| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
PNAC member Henry S. Rowen has been hand selected by Bush to be on the committee investigating the intelligence on WMDs. He's a member of PNAC, but whats also of note is he is also a a member of the Defense Department's Policy Board, a 28-member panel that urged action against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein before the war... way to pick, George. way to pick. Also in the news today: Prosecutor sues Ashcroft http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040218/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_ashcroft_sued_6 The prosecutor is being represented by the National Whistleblower Center |
|
|
"For the moral relativists in the Bush administration, the definition of sin seems to depend on whether the sinner can further their political purposes. So Justin exposing Janet's boob is a sin, but White House staffers exposing Victoria Plame is a win. Profiting from porno is a sin, but Halliburton's wartime profiteering is a win. Two men getting hitched is a sin, but Cheney and Scalia shacking up in a duck blind is a win. Telling students condoms can prevent STDs is a sin, but lying about WMD is a win. And so, apparently, is GOP staffers hacking into Senate computers and Tom DeLay illegally funneling corporate money to Texas politicians. The president's culture war is little more than breasts and circuses. Election-year weapons of mass distraction. Hail to the panderer in chief." |
|
That's pretty damning right there. No one with a functioning brain and conscience could possibly vote for this man. |
And since Bush never reads the newspaper, he'll never know... |
Doonesbury on Coulter |
heh, at the Nascar rally he was talking about reading the sports pages about Alex Rodriguez rumors.... so does he read PARTS of the newspaper then? or was that all a lie too? hmmm... I bet he reads the funnies though. he seems the "family cicus" and "marmaduke" type |
I never thought I'd yearn for Pat Buchanan... he may be somewhat of a bigot, but he's smart and he's honest. And he was against the Iraq war. In the article above he predicts the neo-con movement may be nearing its end. Thats up to the voters. And possibly Diebold. |
A substantial fact and perhaps a subsequent accusation are leveled at the administration, whomever the Press Secretary is looks like the retard making some lame-brained non-response to it. End of the discussion. Here we have 60 prominent, respected, brilliant, nobel-lauriate scientists saying something is wrong with the process and the Bush administration basically says, "no there isn't, next question". Its fucking absurd. In the letter, which NPR paraphrased, the group of scientists understand that politics and will always be a factor, but they hoped that the actual science used to formulate such policy would be above the fray. |
|
from the London Times February 19, 2004 New inquiry examines Hollinger bonus plan From Abigail Rayner in New York RICHARD PERLE, the former US Assistant Defence Secretary and Hollinger International board member, is under investigation for allegedly failing to disclose bonuses worth about $3 million (£1.6 million) which he received for running an investment scheme, The Times has learnt. Mr Perle, a vocal supporter of President Bush, was awarded the money as a reward for investing Hollinger shareholder funds in a series of separate businesses. Mr Perle also held a stake in some of those businesses. While the scheme put Hollinger International shareholders’ money at risk, it was never disclosed to them. Richard Breedon, who heads a Hollinger committee that is already investigating other undisclosed payments to group executives, is said to be now looking at circumstances surrounding Mr Perle’s apparent undisclosed bonus. Mr Perle was one of five Hollinger International directors who participated in the bonus scheme. However, while Lord Black of Crossharbour, the publisher’s founder; David Radler, deputy chairman and chief executive of Hollinger International; Dan Colson, chief operating officer of Hollinger International; and Peter Atkinson, Hollinger vice-president, all divulged their awards to shareholders, it appears that Mr Perle has so far failed to do so. Failure to disclose such awards represents an apparent contravention of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules. Mr Perle, in common with any director of a public company, is required each year to disclose earnings above $60,000. Although Mr Perle appears to have received the biggest bonuses through the scheme between 2000 and 2001, his takings were never disclosed in the company’s proxy letters to shareholders. Mr Perle is said to have helped to set up a bonus scheme where 22 per cent of all gains on investments made by Hollinger International went into a central pot that paid bonuses to himself, Lord Black and other company executives. Shareholder money was funnelled through a company called Hollinger Digital Inc, where Mr Perle was co-chairman. The group was a unit of Hollinger International and was set up in 1996. The existence of the bonus scheme, which is understood to be documented and has been confirmed by Hollinger insiders, has not been denied by Mr Perle. When asked about the incentive scheme this week Mr Perle denied that he had received $5 million from the scheme but refused to deny that he had received $3 million, despite being given several opportunities to do so. Hollinger International invested $2.5 million in Trireme Partners, a venture capital fund in which Mr Perle was a managing partner; $14 million in Cambridge Display Technology, a British-based technology group; and a further $3 million in Onset, where he serves on the board of directors. There were several other investments. CASE HISTORY Fresh allegations involving non-disclosure payments at Hollinger International come as lawyers representing Lord Black of Crossharbour continue their fight today to win the right to sell the media baron’s controlling stake in Hollinger International, publisher of The Daily Telegraph, and The Sunday Telegraph, to the Barclay brothers. |
Attack ads. Bush just produced one accusing Kerry of being beholden to special interests. This administration is so out of touch the instant irony of the Bushies making such an ad was completely lost on them. plus there's the whole attack on Max Cleland (complete with more outright lies from Coulter). and then the lesser known attack on Wellstone prior to his death, when the National Republican Senatorial Committee (chaired by Bill Frist) ran ads against Wellstone that attacked him for voting for a bill that proposed spending a few thousand bucks for seaweed control on Maui, and using that to say he priortized that over national defense. Well, he did vote for that bill, along with 86 other senators. What teh ad failed to mention was that the same bill provided $21 bill for vet health care, another $27 bill for vet compensations and block grants to help out NYC after 9/11. Frist attended Wellstone's memorial and talked to David Wellstone, the senator's son. He expressed his regrets to David, who asked Frist if he autorized the seaweed ad. Frist said he did, and Wellstone then asked him if he voted for the bill, which Frist admitted that he did, and then said the ad was nothing personal. Wellstone replied "My dad took it personal. Thanks for coming to my family's memorial." Vote 'em out. Now. |
did anyone ever hear of this story from last month? "you got a pretty face" hah! gold! |
last week it was Drudge doing rumors this week its Buzzflash no names, but I think its clear that if they are saying it will damage Bush, they could only be referring to Jeb. or possibly Arnie or maybe even Rick Perry... anything less and I dont think this hurts Bush any. |
|
|
|
When Bush said he would have gone to Vietnam if he could. now, look at the document I just linked to, find the highlighted red areas. Whether or not Bush volunteered for overseas... is blacked out So are the choices for preferences of where to be stationed in the US Now... if Bush had chosen "yes" to volunteer for overseas, he would have had to do that same procedure (choose order of preference of where to be stationed) for the overseas areas... and those would have also been blacked out. They are not. They are blank. Therefore, Bush did not volunteer to go overseas... aka draft dodger |
yup. Rick Perry. |
listen http://www.bushflash.com/wmf/malloy.mp3 |
gentlemen start your engines |
By Molly Ivins Creators Syndicate Just for the record, since the record is in considerable peril. These are Orwellian days, my friends, as the Bush administration attempts to either shove the history of the second gulf war down the memory hole or to rewrite it entirely. Keeping a firm grip on actual historical fact, all of it easily within our imperfect memories, is not that easy amid the swirling storms of misinformation, misremembering and misstatement. But because the war itself stands as a monument to what happens when we let ourselves get stampeded by a chorus of disinformation, let's draw the line right now. According to the large American team that spent hundreds of millions of dollars looking for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, there aren't any and have not been any since 1991. Both President Bush and Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, now claim that Saddam Hussein provoked this war by refusing to allow United Nations weapons inspectors into his country. That is not true. Bush said Sunday: "I had no choice when I looked at the intelligence. … The evidence we have discovered this far says we had no choice." No, it doesn't. Last week, CIA director George Tenet said intelligence analysts never told the White House "that Iraq posed an imminent threat." Let's start with the absurd quibble over the word imminent. The word was, in fact, used by three administration spokesmen to describe the Iraqi threat, while Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld variously described it as "immediate," "urgent," "serious and growing," "terrible," "real and dangerous," "significant," "grave," "serious and mounting," "the unique and urgent threat," "no question of the threat," "most dangerous threat of our time," "a threat of unique urgency," "much graver than anybody could possibly have imagined," and so forth and so on. So could we can that issue? A second emerging thesis of defense by the administration in light of no weapons is, as chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said, "We were all wrong." No, in fact, we weren't all wrong. Bush said Sunday, "The international community thought he had weapons." Actually, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency both repeatedly told the administration there was no evidence that Iraq had WMDs. Before the war, Rumsfeld claimed not only that Iraq had WMD but that "we know where they are." U.N. inspectors began openly complaining that U.S. tips on WMD were "garbage upon garbage." Hans Blix, head of the U.N. inspections team, had a crew of 250 people from 60 nations -- including about 100 U.N. inspectors -- on the ground in Iraq, and the United States thwarted efforts to double the size of his team. You may recall that during this period, the administration repeatedly dismissed the United Nations as incompetent and irrelevant. But containment had worked. Nor does the "everybody thought they had WMD" argument wash on the domestic front. Perhaps the administration thought peaceniks could be ignored, but you will recall that this was a war opposed by an extraordinary number of generals. Among them was retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who has extensive experience in the Middle East and who said, "We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started." After listening to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz at a conference, Zinni said, "In other words, we are going to go to war over another intelligence failure." Give that man the Cassandra Award for being right in depressing circumstances. Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan was equally blunt. Any serving general who got out of line, like Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, was openly dissed by the administration. Suddenly the administration is left with the only good reason there ever was for getting rid of Saddam in the first place: He's a miserable SOB. You will recall that this is precisely the argument that the administration rejected. Wolfowitz said that human rights violations by Saddam against his own people were not sufficient to justify our participation in his ouster. Now, according to the president, Saddam is a "madman." Oh, come on. An SOB, yes, but crazy like a fox -- always has been. It wasn't even crazy of him to have invaded Kuwait, given that April Glaspie, the American ambassador to Iraq at the time, told him, "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." For everyone who ever cared about human rights and longed for years to get rid of Saddam, this late-breaking humanitarianism on Bush's part is actually nauseating. All the Amnesty International types who risked their lives to report just how terrible Saddam's rule was always had one question about getting rid of him: What comes next? I don't think there is any great mystery here about how this "mistake" -- such an inadequate word -- was made. For those seriously addicted to tragic irony, consider that the most likely Democratic nominee is now Sen. John Kerry, who first became known 33 years ago for asking, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" |
By Mark Green, AlterNet February 20, 2004 George W. Bush is different, very different. Other presidents have misled, deceived, even lied. When Ike was asked his worst mistake, he candidly said, "The lie we told [about the U-2]." LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin were examples of both deception and self-deception. The problem today is not simply that "Bush is a liar." While only he knows whether he's intentionally saying untrue things, it is a provable fact that he says untrue things, again and again, on issues large and small, day in and day out. The problem is not "16 words" in last year's State of the Union but 160,000 words on stem cells, global warming, the "death tax," the Iraq-9/11 connection and the Saddam-al Qaeda connection, the rise of deficits, cuts to Americorps, the air in downtown Manhattan after 9/11. On and on. It is beyond controversy that W "has such a high regard for the truth," as Lincoln said of a rival, "that he uses it sparingly." Why this penchant for falsehoods? First, George W. Bush begins any policy consideration with three fundamental questions: What does the religious right want? What does big business want? What do the neo-conservatives want? If he has stood up to any of these core supporters in the past three years, examples don't come readily to mind. Convinced by political advisor Karl Rove that the way to a second term is to "activate the base," his policy process is more catechismic than empiric – instead of facts leading to conclusions, conclusions lead to "facts." Second, he is openly uninterested in learning and reading – the Bushes "aren't serious, studious readers" he has said, also admitting that he now reads headlines, not articles. The point is not that he's stupid, only that he knew less about policy and the world as a presidential candidate than the average graduate student in government. Lacking Eisenhower's worldliness or JFK's intellect, however, Bush is prone to grab onto a politically useful intellectual framework like a life preserver and then not let go – whether it's Myron Magnet's sour interpretation of the 60s in "The Dream and the Nightmare" or Paul Wolfowitz's Pollyannaish analysis of the likely consequences of an American invasion of Iraq. The result: the most radical, messianic and misleading presidency of modern times. Frankly, no one else comes close. It has gotten to the point that President Bush appears to believe that he can do almost anything if he says the opposite: hence "no child left behind," "clean skies law," "healthy forests," and "love the poor" are mantras repeated in the hope that he can bend reality to his will. Arthur Miller calls it "the power of audacity." Bush himself in the past has aptly called the first Tuesday in November "Reality Day" because talk ends when there's a real result. So what happens on presidential "reality days" when the results are the opposite of his wishful assertions – when we find neither WMD nor cheering crowds in Iraq, when a surplus of $5 trillion becomes a deficit of $4 trillion, when there are so few stem cell lines for scientific research that scientists leave for London, when the ice caps melt due to global warming, when a Supreme Court of largely Republican appointees rules that affirmative action is not "quotas" but desirable – and when the populations of even our allies regard us as a "bungling bully" (in the phrase of the Financial Times). When Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 were shown how their pie-in-the-sky economics were producing ruinous deficits, they enacted tax hikes to begin to correct the economy. Not Bush 43. Hearing only applause as he shuttles between his financial base to military bases – W retreats into messianic incompetence. "We don't second guess out of the White House," he announces, confusing stubbornness for strength; and he tells the G-8 leaders in 2001, "Look, I know what I believe and what I believe is right." Whenever President Bush is now confronted with an unacceptable reality, he either changes the subject – is steroid use really more important than the environment? – or expresses confidence in his certainty. "I'm absolutely confident that..." he'll say, as if the issue is his determination rather than his conclusion. One is reminded of Igor in Young Frankenstein, who when asked about the foot-high hump on his back blithely answers, "What hump?" This is not just a credibility gap but a reality gap. An empirically challenged and uninformed leader in denial and governing on a (right) wing and a prayer, however, is a big problem. What if Bush were president during the missiles of October – would he have been able to avoid a nuclear war? That he squandered a quarter trillion dollars and 4,000 American casualties attacking Iraq because al Qaeda in Afghanistan attacked us is not encouraging. Just when they're needed, the usual mechanisms to bring a president to his senses are badly malfunctioning. A Congress of the same party now almost never holds adversarial hearings or holds him accountable, unlike how the Republican Congress treated Clinton. And with noteworthy exceptions, most of the media essentially gave him a pass on his eyebrow-raising military and business histories. The early and continuing storyline was that he was a charming guy who made up funny names for reporters and was no pompous prevaricator like his 2000 opponent. It was strange that, until the Niger-uranium fabrication, the media wrote far more about the spectacular deceptions of Jayson Blair than the more consequential deceptions of George W. Bush. Of course, adding to his immunity is the understandable impulse to rally around a president during a crisis – a crisis the president regularly stokes as in his recent "State of Baghdad address" to the Congress. Or as commentator E.J. Dionne put it, W's slogan might as well be "the only thing we have to fear is the loss of fear itself." So it comes down to November 2. If the public rewards W with a second term – and with no re-election contest to impose any possible moderating influence – then W's far-right impulses will be vindicated and corroborated. On that "reality day," which will prevail – Bush's certainty or our reality? |
I see Kerry challenged Bush to a debate on their views of Vietnam, to be seperate from the other debates they have in the future, because of all the attacks on Cleland, McCain and himself... its a good political move but it aint gonna happen. |
|
Bin Laden "Surrounded" be hopeful, however remember the Sunday Telegraph has had a bucketload of dubious 'scoops' over the past year and a half. |
Bin Laden "Surrounded" be hopeful, however remember the Sunday Telegraph has had a bucketload of dubious 'scoops' over the past year and a half. |
|
Are some looking to set the entire Capital on fire because the service issue is being directed at the President? I don't understand. |
US paying group that gave false leads... But thats what they were paying them for! |
Education Secretary Brands NEA 'Terrorist Organization' |
1. The human race will not eliminate war in this century, but we can reduce the brutality of war--the level of killing--by adhering to the principles of a "just war," in particular the principle of "proportionality." 2. The indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will lead to the destruction of nations. 3. We are the most powerful nation in the world--economically, politically and militarily--and we are likely to remain so for decades ahead. But we are not omniscient. If we cannot persuade other nations with similar interests and values of the merits of our proposed use of that power, we should not proceed unilaterally except in the unlikely requirement to defend the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii. 4. Moral principles are often ambiguous guides to foreign and defense policy, but surely we can agree that we should establish as a major goal of U.S. foreign policy, and indeed of foreign policies across the globe, the avoidance in this century of the carnage--160 million dead--caused by conflict in the 20th century. 5. We, the richest nation in the world, have failed in our responsibility to our own poor--and to the disadvantaged across the world--to help them advance their welfare in the most fundamental terms of nutrition, literacy, health and employment. 6. Corporate executives must recognize there is no contradiction between a soft heart and a hard head. Of course, they have responsibilities to stockholders; but they also have responsibilities to their employees, their customers, and the society as a whole. 7. President Kennedy believed a primary responsibility of a president--indeed, I would say the primary responsibility of a president--is to keep the nation out of war if at all possible. 8. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations. And economic sanctions are rarely effective. We should build a system of jurisprudence--based on the International Criminal Court that the U.S. has refused to support--which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity. 9. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists' across the globe, we should develop a sense of empathy--I don't mean "sympathy," but rather understanding--to counter their attacks on us and the Western World. 10. One of the greatest dangers we face today is the risk that terrorists will obtain access to weapons of mass destruction, as a result of the breakdown of the non-proliferation regime, to which we in the U.S. are contributing. 11. We fail to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions. At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world. - Robert McNamara ************************************************ Go see "The Fog of War." Especially you, Spunky. |
the guy was obviously joking. and anyone who knows anything of the NEA and its lobbying tactics, like all prominent lobbys knows how they are. bad joke. non-issue. Robert McNamara said those things? And to think he was a Secretary of Defense under Nixon. |
johnson. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Russia has successfully tested a hypersonic anti-Star Wars weapon capable of penetrating any prospective missile shield, a senior general said Thursday" HELLO arms race! |
"Russia has successfully tested a hypersonic anti-Star Wars weapon capable of penetrating any prospective missile shield, a senior general said Thursday" HELLO arms race! |
I just thought this should be brought up again |
|
new book says Bush signed the order for Iraq war in February 2002... and this is from the Pentagon correspondent who works for the conservative Washington Times.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1154473,00.html CIA given data on hijacker long before 9/11 this one bad for Bush AND Clinton http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/24TERR.html?ex=1078595980&ei=1&en=632ff5fcd8eab297 |
Wednesday, February 25, 2004 WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The frequently irreverent "Doonesbury" comic strip is offering $10,000 to anyone who can show that President Bush served in the Alabama Air National Guard. "That's right -- we're offering $10,000 cash to anyone who can prove George W. Bush fulfilled his Guard duty in Alabama," Wednesday's strip said. "So if you served with Mr. Bush -- even if only in the officers' club -- we want to hear from you right now!" Readers are referred to the Web site doonesbury.com, where a Witness Registration Form asks for online testimony. The site says the prize money is being underwritten by Doonesbury creator Garry Trudeau. "Thanks to Bush's massive tax cuts for people who don't need them, GBT is flush." The hitch is the winner will not actually receive the reward. Instead the Web site says the cash will be donated in the winner's name to the United Service Organization (USO), which entertains American troops. The strip first offered the reward on Monday and already there are hundreds of responses, according to David Stanford, duty officer at the online Doonesbury Town Hall. "We're only in day three and have already received witness forms from over 600 contestants, with more streaming in every hour," Stanford said in an e-mail response to questions. "We'll be carefully processing all of them, but what's immediately striking is that so many who've plunged into the depths of their 1972 memories have surfaced with accounts that involve automobiles, alcohol, aliens, secret ops and Elvis," Stanford said. The White House had no comment on the contest, but Christine Iverson of the Republican National Committee said laughingly, "It sounds like a stunt worthy of a comic strip." Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe has accused Bush of being absent without leave from his Guard service from May 1972 to May 1973. |
- Ann Coulter's latest I find this hilarious, considering she's forgetting Bush Sr. was one of the chief architects of NAFTA |
White House's limits upset 9/11 panel Length of interviews, access restricted is there any reasonable explanation for this shit? Why the fuck does the 9/11 investigation keep getting fucked with? |
what a dumbass thing to say. |
Bush vs. Veterans warning: more bad industrial music and pretentious presentation |
Pussy, pussy, pussy. |
They dont want to extend it not because they're going to find something major in that time, but because it would bring the deadline to the end of July, closer to the election. so if there IS something damaging, the sting will still linger. Pussy president. Just like his old man. |
Abortion and Privacy Justice Department’s Subpoenas Include Planned Parenthood Records By Jake Tapper ABCNEWS.com Feb. 26— U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's subpoenas regarding the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act demand hundreds of women's medical records for all surgical abortions performed in the last year at six Planned Parenthood affiliates across the country — including some abortions performed very early in the second trimester, ABCNEWS has learned. "Ashcroft's actions are a sweeping invasion into medical privacy," said Elizabeth Toledo of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "He has been overzealous in his desire to attack access to legal abortions in this country." According to court documents, the affiliates affected are in San Diego, Los Angeles, New York City, Washington, D.C., western Pennsylvania and the Kansas/mid-Missouri region. Two weeks ago, the Department of Justice subpoenaed medical records from five university hospitals, stemming from a lawsuit filed in federal court against the department by seven doctors seeking to overturn the act, which was signed into law in November 2003. Planned Parenthood filed a separate lawsuit against the Justice Department over the late-term abortion ban, calling it unconstitutional because the procedures can be medically necessary. In its filing, however, the Justice Department says it is merely trying to determine Planned Parenthood's basis for making that argument. "If the central issue in the case, an issue raised by those who brought the case, is medical necessity, we need to look at those medical records to find out if indeed there was medical necessity," said Ashcroft on February 12. Will Women Be Scared Away? Abortion rights opponents agree with Ashcroft. "They're only interested in the medical facts and the proof that that procedure was, as these doctors allege, medically necessary," said Rep. Melissa Hart, R-Pa. Asked about patients' privacy rights, Ashcroft insisted the Department of Justice was taking "every precaution possible" to "mask identifying characteristics of patients and to expunge, if you would, the identifying names and addresses, those kinds of things." But Planned Parenthood officials say that patients' identities can be ascertained from medical records even if names and addresses are expunged. Less than 10 percent of the procedures the organization and its affiliates perform are abortion-related, they say, and they fear the subpoenas will scare away their patients. "The women who come to Planned Parenthood are now going to be afraid that their medical records and procedures are not going to be private," said Jatrice Martel Gaiter of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., one of the subpoenaed affiliates. "They are going to stop coming. They are going to stop getting reproductive health services that include breast exams, PAP smears and HIV testing and counseling." Ashcroft has asked that the medical records be turned over to the government on March 5; Planned Parenthood plans a legal challenge. |
|
|
interview with Bush administration whistleblower Karen Kwiatkowski. read it. |
"Q: You believe that decision was made by the time you got there, almost a year before the war? A: That decision was made by the time I got there. So there was no debate over WMD, the possible relations Saddam Hussein may have had with terrorist groups and so on. They spent their energy gathering pieces of information and creating a propaganda storyline, which is the same storyline we heard the president and Vice President Cheney tell the American people in the fall of 2002. The very phrases they used are coming back to haunt them because they are blatantly false and not based on any intelligence. The OSP and the Vice President’s Office were critical in this propaganda effort — to convince Americans that there was some just requirement for pre-emptive war." |
you owe it to yourself to listen to this in full |
yeah I know, it was the George W. Bush joke, I get it hah.. but conservative bloggers have been trying to fight back and get someone else on the top of the list... jimmy carter, michael moore, howard dean, hillary clinton, etc are also on the search list now.. now you know whats actually lame about this? you know they say conservatives have a shitty sense of humor, we get mean sometimes and just plain call them idiots... ..but this is idiotic. why dont they do something to Clinton or Kerry with a DIFFERENT set of words, like "Scumbag" or "Botox" or "murderer" or "French" or something? By trying to get in on the 'miserable failure' action, I'm calling them on a lack of creativity. I mean, thats pretty pathetic, come on. |
Could they possibly suck Bush's dick a little harder? |
Bush: Soft of terrorism remember the Clinton bashing because Mansoor Ijaz said Clinton could have got bin Laden? Well, think anyones actually going to touch this one? |
lasted less than a month. Wow. Well this is what happens when you bring experts in their field on your show and tell them that they're wrong. That Ritter thing was just too much. I still laugh. O'Reilly does it too, and his other talents have got him through it, but who knows how long that'll last? |
|
David Kay: "Come Clean" http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1160842,00.html Blair War Crimes Case Launched http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3524133.stm UN Iraq inspectors: US is not co-operating http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22597-2004Mar2?language=printer |
|
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040304.shtml |
|
|
|
|
|
I hear Planned Parenthood has demanded access to his medical records Okay, that was very low of me, I admit. He could seriously be in trouble here. I do find it weird though that he has gall bladder pancreatitis. That disease usually only happens to lifetime alcoholics. |
"As I understand it, the dangerous religion is the one whose messiah instructs: "[I]f one strikes thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" and "Love your enemies ... do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you." The peaceful religion instructs: "Slay the enemy where you find him." (Surah 9:92). " Surah 9:92 actually says: Nor (is there blame) on those who came to thee to be provided with mounts, and when thou saidst, "I can find no mounts for you," they turned back, their eyes streaming with tears of grief that they had no resources wherewith to provide the expenses. Its about horses. Not killing Americans. So how did she end up thinking that passages says something it didnt? do a google search: WorldNetDaily: Muhammad, a 'demon-possessed pedophile'? ... Islam's inclination toward violence, he added, also is reflected in the Koran: "Slay the enemy where you find him" (Surah 9.92). ... www.worldnetdaily.com/ An Editorial by Dr. Jerry Falwell ... all claims that this passage says 'slay the enemy' they all go back to Jerry Falwell which means that in attacking the Muslim religion, Ann Coulter used JERRY FALWELL as her resource, rather than checking the passage herself. Falwell. Thats fucking possum. I cant wait for her next column where she says we're lying about this, hoping her idiot readers wont check the Qu'ran for themselves as she insists it says that, or finds some way to convince them thats what it MEANT to say... |
it's weird. i never see these people. i never see or hear these freaky right wing nutcases out in meatspace. maybe it's because i avoid public places. i dunno. someone nearby should just choke them to death. |
One would think that a self-proclaimed "Christian" would make a concerted effort in trying to emulate the teachings of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him). However, looking back throughout his life, you would be hard pressed to find Jesus mocking another religion on a daily basis, and/or attacking an entire race of human beings. Ann on the other hand, apparently missed this Sunday school lesson, and continues to ridicule Islam sarcastically as the "religion of peace" whenever a negative story arises within the Muslim world. Quoting another column titled "Would Mohamed Atta Object to Armed Pilots?" Coulter offers a solution to the airport restrictions that Americans are now facing: " I don't know, how about ... NO ARABS? (Religion-of-Peace Update: As they prepare to stone a rape victim to death in Pakistan, the latest suicide bombing in Israel claimed the lives of a grandmother and her 18-month old granddaughter.)" Although Mr. Pipes is still the nation's leading Islamaphobe, there is little doubt on who is the chief Islamaphobess. Coulter will probably continue to rise in popularity until the public realizes that she is merely a product of the heated political climate, and how little knowledge she truly possesses. One thing she will never lack is an aptitude for the offensive. When asked recently how Arabs should be allowed to get around, Coulter replied: "They should use flying carpets." |
d00d, consider where you live. One of the investors in my company once told me he couldn't be sure if a programmer was technically competent unless they were "right with the Lord." Our main salesman kept a bible on his desk and would tell anyone who asked how Muslims were all going to hell. |
In response to the main attack on Kerry being flip-flopping, this site put together a list of Bush's. |
|
|
you might be right, I'm surprised with Kerry. I guess he really wants this. |
The ad shows Kerry, boats at a marina and oceanfront property as an announcers says: “Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Hairstyle by Christophe’s $75. Designer shirts: $250. Forty-two foot luxury yacht: $1 million. Four lavish mansions and beachfront estate: Over $30 million.” Another shot is of Kerry and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., with the words: “Another rich, liberal elitist from Massachusetts who claims he’s a man of the people. Priceless.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4479109/ Hahahahaha... The GOP picking on Kerry's wealth. Isnt that "class warfare"? |
any politician nailing any other politician on class, wealth and privilege is ridiculous. As far as Im concerned, in terms ofpolitical history, wealth and place in society, the Bush's are no different than the Kennedy's, just different philosophies. |
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/03/far04007.html i know it goes without saying but there are too many unlected interest groups pulling strings and calling shots. |
|
Stern, a megolomaniac, but perhaps right: On Monday, Stern insisted he wasn't crying wolf. He said his sources told him that FCC Chair Michael Powell is "freaking out." "He realizes that once he fines me, and I'm thrown off the radio, he'll set me free to be one of the most powerful men in this country," said Stern. "He's concerned he's handing Kerry the election by throwing me off the air." |
|
U.S. Unloading WMD in Iraq Tehran Times | March 13 2004 TEHRAN (Mehr News Agency) – Over the past few days, in the wake of the bombings in Karbala and the ideological disputes that delayed the signing of Iraq’s interim constitution, there have been reports that U.S. forces have unloaded a large cargo of parts for constructing long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the southern ports of Iraq. A reliable source from the Iraqi Governing Council, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Mehr News Agency that U.S. forces, with the help of British forces stationed in southern Iraq, had made extensive efforts to conceal their actions. He added that the cargo was unloaded during the night as attention was still focused on the aftermath of the deadly bombings in Karbala and the signing of Iraq’s interim constitution. The source said that in order to avoid suspicion, ordinary cargo ships were used to download the cargo, which consisted of weapons produced in the 1980s and 1990s. He mentioned the fact that the United States had facilitated Iraq’s WMD program during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq and said that some of the weapons being downloaded are similar to those weapons, although international inspectors had announced Saddam Hussein’s Baath regime had destroyed all its WMD. The source went on to say that the rest of the weapons were probably transferred in vans to an unknown location somewhere in the vicinity of Basra overnight. “Most of these weapons are of Eastern European origin and some parts are from the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. The U.S. obtained them through confiscations during sales of banned arms over the past two decades,” he said. This action comes as certain U.S. and Western officials have been pointing out the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered in Iraq and the issue of Saddam’s trial begins to take center stage. In addition, former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has emphasized that the U.S. and British intelligence agencies issued false reports on Iraq leading to the U.S. attack. Meanwhile, the suspicious death of weapons inspector David Kelly is also an unresolved issue in Britain. ------Occupation Forces Official Claims to Have No Information About Transfer of WMD to Iraq ------- A security official for the coalition forces in Iraq said that he has not received any information about the unloading of weapons of mass destruction in ports in southern Iraq. Shane Wolf told the Mehr News Agency that the occupation forces have received no reports on such events, but said he hoped that the coalition forces would find the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction one day. Coalition forces and inspectors have so far been unable to find any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. invaded Iraq under the pretext that Iraq possessed a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. |
So that's why we are against an international war crimes tribunal... |
Pretty interesting... |
has absolutely nothing to do with politics, but I had to get this in here somehow. Found this the other day while drunk and trying to go to abc.com. Diaper Fetish. Wow. |
what a douche. |
|
|
|
|
|
- new Spanish PM Zapatero |
|
You know how this happened? the media has been so lazy and complacent these past few years that Rumsfeld, Bush, and as we saw recently, Dennis Miller, have gotten so used to getting away with saying whatever they want they aren't capable of or prepared to respond convincingly when stood up to. |
for instance, a claim by Kerry that some foreign leaders quietly hope for his win. The Bush Co. want him to name them or shut up, citing Kerry's reluctance to name them as an indicator that he is lying. Are the Bush people REALLY stupid enough to believe that Chirac and Schroeder REALLY want another 4 years of antagonistic relations with the US????? OF COURSE some foreign leaders want Bush out. Jesus christ man. Also, some of the advertising that is being reported. Though I have yet to see any kind of Bush commericial, the latest being reported that Kerry is somehow against the troops because he didnt support the massive funding bill last fall. What? How pedestrian and overly simplified can you be? Whats next, are they going to call Kerry a "terrorist-lover" a "supporter of Saddam" ? Sorry trace, but what im hearing the Bush administration sounds a lot like the illogical nonsense that has come from in recent years. |
|
It was boneheaded of Kerry to bring it up in the first place, even if its true. However, its hilarious that the Bush crew is saying "if you cant name them you're lying", considering how secretive the administration has been, and how during the March to war they had claimed they had all this undeniable proof that they wouldnt show anyone. Know what? Maybe they're being sincere. They know that they dont prove things because they're lying, and assume that must be true with everyone else in the world! |
HOWARD STERN'S SCHWING VOTERS The raunchy jockey is mobilizing his army of listeners against Bush -- and they could make a difference in November. By Eric Boehlert, Salon.com, 3.12 Declaring a "radio jihad" against President Bush, syndicated morning man Howard Stern and his burgeoning crusade to drive Republicans from the White House are shaping up as a colossal media headache for the GOP, and one they never saw coming. The pioneering shock jock, "the man who launched the raunch," as the Los Angeles Times once put it, has emerged almost overnight as the most influential Bush critic in all of American broadcasting, as he rails against the president hour after hour, day after day to a weekly audience of 8 million listeners. Never before has a Republican president come under such withering attack from a radio talk-show host with the influence and national reach Stern has. "The potential impact is huge," says Charles Goyette, talk-show host at KFYI in Phoenix. "And it's not just with the 8 million people who tune it, it's that he breaks the spell. Everybody's been enchanted by Bush, that he's a great wartime leader and to criticize him is unpatriotic. Now Stern pounds him every day and it shatters that illusion that the man is invincible and he shouldn't be criticized." "He's got one of the biggest audiences in all of radio, and perhaps the most loyal," says Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers magazine, the nonpartisan monthly that covers radio's news/talk industry. "And that's why he's so dangerous for the White House." Stern had strongly backed Bush's war on Iraq, but in the past two weeks, he has derided the president as a "Jesus freak," a "maniac" and "an arrogant bastard," while ranting against "the Christian right minority that has taken over the White House." Specifically, Stern has assailed Bush's use of 9/11 images in his campaign ads, questioned his National Guard service, condemned his decision to curb stem cell research and labeled him an enemy of civil liberties, abortion rights and gay rights. In other words, it's the kind of free campaign rhetoric the Democratic National Committee couldn't have imagined just one month ago. "Our research shows many, many people in the 30- to 40-year-old range who were Bush supporters are rethinking that position and turning away from Bush because of what Howard Stern has been saying," says Harrison. Coming in tandem with Wednesday's announcement that the much-talked-aboutliberal radio network Air America will debut at the end of the month, there's an indication that Republicans may finally get a taste of the commercial talk-radio wars, which for years have tilted almost uniformly to the right and teed off on progressive causes and politicians. "Overnight, Stern's probably increased by an important percentage the amount of talk-radio airtime that is not right-wing," notes Martin Kaplan, associate dean of the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communications. "His show does make a difference in terms of media ecology and what's out there. It's letting people know how they feel is an acceptable way to feel. What the media do is put out a version of what's normal. And if all that's out there is Rush Limbaugh and Dittoheads, then centrists and progressives see themselves as the minority. But if you can hear voices on the airwaves that sound like the voice in your own head, you begin to realize it's a polarized, 50/50 nation." Kaplan will host a nightly media affairs program on Air America. [Salon.com will contribute one story each day to Air America's programming.] Stern's sustained fm taunts come at a tough time for the White House, which has watched Bush's approval ratings fall to new lows. Even more disturbing for Republica ns was the revelation in the latest USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll that Bush's traditionally strong support among male voters is down significantly, and that Bush actually trails Kerry among those voters. "That's the demographic Howard Stern targets specifically," says Goyette. "If Bush's grip on men continues to soften, he could be in big trouble." Anecdotally, those daily phone calls from listeners -- mostly men -- who tell Stern they usually don't vote, but this year they're definitely going to vote against Bush (and it's usually against, Bush not for Sen. John Kerry) cannot be comforting to the Bush/Cheney '04 strategists. "Karl Rove and the White House would have to be brain-dead to not know they have a problem here," says Goyette. There are early signs that Bush supporters are indeed nervous about Stern's crusade. This week Limbaugh wrote a newspaper Op-Ed column dismissing Stern's claims against Bush as coming from "the left-wing fringe." (Stern returned fire, labeling Limbaugh a Bush "lackey.") Stern's torrent of Bush barbs came in the wake of Clear Channel Communications' move in late February to pull Stern off six of its stations, condemning his program as "vulgar, offensive and insulting." Following the controversial Super Bowl halftime show featuring Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson, Clear Channel, like most major broadcasters, was under scrutiny over allegations it broadcast indecency. Clear Channel's radio chief was scheduled to testify before Congress where he was sure to face hostile questioning. On the eve of that congressional appearance, Clear Channel, which had never raised serious concerns about Stern's show before, suspended the program from its radio outlets. Clear Channel's move appeared to be more a symbol than a substantive effort to shut Stern down. The communications giant carried the shock jock only in six markets. Viacom's Infinity Broadcasting -- a Clear Channel competitor -- is Stern's syndicator and main radio vehicle. But Stern quickly complained on-air that the real reason Clear Channel yanked his show was that just days earlier he'd begun questioning the president and praising comedian/commentator Al Franken's anti-Bush book "Lies, And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." Stern insisted it was political speech, not indecency, that got him in trouble with the San Antonio broadcasting giant, whose CEO, Lowry Mays, is close to the president and the Bush family. The jock still condemns Clear Channel and its Republican connections, but most of Stern's firepower today is directed squarely at Bush and his close association with the religious right, which Stern says is the driving force behind the FCC crackdown on indecency. Some in the broadcast business see Stern, perhaps best known for ushering into radio "Lesbian Dial-a-Date" contests, as a corporate clown whose political influence is not on par with the likes of Don Imus, the syndicated shock jock turned smart-aleck pundit. "Who cares what Howard Stern thinks about people running for public office?" says one longtime radio executive. "Imus is different, that's more of a thinking guy's show. With Howard, it's pure narcissism." Yet Stern has proven his political clout in the past. Known mostly for his libertarian take on politics, in 1992 he made news by endorsing Republican Christie Todd Whitman for governor of New Jersey, and she then won in an upset over Democrat Jim Florio. (She repaid the favor in 1995 by naming a New Jersey highway rest stop after the jock.) Stern has also backed Republican George Pataki for New York governor. "When Stern says he helped Pataki win," says Goyette, "I don't think anybody doubts that." That's because of the bond Stern has built with his fans. "He's got a passionately loyal audience, which includes many extremely affluent and white-collar listeners," notes Paul Colford, who wrote an authorized biography of Stern, "The King of All Media." "However he wants to play his most recent grievance, he's got a nucleus of tens of thousands of fanatics who are willing make the phone calls and send e-mails and show up at Times Square to protest, whatever the course of action may be." "They're addicted to this guy and that's an awesome power," says Harrison. "Stern has moral authority with these people, in part because he has not been beating the drum for a political agenda for all these years." It's that relative absence of political discussion on Stern's show in the past that might make the current anti-Bush barrage more influential. "The fact that his audience does not tune in to him to hear about politics means that he is not just preaching to a choir, in the way that most of the conservative talk-show hosts are doing," says David Barker, author of "Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion and American Political Behavior." It's an audience, he suggests, that might be more open to persuasion from a broadcaster like Stern. Approximately 8 million listeners tune in each week. And at any given moment during his four-hour program roughly 1.4 million people are tuned in. By way of comparison, that's more than the number of morning viewers at any given time watching Fox News, CNN and MSBNC -- combined. "There's no question," says Harrison, "Stern is the sleeping giant of liberal radio." |
this week, i've actually dialed back into stern on my way to work to hear some of these rants that are making headlines. i just hope all of this anti-Bush momentum can keep it up. through the summer and into next fall. |
|
pick virtually any issue that government has to deal with and if there's a position, either for or against the issue, that can be described as the "asshole" position, that will be the republican position. it really makes me want to hurt them. |
|
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040317_1181.html |
|
|
|
Al Qaeda endorse Bush for President. HAH! |
A Stern Mp3 if anyone wants a sample of whats going on there grainy and bad sounding though |
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/conover01.htm |
And not only that, by calling it a "911" event, the lower body count and relatively much lower amount of destruction just serves to trivialize what happened. |
|
|
|
|
But....it is strangely appropriate here, too. |
Arianna Huffington calls on progressives to present not just a political vision for America, but a moral one. Editor's note: This is the text of a speech delivered by Arianna Huffington at the National Voice Summit in Washington Tuesday. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Arianna Huffington March 18, 2004 | It's certainly great to be here at the National Voice Summit ... or as I prefer to think of it: "The Passion of the Progressives." It's amazing what three years of fanatical right-wing policies can do to bring progressive-minded people together. In fact, Grover Norquist has done so much to bring us together I understand he has been listed as an honorary organizer. Here is a sample of the conservative movement's philosophy as articulated by Grover: "There is now another challenge in front of us as activists, and that is to create the conditions that make it possible for elected officials to say not only 'no' to tax increases, but 'no' to the spending interests." For those who are not bilingual, "spending interests" in the conservative movement lexicon are things like roads, clean water, Social Security, Medicare, a court system. What I'd like to do today is present an alternative vision, a political and moral frame into which all of this incredible, inspiring work you are doing can be fitted so we can reach as many people as possible. We are, undoubtedly, a nation divided. And a nation divided cannot stand, let alone move forward. But it can, paradoxically, as we've seen in the last three years, move backwards. So our vision has to be bigger than the things that divide us. A vision that returns us to the idealism, boldness, and generosity of spirit that marked the presidencies of FDR and JFK and the short-lived presidential campaign of Bobby Kennedy. A nation that has been divided by fear can be united by hope. Great social movements -- and I believe that is what we are a part of here today -- are not sparked by subtle shifts in policy or retooled versions of familiar proposals. Nor are they sparked by attacks alone, however brilliant and justified. In other words, pointing out all that is destructive about the Bush administration's policies will not be enough in 2004. Nor will offering a new-and-improved prescription drug plan for senior citizens. We need to offer an overarching moral vision for America that is the alternative to the conservative movement's "Leave us Alone Coalition." This is not a vision based on right versus left. It's a vision based on right versus wrong. My response to the Leave-Us-Alone Coalition is simple: Sorry, no can do. There are no gates or walls high enough. There are no bank accounts large enough to isolate you from the consequences of growing social inequities. We are all in this boat together. And the fact that there isn't a hole at your end of the boat doesn't mean you are safe. The vision of all of us in the same boat together is the founding vision of this country. Even before there was a United States of America, when John Winthrop landed in Massachusetts Bay in 1630, he stood on the deck of the Arbella and gave a speech that gave voice to what would become the central American creed: "We must bear one another's burdens ... we must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others' necessities." This is the heart of what this country is about. And the exact opposite of the Republican messianic vision of national salvation through ever-bigger tax cuts. But let's not fool ourselves. This call to worship at the church of tax cuts, while very destructive, has also proven incredibly alluring: It's clear, it's broad, and it's accessible. Its downsides aren't immediately apparent, especially given how the media covers our elections as something between a horse race and a reality dating show. That's why we must present a bold alternative vision that is equally clear, broad, and accessible. One that answers a larger question than simply, "Do you want to keep more of your money?" The question we must make this election about, the one which every presidential election should be about, and the one which our vision should answer is this: "What sort of America do you want to live in?" There are four elements to this vision: 1) It's based on the values that have served as the foundation for every great social breakthrough in American history. The Emancipation Proclamation. The 19th Amendment. The New Deal. The Voting Rights Act. The Clean Air Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act. These are all milestones on our journey toward a just society -- and they all represent values held dear by most Americans. Values, I repeat, not founded on questions of right or left, but on questions of right or wrong. These milestones were all once considered unthinkable ... until society realized they were right -- and inevitable. 2) This vision will respond to the real hunger in this country to be part of something larger ... something better. I believe the country is so longing for this that I consider an appeal to idealism the sleeper issue of 2004. And there was a lot in the fascinating findings that Stan Greenberg and Celinda Lake presented yesterday that backs this up. So instead of censoring, editing, mitigating and homogenizing the progressive message to appeal to the 4-6 percent of swing voters, let the message be bold, inspiring and appealing to the 50 percent of voters -- 100 million of them -- who have given up on even voting. Instead of slicing and dicing our message, let us appeal to the better angels of all Americans, including those who are now sitting on the other side of our House Divided. I learned a profound political lesson in January 1993, 11 years ago, when I was still a Republican -- and let's not forget Dennis Miller was still a liberal, and still funny. At a "Conservative Summit," in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the National Review, I gave a speech entitled "Can Conservatives Have a Social Conscience?" The event was kicked off in bombastic style by Master of Ceremonies Charlton Heston, who smugly announced that he was "one of the most politically incorrect people" because "I am heterosexual, Anglo-Saxon, married to the same woman for 49 years, and not the recipient of any entitlement of any kind." That type of statement tends to set a certain tone. Sitting on the dais, scanning my notes, I listened with mounting horror to the speaker who preceded me, Brent Bozell, who had been the national finance chairman of the legendarily inclusive '92 Buchanan for President campaign. As Bozell's hard-right homilies were paraded in front of what, in the interest of fairness, can only be described as an adoring crowd, I asked myself two questions: "How can he and I both call ourselves Republicans?" and "Where is the nearest exit?" Approaching the podium with trepidation, I wondered what the audience that applauded the previous speakers' harsh brand of conservatism would do with mine, which challenged the audience to rise to what I considered the core of true conservatism -- the biblical admonition that we shall be judged by what we do for the least among us. But the same conservative audience that gave a standing ovation to Bozell gave a standing ovation to me. We just appealed to different parts of their brains and their psyches. We are all -- even the very best of us -- a mixture of good and evil, of self-interest and generosity. For our movement to change America, we need to appeal to what is best in people -- and trust that they will respond. This trust -- and the reason I am so optimistic about this vision -- is because of my ultimate faith in human nature. Goodness, empathy, and engagement in building community often begin in small steps. And then people begin to see themselves differently. But remember, for years, for decades now, our leaders have pandered to our baser instincts and our empathetic muscles have atrophied. Even after 9/11, when the longing to be called to a large, collective purpose was paramount, all we were called to do was to go shopping. But the generosity, selflessness and courage that emerged on 9/11 are still very much part of who we are. 3) In politics, he who controls the language defines the political debate. So we need to take back from the conservatives certain magical words that they have appropriated and perverted: Responsibility, values, family, security, strength and, yes, morality, which the right wing has reduced to sexual morality. Look at Wal-Mart, which considers itself so moral it made a huge fuss of pulling three men's magazines off the shelf at the same time it treats women like second-class citizens, fires workers who try to unionize, and is being sued in 30 states for refusing to pay overtime. So we've come to the point where laddie magazines are immoral, but cheating your workers is not. We have to change this. And we need to start by taking "responsibility" back. Indeed, in the book I just finished on the subject, I call this moral vision "The Vision of New Responsibility." Personal responsibility is essential, but so is developing a sense of responsibility for others. I have two daughters, 12 and 14, and that's what I teach them -- that's what we all teach our children, unless we want to see them growing up to be Ayn Rand fanatics celebrating "the virtue of selfishness," like, say, Alan Greenspan. Social responsibility is also the essence of extended family, so central to the immigrant experience. If we win this battle, then we'll win the battle on taxes -- a word that has become a synonym for evil. Because in a society where social responsibility thrives, education, healthcare and opportunity for all are not something we get to if we can, but a moral imperative. When we articulate this vision, we move the game to our field. Right now, we are playing on Grover Norquist's and Karl Rove's home turf -- and therefore, we are playing defense -- never more so than on the question of values and especially family values. We need to take back family values and point out that struggling working parents have a really hard time pulling off the Ozzie and Harriet routine. A home-cooked meal? When? Talk to your kids about drugs? When? In the waits at the emergency room which you're using as your general practitioner because you haven't got health insurance? 4) John Lewis said that "when Bobby Kennedy died, something died in American politics, something died in all of us." But I believe that something can be reborn -- and I believe this much more now than I believed it on Sunday night before this conference began. And, if our movement becomes the midwife of this rebirth, we'll be unstoppable and we will produce the landslide Joan Blades envisioned this morning. But to do this we must remember not just to give facts but to tell stories, both stories that put flesh and blood on the faceless statistics of the unemployed and the working poor, and stories about the other side of the mountain, about the country we can create if this vision guides our public policy. So whatever else we may be doing, whether we are connecting to the African-American constituency, or single women, or making people laugh on Air America Radio, let's remember that our common purpose is to put heart and soul back in American politics. These are big dreams, but if we are to seize this moment in our history, nothing less will do. |
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=1429 |
(damn commas) http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1170535,00.html |
US government faked Bush news reports Chris Tryhorn Tuesday March 16, 2004 TV news reports in America that showed President George Bush getting a standing ovation from potential voters have been exposed as fake, it has emerged. The US government admitted it paid actors to pose as journalists in video news releases sent to TV stations intending to convey support for new laws about health benefits. Investigators are examining the film segments, in which actors pretending to be journalists praise the benefits of the new law passed last year by President Bush, to see if they could be construed as propaganda. Two of the films are signed off by "Karen Ryan", who was an actor hired to read a script prepared by the government, according to production company Home Front Communications. Another video, intended for Hispanic viewers, shows a government official being interviewed in Spanish by a actor posing as a reporter with the name "Alberto Garcia". One segment shows a pharmacist telling an elderly customer the new law "helps you better afford your medications". "It sounds like a good idea," the customer says, to which the pharmacist replies, "A very good idea." And in some scenes President Bush is shown receiving a standing ovation from a crowd cheering him as he signed the Medicare law, which is designed to help elderly people with prescriptions. The government also prepared scripts to be used by news anchors. "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare," the script reads. "Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details." The "reporter" then explains the benefits of the new law. Lawyers from the investigative arm of Congress discovered the tapes as part of an investigation into federal money that was used to publicise the new law. They will be keen to ascertain whether the government might have misled viewers by failing to reveal the source of the videos, which were broadcast in Oklahoma, Louisiana and other states. "Video news releases" of this sort have been used in the US since the 1980s, but the way they blur the lines between news and advertising troubles many media experts and campaigners. The government defended the videos, which Democrats described as "disturbing". "The use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector," a health department spokesman told the New York Times. VNRs are also used in Europe but a furore surrounding a Greenpeace video package about its campaign to prevent the dumping of Shell's Brent Spar oil platform sent to British broadcasters some years ago led to new rules clamping down on their use. Greenpeace's sophisticated media offensive - including the provision of emotive film footage of its occupation of the platform - resulted in one-dimensional coverage by BBC and ITN, news chiefs admitted at the time. Guidelines were subsequently drawn up to label video news releases as such - a category which the regular Osama bin Laden videos now fall. |
Bush campaign gear made in Burma http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzsell0319,0,1292393,print.story?coll=ny-top-headlines WATCH THIS BBC Video - Bush blocked Bin Laden probe prior to Sept. 11 for political reasons |
sorry... this is the video |
|
http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/8114.html |
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Karen_Ryan this shit is disgusting. |
first mention of that oil-for-food thing in awhile |
Today their big topic was the possible suitcase nukes Al Quaeda is reported to have. Foxnews is really entertaining. In the same 15 minute period, they reported that the #2 Al Quaeda guy being hunted in Pakistan is A) not really there, B) dead (but U.S. intel denies this), and C) might still be there. (according to Pakistan) |
http://images.google.com/images?q=left+arrow&imgsz=icon |
|
|
I guess it was called a left arrow because in the original graphic it's on the left of a graph. |
Incredible allegations from Richard Clarke. Condi Rice as time to talk to Fox News execs, but no time to talk to the 9/11 commission. |
|
Make no mistake, innocent civilian death is on the hands of Israel as much as Palestine, the difference is some have helicopter gunships to do something about it. fucking sad. |
Free Speech in Crawford, TX |
http://www.howardstern.com/HS_Bad_Amer_Pres_GWB.mp3 a parody of those 'real american hero' beer ads... of course its not funny, but thats Stern |
Former Bush counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke has written a book critical of the Bush White House's handling of Al Qaeda. What's your reaction? a. I will not read the book. It does not interest me. (24%) 20,395 b. I reserve judgment on Clarke's criticism until I have read his book. (4%) 3,161 c. I think Clarke is disloyal to the president and a disgrace. (59%) 49,291 d. I think Clarke is a patriot for speaking out. (9%) 7,449 e. None of the above (4%) 3,536 83,832 total votes |
kinda funny article on Drudge's quest to down Kerry |
thanks to fark.com for the hilarity. |
by cherry picking in his reporting... Bill claims he doesnt trust Clarke cuz he wont go on his show. Then he showed a clip where Clarke appeared to support Bush, back in 2002. O'Reilly of course shows the new claim, and badgers a student about why Clarke flip-flopped, instead of showing Clarke's response to this from the 9/11 commission. Why? Because he can bully some kid, but not a videotape clip shown in its proper context of course. Then he said the commission is partisan... if Bill had any integrity and was truly independent he'd be bullying Rice to testify. Instead he's on the Clarke-bashing team. |
Wait. Why the fuck was your Top Official on Terrorism who was an expert on the subject transcending many administrations "out of the loop"? What the fuck does that say about the incompetence about Cheney and Co.? |
|
|
Bush thinks its funny that he can't find WMDs. |
Why didn't we do that for Harry Potter? (p.s. maybe i will read it this weekend if I get a chance). |
funny image: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.parcol11.0018.ImageFile.jpg |
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/03/26/body.armor.ap/index.html |
"GOP donors double dipping with Nader. Contributors deny that financial support is designed to hurt KerryMarch 26, 2004 Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is getting a little help from his friends – and from George W. Bush's friends. Nearly 10 percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at least $250 each have a history of supporting the Republican president, national GOP candidates or the party, according to computer-assisted review of financial records by The Dallas Morning News. Among the new crop of Nader donors: actor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein, Florida frozen-food magnate Jeno Paulucci and Pennsylvania oil company executive Terrence Jacobs. All have strong ties to the GOP. " http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/0327... (Free registration required) |
A point-by-point analysis of how one of America's top national security officials has a severe problem with the truth March 26, 2004 Download: DOC, RTF, PDF Pre-9/11 Intelligence CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02 FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01] CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04] FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04] CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04] CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"] CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04] Condi Rice on Pre-9/11 Counterterrorism Funding CLAIM: "The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold" before 9/11. – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/24/04 FACT: According to internal government documents, the first full Bush budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Source: New York Times, 2/28/04; Newsweek, 5/27/02] Richard Clarke's Concerns CLAIM: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04 CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 FACT: "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." – 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04 Response to 9/11 CLAIM: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04] 9/11 and Iraq Invasion Plans CLAIM: "Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 FACT: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02] Iraq and WMD CLAIM: "It's not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/18/04 FACT: The Bush Administration's top weapons inspector David Kay "resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion" and has urged the Bush Administration to "come clean" about misleading America about the WMD threat. [Source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04] 9/11-al Qaeda-Iraq Link CLAIM: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection. [Source: BBC, 9/14/03) compiled by American Progress http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=40520 |
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/lonegunmen.html |
|
This is hilarious. Bush attacking Kerry for using religion for political purposes... How many more of these potkettleblack moments are we going to have? And is this worse than joking about not finding WMDs? No. No it is definitely not. |
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer CRAWFORD, Texas - National security adviser Condoleezza Rice is waging a vigorous defense of her actions in every public forum except one: the Sept. 11 commission where she would be questioned about the government's failure to prevent the terrorist attacks. Rice declared Sunday night that "nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify" to the commission. But, she added, "there is an important principle involved here: It is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress." She has appeared before panel members in closed session. Interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes," Rice also said she'd like to meet with the families of the Sept. 11 victims. "I'd love to meet with (Rice) as long as it's under oath and it's live in front of television cameras," responded Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband Ronald died in New York's World Trade Center. Love that last bit. LUFF it |
I didnt know Leno actually had the capacity to tell a good one once in a while... meh "President Bush says he has just one question for the American voters,'Is the rich person you're working for better off now than they were four years ago?'" -Jay Leno "President Bush was in Los Angeles yesterday where he announced his new campaign theme - 'Safer, Stronger, and Tested.' Isn't that a condom ad?" -Jay Leno "They said that President Bush's war in Iraq has cost the former Spanish Prime Minister his job. So President Bush isn't losing American jobs anymore, he's branching out to other countries." -Jay Leno "John Kerry said today he wants to debate President Bush once a month. Hey good luck, if Bush couldn't make it to the National Guard once a month, he's not going to show up for this." -Jay Leno "President Bush has unveiled his first campaign commercial, highlighting all of his accomplishes in office. That's why it's a 60-second spot." -Jay Leno "I heard this today and I thought this was fascinating and interesting. President Bush has two daughters, two beautiful daughters, and they may work on their father's presidential campaign after they get out of college and I thought, well, that's a pretty good move because in this economy, they won't be able to find real jobs." -David Letterman "The election is in full-swing. Republicans have taken out round-the-clock ads promoting George Bush. Don't we already have that? It's called Fox News." -Craig Kilborn "Kerry is well on his way to reaching his magic number of 2,162. That's the total number of delegates he needs to win the Democratic nomination. See for President Bush it's different - his magic number is 5. That's the number of Supreme Court judges needed to win." -Jay Leno "Some sad news, President Bush's lapdog passed away. Gee, I didn't even know Tony Blair was sick!" -Jay Leno "Is it me or is President Bush's life starting to sound like a country song? He's from Texas, his dog just died, and it looks like he might lose his job. Next thing, his truck is going to break down." -Jay Leno "The Democrats say that President Bush doesn't have an exit strategy for Iraq. Of course he does. If things don't go well, he exits in November." -Jay Leno "A new poll says that if the election were held today, both John Kerry and John Edwards would beat President Bush by double digit margins. The White House is so worried about this, they're now thinking of moving up the capture of Osama Bin Laden to next month." -Jay Leno "President Bush is now focusing on jobs. I think the one job he's focusing most on is his own. The White House is now backtracking from its prediction that 2.6 million new jobs will be created in the U.S. this year. They say they were off by roughly 2.6 million jobs." -Jay Leno "In Louisiana, President Bush met with over 15,000 National Guard troops. Here's the weird part: nobody remembers seeing him there." -Craig Kilborn "President Bush said he was 'troubled' by gay people getting married in San Francisco. He said on important issues like this the people should make the decision, not judges. Unless of course we're choosing a president, then he prefers judges." -Jay Leno "It was reported in the paper that President Bush received a 'warm reception' from the Daytona 500 drivers. Well sure, the drivers had never met anyone who was sponsored by more oil companies than they were." -Jay Leno "In his annual economic report to Congress President Bush said that the transfer of American jobs overseas is actually part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time. So basically, losing your job to someone else can be a good thing. Of course we'll see how he feels about that in November." -Jay Leno "George W. Bush was told that there was a leak in the White House as to a CIA agent's name and has vowed to find who it is. So, to date, these are the following things George W. can't find: The leak in the White House, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Osama Bin Laden, the link between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, and his own ass with two hands and a flashlight. " - Tina Fey, Saturday Night Live "The White House has now released military documents that they say prove George Bush met his requirements for the National Guard. Big deal, we've got documents that prove Al Gore won the election." -Jay Leno "There was an embarrassing moment in the White House earlier today. They were looking around while searching for George Bush's military records. They actually found some old Al Gore ballots." -David Letterman |
ugh http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/20040330/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc_2 |
|
fuck. must reboot again. |
|
I found this recent footage of Eric Alterman on Dennis Miller's show. Watch as Eric well, he didnt debate circles around Miller because Miller didnt even try to debate back. Miller just leaned there lazily and acted rude and childish and disinterested, which I guess is his only recourse when he's actually now been exposed as not being very smart at all, and certainly not smart enough to stick up for Bush. if the neocons are smart they'll find a way to pull some strings and get Miller out of there, because he's not helping them one bit. |
|
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s819685.htm |
|
that press conference was one of the funniest things I've ever seen... he did not bring his A game he did not even bring his B-minus game that was complete falling on his face hilarity, didnt answer any questions, showed absolute arrogance and idiocy when he couldnt think of one mistake he'd made that one was so easy, with Iraq he could have just said better planning for immediately after the war to prevent looting, not dismantling the iraqi army, not bombing important government offices... theres shitloads of things he does not know whats going on, has no control over anything but whats amazing is he and his cronies... they think they do! |
The thing that really annoys me is he always gets ahold of three or four tired catch phrases and uses them over and over, such as "we were not on a war footing before 9/11." You can almost picture his dress rehearsals with his staff -- drilling these phrases into his head so at least he'll have something to say up there. And he always has something totally off the wall that he interjects in these things like the mustard gas found in a turkey farm in Libya. What the fuck was that all about? I thought you just said that Libya had turned their back on terror. I could go on and on -- his grammar when he said something about "the North Korea people who starve" instead of "the North Korean people who are starving," his "I wouldn't be happy if I was occupied" (as opposed to his country being occupied), the constant references to consoling the families of the dead -- yeah, I bet he does a lot of consoling etc. etc. Admitting some sort of failure or responsibility would have made him look a lot better IMO. |
QUESTION: Following on both Judy and John's questions, and it comes out of what you just said in some ways, with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have, quite significantly over the past couple of months, I guess I'd like to know if you feel, in any way, that you have failed as a communicator on this topic. BUSH: Gosh, I don't know. I mean ... QUESTION: Well, you deliver a lot of speeches, and a lot of them contain similar phrases and may vary very little from one to the next. And they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going, with the exception of tonight. It's pretty somber. BUSH: A pretty somber assessment today, Don, yes. inquired as to his communication skills and he responds with "gosh" ? wtfdood? Who votes for this guy after hearing this? He's ineptitude shows so brilliantly in conferences like this, thus this was only his 3rd one. |
arnold calls in. they make nice. im so confused. |
|
|
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2004/04/13/bush13.DTL but you should just watch or listen instead, its so much more telling: http://www.cspan.org/ |
he really does not have any idea what is going on does he? |
the debate about whether or not he has been 'playing stupid' or is just stupid... thats over. he may actually be a smart guy in other things, i dont know. but its clear he's not up to speed with his job. |
Two more claims from last night's presidential press conference need adjusting: Libya. We've heard a lot from the president in the last few months about how he got Moammar Qadaffi to abandon his WMD programs in December 2003. He mentioned Libya again last night as proof that at least one world despot had picked up on the lesson Bush taught Saddam. "We've had some success as a result of the decision I took [to invade Iraq]," Bush said last night. "Take Libya, for example. Libya was a nation that had — we viewed as a terrorist — a nation that sponsored terror, a nation that was dangerous because of weapons. And Colonel Qadaffi made the decision, and rightly so, to disclose and disarm for the good of the world." In his State of the Union address, Bush claimed that Qadaffi abandoned his nuclear program after "nine months of intense negotiations." Not quite. As Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institution wrote weeks ago: "In fact, Libyan representatives offered to surrender WMD programs more than four years ago, in then-secret negotiations with U.S. officials. In May 1999, their offer was officially conveyed to the U.S. government … Libya was facing a deepening economic crisis amid disastrous economic policies and mismanagement of oil revenue. Sanctions imposed by the United Nations and the U.S. prevented Libya from importing oil-field technology that would have allowed it to expand oil production. The only way out was to seek rapprochement with Washington. Reinforcing this imperative was Qadaffi's quest for respectability. Fed up with pan-Arabism, he turned to Africa, only to find that old revolutionary allies like Nelson Mandela had become recognized as statesmen. Removing the sanctions and their stigma became his priority." Then there are the Iraq oil revenues. Asked by ABC News' Terry Moran how he got it so wrong that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the war-ravaged country's reconstruction -- among other never-materialized claims about the war -- the president said that in fact, "the oil revenues are bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time." Actually, we already know that Iraq's oil revenues are far below what the administration had estimated. As the AP reported last fall: "Wolfowitz told a House panel in March that Iraqi oil revenues could be between $50 billion and $100 billion in the next two years. 'We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon,' Wolfowitz said in testimony March 27, a little more than a week after the war started. Current Pentagon estimates say that Iraq's oil revenue will be about $12 billion to $15 billion next year and around $19 billion in 2005 -- a fraction of Wolfowitz's prewar claim." -- Geraldine Sealey |
"Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free. I'd strongly disagree with that. I reject that. " you word-twisting, arrogant motherfucker. Translation- If you're not with us you're not only with the terrorists...you're also a racist! I'm glad to know he rejects racism though. That's really good to know. Glad he sorted that one out. Pathetic. The whole time he reminded me of Eugene Levy's character in "A Mighty Wind". Which is funny, but not for a world leader. It's scary. |
|
|
QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? ANSWER: And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions. uh but sir, you arent answering the question FOLLOWUP: I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request. BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them. Um. Sir. Either you are too stupid to understand the question, have a fly in your ear and can't hear the question or you don't have an answer as to why you are testifying with Cheney at your side. Your non-answer unintentionally answers the question anyway so it doesnt matter. |
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1837704 |
|
|
"'They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm,' said Bush, referring to Libya's voluntary disclosure of weapons in March. The next day, the White House said the accurate figure for the Libyan mustard gas was 23.6 metric tons, or 26 short tons, not 50 tons. Moreover, the substance was found at different locations across Libya, not at a turkey farm. And observers did not find mustard gas on the farm at all, but rather unfilled chemical munitions, the White House acknowledged." |
|
here you go: Bob Woodward's latest book Plan of Attack--supposedly written with the White House's cooperation--has been the hot topic on the cable news channels this fine morning. It seems this is yet another in a seemingly endless stream of must-reads that reveal the inner workings of what will someday be known as the most corrupt, incompetent administartion in U.S. history. Lots of revelations about the phony run-up to the war here. ________________________________ Woodward: Bush planned Iraq war amid diplomacy WASHINGTON -- Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy Franks and his war Cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to a new book on the origins of the war. <snip> By early January 2003, Bush had made up his mind to take military action against Iraq, according to the book. But Bush was so concerned that the government of his closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, might fall because of his support for Bush that he delayed the war's start until March 19 here (March 20 in Iraq) because Blair asked him to seek a second resolution from the United Nations. <snip> Woodward describes a relationship between Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell that became so strained Cheney and Powell are barely on speaking terms. Cheney engaged in a bitter and eventually winning struggle over Iraq with Powell, an opponent of war who believed Cheney was obsessively trying to establish a connection between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network and treated ambiguous intelligence as fact. Powell felt Cheney and his allies -- his chief aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and what Powell called Feith's "Gestapo" office -- had established what amounted to a separate government. The vice president, for his part, believed Powell was mainly concerned with his own popularity and told friends at a dinner he hosted a year ago that Powell was a problem and "always had major reservations about what we were trying to do." Before the war with Iraq, Powell bluntly told Bush that if he sent U.S. troops there "you're going to be owning this place." Powell and his deputy and closest friend, Richard Armitage, used to refer to what they called "the Pottery Barn rule" on Iraq: "You break it, you own it," according to Woodward. <snip> On Nov. 21, 2001, 72 days after the attacks on New York and Washington, Bush directed Rumsfeld to begin planning for war with Iraq. "Let's get started on this," Bush recalled saying. "And get Tommy Franks looking at what it would take to protect America by removing Saddam Hussein if we have to." He also asked: Could this be done on a basis that would not be terribly noticeable? <snip> The president described praying as he walked outside the Oval Office after giving the order to begin combat operations against Iraq, and the powerful role his religious belief played throughout that time. "Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. ... I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for personal strength and for forgiveness." ________ Has there ever been more negative, reliable books ever written about one president? |
check it out before they realize their mistake http://www.georgewbush.com/KerryMediaCenter/#books |
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/jordan_terror_suspects_5 if half the article is true....its safe to say, its going to get a lot worse, before it ever gets better. |
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040420/wl_uk_afp/britain_attacks_fbl_040420182017 terrorist plots to kill thousands foiled. what does this mean? control. |
Republicans demand Kerry release his military records, hoping to try and find some dirt it doesnt. in fact, they make Kerry's record look more impressive than most (including I) thought it would be. So then do this: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/20/kerry.military/index.html stick some guy who became part of Kerrys unit 2 MONTHS after Kerry left Vietnam, to trash Kerry's record on the pundit shows... ...because you know, he has the right to comment, having not served with Kerry and everything. sheesh. |
|
|
Tucker Carlson no longer supports the war in Iraq: http://www.observer.com/pages/nytv.asp |
Missle Defense Shield Wont Work |
the questions are too pandering and why would a marine refer to a cluster bomb as an ICBM (intercontinental ballastic missle) ? |
dispicable. shameful what a mess that pack of wolves in the White House have made. They done more to bring America to its knees than any terrorist could ever do. My god. Where's my valium. |
I question the basic humanity of any American who does not feel shame after watching that. |
|
|
the thing is, we swept into that country not knowing a god damn thing. everything we thought we knew, was wrong. so with a giant hand, they just grabbed swaths of individuals....and as they are admitting to today, 90% or more were totally innocent, or at least should have been afforded Geneva Convention treatment. But it seems like they were just shooting blindly in the dark, interrogating each captive as if THEY knew where the fucking weapons were. Its a fucking dark age that those motherfuckers in the White House, those pack of wolves, have led this country into. |
|
How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to replace a lightbulb? The Answer is SEVEN: one to deny that a lightbulb needs to be replaced one to attack and question the patriotism of anyone who has questions about the lightbulb, one to blame the previous administration for the need of a new lightbulb, one to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of lightbulbs, one to get together with Vice President Cheney and figure out how to pay Halliburton Industries one million dollars for a lightbulb, one to arrange a photo-op session showing Bush changing the lightbulb while dressed in a flight suit and wrapped in an American flag, and finally one to explain to Bush the difference between screwing a lightbulb and screwing the country. |
This was printed in the Sun Herald, from Southern Mississippi (aka, not a 'liberal' newspaper) Posted on Fri, May. 21, 2004 Trucks made to drive without cargo in dangerous areas of Iraq BY SETH BORENSTEIN Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Empty flatbed trucks crisscrossed Iraq more than 100 times as their drivers and the soldiers who guarded them dodged bullets, bricks and homemade bombs. Twelve current and former truckers who regularly made the 300-mile re-supply run from Camp Cedar in southern Iraq to Camp Anaconda near Baghdad told Knight Ridder that they risked their lives driving empty trucks while their employer, a subsidiary of Halliburton Inc., billed the government for hauling what they derisively called "sailboat fuel." Defense Department records show that Kellogg Brown and Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, has been paid $327 million for "theater transportation" of war materiel and supplies for U.S. forces in Iraq and is earmarked to be paid $230 million more. The convoys are a lifeline for U.S. troops in Iraq hauling tires for Humvees, Army boots, filing cabinets, tools, engine parts and even an unmanned Predator reconnaissance plane. KBR's contract with the Defense Department allows the company to pass on the cost of the transportation and add 1 percent to 3 percent for profit, but neither KBR nor the U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill., which oversees the contract, was able to provide cost estimates for the empty trucks. Trucking experts estimate that each round trip costs taxpayers thousands of dollars. Seven of the 12 truckers who talked to Knight Ridder asked that they not be identified by name. Six of the 12 were fired by KBR for allegedly running Iraqi drivers off the road when they attempted to break into the convoy. The drivers disputed that accusation. In addition to interviewing the drivers, Knight Ridder reviewed KBR records of the empty trips, dozens of photographs of empty flatbeds and a videotape that showed 15 empty trucks in one convoy. The 12 drivers, all interviewed separately over the course of more than a month, told similar stories about their trips through hostile territory. "Thor," a driver who quit KBR and got his nickname for using a hammer to fight off a knife-wielding Iraqi who tried to climb into the cab of his truck, said his doctor recently told him he might lose the use of his right eye after a December attack. Iraqis shattered his windshield with machine gunfire and bullets whizzed by his ear. Glass got in his eye, and he broke two bones in his shoulder, he said. His truck was empty at the time. "I thought, `What good is this?'" he recalled. Shane "Nitro" Ratliff of Ruby, S.C., who quit working for KBR in February, recalled a harrowing trip in December. As he was hauling an empty truck to Baghdad International Airport, Iraqis threw spikes under his tires and a brick, a cement-like clot of sand and gasoline through his windshield, scattering shards of glass all over him and into his eyes. "We didn't have no weapons; I had two rocks and a can of ravioli to fight with," Ratliff said. Ratliff caught up with his fleeing convoy in his damaged truck and made it to the airport safely. He figured he'd pick up a load there, but he was told to return with another empty trailer. Iraqi insurgents have killed two civilian drivers. Kellogg Brown and Root, the Army and the truckers gave different reasons for why empty trucks were driven through areas that the drivers nicknamed "rockville" and "slaughterhouse" for the dangers they presented. Some of the truckers charged that KBR is billing the Pentagon for unnecessary work. KBR described the practice as normal, given the large number of trucks it has delivering goods throughout Iraq. Army officials said longer convoys may provide better security. The Army's contract with KBR calls for daily truck runs, but doesn't dictate how many trucks must be in a convoy or whether they must be full, said Linda Theis, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill. The area military commander or KBR officials might choose to run empty trucks as a security measure, she said. KBR denied there was any problem with the truck runs. "KBR is proud of the work we do for the military in Iraq. It is difficult and dangerous work and requires a lot from our employees," said Cathy Gist, a KBR spokeswoman. KBR truckers say they can earn about $80,000 a year, which is tax-free if they remain in Iraq for a year. The empty trailer runs in Iraq peaked in January, February and March of this year but have dwindled as violence has escalated and forced contractors to reduce the number of trucks in each convoy and how far they travel, the drivers said. Earlier this year, as many as a third of all the flatbed trucks in a 30-truck convoy were empty, they said. Much of the time, drivers would drop off one empty trailer and pick up another empty one for the return trip. "There was one time we ran 28 trucks, one trailer had one pallet (a trailer can hold as many as 26 four-foot square pallets) and the rest of them were empty," said David Wilson, who was the convoy commander on more than 100 runs. Four other drivers who were with Wilson confirmed his account. James Warren of Rutherfordton, N.C., one of the fired KBR drivers, said he drove empty trucks through Iraq more than a dozen times. Besides the risks to the truckers, the six National Guard or Army escorts who provided security were also in danger, he said. The KBR driver who shot the videotape of the 15 empty trailers on the road in January described it this way: "This is just a sample of the empty trailers we're hauling called `sustainer.' And there's more behind me. There's another one right there. ... This is fraud and abuse right here." KBR documents viewed by Knight Ridder showed that one February run included 11 "MT" (trucker lingo for empty) trailers, 11 containers (which could be full or empty) and six with pallets on them. On another February day, three of 15 trucks were empty. KBR officials said empty runs resulted from the lack of cargo at one depot. The company ran all the trucks so they'd be available to pick up cargo for the return trip. "This is the same as typical commercial trucking operations work in the U.S.," said Gist. Drivers discounted that explanation. "Sometimes we would go with empty trailers; we would go both ways," said one driver who goes by the nickname Swerve and declined to be named for fear of retribution. "We'd turn around and go back with empty trailers." An independent expert on trucking economics put the cost of a 300-mile one-way run at a minimum of $1,050. Researcher Mark Berwick at the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute at North Dakota State University used a computer model, the fuel costs that Halliburton charged the Army and the truckers' salaries to come up with that figure. Wilson and Michael Stroud, of the Seattle area, another former KBR trucking convoy commander, said the actual costs were probably far higher. "It was supposed to be critical supplies that the troops had to have to operate," said Wilson, who returned to his home in southwest Florida after being fired by KBR. "It was one thing to risk your life to haul things the military needed. It's another to haul empty trailers." Peter Singer, a scholar at the Brookings Institution and the author of "Corporate Warrior," a book on privatization of the military, said the use of empty trucks illustrates how the government's contracting system is broken. The government gives out large cost-plus contracts in which "essentially it rewards firms when they add to costs rather than rewarding them for cost savings," Singer said. Despite a massive increase in contracts for the war and occupation of Iraq, the Army hasn't increased the number of officials who oversee those contractors. Only 180 Army officials monitor defense contracts and only a little more than a handful of them are in Iraq, Singer said. --- (Mark Washburn of The Charlotte Observer and Mark Rogers of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram contributed.) |
Everything skeptics and critics world over said would happen in Iraq if the US invaded appears to be happening. A newly released assessment by an international think tank http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1512&ncid=1512&e=20&u=/afp/20040525/wl_afp/iiss_world_040525114556 Stoke the fires of anti-west terrorism. Check. No weapons. Check. Bogged down in guerilla warfare. Check Lower worldwide opinion of the US, dragging our once prestigious crediability through the mud? Check. Needless innocent death? Check and counting. Exhausting precious US budgetary resources? Check. way to go America. Gold star for everyone. |
and I haven't had a chance to read either closely yet |
First it implies at the beginning he's a liberal with talk of "we" and "our", when everything I've read from him since you pointed him out to me kazu, he seems to go out of his way to prove he's an independent. Since around the war started, he's been leaning right. The "this movie isnt objective!" passages are downright neo-con even. As well, he suggests if Moore had his way Milosevic would still be in power. Yet one of the main reasons Moore supported Wes Clark was because of his record in that NATO action. It seems theres some bitter personal things behind this. I don't trust his review. I'll wait and see for myself. |
|
ever read what he said about Bob Hope? WTF? WHY??? |
His position on the war (at least in what I read in his little book on the matter) is blatantly neo-con though he tries to distance himself from the administration. |
i'll still sleep on my christopher hitchens pillow case though. |
Apparently he hasn't been watching TV. Moore's been everywhere, and more often than not he's had to face tough questioning. Letterman is the only person to gave him a pass lately. |
But I don't read this stuff anymore, only when it's posted here...and then not really. It's all I can do to keep up with the news. |
Pick an intelligence, please, and don't try to wiggle above it so obviously. Other than that, I don't know enough about this guy to form an opinion. Please, enlighten me. |
|
How did they do it? By attaching it to the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005". Because if you vote against it, you're a traitor and not a patriot, right? Congratulations are in order to Senator Conrad Burns for seeing how Janet Jackson's nipple and national security are related. Bravo. |
Not a journalist. Journalists are expected to be fair and balanced, void of hypocrisy. Film makers...with their work that have a point to make. Did he make a point with Farenheit? Who knows. Havent seen it yet but i think its a bit pointless to critique him, when whats important are his movies. |
Like Moore or not, I think he's done enough and been in the face of enough people, put himself in enough dangerous situations, and been arrested enough times to say the man has courage. I mean, it would not surprise me or anyone if he was SHOT and KILLED for making this film, so I dont think Hitchens has the right to question Moore's courage. And for that matter, Reagan's or Hope's. |
or else they aren't doing it often enough. |
Un-Unfairenheit 911 |
|
transcript of Hitchens on Crossfire, saying that Moore is 'on the side of the Taliban and al Qaeda' jesusfuckingchriststop |
Christ, that guy makes me sick. He needs a fucking rabies shot. |
|
|
this is the same girl who, when 9/11 first happened, watched the burning buildings on the news, shrugged her shoulders and said, "That's what they get for being so arrogant." |
|
|
|
|
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124019360346233883.html or those bonuses paid out of our tax dollars... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bank_of_america_sec |
|
