Friday, October 13, 2006

Stewart Asks If Bush Really "Listens To His Generals"

Condi recognizes gay man's "mother in law" in front of Laura Bush at official ceremony


Condi recognizes gay man's "mother in law" in front of Laura Bush at official ceremony
by John in DC - 10/12/2006 06:03:00 PM



It doesn't get more real than that. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a member of George Bush's cabinet, while standing alongside First Lady Laura
Bush, recognized a gay man, his partner, and his "mother in law" - i.e., his gay partner's mom.

For all the criticism we give Condi, and it's well deserved, she gets kudos for this one. I interviewed her years ago, during the 1999 campaign for the presidency, and the lady doesn't let out a word she doesn't mean. She said "mother in law" because she meant "mother in law." And she meant to say it in front of Mrs. Bush and the cameras. She knew exactly what she was doing. The question is why Ms. Rice felt the need to make a pro-gay gesture at this point in time. With the Foley scandal in full bloom, you'd think the Bushies would want to stay away from gays like the plague.

Yes, I get it - Foley is not a "gay" scandal, BUT, the gay issue is obviously hot right now, and with the religious right seething like neo-Nazis at a synagogue, it just strikes me as odd, though welcome, that Rice decided now was the time to make a bold gesture in favor of gay marriage - and
that's essentially what she did.

Gays in the Republican Party


Gott in Himmel! Zer are gayz in zee Republican pahty
by John in DC - 10/12/2006 08:59:00 PM

Okay, we got caught. It's no use hiding any longer.

We gays are everywhere.

We control everyone.

We control everything (except, of course, international banking, Hollywood and the media - that's the Jews).

It's no use denying it any longer. The Nazis and the Klan were right. We're very very bad people, and we must be stopped before we steal your children and use their blood in our
holiday meals (oh, that's right, Jews again).

The religious right is in full meltdown mode because they've suddenly discovered that there are gay people working openly in the Republican party.

Uh, this is the first time they've noticed? Rick Santorum's press secretary is openly gay. There are scores of openly gay people working in the White House. The Republican National Committee looks like a Gay Disney Tea Dance. And don't even get us started on Senator George Allen's office (think San Francisco, circa 1970, but without the mustaches). To find an openly gay Republican embraced by the highest reaches of the GOP, one need look no farther than the Vice President's campaign director (also known as his daughter).

Yes, Virginia, there are gays in the Republican party, and you've known it for years. So why all the belly-aching now?

I'll tell you why. Because while gay and lesbian Americans have been increasingly welcomed into the fabric of the
American family, including the Republican party, the religious right has increasingly exposed itself as a fringe movement of hateful bigots, and nobody likes them anymore.

While the Republicans are unparalleled in their ability to gay-bait, Latino-bait, black-bait, Muslim-bait, France-bait, and woman-bait, few of them really mean it. Most Republicans don't give a damn about the religious right agenda. In fact, they hate it. I know more than a few Republicans in town, several of them downright conservative, and I can't find a one who has a good word to say about any of the religious right hate groups or their deluded, hate-filled followers. In fact, they find them kind of nutty and obnoxious.

So, it's no surprise the Republican party welcomes the religious right publicly, but then laughs at them behind their backs. And it's no surprise that the Republican party shuns gays publicly, but loves them behind closed doors. They like us. We're fun. They don't like
you. You're not. And it's taken the likes of Falwell and Robertson thirty years to figure it out.

Anyway, you simply must read the latest hate-filled screed from one of the lead far-right groups. This document on its face shows better than I ever could why the Republicans can't stand these people.

(Here's a link to a German-English dictionary, in case you're having trouble understanding anything.)
...the GOP has played a trick on itself. The party brought so-called gay Republicans into positions of power in Congress only to realize that the confidential information they held about a secret gay network was political dynamite that could backfire....

A New York Times story by Mark Leibovich confirmed that gay Republicans have occupied "crucial staff positions" in Congress and "have played decisive roles in passing legislation, running
campaigns and advancing careers."....

If you are getting the idea that gay Republicans may be closeted Democrats, then you are beginning to understand how the Mark Foley scandal could have been a Democratic Party dirty trick.... gay Republicans are in reality "liberal activists" who want to use the party to advance the same homosexual agenda embraced by the Democrats....

Ominously, the Foley scandal suggests that this network has inside information about the sexual behavior of members of Congress and their staffers that can be exploited in order to create scandals at a moment's notice.... It is now apparent that this power has been used to sabotage the party from within....

It is also beyond dispute that the current scandalous state of affairs will outlive the Foley scandal unless the secret network of bludgeon and blackmail is exposed....

It's early in the probe, but we may be looking at emerging evidence of a homosexual recruitment ring that
operated on Capitol Hill. It's time to get beyond partisan politics and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Our media should not be intimidated by charges of "gay bashing." They must lead the way in getting to the bottom of this terrible abuse of power.
Like the guy said. It's early in the probe, but he's gonna get to the bottom of it and make sure everything is exposed. (Is it warm in here?)

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Project Censored

In what has become a annual event Greg Palast wins two Project Censored awards. Project Censored compiles an annual list of 25 news stories of social significance
that have been overlooked, under-reported or self-censored by the country’s major national news media.
Both winning stories, Bush Didn’t Bungle Iraq, You Fools and Opec and the Economic Conquest of Iraq can be read below.
From The Guardian
Get off it. All the carping, belly-aching and complaining about George Bush’s incompetence in Iraq, from both the Left and now the Right, is just dead wrong.
On the third anniversary of the tanks rolling over Iraq’s border, most of the 59 million Homer Simpsons who voted for Bush are beginning to doubt if his mission was
accomplished…
O.I.L.
From Harpers Magazine
Two and a half years and $202 billion into the war in Iraq, the United States has at least one significant new asset toshow for it: effective membership, through our control of Iraq’s energy policy, in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Arab-dominated oil cartel.
Just what to do with this proxy power has been, almost since President Bush’s first inaugural, the cause of a pitched battle between neoconservatives at the Pentagon, on the
one hand, and the State Department and the oil industry, on the other…

How George Bush Gave Krazy Kim The Bomb

You didn’t know that? Of course not, you read the NY TimesKim Jung Il
by Greg Palast for Workingforchange.com
[Tuesday, October 10th 2006] How did a berserker like North Korea’s Kim John Il get the bomb in the first place? Answer: He bought it from the Dr. Strangelove of Pakistan in 2001 — while all our President’s men ordered our intelligence agents to keep their eyes shut tight.
On November 9, 2001, BBC Television Centre in London received a call from a phone booth just outside Washington. The call to our Newsnight team was part of a complex
prearranged dance coordinated with the National Security News Service, a conduit for unhappy spooks at the CIA and FBI to unburden themselves of disturbing information and documents. The top-level U.S. intelligence agent on the line had much to be unhappy and disturbed about: a “back-off” directive.

This call to BBC came two months after the attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Towers. His fellow agents, Continue reading ‘HOW GEORGE BUSH GAVE KRAZY KIM THE BOMB’

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Bush Grants North Korea Nuclear Funding in 2002

Bush Grants North Korea Nuclear Funding in 2002

(via news.bbc.co.uk) – President Bush release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme. In doing so, Bush also waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.

US grants N Korea nuclear funds
Hammer and sickle flag in Pyongyang
Pyongyang threatened to pull out of the nuclear deal
The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.

Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.

In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.

President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the national security interests of the United States".

Deal under threat

North Korea has repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the agreement in recent weeks.

South Korean solider (l) and North Korean soldier (r) on the Korean border
The row has heightened tensions on the peninsula

It has been angered by President Bush's accusation that Pyongyang was part of an "axis of evil" producing weapons of mass destruction.

This annoyance was compounded by Washington's decision to withhold this year's certification that North Korea is keeping its side of the Agreed Framework.

It has systematically refused to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors into its nuclear facility at the Yongbyon research base north of the capital.

Delayed

Pyongyang has justified its refusals by pointing out that the reactors are way behind schedule.

They were originally expected to have been completed next year, but now construction is not expected to even begin until August.

Another issue is the different interpretations of the inspections' timing.

According to the Framework, North Korea should be fully compliant with IAEA safeguards when "a significant proportion" of the project is completed.

The builders say that will be around May 2005, and given the inspections will take at least three years, this means that North Korea should start admitting inspectors now.

But Pyongyang believes that they should only allow the inspections to start, rather than finish, by that date.

The head of the Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre in Washington, a critic of the Agreed Framework, has warned that even when the new reactors are completed they may not be tamper-proof.

"These reactors are like all reactors, They have the potential to make weapons. So you might end up supplying the worst nuclear violator with the means to acquire the very weapons we're trying to prevent it acquiring," Henry Sokolski told the Far Eastern Economic Review.

Video: Olbermann laments 'death of habeas corpus'

Video: Olbermann laments 'death of habeas corpus'
David Edwards
Published: Wednesday October 11, 2006
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 eliminates habeas corpus from traditional rights of prisoners.

In this Countdown special report, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann explains why habeas corpus is "a cornerstone of freedom" for the United States.

"In fact, Countdown has obtained a partially redacted
copy of a colonial 'declaration' indicating that back then, 'depriving us of trial by jury' was actually considered sufficient cause to start a war of independence, based on the then-fashionable idea that 'liberty' was an unalienable right," said Olbermann.




655,000 Iraqis dead

Study estimates 655,000 Iraqis have died as result of US-led invasion in March '03; 90% due to violence
Ron Brynaert
Published: Wednesday October 11, 2006
A new study estimates that as many as 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S.-led invasion in March of 2003 and that roughly ninety percent of the deaths were directly related to violence, primarily victims of gunfire.
"A team of American and Iraqi
epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred," David Brown reports for the Washington Post in Wednesday's edition.
The Post notes that this figure, "produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government."
"It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December," Brown writes. "It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group.
Wednesday's Wall Street Journal reports that the "findings are sure to draw fire from skeptics and could color the debate over the war ahead of congressional elections next month."
The survey, largely financed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was undertaken by Iraqi physicians who interviewed 12,801 residents from late May to early July and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. The findings will be published online Wednesday by the British medical journal The Lancet.
The survey is an update to a prior study compiled by the same group, and many of the same researchers, which estimated that around 100,000 more Iraqis had died in the first 18 months
after the invasion than would have died otherwise. Aside from the size of the estimate, which was much higher than other estimates, that study also drew criticism due to its timing – weeks before the US presidential election in November of 2004 – which one of the lead researchers admitted was deliberate.
"They're almost certainly way too high," Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington tells the Associated Press about the latest study.
The AP reported that Cordesman "criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election."
"This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.
A military spokesman, Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros, wouldn't comment directly on the study, according to the published reports, but said that the Defense Department "always regrets the loss of any innocent life in Iraq or anywhere else," adding that the "coalition takes enormous precautions to prevent civilian deaths and injuries."

"He added that 'it would be difficult for the U.S. to precisely determine the number of civilian deaths in Iraq as a result of insurgent activity," the Post reported. "The Iraqi Ministry of Health would be in a better position, with all of its records, to provide more accurate information on deaths in Iraq."
The New York Times produced the following graphic to accompany their own report:



Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Iran Attack Looks More Likely

Dave Lindorff: Iran Attack Looks More Likely as Eisenhower Carrier Group Sails for Iran Theater

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Dave Lindorff, co-author of "The Case for Impeachment"

BREAKING NEWS: Eisenhower Carrier Group Sails for Iran Theater

The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Eisenhower and its accompanying strike force of cruiser, destroyer and attack submarine slipped their moorings and headed off for the Persian Gulf region on Oct. 2, as I had predicted in a piece in The Nation magazine a few weeks back.

The Eisenhower strike force, according to my sources, is scheduled to arrive in the vicinity of Iran around October 21, at the same time as a second flotilla of minesweepers and other ships.

This build-up of naval power around the coast of Iran, according to some military sources, is in preparation for an air attack on Iran that would target not just Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, but its entire military command and control system.

While such an attack could be expected to unleash a wave of military violence all over Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and elsewhere against American forces and interests and against oil wells, pipelines and loading vacilities, as well as a mining of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, with a resulting skyrocketing of global oil prices, the real goal of this new war by the U.S. would be ensuring Republican control of the House and Senate.

It seems increasingly clear that the Republican Party is going to lose its grip on the House of Representatives, and that it may even lose control of the Senate, barring some dramatic October Surprise by the president. So far, the surprises have been working against Republicans, with the Foley sex scandal, the evidence that Abramoff's bribery reached right into the inner sanctum of the White House, and the deteriorating U.S. position in Iraq.

With the number of House seats reportedly "in play" now rising from 15 to 30 and now 50, President Bush is looking at the possibility of a blow out Nov. 7 that could see him facing a Democratic Congress bent on revenge for five six years of systematic abuse.

Bush has committed a long string of impeachable crimes against the Constitution, the Republic and the American people -- everything from lying to the Congress and the 9-11 Commission, obstructing an investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, abuse of power, violation of federal laws like the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, dereliction of duty and criminal negligence, and war crimes. He can expect a Democratic Congress to call him to account for at least some of these crimes, whatever House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) may say today.

This means that the worse things look for Republican chances in November, the greater the likelihood that a desperate President Bush will order a disastrous attack on Iran -- one that would have the country enter into a third, even worse, war even as it is currently busy losing two others. But Bush and his gang of cronies don't care about initiating a disaster. They're focussed on the disaster that will hit them if they don't turn around the November election. Sacrificing the country or its young men and women in uniform, or the lives of innocent Iranians, is not a concern, any more than it was when Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq.

Clearly such a war would be an act of madness, and yet we know that the plans, already drawn up, are being updated and fine-tuned now by generals and admirals whose twisted sense of patriotism has them giving primary loyalty to a demented commander in chief instead of to the Constitutional and the people of the United States, to both of which they swore an oath to protect.

I hope I am wrong about all this, but the sailing of the Eisenhower, which had been pushed forward recently by about a month by the Pentagon for clearly political reasons, makes me think I'm right. A key will be what happens with the Enterprise carrier strike force, which has already been on station in the Arabian Sea for six months, where it has been launching air strikes against Afghanistan and Iraq targets. Ordinarily, such deployments last six months and then the carrier group returns to base for resupply and for R&R for the crew. If the Enterprise is held over for a longer deployment, after the arrival of the Eisenhower, we will know that something serious is planned.

What is deeply troubling here is the total silence on the part of the Democratic Party opposition. Not one Democrat in Congress, and as far as I know, not one Democratic candidate for Congress -- not even anti-war insurgent Ned Lamont in Connecticut -- has demanded an answer from Bush and the Pentagon for the obvious military buildup around Iran, or about published reports that the U.S. already has special forces in side Iran backing the terrorist organization MEK, and selecting targets for U.S. bombardment.

If and when the U.S. attacks Iran, leading to a predicable -- if temporary -- rallying around the flag by the American public, and to an upset win by incumbent Republican congressional candidates, Democrats will have only themselves to blame for the debacle.

But it will be the American people -- and especially the people of Iran -- who will be the victims of this treacherous deed and this treasonous failure of will.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Dave Lindorff is co-author with Barbara Olshansky of "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office" (St. Martin's Press, June 2006). His work can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Brent Budowsky -- Men And Women Of Faith: Google "Abramoff, Marianas, Rove, Republicans, Forced Abortion"

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Brent Budowsky

To men and women of faith, in my title I suggested a Google because I do not ask you to believe me, or anyone else, in this politically supercharged election. In this case the truth is more repugnant and immoral than any political comment could fully describe and I suggest you research this yourself and talk about the results with fellow believers.

Jack Abramoff made a fortune of money, then donated a fortune to Republicans, lobbying for the Marianas. These Islands in the Pacific are an American territory not subject to all U.S. laws and on these islands, horrific, disgusting and sinful acts are committed especially against women and children.

This is no different than Mark Foley raising huge political money, then giving a hundred thousand to the Chairman for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, and be protected by Republican Leaders for so long. Congressman Reynolds may partially apologize, but when it mattered, Congressman Foley's money talked, because in Washington, if the abusers give more money than the young page, the abusers are protected and pages are endangered.

Same with Jack Abramoff, his money, the support it bought on the Marianas, the damage it did to abused children and women with forced abortions.

Please, do not believe me, check the facts independently and carefully yourself. Key words that will bring up volumes of objective stories include: Abramoff, Marianas, Rove, Republicans, forced abortion, and forced prostitution.

Among the stories you will find news about Karl Rove's chief deputy resigning, because of her ties to Abramoff. Among many other details you will find an email from her to Abramoff with "good news" that "KR" (Rove) would be helping Abramoff on the Marianas. She formerely worked for Abramoff, before joining Rove, prior to her resignation because of those ties.

There will be stories about forced abortions, forced prositition, extreme abuse of children, and horrors that are genuinely unspeakable.

There will be stories alongside them, about Republican leaders in Congress taking huge amounts of money from Abramoff.

There will be stories alongside those, about the Republicans that Abramoff gave so much money to, working with him on behalf of his Marianas clients.

There will be stories in which you will recognize the same names of Republicans under major investigation over the page abuse scandal.

There will be stories about these same senior Republicans helping Abramoff, who have been indicted, convicted or forced to resign senior Republican positions over various scandals, scams and abuses.

I am not going to detail the specific horror stories about what has happened in these Marianas cases, we have enough heated statements in this political campaign already.

I simply suggest to all men and women of faith, who want standards of honor, integrity and trust in Washington, to take a careful look at this and decide. The only way to clean up the moral mess in Washington is to clean out the people who make it happen. They will continue to make it happen so long as they are there to be corrupted by money and power.

These are not isolated examples, these are abuses that are extreme, repeated, and those who committed them have high powered Republican lobbyists giving large money in return for support from powerful Republicans in Congress and the White House.

This election is not about Democrats versus Republicans, it is about right versus wrong. Men and women of faith can do the the research, check the facts, and know that change must come to Washington.

We cannot have Congressmen who abuse pages, donate huge amounts of money to the Republican Campaign Committee and no matter how many times Congressman Reynolds apologizes, he took the money and Congressman Foley kept the job for far too long.

We cannot have Republican lobbyists who make huge money, give it to Republicans in our government, while they support actions that result in forced abortion, forced prostitution, and child abuse in the Marianas or anywhere else.

Those who violate our trust must be held wholly accountable. Enough is enough. It is high time for change.

Brent Budowsky

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Brent Budowsky served as Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen, responsible for commerce and intelligence matters, including one of the core drafters of the CIA Identities Law. Served as Legislative Director to Congressman Bill Alexander, then Chief Deputy Whip, House of Representatives. Currently a member of the International Advisory Council of the Intelligence Summit. Left goverment in 1990 for marketing and public affairs business including major corporate entertainment and talent management. He can be reached at brentbbi@webtv.net.

North Korea's Nuclear Test

North Korea's Nuclear Test
Monday 09 October 2006

It appears that North Korea has now barged into the global nuclear-weapons club by conducting a nuclear test. In the days and weeks to come, there will be much discussion about how the United States should respond. But an equally important consideration is how Washington should not respond. Some hawks have previously suggested that the United States launch air strikes against North Korea's nuclear installations and missile sites. That would be an incredibly high-risk strategy. Pyongyang might well respond with attacks on targets in South Korea and Japan, thereby triggering a general war in East Asia.

Proposals to impose an air and naval blockade on North Korea are almost as reckless. A blockade is considered an act of war under international law. Moreover, the paranoid North Korean leadership might well consider it a prelude to a U.S.-led attack and react accordingly.

America's default policy option should be to rely on deterrence and containment. A nuclear-armed North Korea is certainly an unpleasant prospect, but the United States has deterred other unsavory and volatile regimes in the past, notably Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. With thousands of nuclear weapons in our arsenal, we should be able to deter North Korea.

A better option, though, would be to encourage China to oust Kim Jong-il’s regime. Beijing has been reluctant to take that step because it fears (among other things) that the North Korean state would unravel and China would then face a united Korea allied to the United States, with a U.S. military presence on the Chinese border. Washington should assure Beijing that, if China subverts Kim’s government, the United States will withdraw its forces from the Korean Peninsula and end its alliance with South Korea. Such an offer might prove irresistibly tempting to China, and we would have found a painless way of ending the North Korea nuclear problem.

Little Boogeyman with a Big Bomb May Rescue Bush

Little Boogeyman with a Big Bomb May Rescue Bush

What a lucky stroke!

When I wrote a few weeks ago that Bush's biggest asset for the mid term elections would be to conjure up a boogeyman with a big bomb, I figured the most likely candidate was Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I was completely wrong. I discounted the wily Kim Jong Il of North Korea and his insatiable drive to reclaim center stage in world events after being ignored.With Mark Foley and the Republican cover-up completely dominating the news, Bush's only chance to keep the House and Senate Republican is to bring back terrorism and national security - front and center. Remember, concern over national security and the war on terror is still the Republican's strongest issue and Bush's only hope to squeak through. Latest poll numbers show that Republicans still lead Democrats on these issues by 17%, from 48% to 32%.Their slogan should be Terror, Terror, Terror! - All News, All the Time! Kim Jong Il's little Big Bang has come to the President's rescue. There are even some parallels between the two strongmen. Jong Il, with his elevator shoes and quirky behavior, was the ne'er-do-well, none-too-bright son of a national hero and liberator. Both inherited their positions and are struggling to stay in power.Too bad North Korea's nuclear explosion was underground. No Photos!

What Karl Rove now needs are some North Korean defectors - backed up by CIA leaks, complete with spy photos - claiming that Kim Jong Il has operational missiles that can hit Los Angeles, Washington, even New York.If the electorate believes that there is a madman capable of atomizing US cities, Bush can again assume the role of Grand Terror Warrior. The fear mongering can begin anew. "Perilous times...No way we can change horses in the middle of a nuclear standoff...We have to back the President...We are staring down the barrel of a nuclear holocaust."Not that it's going to work, but hey, what's wrong with a Hail Mary pass? Didn't we have press sightings of Karl Rove on a plane to Asia last week?

Anything that takes the public attention off the loser issues: Foley, Iraq, Iran, Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, the budget and trade deficits, is a godsend to Republicans.Nobody knows anything about North Korea or what they are capable of. Talk about inscrutable! The country has not let Westerners in for half a decade. It is a blank slate and Bush spinmeisters are free to come up with any story, however preposterous (what about an Intergalactic Death Ray), and petrify the voters.But if the voters keep talking about Foley and Speaker Dennis Hastert, the Republicans are cooked.

Don't count Rove out too quickly. There are lots of things that could go wrong in the world before October is up.

And as far as winning elections goes, Republicans have proved to be clever buggers. Democrats used to be much smarter, but gone are the days when big city bosses like Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago could register and vote 10,000 names from the graveyards.

Monday, October 09, 2006

Bush's Latest Foreign Policy Failure

Bill Scher
Bio

10.09.2006
Bush's Latest Foreign Policy Failure

Bill Scher is the author of the new book, "Wait! Don't Move To Canada!: A Stay-and-Fight Strategy To Win Back America"

As I have noted on LiberalOasis.com several times in the last four years, the Bush Administration never was interested in a negotiated deal to prevent North Korea from getting nukes.
The neocons want regime change in North Korea, in an attempt to constrict the rise of China. And they see any deal as helping the North Korea dictator remain in power.
After initially suspending talks with North Korea, and unraveling the diplomatic progress made by the Clinton Administration, the Bushies then agreed to "six-party" talks.

But the move was not intended to make new diplomatic progress. It was intended to make the Bushies look like they tried diplomatic avenues, when in fact, they made no serious proposals.

We can now see the results of this so-called "hard-line" strategy. A nuclear North Korea. A greater risk of more nuclear proliferation. A more unstable world.
This is the latest Republican foreign policy failure, after the Iraq debacle, the freedom of Osama bin Laden, and the spread of the "global jihadist movement."
Conservatives are trying to spin this to further their reckless, unilateralist agenda. The W. Post reports:
...a number of senior U.S. officials have said privately that they would welcome a North Korean test, regarding it as a clarifying event that would forever end the debate within the Bush administration about whether to solve the problem through diplomacy or through tough actions designed to destabilize North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's grip on power.
"Clarifying" is a favorite conservative code word for spinning bad foreign policy developments, meaning: "Now we don't have to pretend to be diplomatic anymore."
Having said that, this does not mean Bush will attack North Korea. After all, North Korea has nukes and could destroy South Korea. (Neocons may be crazy, but not that crazy.)

But as the W. Post piece indicates, we'll probably see an attempt to economically strangle North Korea in hopes of undermining the regime.

The problem with that strategy is: it's giving North Korea even more incentive to sell nukes to other countries or even terrorist organizations.

Economic sanctions can be an appropriate response to the nuclear test, but only if they are coupled with a sincere strategy of good-faith negotiations, which will never happen with this White House.

And bringing freedom to the North Korea people absolutely should be a goal of our government. (It's the goal of the South Korea government, which desperately wants real talks with the North.)

But the Bushies don't care about freedom, they care about geopolitical chess games.
And their poor strategic judgment is putting America and the world at risk.

Foley Helped Bush Disenfranchise Florida Black Voters

Foley Helped Bush Disenfranchise Florida Black Voters

When told about the sex antics of flamed out GOP star Mark Foley, a flushed and indignant President Bush professed shock and disgust to reporters in Stockton, California. Bush's shock and disgust was undoubtedly heartfelt given the magnitude of the sleaze and the mortal election year danger it posed to House Republican leadership, and Republican candidates.

But Bush was anything but indignant six years ago at Foley, and for good reason. Foley played a pivotal role in sealing Bush's much-disputed snatch of the White House. He helped shove thousands of dubious votes into the Bush column in his home district of Palm Beach County, Florida. And he enraged thousands of Democratic leaning black, Jewish, and elderly voters by passionately and publicly defending the manipulation, exclusion, and possible outright fraud of their votes.

A week after the election, with the air thick with lawsuits, court challenges, and accusations by Democrats of voter fraud, Foley took to the airwaves and delivered the Republicans weekly radio address. He flatly demanded that wrangling over the vote count should end. By then national attention and court challenges, focused to the faulty ballot design and the vote count in Palm Beach County.

Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan had gotten nearly three thousand votes there. That was three times greater than the total that he received in any other Florida county, and made up 20 percent of his total for the entire state. That stretched the bound of political reality past the outer limit.

Though Foley had won easy election victories in his district, Palm Beach County with its mostly Democratic top-heavy number of Jewish, and black voters was considered a near lock for Gore.

Buchanan's borderline race baiting, anti-Semitic tinged barbs were well known, and roundly despised. The several thousand votes that he got even stunned him. He publicly quipped that the votes weren't his and probably should have gone to Gore. But they didn't, and Foley helped see to that. He quickly brushed aside any notion of vote hanky panky and branded the claim that voters were hoodwinked to vote for Buchanan as nonsensical. Foley didn't stop there. He publicly defied Gore to prove that there was anything to the complaints of thousands of elderly black voters who almost certainly intended to vote for Gore, but because of the ballot hieroglyphic had their votes miscounted.

Foley well knew that even the smallest change in the vote totals would affect the outcome of the race. A manual recount would have been a disaster for Bush especially if the deeply suspect Buchanan votes were tossed.

During the days the debate raged over the vote, Foley launched a one-man spin crusade against the Democrats. He blamed outside agitators and "political operatives" for interfering in Florida's vote. He claimed that any suggestion that the vote was unfair insulted his constituents. He downplayed the significance of the vote for Buchanan, and at the same time defended it by implying that there was a stealth core of Reform Party backers in the County.

He demanded an end to the lawsuits, and appeals, and implored the Secretary of State to officially certify the vote. The rest of course is history. Thanks to a pro Bush U.S. Supreme Court decision that specifically tossed the Gore camp's flagship lawsuit against the Palm Beach registrars, the disputed votes were never recounted, and the controversial ballots weren't voided. And Bush got his wafer thin 537-vote victory in Florida, and the White House.

Bush paid a huge price for the victory that Foley helped stage-manage. Florida became the eternal symbol of black voter disgust and disfranchisement. That imprinted the indelible image of the Republicans as corrupt, mean-spirited, anti-civil rights, and racially insensitive. The Florida vote hopelessly alienated civil rights leaders, the Congressional Black Caucus, and thousands of black voters. They have waged relentless political warfare against Bush since then. Meanwhile, Foley's tight toe of the Bush legislative policy line in the House has earned him bottom grades from the NAACP on civil rights, labor and economic issues. He got an F grade on the NAACP's 2006 Civil Rights Legislative Report Card.

Foley was amply rewarded for his tireless service to Bush's dubious Florida win. He got a plum spot on the House Ways and Means Committee, and worked as right hand man to the equally disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay. The corporate and Republican National Committee money spigot flowed in torrents for his Congressional re-election campaigns and an aborted Senate run. Though Bush never publicly back patted Foley for helping deliver Florida and the White House to him, he didn't have to. GOP leaders showed their gratitude for his singular service to Bush's election by showering favors on him, up to and including their see-no-evil; hear no evil denial of his sexual hijinks. So far, they've still professed no disgust at that.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is the author of The Emerging Black GOP Majority (Middle Passage Press, September 2006), a hard-hitting look at Bush and The GOP's court of black voters. earlofarihutchinson.blogspot.com

The Embarrassed Republican

Alec Baldwin
10.08.2006

The Embarrassed Republican

Sad to think that it took the Foley situation to get the "Embarrassed Republicans" to start voicing their embarrassment. Nearly six years of lies, incompetence, lies, hate, lies, corruption, lies and war. Misguided, meaningless war that has destroyed the landscape of Iraq and the souls of the Iraqi people. And what has the war done for us, other than line the pockets of Bush, and his father's friends?


Well, you know what they say, you can lie to the American people, take us into an ill-conceived war and subvert the Constitution in the process, but you diddle one page...and it's over. I hope it's over. I'll take the end of what Gingrich started, regardless of how we get there. If it's Mark Foley's body we step over, and hopefully Hastert's as well, then so be it.

DeLay may get away. Cheney. Novak. Armitage. Rumsfeld. All your crypto-facist scum, as well. Bush, too, who will have no trouble raising money from his war-profiteering friends for a library which, I would imagine, will be the most poorly attended of any in our history. That's one certainty we can see on the horizon. Bush really is the worst president in American history. I almost feel sorry for him. Talked into the whole thing by his Dad's cronies. Unskilled. Unprepared. Just a bible in one hand and a copy of the "The Prince" in the other. How many of us knew this would never come to any good? How many of us could smell this guy 500 miles away? 9/11, the most defining moment in our recent history, perhaps in all of our history because it happened while we are perceived as the lone Superpower, and Bush can't get any traction, can't get out of the mud. He's got nothing. Nothing left. Mark Foley's lewd e-mails may actually bring him down. The Embarrassed Republicans want to get this over with. If it was a show on Broadway, it would be closing. The investors want out.

Unfortunately, we don't have that scenario in New York City. A story in yesterday's Times about students disrupting a speech at Columbia by the spokesman for the Minutemen group. They stormed the stage, etc. Mayor Mike "I'll Spend Even More If I Have To" Bloomberg said it was wrong to censor the speaker. This is the same great New York mayor who denied permits to protesters in Central Park during the 2004 Republican convention. No protests! During a convention! IN NEW YORK!!! I have many friends who have bought into Bloomberg's bullshit. Democrats who have forgotten the four "outer boroughs. I think Bloomberg is smart. He's a gentleman. And he's a phony. A Republican who bent over for this administration, which has done NOTHING for New York. If 9/11 happened in Houston, things would have been a lot different.

In California, it seems as surreal as ever. Forget about education and skills and temperament and insight. Phil Angelides has no stock footage of him running from exploding trucks. He hasn't been seen dangling from helicopters, or snapping the necks of terrorists or aliens. Arnold has
killed aliens with his bare hands. I suppose there are those who hope he will dispose of some other aliens as well. The California Democratic Party's ineptitude ought to be a lesson to the National Dems. They better start "casting." Casting the role of someone who, in the minds of media-drenched Americans, looks and sounds like a President.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Baker Commission: Carve Iraq Into 3 Autonomous Regions

(You remember Baker, the one who defended the 2000 Florida stolen Bush election case to the Supreme Court)

Challenging the Culture of Obedience

Challenging the Culture of Obedience

by ROSS C. ANDERSON
[posted online on September 1, 2006]
As President Bush visited Salt Lake City August 30 to promote his policies in Iraq and the "war on terror," Salt Lake City Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson delivered this address at a peace rally outside City Hall that drew more than 2,500 people.

Watch the video here, via CBS affiliate KUTV, Salt Lake City.
A patriot is a person who loves his or her country. Who among you loves your country so much that you have come here today to raise your voice out of deep concern for our nation--and for our world?

And who among you loves your country so much that you insist that our nation's leaders tell us the truth?

Let's hear it: "Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth!"

Let no one deny we are patriots. We love our country, we hold dear the values upon which our nation was founded, and we are distressed at what our President, his Administration, and our Congress are doing to, and in the name of, our great nation.

Blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism.

A patriot does not tell people who are intensely concerned about their country to just sit down and be quiet; to refrain from speaking out in the name of politeness or for the sake of being a good host; to show slavish, blind obedience and deference to a dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights-violating President.

That is not a patriot. Rather, that person is a sycophant. That person is a member of a frightening culture of obedience--a culture where falling in line with authority is more important than choosing what is right, even if it is not easy, safe, or popular. And, I suspect, that person is afraid--afraid we are right, afraid of the truth (even to the point of denying it), afraid he or she has put in with an oppressive, inhumane regime that does not respect the laws and traditions of our country, and that history will rank as the worst presidency our nation has ever had to endure.

In response to those who believe we should blindly support this disastrous President, his Administration, and the complacent, complicit Congress, listen to the words of Theodore Roosevelt, a great President and a Republican, who said: The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.

Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

We are here today as truth-tellers.

And we are here to demand: "Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth!"
We are here today to insist that those who were elected to be our leaders must tell us the truth.
We are here today to insist that our news media live up to its sacred responsibility to ascertain and report the truth--rather than acting like nothing more than a bulletin board for the lies and propaganda of a manipulative, dishonest federal government.

We have been getting just about everything but the truth on matters of life and death...on matters upon which our nation's reputation hinges...on matters that directly relate to our nation's fundamental values...and on matters relating to the survival of our planet.
In the process, our nation has engaged in an unnecessary war, based upon false justifications. More than a hundred thousand people have been killed--and many more have been seriously maimed, brain-damaged, or rendered mentally ill.

Our nation's reputation throughout much of the world has been destroyed. We have many more enemies bent on our destruction than before our invasion of Iraq.

And the hatred toward us has grown to the point that it will take many years, perhaps generations, to overcome the loathing created by our invasion and occupation of a Muslim country.

What incredible ineptitude and callousness for our President to talk about a Crusade while lying to us to make a case for the invasion and occupation of a Muslim country!
Our children and later generations will pay the price of the lies, the violence, the cruelty, the incompetence, and the inhumanity of the Bush Administration and the lackey Congress that has so cowardly abrogated its responsibility and authority under our checks-and-balances system of government.

We are here to say, "We will not stand for it any more. No more lies. No more pre-emptive, illegal war, based on false information. No more God-is-on-our- side religious nonsense to justify this immoral, illegal war. No more inhumanity."

Let's raise our voices, and demand, "Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth!"
Let's consider some of the most monstrous lies--lies that have led us, like a nation of sheep, to this tragic war.

Following September 11, 2001, the world knew that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for the horrific attacks on our country. Our long-time allies were sympathetic and supportive. But our President transformed that support into international disdain for the United States, choosing to illegally invade and occupy Iraq, rather than focus on and capture the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

Why invade and occupy Iraq? Vice President Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice represented to us, without qualification, that there were strong ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
In September, 2002, President Bush made the incredible claim that "You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam."

President Bush represented to Congress, without any factual basis whatsoever, that Iraq planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11 attacks.

Our President and Vice-President, along with an unquestioning news media, repeatedly led our nation to believe that there was a working relationship between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, a relationship that threatened the US.

Even last week, when I met with Thomas Bock, National Commander of the American Legion, I asked him why we are engaged in the war in Iraq. He said, "Why, of course, because of the 9/11 attacks on our country." I asked, "What did Iraq have to do with those attacks?" He looked puzzled, then said, "Well, the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

I was shocked. Here is a man who has criticized us for opposing the war in Iraq--and he is completely wrong about the underlying facts used to justify this war.

Not only has there never been any evidence of any involvement by Saddam Hussein or Iraq with the attacks on 9/11, but there has never been any evidence of any operational connection whatsoever between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Colin Powell finally conceded there is no "concrete evidence about the connection." "The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda" disclosed that "his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein." And the top investigator for our European allies has said, 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.'"

President Bush himself finally admitted nine days ago during a press conference that there was no connection between the attacks on 9/11 and Iraq. It's terrific that the President has now admitted what others have known for so long--but where is the accountability for the tragic war we were led into on the basis of his earlier misrepresentations?

Besides the fictions of Saddam Hussein somehow being linked to the 9/11 attacks and his supposed connection with Al Qaeda, what was the principal justification for forgoing additional weapons inspections, failing to work with our allies toward a solution, refraining from seeking additional resolutions from the United Nations, and hurrying to war - a so-called "pre-emptive" war--in which we would attack and occupy a Muslim nation that posed no security risk to the United States, and cause the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women, and children--and the deaths and lifetime injuries to many thousands of our own servicemen and servicewomen?

The principal claim was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction--biological and chemical weapons--and was seeking to build up a nuclear weapons capability. As we now know, there was nothing--no evidence whatsoever--to support those claims. President Bush represented to us--and to people around the world--that one of the reasons we needed to make war in Iraq - and to do it right away--was because Saddam Hussein was seeking to build nuclear weapons. His assertions about Saddam Hussein trying to purchase nuclear materials from an African nation and about Iraq seeking to obtain aluminum tubes for the enrichment of uranium were challenged at the time by our own intelligence agency and scientists, yet he didn't tell us that!

Ten days before the invasion of Iraq, it was proven that the documents upon which President Bush's claim about Saddam Hussein trying to obtain uranium was based were forgeries. However, President Bush did not disclose that to the American people. By that failure, he betrayed each of us, he betrayed our country, and he betrayed the cause of world peace.
Neither did the vast majority of the news media disclose the forgeries--until it was far too late. It took our local newspapers here in Salt Lake City four months--until after President Bush declared that major combat in Iraq was over--to report the discovery that the documents were forgeries--and, therefore, that there was no basis for the false claims about Saddam Hussein trying to build up a nuclear capability. By its failure to promptly disclose the forgeries, the news media betrayed us as well. Had the American people known we were being lied to--had President Bush informed us that the documents were forged and that he had no other basis for his claim--had our nation's media done its job, rather than slavishly repeating to us the lies being fed to it by the Bush Administration--our nation may well not have allowed the commencement of this outrageous, illegal, unjustified war.

To President Bush, to his Administration, to our go-along Congress, and to our news media, we are here today, demanding, "Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth!"
Then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that high-strength aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," warning "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Undisclosed by President Bush or Condoleezza Rice was the fact that top nuclear scientists had informed the Administration that the tubes were "too narrow, too heavy, too long" to be useful in developing nuclear weapons and could be used for other purposes. Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, agreed. So much for the phony claims of Saddam Hussein building nuclear weapons--the primary claims justifying the rush to war. What were we told about chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction? These claims were as baseless and fraudulent as the claims about nuclear weapons.

President Bush told us in his January 2003 State of the Union address that Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. Then, in May of 2003, he made the outlandish statement that, "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told us, "We know where the [WMDs] are." Vice President Cheney and then-Secretary of State Powell also joined in the chorus of lies and misinformation about weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, no stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons were found. Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay noted that Iraq did not have an ongoing chemical weapons program after 1991--a conclusion remarkably similar to statements made by Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice before the 9/11 attacks--and before they sacrificed the truth in the service of promoting the Bush Administration's case for war against Iraq.

On February 24, 2001, less than 7 months before 9/11, Colin Powell said that Saddam Hussein "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors," said Colin Powell.

And in July 2001, two months before 9/11, Condoleezza Rice said: "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

It is astounding how they changed their claims after the President decided to make a case for the invasion and occupation of Iraq! To think that we could be lied to by so many members of the Bush Administration with such impunity is frightening--chilling. Yet these imperious, arrogant, dishonest people think we should just fall in line with them and continue to take them at their word.

The truth has been established. Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on the United States. There is no evidence of any operational ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What a tragedy, leading to greater tragedy. We are fed lie after lie, our media reinforces those lies, and we are a nation led to a tragic, illegal, unprovoked war.

We are here because of our values. We love our country. We cherish the freedoms and liberties of our country. We don't call those who speak out against our nation's leaders unpatriotic or un-American or appeasers of fascists.

We have good, wholesome family values. In our families, we teach honesty, we teach kindness and compassion toward others, we teach that violence, if ever justified, must be an absolutely last resort. In our families, we teach that our nation's constitutional values are to be upheld, and that they are worth standing up and fighting for. Our family values promote respect and equal rights toward everyone, regardless of race, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation. In our families, we teach the value of hard work and competence--and we are left to wonder about a President who, after receiving an intelligence memo about the threat posed by Al Qaeda, decides to continue his month-long vacation--just before the 9/11 attacks on our country.

As we demand the truth from others, let us also face the truth. Our government all too often has not cared about the human rights of people in other nations--and it doesn't really care about democracy, unless it leads to the election of those who will do our bidding. Consider the irony regarding the claims that Saddam had chemical weapons and, because of that, we needed to rush to war in Iraq. When Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons--first against Iranians, then against his own people, the Kurds - our country provided him with biological and chemical agents and equipment to make the weapons. Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush refused even to support economic sanctions against Hussein for his use of weapons of mass destruction. What did our nation do in response to Hussein's use of chemical weapons, killing tens of thousand of people, when he actually had them?

We befriended, coddled, and rewarded him--with government-guaranteed loans totaling $5 billion since 1983, freeing up currency for Hussein to modernize his military assets.
Perhaps those in the US government who aided and abetted Saddam Hussein to further US business interests, while he was gassing the Kurds, should be sharing his courtroom dock as he is being tried now for crimes against humanity. No more lies, no more hiding of the truth, no more wars that more than triple the value of stock in Dick Cheney's prior employer, Halliburton--and which, as of last September, has increased the value of the Halliburton CEO's stock by $78 million.

We are patriots. We're deeply concerned. And we demand change, now. No more lies from Condoleezza Rice about whether she and President Bush were advised before 9/11 of the possibility of planes being flown into buildings by terrorists.

No more gross incompetence in the office of the Secretary of Defense.
No more torture of human beings.
No more disregard of the basic human rights enshrined in the Geneva Convention.
No more kidnapping of people and sending them off to secret prisons in nations where we can expect they will be tortured.
No more unconstitutional wiretapping of Americans.
No more proposed amendments to the United States Constitution that would, for the first time, limit fundamental rights and liberties for entire classes of people simply on the basis of sexual orientation.
No more federal land giveaways to developers.
No more increases in mercury emissions from old, dirty, dangerous coalburning power plants.
No more backroom deals that deprive protection for millions of acres of wild lands.
No more attacks on immigrants who work so hard to build better lives.
No more inaction by Congress on fixing our hypocritical and inconsistent immigration laws and policies.
No more reliance on fiction rather than the science of global warming.
No more manipulation of our media with false propaganda.
No more disastrous cuts in funding for those most in need.
No more federal cuts in community policing and local law enforcement grant programs for our cities.
No more inaction on stopping the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.
No more of the Patriot Act.
No more killing.
No more pre-emptive wars.
No more contempt for our long-time allies around the world.
No more dependence on foreign oil.
No more failure to impose increased fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.
No more energy policies developed in secret meetings between Dick Cheney and his energy company cronies.
No more excuses for failing to aggressively cut global warming pollutant emissions.
No more tragically incompetent federal responses to natural disasters.
No more tax cuts for the wealthiest, while the middle class and those who are economically-disadvantaged continue to struggle more and more each year.
No more reckless spending and massive tax cuts, resulting in historic deficits and historic accumulated national debt.
No more purchasing of elections by the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country.
No more phony, ineffective, inhumane so-called war on drugs. No more failure to pass an increase in the minimum wage.
No more silence by the American people.

This is a new day. We will not be silent. We will continue to raise our voices. We will bring others with us. We will grow and grow, regardless of political party--unified in our insistence upon the truth, upon peace-making, upon more humane treatment of our brothers and sisters around the world.

We will be ever cognizant of our moral responsibility to speak up in the face of wrongdoing, and to work as we can for a better, safer, more just community, nation, and world.
So we won't let down. We won't be quiet. We will continue to resist the lies, the deception, the outrages of the Bush Administration. We will insist that peace be pursued, and that, as a nation, we help those in need. We must break the cycle of hatred, of intolerance, of exploitation. We must pursue peace as vigorously as the Bush Administration has pursued war. It's up to all of us to do our part.

Thank you everyone for lending your voices to this call for compassion, for peace, for greater humanity. Let us keep in mind the injunction of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

Habeas Fascismus:The Terrorists Win

Habeas Fascismus:The Terrorists Win
By Michael I Niman ArtVoice (etc.) 10/5/06

Last week was one that will go down in infamy as one of the most important and shameful weeks in western history. While future Americans might not be allowed to freely discuss such subversive topics as history, school children in other countries will learn what happened in the last week of September, 2006. A mere five years after a band of razor wielding two-bit terrorists declared war on America by destroying the World Trade Center, both houses of the US Congress finished their job and voted to end all pretenses of democracy and begin the transition to an imperial form of governance backed by state terror.

Habeas Corpus: 1215-2006

On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of last week, while most Americans were busy discussing the possibilities of the new football season, the US Senate and Congress voted on and passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Of course, unless you’re reading The Christian Science Monitor or Al Jazeerah, you probably weren’t even privy to the proper name of the bill that ended our 791 year-old British-American legal tradition of Habeas Corpus – the foundation of all human rights legislation since before the Magna Carta.

Habeas Corpus, which is Latin for “you may have the body,” is, according to the US Supreme Court, “the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.” It is the basic requirement, formerly at least rhetorically respected, by almost every legal system on earth, that states that people who are arrested must be charged with a crime, and eventually have their day in court to defend themselves. The British Parliament adopted Habeas Corpus as the law of the land across the empire in 1679, while historians trace the first appearance of Habeas Corpus in British law to 1215. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 ends all of that, placing the United States at the bottom of the dung heap when it comes to legal protections of the most basic of human rights – the right not to be “disappeared” by one’s own government.

On the subject of disappearances, it seems all references to The Military Commissions Act of 2006 were preemptively disappeared before the bill was voted on. Talk about obfuscation – according to a Lexis/Nexis database search of all major US newspapers, only five articles mentioned the bill by name, and of the five, only two mentioned it before it was voted on.
Quisling Genuflection to Fascism Bill of 2006

The rest of the US press, according to another Lexis/Nexis search, made up euphemistically loaded names for the bill, such as The Detainee Bill, Interrogation Legislation, or the Terror Bill, as if this law would only affect “terrorists.” Of course, all this confusion made it quite difficult to locate a copy of the actual bill before it was voted on, and to locate a roll call for the vote after it was passed. It shouldn’t require a sleuth to find out something as simple as the name of the bill that essentially ends our pretenses toward democracy. In any event, I’ll join the rest of the press corps and rename the bill for my own purposes as well, hereon in calling it the Quisling Genuflection to Fascism Bill of 2006, which I’ll simply gloss as the “Quisling Act.”

According to the New York Times, the Quisling Act (s3930) creates an undefined category of people called “enemy combatants,” a designation which can be arbitrarily doled out by the Bush administration or their minions. According to The Times, once designated as an enemy combatant, a person can be subjected “to arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal.” The bill strips the legislative branch of government of any oversight over disappearances ordained by an imperial presidency. According to The Times, All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him [sic.] an illegal combatant . . .” With the elimination of Habeas Corpus, the Times points out, the disappeared “would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment.”

And while in prison, the Quisling Act allows for the disappeared to be tortured and gives the Bush administration the legal authority to decide what does and does not constitute torture, while drawing the line only at rape, murder, waterboarding and a few other of the more vile acts American interrogators have recently been accused of. Of course, if someone else, say the “democratic” government of Iraq, waterboards a prisoner, the Quisling Act states that any testimony obtained can be used as evidence in American courts. The bill doesn’t specifically mention beating detainees with pikes, stretching them on racks, or feeding them to lions – so the ultimate determination as to whether those forms of interrogation would be prohibited lies with the imperial president.

A Law to Negate the Rule of Law

The Quisling Act brings the US into uncharted legal territory. It essence, it is a law to negate the rule of law. According to legal scholars, the Bush administration can designate US citizens as enemy combatants using purposely vague guidelines under which someone can be disappeared for lending an undefined sort of material aid to a group or person unilaterally determined by the Bush administration to fall under the “terrorism” rubric. The Bush administration can also determine someone to be an enemy combatant for “purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States.” Of course, this term is not defined. And if you are disappeared for allegedly providing such support, you will not have the right to argue that you didn’t.

It gets worse. Recent laws have attempted to define terrorism in corporate friendly terms so that anyone protesting against commercial activities could be designated a terrorist. Utah, for example, passed a “commercial terrorism” bill that identified anyone picketing a business with the intent of discouraging people from entering it, as engaging in terrorism. Under this law, for instance, the now celebrated 1960 sit-in at a segregated North Carolina Woolworth’s lunch counter would be considered terrorism. If that law and the new Quisling Act were in place in 1960, the four black civil rights heroes who demanded their right to be served lunch along with white patrons would have simply been disappeared off to gulags.

A federal court struck down Utah’s law in 2001 and many people are certain that the Supreme Court will strike down the Quisling Act. But, in case you haven’t noticed, the courts are a changing. The Supreme Court has nine members. Four of them, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Bush appointees Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, have already shown themselves to line up with the Bush junta even when this meant undermining the rule of law. One more Bush appointee, and this could happen if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, and the Supreme Court could swing to becoming a 5-4 rubber stamp for whatever insanity the Bush administration sends their way.

Predictive Assassination

So lets go back and revisit what constitutes a terrorist supporter – someone who, under the laws passed this week, can be disappeared into a system of secret Gulags. Journalist Robert Parry points out that in a recent speech given by George W. Bush in the lead-up to the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, he blamed the Russian revolution and the rise of the Nazis on the fact that no one took out Lenin when he first stated publishing pamphlets on communism, or Hitler, when he first started writing about Nazism.

Hence, it appears, Bush is now advocating preemptive strikes against speech – what Parry calls, the end of free speech and free thought. According to Parry, Bush’s fantasy of “wiping out some future Lenin or Hitler would require killing or imprisoning anyone who wrote about political change in a way that rulers considered objectionable at that time.” Such “predictive assassination,” Parry argues, might kill, along with a Hitler or a Lenin, a Mandela or a Jefferson.
And if you’re wondering who the new targets for predictive assassination might be, you don’t have to look too far. In the same September 5 th speech (available at whitehouse.gov), Bush warns that intelligence evidence shows “al Qaeda intends to [launch], in [bin Laden’s] words, ‘a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government.’" Bush goes on to explain that such a campaign would paint the War on Terror as causing financial losses and casualties, ultimately, with the aim of – and he explains that these are bin Laden’s words – "creating pressure from the American people on the American government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan."

Duck and Cover

Get it. It’s the free press, reporting ridiculous notions about the costs of war, and perhaps its ineffectiveness at making us safer from anything, that are out there supporting hostilities against the United States by spreading what Bush deems as al Qaeda propaganda – or more accurately, by reporting the news of the day. How much more clear does the writing on the wall have to be? Why were we supposed to think it was a joke when Bush, early in his judicially imposed presidency, said that things would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship, as long as he was the dictator.

The Quisling Act isn’t about locking up terrorists. We’ve always done that. It’s about locking up innocent people. People who can’t be convicted of a crime because there’s no evidence that they committed a crime. This is the only new class of people who will be detained under this new law – people who were never, nor would they likely ever be, convicted of a crime. This is a bill about locking up innocent people and terrorizing the population by holding the threat of disappearance and torture over our heads.

The Senate approved the Quisling Act 65-34, with 12 Democrats joining in with an almost unanimous pack of Republicans. The Congress approved it 250-170, with 34 Democrats supporting the Republican mob. Among them was Buffalo’s own Brian Higgins. Shame on us.

Friday, October 06, 2006

Bush's Brother Neil To Make Millions Off GOP's “No Child Left Behind” Act...

Ig Nobel prizes hail 'digital rectal massage'

Ig Nobel prizes hail 'digital rectal massage'
00:30 06 October 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Jeff Hecht

'"I have always hoped to win a real Nobel prize for medicine," Francis Fesmire of the University of Tennessee College of Medicine told New Scientist. Nevertheless, he settled for the Ig Nobel prize in medicine instead, handed out along with nine other Ig Nobel prizes in a Thursday evening ceremony at Harvard University in Massachusetts, US.

It might be some consolation to note that a real Nobel prize winner was pushing a broom on stage to sweep away the paper airplanes traditionally thrown by the audience. The Annals of Improbable Research, which produces the Ig Nobel ceremony, points out that the 10 years that Harvard physicist Roy Glauber has spent sweeping the stage did not affect his selection as a physics laureate in 2005.

Fesmire, a specialist in emergency medicine and cardiology, probably did not have a real Nobel in mind when he published "Termination of intractable hiccups with digital rectal massage" in Annals of Emergency Medicine (vol 17, p 872). He was, it transpires, attempting to help a man who walked into the emergency room after hiccuping for 72 hours at up to 30 times a minute.

Heart stopper
Runaway electrical impulses in the vagus nerve cause intractable hiccups, so Fesmire attempted to block them by stimulating the nerve. Gagging, tongue pulling, sinus massage and pressing the eyeball to stimulate the vagus all failed to stop the hiccups. Then he remembered reading about a case in which digital rectal massage – inserting a finger into a patient’s anus – had slowed a racing heartbeat, an effect similar to runaway hiccups.

"It worked, and the rest is history," he says. He has not needed to go that far again for other patients, but Majed Odeh of Bnai Zion Medical Center in Haifa, Israel, did a few years later and wrote a paper with the same title that earned him a share of the Ig Nobel.
However, Fesmire will not be trying it again. In researching his Ig Nobel acceptance speech, he told New Scientist that he found a treatment sure to be more popular with hiccup patients. "An orgasm results in incredible stimulation of the vagus nerve. From now on, I will be recommending sex – culminating with orgasm – as the cure-all for intractable hiccups."