"It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards," the Queen remarked.
"What sort of things do you remember best?" Alice ventured to ask.
"Oh, things that happened the week after next," the Queen replied in a careless tone. "For instance, now," she went on, sticking a large piece of plaster on her finger as she spoke, "there's the King's Messenger. He's in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn"t even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all."
"Suppose he never commits the crime?" said Alice.
"That would be all the better wouldn't it?" the Queen said, as she bound the plaster round her finger with a bit of ribbon.
Alice felt there was no denying that. "Of course it would be all the better," she said: "but it wouldn't be all the better his being punished."
"You're wrong there, at any rate," said the Queen: "were you ever punished?"
"Only for faults," said Alice.
"And you were all the better for it, I know!" the Queen said triumphantly.
"Yes, but then I had done the things I was punished for," said Alice: "that makes all the difference."
"But if you hadn't done them," the Queen said, "that would have been better still; better, and better, and better!" Her voice went higher with each "better," till it got quite to a squeak at last.
Alice was just beginning to say "There's a mistake somewhere-," when the Queen began screaming so loud that she had to leave the sentence unfinished. "Oh, oh, oh!" shouted the Queen, shaking her hand about as if she wanted to shake it off. "My finger's bleeding! Oh, oh, oh, oh!"
Her screams were so exactly like the whistle of a steam-engine, that Alice had to hold both her hands over her ears.
"What is the matter?" she said, as soon as there was a chance of making herself heard. "Have you pricked your finger?"
"I haven't pricked it yet," the Queen said, "but I soon shall - - oh, oh, oh!"
I got that from MaxSpeak.
"If you're not prepared to act on the basis of murky intelligence, then you're going to have to act after the fact." -- Paul Wolfowitz
"It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards," the Queen remarked.
"What sort of things do you remember best?" Alice ventured to ask.
"Oh, things that happened the week after next," the Queen replied in a careless tone. "For instance, now," she went on, sticking a large piece of plaster on her finger as she spoke, "there's the King's Messenger. He's in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn"t even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all."
"Suppose he never commits the crime?" said Alice.
"That would be all the better wouldn't it?" the Queen said, as she bound the plaster round her finger with a bit of ribbon.
Alice felt there was no denying that. "Of course it would be all the better," she said: "but it wouldn't be all the better his being punished."
"You're wrong there, at any rate," said the Queen: "were you ever punished?"
"Only for faults," said Alice.
"And you were all the better for it, I know!" the Queen said triumphantly.
"Yes, but then I had done the things I was punished for," said Alice: "that makes all the difference."
"But if you hadn't done them," the Queen said, "that would have been better still; better, and better, and better!" Her voice went higher with each "better," till it got quite to a squeak at last.
Alice was just beginning to say "There's a mistake somewhere-," when the Queen began screaming so loud that she had to leave the sentence unfinished. "Oh, oh, oh!" shouted the Queen, shaking her hand about as if she wanted to shake it off. "My finger's bleeding! Oh, oh, oh, oh!"
Her screams were so exactly like the whistle of a steam-engine, that Alice had to hold both her hands over her ears.
"What is the matter?" she said, as soon as there was a chance of making herself heard. "Have you pricked your finger?"
"I haven't pricked it yet," the Queen said, "but I soon shall - - oh, oh, oh!"
I got that from MaxSpeak.
21st Century Card Game
Check it out!
Thanks to Mary S., tireless Kucinich volunteer, for sending me that one!
Check it out!
Thanks to Mary S., tireless Kucinich volunteer, for sending me that one!
DLC Continues to Sell Out
I hate the DLC!
The moderate Democratic group that helped elect Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992 warned today that Democrats were headed for defeat if they presented themselves as an angry "far left" party fighting tax cuts and opposing the war in Iraq.
Moderate? These guys are right-wingnuts!
"I miss having a president here," Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan said in a remark that drew a hearty round of support from the audience.
Gee, Jenny, you could have invited Bush--he'd fit right in. War, tax cuts--you're singing his tune!
Anybody in Michigan should contact Granholm and Senator Debbie Stabenow and ask them to drop their affiliation with these Republicrats.
I hate the DLC!
The moderate Democratic group that helped elect Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992 warned today that Democrats were headed for defeat if they presented themselves as an angry "far left" party fighting tax cuts and opposing the war in Iraq.
Moderate? These guys are right-wingnuts!
"I miss having a president here," Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan said in a remark that drew a hearty round of support from the audience.
Gee, Jenny, you could have invited Bush--he'd fit right in. War, tax cuts--you're singing his tune!
Anybody in Michigan should contact Granholm and Senator Debbie Stabenow and ask them to drop their affiliation with these Republicrats.
Texas Government in Exile--Again!
This time it's the Democrats from the Senate. Polizeros claims that California politics are still crazier than Texas politics. Hey, don't forget about Florida!
But seriously, folks, this is serious. The Texas situation is pure power politics, and could lead to the complete collapse of whatever little democracy they've ever had there. California is about to recall its governor for being a worthless scumbag, even though they knew he was a worthless scumbag when they re-elected him last year. The House Republicans in Washington called the cops on the House Democrats two weeks ago. And Smirky can apparently fly into any city in America, repeat and even brag about his lies, and walk away with another $2 million for his campaign war chest (literally). American democracy was far from perfect when everyone pretended that it worked. But with the pretense of open debate and fairness being dropped, we've reached a crisis. You've probably heard that the Chinese symbol for "crisis" combines those for "danger" and "opportunity." Strong-arm fascism is the danger; a rejection of the status quo in favor of real improvements in democracy (instant runoff voting and the collapse of the two-party system in favor of multiple parties, for example) is the opportunity.
From what I've read, California may represent the opportunity. While the recall sets a dangerous precedent, it seems fairly likely that the state will end up with a better governor. With many candidates and most votes winning, somebody like Arianna Huffington or Green Party candidate Pete Carmejo should have excellent chances.
This time it's the Democrats from the Senate. Polizeros claims that California politics are still crazier than Texas politics. Hey, don't forget about Florida!
But seriously, folks, this is serious. The Texas situation is pure power politics, and could lead to the complete collapse of whatever little democracy they've ever had there. California is about to recall its governor for being a worthless scumbag, even though they knew he was a worthless scumbag when they re-elected him last year. The House Republicans in Washington called the cops on the House Democrats two weeks ago. And Smirky can apparently fly into any city in America, repeat and even brag about his lies, and walk away with another $2 million for his campaign war chest (literally). American democracy was far from perfect when everyone pretended that it worked. But with the pretense of open debate and fairness being dropped, we've reached a crisis. You've probably heard that the Chinese symbol for "crisis" combines those for "danger" and "opportunity." Strong-arm fascism is the danger; a rejection of the status quo in favor of real improvements in democracy (instant runoff voting and the collapse of the two-party system in favor of multiple parties, for example) is the opportunity.
From what I've read, California may represent the opportunity. While the recall sets a dangerous precedent, it seems fairly likely that the state will end up with a better governor. With many candidates and most votes winning, somebody like Arianna Huffington or Green Party candidate Pete Carmejo should have excellent chances.
The new meaning of "American Justice"
Even though "prosecutors never offered evidence that the Lackawanna defendants intended to commit an act of terrorism," they plead guilty. Why?
Defense attorneys say the answer is straightforward: The federal government implicitly threatened to toss the defendants into a secret military prison without trial, where they could languish indefinitely without access to courts or lawyers.
That prospect terrified the men. They accepted prison terms of 6 1/2 to 9 years.
"We had to worry about the defendants being whisked out of the courtroom and declared enemy combatants if the case started going well for us," said attorney Patrick J. Brown, who defended one of the accused. "So we just ran up the white flag and folded. Most of us wish we'd never been associated with this case."
The Lackawanna case illustrates how the post-Sept. 11, 2001, legal landscape tilts heavily toward the prosecution, government critics contend. Future defendants in terror cases could face the same choice: Plead guilty or face the possibility of indefinite imprisonment or even the death penalty. -- Washington Post
Even the prosecutors seem a tad embarrassed:
U.S. Attorney Michael Battle, whose region encompasses Lackawanna, said his office never explicitly threatened to invoke enemy combatant status but that all sides knew the government held that hammer. "I don't mean to sound cavalier, but the war on terror has tilted the whole [legal] landscape," he said. "We are trying to use the full arsenal of our powers.
"I'm not saying the ends justify the means," he continued, "but you have to remember that we're protecting the rights of those who are being targeted by terror as well as the rights of the accused."
From what I've read, this is exactly how the Soviet Union used to work: Confess, and maybe someday you'll see the light of day again. Otherwise, forget it.
Another quote from Scott Ritter:
Bush as Hitler? You're damn right. For Americans, Bush is worse than Hitler. Hitler never came close to destroying the American way of life; Bush is accomplishing that objective in spades. (Frontier Justice, p. 194)
Even though "prosecutors never offered evidence that the Lackawanna defendants intended to commit an act of terrorism," they plead guilty. Why?
Defense attorneys say the answer is straightforward: The federal government implicitly threatened to toss the defendants into a secret military prison without trial, where they could languish indefinitely without access to courts or lawyers.
That prospect terrified the men. They accepted prison terms of 6 1/2 to 9 years.
"We had to worry about the defendants being whisked out of the courtroom and declared enemy combatants if the case started going well for us," said attorney Patrick J. Brown, who defended one of the accused. "So we just ran up the white flag and folded. Most of us wish we'd never been associated with this case."
The Lackawanna case illustrates how the post-Sept. 11, 2001, legal landscape tilts heavily toward the prosecution, government critics contend. Future defendants in terror cases could face the same choice: Plead guilty or face the possibility of indefinite imprisonment or even the death penalty. -- Washington Post
Even the prosecutors seem a tad embarrassed:
U.S. Attorney Michael Battle, whose region encompasses Lackawanna, said his office never explicitly threatened to invoke enemy combatant status but that all sides knew the government held that hammer. "I don't mean to sound cavalier, but the war on terror has tilted the whole [legal] landscape," he said. "We are trying to use the full arsenal of our powers.
"I'm not saying the ends justify the means," he continued, "but you have to remember that we're protecting the rights of those who are being targeted by terror as well as the rights of the accused."
From what I've read, this is exactly how the Soviet Union used to work: Confess, and maybe someday you'll see the light of day again. Otherwise, forget it.
Another quote from Scott Ritter:
Bush as Hitler? You're damn right. For Americans, Bush is worse than Hitler. Hitler never came close to destroying the American way of life; Bush is accomplishing that objective in spades. (Frontier Justice, p. 194)
It's official: They ARE out of their minds
The Pentagon, lead by super-creep John Poindexter, has set up a futures market on terrorist attacks and assassinations. Apparently, if this had been in place two years ago, you could have spent a few thousand dollars on "WTC coming down within three months" and walked away with hundreds of thousands.
Democratic Senators Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota and Ron Wyden of Oregon blew the whistle on this nonsense, although it appears it ain't dead yet:
The senators also suggested that terrorists could participate because the traders' identities will be unknown.
"This appears to encourage terrorists to participate, either to profit from their terrorist activities or to bet against them in order to mislead U.S. intelligence authorities," they said in a letter to Admiral Poindexter, the director of the Terrorism Information Awareness Office, which the opponents said had developed the idea.
The Pentagon, lead by super-creep John Poindexter, has set up a futures market on terrorist attacks and assassinations. Apparently, if this had been in place two years ago, you could have spent a few thousand dollars on "WTC coming down within three months" and walked away with hundreds of thousands.
Democratic Senators Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota and Ron Wyden of Oregon blew the whistle on this nonsense, although it appears it ain't dead yet:
The senators also suggested that terrorists could participate because the traders' identities will be unknown.
"This appears to encourage terrorists to participate, either to profit from their terrorist activities or to bet against them in order to mislead U.S. intelligence authorities," they said in a letter to Admiral Poindexter, the director of the Terrorism Information Awareness Office, which the opponents said had developed the idea.
This could be huge:
Saudi Arabia's foreign minister has asked to meet with President Bush on Tuesday, and a diplomatic source said the Saudi official will seek the release of all, or at least part, of the material dealing with Saudi Arabia that was kept out of the public version of the new congressional report on the attacks of September 11, 2001.
...
Last week, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, expressed outrage at the decision to keep parts of the report dealing with Saudi Arabia classified.
"Saudi Arabia has nothing to hide. We can deal with questions in public, but we cannot respond to blank pages," the prince said. -- CNN.
There has been lots of speculation about Saudi involvement with the 9/11 hijackers. Whether the 28 pages point the finger at the Saudis or not, I don't know. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that there is plenty in those 28 pages that the Bushies don't want made public. I'm also pretty sure that they are overly protective of the Saudis, probably due to the long-standing ties between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family. If the Saudis are demanding the pages be made public, the Bushies are going to have a hard time turning them down.
It doesn't look like they have a legitimate way out. So be on the lookout for some seriously insane wag-the-dog action around the time of this meeting with the Saudis.
Most likely: the death of Saddam Hussein will be announced, killed in a bombing attack that burned the building to the ground. We will be told to rejoice once again that "justice" has been served by assassination, and attention will be temporarily distracted from the 9/11 issue. All this talk of closing in on Saddam is just prepping us for the announcement. Saddam was either killed months ago and they're saving his death for when they really need it, or he's long gone and they haven't a clue as to his whereabouts. But this Saudi-9/11 thing could prompt the panic in the White House that would cause them to release the story. Any relation to the actual truth will be completely coincidental.
Less likely, but scarier: an attack on Syria or Iran on trumped up charges. Or massive arrests across the country, breaking up some alleged terror attack. Or, deity of your choice forbid, another terror attack. Rabid animals are dangerous. Cornered animals are dangerous. If the Saudi thing is about to expose some awful truth about the Bushies to the public, these rabid animals will be cornered. Look out.
Saudi Arabia's foreign minister has asked to meet with President Bush on Tuesday, and a diplomatic source said the Saudi official will seek the release of all, or at least part, of the material dealing with Saudi Arabia that was kept out of the public version of the new congressional report on the attacks of September 11, 2001.
...
Last week, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, expressed outrage at the decision to keep parts of the report dealing with Saudi Arabia classified.
"Saudi Arabia has nothing to hide. We can deal with questions in public, but we cannot respond to blank pages," the prince said. -- CNN.
There has been lots of speculation about Saudi involvement with the 9/11 hijackers. Whether the 28 pages point the finger at the Saudis or not, I don't know. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that there is plenty in those 28 pages that the Bushies don't want made public. I'm also pretty sure that they are overly protective of the Saudis, probably due to the long-standing ties between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family. If the Saudis are demanding the pages be made public, the Bushies are going to have a hard time turning them down.
It doesn't look like they have a legitimate way out. So be on the lookout for some seriously insane wag-the-dog action around the time of this meeting with the Saudis.
Most likely: the death of Saddam Hussein will be announced, killed in a bombing attack that burned the building to the ground. We will be told to rejoice once again that "justice" has been served by assassination, and attention will be temporarily distracted from the 9/11 issue. All this talk of closing in on Saddam is just prepping us for the announcement. Saddam was either killed months ago and they're saving his death for when they really need it, or he's long gone and they haven't a clue as to his whereabouts. But this Saudi-9/11 thing could prompt the panic in the White House that would cause them to release the story. Any relation to the actual truth will be completely coincidental.
Less likely, but scarier: an attack on Syria or Iran on trumped up charges. Or massive arrests across the country, breaking up some alleged terror attack. Or, deity of your choice forbid, another terror attack. Rabid animals are dangerous. Cornered animals are dangerous. If the Saudi thing is about to expose some awful truth about the Bushies to the public, these rabid animals will be cornered. Look out.
Monday, July 28, 2003
From Scott Ritter's New Book:
"The pattern is not just one of reluctant cooperation, nor is it merely a lack of cooperation," Colin Powell told the Security Council. "What we see is a deliberate campaign to prevent any meaningful inspection work." True words, indeed, if Secretary Powell had been honest enough to admit that the nation refusing to cooperate with the inspectors, and working hard to prevent meaningful inspection work, was the United States, not Iraq, because the inspections represented the gravest threat to the war plans of Sheriff Bush and the PNAC posse. Inspections could expose the truth. And truth was the enemy.
"The pattern is not just one of reluctant cooperation, nor is it merely a lack of cooperation," Colin Powell told the Security Council. "What we see is a deliberate campaign to prevent any meaningful inspection work." True words, indeed, if Secretary Powell had been honest enough to admit that the nation refusing to cooperate with the inspectors, and working hard to prevent meaningful inspection work, was the United States, not Iraq, because the inspections represented the gravest threat to the war plans of Sheriff Bush and the PNAC posse. Inspections could expose the truth. And truth was the enemy.
Senator Graham on FoxNews Sunday:
GRAHAM: Well, I cannot name a specific foreign government. I can say what a foreign government did that led to that statement that I made.
This foreign government provided logistical assistance to at least two of the hijackers, made acquisitions on their behalf, made payments on their behalf. Provided, not through charities, but through a source related back to an official of that government, significant financial support for these two terrorists.
The question that have had is, one, is there any reason to believe that these two terrorists would have been picked out of the 19 and given this special treatment? Or was it just because we happen to know a lot more about these two that we have this pattern of support?
LIASSON: When you say this foreign government, are you talking about, as a policy, this foreign government did this? Or certain individuals who had connections to a foreign government?
GRAHAM: I am saying high officials in this government, who I assume were not just rogue officials acting on their own, made substantial contributions to the support and well-being of two of these terrorists and facilitated their ability to plan, practice and then execute the tragedy of September the 11th.
Brit Hume and Mara Liasson had been asking Graham about the "redacted" 28 pages from the 9/11 report, saying that all the buzz was about Saudi Arabia. Graham said several times that revealing the name of the foreign country would violate secrecy and be a criminal offense, although he also said the stuff shouldn't be secret. But he's saying here that high officials in some foreign government gave direct assistance to at least two 9/11 hijackers. I think one can safely assume that that government was neither the Taliban nor Iraq, or the Bushies wouldn't have pushed to keep this secret (or if it was, their reasons are even scarier). So Bush has changed two regimes in bloody, messy, expensive fashion, and there's some other government out there that actually did support the terrorists. And they don't want us to know who it is.
I suggest that we start insinuating that it might have a country whose involvement would have been even more embarassing to the Bushies than Saudi Arabia, namely Israel or Great Britain. Certainly in Britain's case it would explain Blair's otherwise inexplicable support of Bush in favor of intense opposition at home. But if the Brits or Israelis were in on 9/11, that would suggest that they were in collusion with the Bush administration, and Cynthia McKinney might wish she actually had said those things she was accused of saying. I don't really think it was Israel or Britain, but only scary allegations like that are going to get the 28 pages unredacted so we can finally find out who our true enemy is, instead of whatever country Bush feels like attacking at the moment.
And isn't it maybe time for Graham or Shelby to practice a little civil disobedience? Doesn't their oath to protect the constitution override their requirement to keep stuff secret which they both say shouldn't be secret? Would two conservative southern senators actually go to jail for letting the public know what they say it should know? Why does the executive branch get to decide what's secret here, anyway?
GRAHAM: Well, I cannot name a specific foreign government. I can say what a foreign government did that led to that statement that I made.
This foreign government provided logistical assistance to at least two of the hijackers, made acquisitions on their behalf, made payments on their behalf. Provided, not through charities, but through a source related back to an official of that government, significant financial support for these two terrorists.
The question that have had is, one, is there any reason to believe that these two terrorists would have been picked out of the 19 and given this special treatment? Or was it just because we happen to know a lot more about these two that we have this pattern of support?
LIASSON: When you say this foreign government, are you talking about, as a policy, this foreign government did this? Or certain individuals who had connections to a foreign government?
GRAHAM: I am saying high officials in this government, who I assume were not just rogue officials acting on their own, made substantial contributions to the support and well-being of two of these terrorists and facilitated their ability to plan, practice and then execute the tragedy of September the 11th.
Brit Hume and Mara Liasson had been asking Graham about the "redacted" 28 pages from the 9/11 report, saying that all the buzz was about Saudi Arabia. Graham said several times that revealing the name of the foreign country would violate secrecy and be a criminal offense, although he also said the stuff shouldn't be secret. But he's saying here that high officials in some foreign government gave direct assistance to at least two 9/11 hijackers. I think one can safely assume that that government was neither the Taliban nor Iraq, or the Bushies wouldn't have pushed to keep this secret (or if it was, their reasons are even scarier). So Bush has changed two regimes in bloody, messy, expensive fashion, and there's some other government out there that actually did support the terrorists. And they don't want us to know who it is.
I suggest that we start insinuating that it might have a country whose involvement would have been even more embarassing to the Bushies than Saudi Arabia, namely Israel or Great Britain. Certainly in Britain's case it would explain Blair's otherwise inexplicable support of Bush in favor of intense opposition at home. But if the Brits or Israelis were in on 9/11, that would suggest that they were in collusion with the Bush administration, and Cynthia McKinney might wish she actually had said those things she was accused of saying. I don't really think it was Israel or Britain, but only scary allegations like that are going to get the 28 pages unredacted so we can finally find out who our true enemy is, instead of whatever country Bush feels like attacking at the moment.
And isn't it maybe time for Graham or Shelby to practice a little civil disobedience? Doesn't their oath to protect the constitution override their requirement to keep stuff secret which they both say shouldn't be secret? Would two conservative southern senators actually go to jail for letting the public know what they say it should know? Why does the executive branch get to decide what's secret here, anyway?
Bill Maher on Davis Recall in California
"He's the governor. Not some guy you married in Vegas."
On the troubled California economy Davis is being blamed for: "The dotcom bubble burst, just as Gray Davis ordered. ...We went off to two foreign wars, playing right into Davis' hands. ...Enron ripped the state off for billions. So you can see the problem, Gray Davis."
"So you can see the solution, a Viennese weight lifter. Arnold Schwarzenegger: Finally, a public official who can explain the administration's social policies in the original German." -- from Pacific Views
"He's the governor. Not some guy you married in Vegas."
On the troubled California economy Davis is being blamed for: "The dotcom bubble burst, just as Gray Davis ordered. ...We went off to two foreign wars, playing right into Davis' hands. ...Enron ripped the state off for billions. So you can see the problem, Gray Davis."
"So you can see the solution, a Viennese weight lifter. Arnold Schwarzenegger: Finally, a public official who can explain the administration's social policies in the original German." -- from Pacific Views
Further evidence that Tim Russert has been kidnapped and replaced with a journalist
My post below has Russert asking Murky Wolfowitz some great questions. Later in the show, he asks Bob Graham this question:
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Graham, why would we declassify the National Intelligence Report to buttress arguments about the war in Iraq but keep classified some information that could help us find out what our leaders knew was coming down before September 11?
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I think one of the fundamental reasons for that is to avoid accountability.
Excellent answer! I am in almost complete agreement with Dennis Kucinich's platform, and probably disagree with 70% of Graham's, but if Graham succeeds in bringing down the Bush administration, a strong case for electing him president out of sheer gratitude could be made. He's already ahead of Kerry in my book.
My post below has Russert asking Murky Wolfowitz some great questions. Later in the show, he asks Bob Graham this question:
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Graham, why would we declassify the National Intelligence Report to buttress arguments about the war in Iraq but keep classified some information that could help us find out what our leaders knew was coming down before September 11?
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I think one of the fundamental reasons for that is to avoid accountability.
Excellent answer! I am in almost complete agreement with Dennis Kucinich's platform, and probably disagree with 70% of Graham's, but if Graham succeeds in bringing down the Bush administration, a strong case for electing him president out of sheer gratitude could be made. He's already ahead of Kerry in my book.
The weird twisted logic of Dr. Wolfowitz
From yesterday's Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Many people are now asking why the urgency in going to war. If, in fact, we have not found the weapons of mass destruction, could not we have waited a few months with more coercive inspections and have resolved this without a war?
DR. WOLFOWITZ: Let me say a couple of things, Tim. People act as though the cost of containing Iraq is trivial. The cost of containing Iraq was enormous. Fifty-five American lives lost, at least, in incidents like the Cole and Khobar Towers, which were part of the containment effort. Billions of dollars of American money spent so...
MR. RUSSERT: Was Iraq linked to those?
DR. WOLFOWITZ: Absolutely. Oh, no, not to the—I don’t know who did the attacks. I now that we would not have had Air Force people in Khobar Towers if we weren’t conducting a containment policy. I know we wouldn’t have had to have the Cole out there doing maritime intercept operations. And worst of all, if you go back and read Osama bin Laden’s notorious fatwah from 1998 where he calls for killing Americans, the two principal grievances were the presence of those forces in Saudi Arabia, and our continuing attacks on Iraq. Twelve years of containment was a terrible price for us.
So basically Wolfowitz is saying that we had to invade Iraq to appease Osama, whom we pissed off with our last attack on Iraq based on false pretenses.
Here's some more Wolfy logic:
We know that for 12 years Saddam Hussein did everything he could to frustrate U.N. inspectors. He sacrificed $100 billion in money that he could have spent on palaces and tanks and all those things that he loved so much in order to frustrate those inspectors. Isn’t that in itself an indicator there was something there? Let’s be patient and let’s figure out—wait until we can find things out.
Replace "12" with "2", "Saddam Hussein" with "George W. Bush," "frustrate U.N. inspectors" with "block a serious investigation into 9/11," "palaces and tanks" with "tax cuts", and "frustrate those inspectors" with "block that investigation," and the statement makes more sense. The "sacrificed $100 billion" part I assume refers to the very questionable idea that the US would ever have removed the sanctions on Iraq no matter how thorough the inspections had been. From what I've read in Scott Ritter's book, Iraqi compliance between 1995 and '98 was quite good, and inspectors had verified that Iraq didn't have much in the way of banned weapons left. This certainly seems to have been substantiated now. Since '98, Iraq was mostly or entirely WMD-free, but the sanctions continued. On the other hand, Bush willingly pursued an illegal war which will eventually cost over $100 billion, and while global empire was probably the main reason, distracting attention from the massive failures by his administration leading up to 9/11 was certainly desirable collateral damage as far as the Bushies were concerned.
From yesterday's Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Many people are now asking why the urgency in going to war. If, in fact, we have not found the weapons of mass destruction, could not we have waited a few months with more coercive inspections and have resolved this without a war?
DR. WOLFOWITZ: Let me say a couple of things, Tim. People act as though the cost of containing Iraq is trivial. The cost of containing Iraq was enormous. Fifty-five American lives lost, at least, in incidents like the Cole and Khobar Towers, which were part of the containment effort. Billions of dollars of American money spent so...
MR. RUSSERT: Was Iraq linked to those?
DR. WOLFOWITZ: Absolutely. Oh, no, not to the—I don’t know who did the attacks. I now that we would not have had Air Force people in Khobar Towers if we weren’t conducting a containment policy. I know we wouldn’t have had to have the Cole out there doing maritime intercept operations. And worst of all, if you go back and read Osama bin Laden’s notorious fatwah from 1998 where he calls for killing Americans, the two principal grievances were the presence of those forces in Saudi Arabia, and our continuing attacks on Iraq. Twelve years of containment was a terrible price for us.
So basically Wolfowitz is saying that we had to invade Iraq to appease Osama, whom we pissed off with our last attack on Iraq based on false pretenses.
Here's some more Wolfy logic:
We know that for 12 years Saddam Hussein did everything he could to frustrate U.N. inspectors. He sacrificed $100 billion in money that he could have spent on palaces and tanks and all those things that he loved so much in order to frustrate those inspectors. Isn’t that in itself an indicator there was something there? Let’s be patient and let’s figure out—wait until we can find things out.
Replace "12" with "2", "Saddam Hussein" with "George W. Bush," "frustrate U.N. inspectors" with "block a serious investigation into 9/11," "palaces and tanks" with "tax cuts", and "frustrate those inspectors" with "block that investigation," and the statement makes more sense. The "sacrificed $100 billion" part I assume refers to the very questionable idea that the US would ever have removed the sanctions on Iraq no matter how thorough the inspections had been. From what I've read in Scott Ritter's book, Iraqi compliance between 1995 and '98 was quite good, and inspectors had verified that Iraq didn't have much in the way of banned weapons left. This certainly seems to have been substantiated now. Since '98, Iraq was mostly or entirely WMD-free, but the sanctions continued. On the other hand, Bush willingly pursued an illegal war which will eventually cost over $100 billion, and while global empire was probably the main reason, distracting attention from the massive failures by his administration leading up to 9/11 was certainly desirable collateral damage as far as the Bushies were concerned.
Answer the Question, General!
Q: Ibrahim Hayat (ph), Al-Hayat, LDC. I would like to ask you, don't you regret the fact that you couldn't get Uday and Qusay alive? It would have been probably the source of a lot of information could have got from them both. Also, wasn't a failure in a way, because you didn't use commandos to come and surprise them both? You conducted operation in a very traditional way. How would you describe it? All this attack preparation was only to surround five, probably four people who were armed with light weapons. And also, what about the child of Qusay?
Sanchez: First of all, we have confirmation that we've got Uday and Qusay Hussein, and we've got two other bodies that we're continuing the identification process on them.
On whether this was a failure, absolutely not. I would never consider this a failure. Our mission is to find, kill or capture. In this case, we had an enemy that was defending, it was barricaded, and we had to take the measures that were necessary in order to neutralize the target. When you look at the possibilities of what you may have gained or what you may have lost, that would be pure speculation on my part at this point.
...
Q: Thank you. General, I'd like to try and see if you could address more of the first question which we had from our colleague up front. The Americans are specialists in surrounding places, keeping people in them, holding up for a week, if necessary, to make them surrender. These guys only had, it appears, AK-47s, and you had immense amount of firepower. Surely, the possibility of the immense amount of information they could have given coalition forces, not to mention the trials that they could have been put on for war crimes, held out a much greater possibility of victory for you if you could have surrounded that house and just sat there until they came out, even if they were prepared to keep shooting.
Sanchez: Sir, that is speculation.
Next slide (sic).
Q: No, sir, it's an operational question. Surely you must have considered this much more seriously than you suggested.
Sanchez: Yes, it was considered, and we chose the course of action that we took.
Q: Why, sir?
Sanchez: Next slide -- or, next question, please. -- From the DOD transcript of the press conference with Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez on the deaths of Uday and Qusay.
The phrase "dead men tell no tales" comes to mind, as does the phrase "it is easier to fake the identities of dead people than live ones." (I just made that second one up.)
Then there's this interesting quote from Sanchez:
The identification was done through multiple means. We had senior former regime members do visual identification of the bodies. We had four individuals that independently verified that we had both of Saddam Hussein's sons.
We also compared X-rays and verified that the injuries on one of the bodies were consistent with the injuries that had been suffered by this individual during a previous assassination attempt.
That seems to imply that this was an assassination, which of course it was (if it really was Uday and Qusay), but the general seems to acknowledge that. It appears that if U and Q had walked out with their hands held high they would still have been gunned down.
Q: Ibrahim Hayat (ph), Al-Hayat, LDC. I would like to ask you, don't you regret the fact that you couldn't get Uday and Qusay alive? It would have been probably the source of a lot of information could have got from them both. Also, wasn't a failure in a way, because you didn't use commandos to come and surprise them both? You conducted operation in a very traditional way. How would you describe it? All this attack preparation was only to surround five, probably four people who were armed with light weapons. And also, what about the child of Qusay?
Sanchez: First of all, we have confirmation that we've got Uday and Qusay Hussein, and we've got two other bodies that we're continuing the identification process on them.
On whether this was a failure, absolutely not. I would never consider this a failure. Our mission is to find, kill or capture. In this case, we had an enemy that was defending, it was barricaded, and we had to take the measures that were necessary in order to neutralize the target. When you look at the possibilities of what you may have gained or what you may have lost, that would be pure speculation on my part at this point.
...
Q: Thank you. General, I'd like to try and see if you could address more of the first question which we had from our colleague up front. The Americans are specialists in surrounding places, keeping people in them, holding up for a week, if necessary, to make them surrender. These guys only had, it appears, AK-47s, and you had immense amount of firepower. Surely, the possibility of the immense amount of information they could have given coalition forces, not to mention the trials that they could have been put on for war crimes, held out a much greater possibility of victory for you if you could have surrounded that house and just sat there until they came out, even if they were prepared to keep shooting.
Sanchez: Sir, that is speculation.
Next slide (sic).
Q: No, sir, it's an operational question. Surely you must have considered this much more seriously than you suggested.
Sanchez: Yes, it was considered, and we chose the course of action that we took.
Q: Why, sir?
Sanchez: Next slide -- or, next question, please. -- From the DOD transcript of the press conference with Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez on the deaths of Uday and Qusay.
The phrase "dead men tell no tales" comes to mind, as does the phrase "it is easier to fake the identities of dead people than live ones." (I just made that second one up.)
Then there's this interesting quote from Sanchez:
The identification was done through multiple means. We had senior former regime members do visual identification of the bodies. We had four individuals that independently verified that we had both of Saddam Hussein's sons.
We also compared X-rays and verified that the injuries on one of the bodies were consistent with the injuries that had been suffered by this individual during a previous assassination attempt.
That seems to imply that this was an assassination, which of course it was (if it really was Uday and Qusay), but the general seems to acknowledge that. It appears that if U and Q had walked out with their hands held high they would still have been gunned down.
I did not want to be a collaborator
Isam al-Khafaji, a former member of the Iraqi reconstruction council, explains his decision to resign.
Iraq is now in almost total chaos. No one knows what is going on. We're not talking here about trying to achieve an ideal political system. People cannot understand why a superpower that can amass all that military might can't get the electricity back on. Iraqis are now contrasting Saddam's ability to bring back power after the war in 1991 to the apparent inability of the US to do so now. There are all kinds of conspiracy theories.
Isam al-Khafaji, a former member of the Iraqi reconstruction council, explains his decision to resign.
Iraq is now in almost total chaos. No one knows what is going on. We're not talking here about trying to achieve an ideal political system. People cannot understand why a superpower that can amass all that military might can't get the electricity back on. Iraqis are now contrasting Saddam's ability to bring back power after the war in 1991 to the apparent inability of the US to do so now. There are all kinds of conspiracy theories.
Sunday, July 27, 2003
Murky and Smirky
Using your earlier screw-ups to explain your more recent ones:
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, defending the Bush administration's justification of the Iraq war, said today that intelligence on terrorism is by its nature "murky," and that the United States may have little choice in the future but to "act on the basis of murky intelligence" if terror attacks are to be prevented. (NY Times)
Gee, you'd almost think they let 9/11 happen so they could sell war in Iraq!
Funny thing is, Murky, that back in October Smirky said this:
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. -- President Bush, Cincinnati, October 7, 2002
From the Encarta online dictionary, one of the definitions of "murky" is:
obscure: unclear and difficult to understand.
So even Murky (Wolfowitz) is calling Smirky (Bush) a liar. That makes it unanimous! Bush says clear, Wolfie says murky. Why didn't we call the whole thing off?
Using your earlier screw-ups to explain your more recent ones:
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, defending the Bush administration's justification of the Iraq war, said today that intelligence on terrorism is by its nature "murky," and that the United States may have little choice in the future but to "act on the basis of murky intelligence" if terror attacks are to be prevented. (NY Times)
Gee, you'd almost think they let 9/11 happen so they could sell war in Iraq!
Funny thing is, Murky, that back in October Smirky said this:
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. -- President Bush, Cincinnati, October 7, 2002
From the Encarta online dictionary, one of the definitions of "murky" is:
obscure: unclear and difficult to understand.
So even Murky (Wolfowitz) is calling Smirky (Bush) a liar. That makes it unanimous! Bush says clear, Wolfie says murky. Why didn't we call the whole thing off?
Marcos your calendars! August 8, 9 and 10
Fascinating article about the reappearance of the Zapatistas in Mexican politics. Vicente Fox vowed to resolve the Chiapas/Zapatista conflict "in fifteen minutes," but has failed to deliver. The EZLN (Zapatista party) vowed to give Fox a chance. They gave him a chance. The chance appears to be over.
And, in a call to all their supporters throughout Mexico and around the world to put on our shoes and socks and get ready to speak en masse, Marcos wrote:
“It would be good if national and international Civil Society does not make any appointments for the days of August 8, 9, and 10. We don’t know why.”
Fascinating article about the reappearance of the Zapatistas in Mexican politics. Vicente Fox vowed to resolve the Chiapas/Zapatista conflict "in fifteen minutes," but has failed to deliver. The EZLN (Zapatista party) vowed to give Fox a chance. They gave him a chance. The chance appears to be over.
And, in a call to all their supporters throughout Mexico and around the world to put on our shoes and socks and get ready to speak en masse, Marcos wrote:
“It would be good if national and international Civil Society does not make any appointments for the days of August 8, 9, and 10. We don’t know why.”
The Press Coverage We Need
The NY Times finally gets it right. They treat the death of Cpl. Travis J. Bradach-Nall, a 21-year-old marine who was killed in Iraq clearing mines on July 1, just like he was a 9/11 victim or Laci Peterson. Quotes from his mother and many anguished relatives. Like this, for example:
[Bradach-Nall's mother] was always a liberal Democrat, she said, and had signed various petitions circulating in Portland against the war, even as she found herself in the awkward position of trying to support the military, her son's employer.
Now she plans to join the international campaign to ban land mines and do whatever she can to get a Democrat elected president in 2004, she said.
"I don't ever do anything that would hurt the Marines," she said. "However, I want everything to come out about why decisions were made. And I don't want to hear, `Well, you know what, it's over now, the decision was made.' You know what? If you make a wrong decision, you have to pay for that. I want to make sure that changes are made or people are held accountable for what happened."
If a lengthy obituary for every soldier killed in Iraq were on the front pages every day, with whatever space is left over going to Bush's latest lies justifying the war, the remaining troops would be home real soon, and Bush's Texas vacation would be permanent.
The NY Times finally gets it right. They treat the death of Cpl. Travis J. Bradach-Nall, a 21-year-old marine who was killed in Iraq clearing mines on July 1, just like he was a 9/11 victim or Laci Peterson. Quotes from his mother and many anguished relatives. Like this, for example:
[Bradach-Nall's mother] was always a liberal Democrat, she said, and had signed various petitions circulating in Portland against the war, even as she found herself in the awkward position of trying to support the military, her son's employer.
Now she plans to join the international campaign to ban land mines and do whatever she can to get a Democrat elected president in 2004, she said.
"I don't ever do anything that would hurt the Marines," she said. "However, I want everything to come out about why decisions were made. And I don't want to hear, `Well, you know what, it's over now, the decision was made.' You know what? If you make a wrong decision, you have to pay for that. I want to make sure that changes are made or people are held accountable for what happened."
If a lengthy obituary for every soldier killed in Iraq were on the front pages every day, with whatever space is left over going to Bush's latest lies justifying the war, the remaining troops would be home real soon, and Bush's Texas vacation would be permanent.
Saturday, July 26, 2003
What I'm Reading Now
Scott Ritter's new book, Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America.
I've only read about 25 pages, but it looks like it will be good.
Scott Ritter's new book, Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America.
I've only read about 25 pages, but it looks like it will be good.
Smoking Howitzer?
After the Capitol Hill Blue thing, I'm wary of unconventional sources (of course, after the Jayson Blair and Judith Miller stuff, I'm wary of conventional sources, too!). But this article certainly would explain a lot, including the Bushies' never-ending quest for secrecy:
A captured Al Qaida document reveals that US energy companies were secretly negotiating with the Taliban to build a pipeline. The document was obtained by the FBI but was not allowed to be shared with other agencies in order to protect Enron. Multiple sources confirm that American law enforcement agencies were deliberately kept in the dark and systematically prevented from connecting the dots before 9/11 in order to aid Enron’s secret and immoral Taliban negotiations.
The suppressed Al Qaida document tends to support recent claims of a cover-up made by several mid-level intelligence and law enforcement figures. Their ongoing terrorist investigations appear to have been hindered during the same sensitive time period while the Enron Corporation was still negotiating with the Taliban. An inadvertent result of the Taliban pipeline cover-up was that the Taliban’s friends in Al Qaida were able to complete their last eight months of preparations for 9/11 while the Enron secrecy block was still in force.
Although the latest order to block investigations allegedly resulted from Enron’s January 2002 appeal to Vice President Dick Cheney, it appears that there were at least three previous block orders, each building upon the other, stretching back for decades and involving both Republican and Democratic administrations.
...
It is time for Congress to face the truth: In order to give Enron one last desperate chance to complete the Taliban pipeline and save itself from bankruptcy, senior levels of US intelligence were ordered to keep their eyes shut and their subordinates ignorant.
The Enron cover-up confirms that 9/11 was not an intelligence failure or a law enforcement failure (at least not entirely). Instead, it was a foreign policy failure of the highest order. If Congress ever combines its Enron investigation with 9/11, Cheney’s whole house of cards will collapse. -- From Atty. John J. Loftus. Read the whole thing!
Thanks to Jerri for finding this one!
After the Capitol Hill Blue thing, I'm wary of unconventional sources (of course, after the Jayson Blair and Judith Miller stuff, I'm wary of conventional sources, too!). But this article certainly would explain a lot, including the Bushies' never-ending quest for secrecy:
A captured Al Qaida document reveals that US energy companies were secretly negotiating with the Taliban to build a pipeline. The document was obtained by the FBI but was not allowed to be shared with other agencies in order to protect Enron. Multiple sources confirm that American law enforcement agencies were deliberately kept in the dark and systematically prevented from connecting the dots before 9/11 in order to aid Enron’s secret and immoral Taliban negotiations.
The suppressed Al Qaida document tends to support recent claims of a cover-up made by several mid-level intelligence and law enforcement figures. Their ongoing terrorist investigations appear to have been hindered during the same sensitive time period while the Enron Corporation was still negotiating with the Taliban. An inadvertent result of the Taliban pipeline cover-up was that the Taliban’s friends in Al Qaida were able to complete their last eight months of preparations for 9/11 while the Enron secrecy block was still in force.
Although the latest order to block investigations allegedly resulted from Enron’s January 2002 appeal to Vice President Dick Cheney, it appears that there were at least three previous block orders, each building upon the other, stretching back for decades and involving both Republican and Democratic administrations.
...
It is time for Congress to face the truth: In order to give Enron one last desperate chance to complete the Taliban pipeline and save itself from bankruptcy, senior levels of US intelligence were ordered to keep their eyes shut and their subordinates ignorant.
The Enron cover-up confirms that 9/11 was not an intelligence failure or a law enforcement failure (at least not entirely). Instead, it was a foreign policy failure of the highest order. If Congress ever combines its Enron investigation with 9/11, Cheney’s whole house of cards will collapse. -- From Atty. John J. Loftus. Read the whole thing!
Thanks to Jerri for finding this one!
Three more soldiers die -- NY Times
That Uday and Qusay thing is really working. Frankly, I'm torn about reporting these casualties. I don't want to seem glad that Bush's insane policies are getting US soldiers killed and wounded every day, and I'm not. But the Bushies try to claim that the soldiers dying is justified because they are somehow "defending our freedom" by occupying Iraq.
I say that the only possible good that can come out of their senseless deaths is to discredit Bush and his neoconmen (and women--sorry, Condi, you traitor to pretty much everything you are). I think of Uday and Qusay type photos of every dead and wounded GI were published daily, along with full bios on them, their families, wives, husbands, girlfriends, and so on, along with why they joined the army in the first place, maybe the public would wake up and demand that the troops be brought home and that Bush stop his murderous ways. Since the press doesn't even tell us their names much anymore, I think all of us need to make sure that the American public is constantly aware the soldiers are dying daily in Iraq.
The NY Times continues to downplay the casualty figures, using only the "enemy action" fatalities number (161 as of today), not the total including accidents (about 238, I think). As I've read several places, many of those accidents have been vehicular, and the reason for the accident was that the soldiers were driving too fast hoping to avoid bullets and RPG's and such. In any case, Bush sent them there, and they're just and dead as the others.
That Uday and Qusay thing is really working. Frankly, I'm torn about reporting these casualties. I don't want to seem glad that Bush's insane policies are getting US soldiers killed and wounded every day, and I'm not. But the Bushies try to claim that the soldiers dying is justified because they are somehow "defending our freedom" by occupying Iraq.
I say that the only possible good that can come out of their senseless deaths is to discredit Bush and his neoconmen (and women--sorry, Condi, you traitor to pretty much everything you are). I think of Uday and Qusay type photos of every dead and wounded GI were published daily, along with full bios on them, their families, wives, husbands, girlfriends, and so on, along with why they joined the army in the first place, maybe the public would wake up and demand that the troops be brought home and that Bush stop his murderous ways. Since the press doesn't even tell us their names much anymore, I think all of us need to make sure that the American public is constantly aware the soldiers are dying daily in Iraq.
The NY Times continues to downplay the casualty figures, using only the "enemy action" fatalities number (161 as of today), not the total including accidents (about 238, I think). As I've read several places, many of those accidents have been vehicular, and the reason for the accident was that the soldiers were driving too fast hoping to avoid bullets and RPG's and such. In any case, Bush sent them there, and they're just and dead as the others.
Parting Shot for the Night
The World Socialist Web Site has a wonderful article about the criminality of the Bush administration as it relates to the murder of the Hussein sons. It provides a clear contrast between the thoughtful, justice- and information-seeking approach that Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson recommended to President Truman to the frontier "justice" approach of the Blair-Bush project. It's a great article--check it out!
The World Socialist Web Site has a wonderful article about the criminality of the Bush administration as it relates to the murder of the Hussein sons. It provides a clear contrast between the thoughtful, justice- and information-seeking approach that Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson recommended to President Truman to the frontier "justice" approach of the Blair-Bush project. It's a great article--check it out!
Friday, July 25, 2003
Kucinich's Open Letter to Nader Voters and the Greens
Excerpt:
We stand together for national health insurance, Canadian style. We stand together on public financing of campaigns, on same day voter registration, on instant runoff voting. We stand together on civil rights, and equal rights, and human rights. We stand together on voting reforms for ex-felons. We stand together on ending the trade and travel embargoes on Cuba. We stand together in opposition to the current war on drugs, which is all too often a war on the urban poor.
I, along with other local Kucinich supporters, got an e-mail yesterday asking me to tell Kucinich to renounce Nader. I sent off this reply:
Speaking strictly for myself, I absolutely will not ask Kucinich to renounce Ralph Nader. Nader was the best candidate in 2000, and I voted for him. Kucinich is the best candidate now, and that is why I support him. He and Nader agree on most issues. The Democrats collusion with the Republicans to keep Nader out of the debates was shameful, and issues of great importance to America were ignored because of it. Gore's inability to carry his own state and unwillingness to fight for the office he had rightfully won are the main reasons he isn't president; not Ralph Nader.
With Bill Clinton defending Bush's lies, Kerry still defending his vote for the Iraq war, and the DLC attacking Dean for being anti-war, I have little respect for what the Democratic party has become. Kucinich can bring Greens and millions of non-voters into the party by bringing it back to its ideals. Renouncing Nader is no way to do that.
The reply I got was a hate-filled anti-Nader article written by Michael Tomasky, whom I had never heard of before. The article called for some Democratic candidate to "ferociously" attack Nader. I certainly like Kucinich's approach better, and several of my fellow Kucinich supporters have answered the guy in a similar vein.
Frankly, I've had about enough of that particular discussion, but if you haven't, you can check out Leah's post at Atrios, and the comments, for more.
Excerpt:
We stand together for national health insurance, Canadian style. We stand together on public financing of campaigns, on same day voter registration, on instant runoff voting. We stand together on civil rights, and equal rights, and human rights. We stand together on voting reforms for ex-felons. We stand together on ending the trade and travel embargoes on Cuba. We stand together in opposition to the current war on drugs, which is all too often a war on the urban poor.
I, along with other local Kucinich supporters, got an e-mail yesterday asking me to tell Kucinich to renounce Nader. I sent off this reply:
Speaking strictly for myself, I absolutely will not ask Kucinich to renounce Ralph Nader. Nader was the best candidate in 2000, and I voted for him. Kucinich is the best candidate now, and that is why I support him. He and Nader agree on most issues. The Democrats collusion with the Republicans to keep Nader out of the debates was shameful, and issues of great importance to America were ignored because of it. Gore's inability to carry his own state and unwillingness to fight for the office he had rightfully won are the main reasons he isn't president; not Ralph Nader.
With Bill Clinton defending Bush's lies, Kerry still defending his vote for the Iraq war, and the DLC attacking Dean for being anti-war, I have little respect for what the Democratic party has become. Kucinich can bring Greens and millions of non-voters into the party by bringing it back to its ideals. Renouncing Nader is no way to do that.
The reply I got was a hate-filled anti-Nader article written by Michael Tomasky, whom I had never heard of before. The article called for some Democratic candidate to "ferociously" attack Nader. I certainly like Kucinich's approach better, and several of my fellow Kucinich supporters have answered the guy in a similar vein.
Frankly, I've had about enough of that particular discussion, but if you haven't, you can check out Leah's post at Atrios, and the comments, for more.
Looking for Someone to Blame for 9/11? Here's Two Suggestions:
An FBI budget official told the Joint Inquiry that counterterrorism was not a priority for Attorney General Ashcroft before September 11, and the FBI faced pressure to make cuts in counterterrorism to satisfy his other priorities. -- from the 9/11 report, p. 47 (p. 79 in the PDF file)
Those priorities focused mainly on depriving the terminally ill of rights they had been granted by their states: the right to assisted suicide in Oregon, and the right to medicinal marijuana for AIDS and cancer patients in California. Ashcroft obviously saw these are greater threats to America than some fundamentalists who had declared war on America and already carried out devastating attacks overseas (embassy bombings and the Cole attack). No wonder Ashcroft has been an even more arrogant prick ever since: He could have done a lot to prevent 9/11, but chose instead to inflict more pain and suffering on those who have already suffered plenty.
Here's an interesting point: I searched the whole report document for the word "Taliban," and it doesn't appear; not once, although Afghanistan being a "safe haven" for al Qaeda members is mentioned several times. "Iraq" appears a few times, but not in any context that implies that the Iraqi government had anything to do with 9/11.
And if you are looking for somebody else to go, if for shear incompetence or blatant lying (take your pick), compare these two quotes:
From at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons. This information did not stimulate any specific Intelligence Community assessment of, or collective U.S. Government reaction to, this form of threat.
Discussion: [While the credibility of the sources was sometimes questionable and the information often sketchy, the Inquiry confirmed that the Intelligence Community did
receive intelligence reporting concerning the potential use of aircraft as weapons. For example, the Community received information in 1998 about a Bin Ladin operation that
would involve flying an explosive- laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and, in summer 2001, about a plot to bomb a U.S. embassy from an airplane or crash an airplane into it. The FBI and CIA were also aware that convicted terrorist Abdul Hakim Murad and several others had discussed the possibility of crashing an airplane into CIA Headquarters as part of “the Bojinka Plot” in the Philippines, discussed later in this report. Some, but apparently not all, of these reports were disseminated within the Intelligence Community and to other agencies]. -- from the report, pp. 9-10 (42-43 in the pdf file)
I don't think anybody could have predicted ... that they would try to use an airplane as missile. Had this president known of something more specific or known that a plane was going to be used as a missile, he would have acted on it. -- National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Spring 2002.
Of course, the buck should stop in the oval office. That lame-brain Texan hired these clowns; it's his fault!
An FBI budget official told the Joint Inquiry that counterterrorism was not a priority for Attorney General Ashcroft before September 11, and the FBI faced pressure to make cuts in counterterrorism to satisfy his other priorities. -- from the 9/11 report, p. 47 (p. 79 in the PDF file)
Those priorities focused mainly on depriving the terminally ill of rights they had been granted by their states: the right to assisted suicide in Oregon, and the right to medicinal marijuana for AIDS and cancer patients in California. Ashcroft obviously saw these are greater threats to America than some fundamentalists who had declared war on America and already carried out devastating attacks overseas (embassy bombings and the Cole attack). No wonder Ashcroft has been an even more arrogant prick ever since: He could have done a lot to prevent 9/11, but chose instead to inflict more pain and suffering on those who have already suffered plenty.
Here's an interesting point: I searched the whole report document for the word "Taliban," and it doesn't appear; not once, although Afghanistan being a "safe haven" for al Qaeda members is mentioned several times. "Iraq" appears a few times, but not in any context that implies that the Iraqi government had anything to do with 9/11.
And if you are looking for somebody else to go, if for shear incompetence or blatant lying (take your pick), compare these two quotes:
From at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons. This information did not stimulate any specific Intelligence Community assessment of, or collective U.S. Government reaction to, this form of threat.
Discussion: [While the credibility of the sources was sometimes questionable and the information often sketchy, the Inquiry confirmed that the Intelligence Community did
receive intelligence reporting concerning the potential use of aircraft as weapons. For example, the Community received information in 1998 about a Bin Ladin operation that
would involve flying an explosive- laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and, in summer 2001, about a plot to bomb a U.S. embassy from an airplane or crash an airplane into it. The FBI and CIA were also aware that convicted terrorist Abdul Hakim Murad and several others had discussed the possibility of crashing an airplane into CIA Headquarters as part of “the Bojinka Plot” in the Philippines, discussed later in this report. Some, but apparently not all, of these reports were disseminated within the Intelligence Community and to other agencies]. -- from the report, pp. 9-10 (42-43 in the pdf file)
I don't think anybody could have predicted ... that they would try to use an airplane as missile. Had this president known of something more specific or known that a plane was going to be used as a missile, he would have acted on it. -- National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Spring 2002.
Of course, the buck should stop in the oval office. That lame-brain Texan hired these clowns; it's his fault!
Saudi prince attacks 9/11 report
"The idea that the Saudi government funded, organized or even knew about Sept. 11 is malicious and blatantly false," he [Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan] said. "There is something wrong with the basic logic of those who spread these spurious charges. Al Qaeda is a cult that is seeking to destroy Saudi Arabia as well as the United States. By what logic would we support a cult that is trying to kill us?" -- NY Times
This even though much of the evidence of Saudi involvement was "redacted" from the report. Of course, the explanation would make a lot more sense if "Saudi Arabia" were replaced with "Iraq" and it came from an Iraqi, since no Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 plot, as opposed to 15 Saudi hijackers and one infamous Saudi mastermind (OBL). I sure hope that if W tries to defend the Saudis that Congress and the press will remind him incessantly of that.
"The idea that the Saudi government funded, organized or even knew about Sept. 11 is malicious and blatantly false," he [Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan] said. "There is something wrong with the basic logic of those who spread these spurious charges. Al Qaeda is a cult that is seeking to destroy Saudi Arabia as well as the United States. By what logic would we support a cult that is trying to kill us?" -- NY Times
This even though much of the evidence of Saudi involvement was "redacted" from the report. Of course, the explanation would make a lot more sense if "Saudi Arabia" were replaced with "Iraq" and it came from an Iraqi, since no Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 plot, as opposed to 15 Saudi hijackers and one infamous Saudi mastermind (OBL). I sure hope that if W tries to defend the Saudis that Congress and the press will remind him incessantly of that.
Major asterisk on this one...
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, somebody has taken offense at the cop-calling shenanigans in the House of Representatives:
The theme is 10 years of one-party rule is enough. They (Republicans) have had control for 10 years, they've gotten arrogant, they demean the institution, they demean democracy by virtue of the heavy-handed way they run the House, minority rights are downtrodden, and it's time, Mr. and Mrs. America, to make a change. -- former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX).
*I said this called for a big asterisk, because the Chronicle article appears to be the only major news site that has that quote. I found it from BartCop, who got it from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The Chronicle doesn't say where Armey was when he said it; from the "Mr. and Mrs. America" line it would seem to be from a speech somewhere. And while the quote clearly seems to suggest that he is calling for people to vote for Democrats next time around, it gets watered down later on:
I hear everybody talking about the good old days when we had such congeniality in the House. In the good old days, they had 30 or 40 votes in their majority, and we had a minority that had become quite expert at being the minority. Now we've got five, six votes in our majority and we've got a minority that is not in any way intending to become good at being in the minority. . . . I don't think it will get better until somebody gets a decisive advantage.
I know that Armey is supposed to be working with the ACLU now and that he expressed reservations about war with Iraq last year, but for a former obnoxious Texas Republican congressman to seem to be calling for a Democratic House...that seems far-fetched. Or maybe he's seen the light and decided to become an Armey of one?
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, somebody has taken offense at the cop-calling shenanigans in the House of Representatives:
The theme is 10 years of one-party rule is enough. They (Republicans) have had control for 10 years, they've gotten arrogant, they demean the institution, they demean democracy by virtue of the heavy-handed way they run the House, minority rights are downtrodden, and it's time, Mr. and Mrs. America, to make a change. -- former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX).
*
*I said this called for a big asterisk, because the Chronicle article appears to be the only major news site that has that quote. I found it from BartCop, who got it from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The Chronicle doesn't say where Armey was when he said it; from the "Mr. and Mrs. America" line it would seem to be from a speech somewhere. And while the quote clearly seems to suggest that he is calling for people to vote for Democrats next time around, it gets watered down later on:
I hear everybody talking about the good old days when we had such congeniality in the House. In the good old days, they had 30 or 40 votes in their majority, and we had a minority that had become quite expert at being the minority. Now we've got five, six votes in our majority and we've got a minority that is not in any way intending to become good at being in the minority. . . . I don't think it will get better until somebody gets a decisive advantage.
I know that Armey is supposed to be working with the ACLU now and that he expressed reservations about war with Iraq last year, but for a former obnoxious Texas Republican congressman to seem to be calling for a Democratic House...that seems far-fetched. Or maybe he's seen the light and decided to become an Armey of one?
Is one George W abandoning the other?
Today a conservative administration is close to asserting that whatever the facts turn out to be regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the enforcement of U.N. resolutions was a sufficient reason for war. If so, war was waged to strengthen the United Nations as author and enforcer of international norms of behavior. The administration also intimates that ending a tyranny was a sufficient justification for war. Foreign policy conservatism has become colored by triumphalism and crusading zeal. -- George Will, arch-conservative.
Today a conservative administration is close to asserting that whatever the facts turn out to be regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the enforcement of U.N. resolutions was a sufficient reason for war. If so, war was waged to strengthen the United Nations as author and enforcer of international norms of behavior. The administration also intimates that ending a tyranny was a sufficient justification for war. Foreign policy conservatism has become colored by triumphalism and crusading zeal. -- George Will, arch-conservative.
Thursday, July 24, 2003
A Nation of Assassins
An article about W's version of "justice" from Douglas Valentine at Counterpunch. Thanks to Tatiana for finding both of these articles and posting them on our e-mail list.
An article about W's version of "justice" from Douglas Valentine at Counterpunch. Thanks to Tatiana for finding both of these articles and posting them on our e-mail list.
Somebody's Not Convinced:
From Joe Vialls in Britain:
If the latest story about the adventurous American 101st Airborne Division was true, Saddam Hussein's two sons, his grandson and their solitary bodyguard, would have to go down in history as some of the world’s greatest and bravest fighters. According to the media these four heroic individuals, including one cripple and one child, managed to fight off 200 heavily armed and highly aggressive members of the 101st Airborne for six long hours, before finally perishing in a hail of Hellfire missiles launched by helicopter gunships.
read the rest...
From Joe Vialls in Britain:
If the latest story about the adventurous American 101st Airborne Division was true, Saddam Hussein's two sons, his grandson and their solitary bodyguard, would have to go down in history as some of the world’s greatest and bravest fighters. According to the media these four heroic individuals, including one cripple and one child, managed to fight off 200 heavily armed and highly aggressive members of the 101st Airborne for six long hours, before finally perishing in a hail of Hellfire missiles launched by helicopter gunships.
read the rest...
The Veep from the Deep Crawled Out of His Hole Today..
to utter this nonsense:
Had the Bush administration not acted, Saddam and his sons would still be in power, torture chambers would still exist, mass graves would still be undiscovered, terrorists would still have a safe haven in Iraq and Saddam would still have vast wealth to finance weapons programs, he said.
"Knowing these things,'' Cheney said, "how could we, I ask, have allowed that threat to stand? These judgments were not lightly arrived at. And all who were aware of them bore a heavy responsibility for the security of America.''
What threat? Mass graves are a THREAT? The terrorist connection and the WMD crap have both been thoroughly debunked, and Useless Dick STILL has the cojones the bring them up.
I get tired of hearing the term, but for Cheney it fits. The man is 100% pure unadulterated EVIL.
to utter this nonsense:
Had the Bush administration not acted, Saddam and his sons would still be in power, torture chambers would still exist, mass graves would still be undiscovered, terrorists would still have a safe haven in Iraq and Saddam would still have vast wealth to finance weapons programs, he said.
"Knowing these things,'' Cheney said, "how could we, I ask, have allowed that threat to stand? These judgments were not lightly arrived at. And all who were aware of them bore a heavy responsibility for the security of America.''
What threat? Mass graves are a THREAT? The terrorist connection and the WMD crap have both been thoroughly debunked, and Useless Dick STILL has the cojones the bring them up.
I get tired of hearing the term, but for Cheney it fits. The man is 100% pure unadulterated EVIL.
Gag!
I went to Dearborn this afternoon/evening to protest W's $2000 a plate fundraiser. Limo after limo filled with fancily-dressed, snotty Republicans pulled up. There were about 50 of us in our little "free-speech" zone, which was surprisingly close to the entrance where the Repugs went in. We yelled "Bush Lies People Die" and "You Should Be Ashamed" at the soulless rich monsters as they left, the two grand only putting the slightest dent in their hefty wallets, which will be replaced many times over with their tax cuts and military contracts. What was really disturbing was how many of these creeps were young. I mean, is there anything more repulsive than a young Republican?
We never saw the stupid little liar himself.
I went to Dearborn this afternoon/evening to protest W's $2000 a plate fundraiser. Limo after limo filled with fancily-dressed, snotty Republicans pulled up. There were about 50 of us in our little "free-speech" zone, which was surprisingly close to the entrance where the Repugs went in. We yelled "Bush Lies People Die" and "You Should Be Ashamed" at the soulless rich monsters as they left, the two grand only putting the slightest dent in their hefty wallets, which will be replaced many times over with their tax cuts and military contracts. What was really disturbing was how many of these creeps were young. I mean, is there anything more repulsive than a young Republican?
We never saw the stupid little liar himself.
Get lost, Lieberman!
What a slimeball:
I don't believe the American people are going to elect for president in 2004, post 9/11, in an unsettled world, a candidate who has been opposed to the use of military power against a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein. -- Joe Lieberman, quoted by Fox News (Fox News calls Lieberman a "centrist.")
What a slimeball:
I don't believe the American people are going to elect for president in 2004, post 9/11, in an unsettled world, a candidate who has been opposed to the use of military power against a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein. -- Joe Lieberman, quoted by Fox News (Fox News calls Lieberman a "centrist.")
The report shows there is no link between Iraq and al-Qaida
The report of the joint congressional inquiry into the suicide hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001, to be published Thursday, reveals U.S. intelligence had no evidence that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, or that it had supported al-Qaida, United Press International has learned.
Sixteen words? Try everything the Bushies have said for the past year. The only times they have spoken the truth were either mistakes or attempts to cover up some bigger lie ("The president is not a fact-checker," for example).
This came from UPI, which is owned by right-wingnut Sun Yung Moon, who has been a major supporter of Bush and Reagan administrations. When the report is finally released, supposedly today, will the supposedly more liberal "mainstream" media pick up on this item, or will they just jump on the FBI, which already seems primed to take the fall?
But a bipartisan congressional commission says there is no link between Iraq and al-Qaida. Bush has hinted and actually said there was for months. It was his best excuse for war. It was a lie.
Be sure to read the whole article! It has some great quotes from former Senator Max Cleland, who was on the committee, and some government officials, both named and unnamed. Here's one:
He [Unnamed government official] went on to suggest that the conclusions drawn from the information about the Sudan meetings was indicative of a wider-ranging problem with the administration's attitude to intelligence on the alleged Iraq al-Qaida link.
"They take a fact that you could draw several different conclusions from, and in every case they draw the conclusion that supports the policy, without any particular evidence that would meet the normal bar that analytic tradecraft would require for you to make that conclusion," he concluded.
Yellowcake Letter Revealed
TO: "Saddam Hussayn" [mustachio39@yahoo.com]
FROM: nuclear@niger.gov
DATE: Jan 1 1904 00:00:00
SUBJECT: Request Assistance
DEAR SIR:
MY NAME IS AKIMBO BOKIMBI OF THE NIGERIAN INTERIOR MINISTRY BUREAU OF MINING. YOUR NAME WAS GIVEN OF ME BY MUTUAL ACQUAINTANCE OF OURS OF WHOM YOU ARE MOST RECOMMENDED HIGHLY. BECAUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE RECENT UNFORTUNATE DEATH OF MY SUPERIOR JONAS FALUMBOKIKOJO IT HAS COME UNDER MY PURVEY SOME 1400 KILOS OF HIGHLY ENRICHED YELLOW CAKE URANIUM.
THIS YELLOW CAKE AS YOU MIGHT WELL IMAGINE IS QUITE HEAVY SO I CANNOT EASILY DEPOSIT IT INTO YOUR ACCOUNT BUT IF YOU WERE TO COME OVER HERE AND GET IT I KNOW IT WILL BE OF MUCH USE TO YOU AND YOU WILL BE VERY SAFE WHILE IN MY COUNTRY. PLEASE HURRY IN YOUR REPLY AS I AM QUITE KEEN TO DISPOSE OF THIS MATERIALS BEFORE I AM INVADED BY MR W. BUSH.
SINCERELY,
AKIMBO
Thanks to Rick Green for finding that one, and for discovering Saddam Hussein's e-mail address!
TO: "Saddam Hussayn" [mustachio39@yahoo.com]
FROM: nuclear@niger.gov
DATE: Jan 1 1904 00:00:00
SUBJECT: Request Assistance
DEAR SIR:
MY NAME IS AKIMBO BOKIMBI OF THE NIGERIAN INTERIOR MINISTRY BUREAU OF MINING. YOUR NAME WAS GIVEN OF ME BY MUTUAL ACQUAINTANCE OF OURS OF WHOM YOU ARE MOST RECOMMENDED HIGHLY. BECAUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE RECENT UNFORTUNATE DEATH OF MY SUPERIOR JONAS FALUMBOKIKOJO IT HAS COME UNDER MY PURVEY SOME 1400 KILOS OF HIGHLY ENRICHED YELLOW CAKE URANIUM.
THIS YELLOW CAKE AS YOU MIGHT WELL IMAGINE IS QUITE HEAVY SO I CANNOT EASILY DEPOSIT IT INTO YOUR ACCOUNT BUT IF YOU WERE TO COME OVER HERE AND GET IT I KNOW IT WILL BE OF MUCH USE TO YOU AND YOU WILL BE VERY SAFE WHILE IN MY COUNTRY. PLEASE HURRY IN YOUR REPLY AS I AM QUITE KEEN TO DISPOSE OF THIS MATERIALS BEFORE I AM INVADED BY MR W. BUSH.
SINCERELY,
AKIMBO
Thanks to Rick Green for finding that one, and for discovering Saddam Hussein's e-mail address!