Tuesday, June 28, 2005


Watching the BTK killer tell of his horrors
I thought to myself, where have I seen such coldness before
Then I saw our fearless leader on TV… ding ding match

Apparently, the American People only respond if you give the criminal a nickname
I have decided to call bush President LTK

President LTK has LIEd to the American people about war
President LTK has authorized/condoned TORTURE
President LTK has KILLed our Troops with an illegal war
President LTK is not remorseful
President LTK used OUR Troops tonight as props to pathetically regain poll numbers
President LTK will continue on with his same destructive path per his speech
President LTK’s crimes are horrific

The American public is horrified over BTK crimes
The American public wants BTK locked up forever
The American public refuses to be horrified over president LTK crimes
The American public allows president LTK to remain on his destructive course

After tonight’s speech…
NO to your LIES! president LTK
to your TORTURE! president LTK
to your KILLing! president LTK
The blood that has been spilled is on your hands president LTK
It is time the American People hold you and your administration accountable
A frog march to The Hague is the only way the American People can repent for your sins!!!!!

Monday, June 27, 2005

To Bushs Blood-Stained Hands, The Answer Must Be No.

by Anthony Wade www.OpEdNews.com The answer is NO.This Tuesday night the President will address the nation from Fort Bragg. It is fitting for this braggart to choose that venue, but that aside, we should be prepared for the inevitable. Faced with plummeting poll numbers Bush sees that we are beginning to realize that our childrens blood has been spilt not for a worthy cause, but rather for a deliberate lie. Bush has loathed any public forums during his presidency so this step is a calculated one, designed to do one thing, LIE to us in the hopes that we ease up on the pressures which are mounting. The answer to that must be a resounding, NO.With the release of the Downing Street Memos we now have confirmed that our President lied to Congress, and thus to the American people, in order to pimp the war he wanted from the day he walked into office. He played upon our most fundamental fears in linking terrorism to Iraq, when there was no real connection. The right has tried their level best to muddy the issue, vacillating between parsing the meaning of the word fixed to pretending the memo is fake. The latter blather is completely ridiculous since both Bush and Blair have already addressed the memo as being real, but disagreeing with it. The notion that the British have a different meaning for the word fix is equally silly and is not deserving of a response. No, the memos are quite real, and quite clear.The primary issue from the Downing Street Memos has been the admittance that Bush was going to fix the intelligence around his policy decision to invade Iraq, SIX MONTHS BEFORE, he actually invaded. It was at this time that Bush was coming to the American people and swearing that he was going to use all avenues of diplomacy before committing Americas children to die in the desert sands. These memos reveal that was a horrible, horrible lie and anyone who has lost a child in this war, or has one over there now, should be irate about these revelations. More importantly for the country, and the democracy we embrace, George Bush lied to Congress to justify his war. I call it his war, because more than one former administration official has gone on record as saying that from day one of the first Bush administration, George Bush wanted to go to war against Saddam Hussein. The tragic events of September 11, 2001 merely provided Bush with his excuse.So, George Bush got his war. He created a secret cell in the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans, headed up by Douglas Feith. The OSP had one function and that was to cook the intelligence needed for Bush to force his war upon the American people and the world. Bush was fond of saying in the run-up to the second election that Kerry had looked at the same intelligence as him and reached the same conclusion. Well, yes. However, what Bush conveniently leaves out is that Kerry thought it was REAL intelligence, while Bush knew damn well that Feith and the OSP had relied upon the faultiest of intelligence and compromised sources, in searching for a way to fix the intelligence around the policy, of going to war. One does not need to be an intelligence agent to realize that is backwards. In the real world, you base your policy on your intelligence. In the world of George Bush, where the blood of the innocents matter naught, you choose your policy, and then fix your intelligence around it. That is the primary thing proven by the Downing Street Memos.The secondary item from the Downing Street Memos is that it appears that George W. Bush started the war six months prior to asking Congress for the power to do so. Bush often has joked about it being easier for him if this was a dictatorship, but waging war is NOT a presidential power. Waging war without Congressional approval, is also a crime and impeachable. This is the part of the memos which speaks to Bush increasing the spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime (Iraq). This translates into bombing runs which were made on Iraq in the hopes that Saddam would retaliate. Unconvinced? How about the line from the memos where Britain realizes that they would need to wrong foot Saddam to give them a justification for war.So the Downing Street Memos not only prove that Bush fixed the intelligence and lied to Congress to go to war, but it also reveals that he was purposefully trying to get Saddam to retaliate in order to justify the war he wanted, all along. Despicable.What has the butchers bill been so far? Officially the death tally stands at over 1,700 American soldiers and close to if not more than 100,000 Iraqis. Recently however, some are even questioning the validity of those numbers. This website (http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1648.htm) seems to believe they have discovered that the true number of dead Americans could exceed 7,000. Considering the mendacity with which this administration operates, who would be surprised if this turns out to be true as well?The impeachment drumbeats have started. People are onto this administration and the lies it must live with. The death it has spread. Faced with declining poll numbers the Bushies tried desperately to laugh off the Downing Street Memos. It did not work. They sent out Karl Rove to make absurd comments about the Democrats, hoping to draw the attention away. It did not. They placed a call to their media machine and we saw wall to wall coverage of the runaway bride, followed by the Jackson trial, and most recently, the missing girl in Aruba. THIS time the American people did not lose their focus. The drums keep beating. The American people are waking up from their media-induced coma and asking the logical question, How did we get here. The answer is becoming clearer. We got here because the President lied to Congress and the people by fixing his intelligence around his pre-set policy of war. We got here because the President actually started the war, before even getting approval.The American people have short memories. Allow me to remind you what this President said the night he committed our kids to die for his war.Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devisedIt (Iraq) has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al QaedaMany Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against youThese were the words of George W. Bush when he came before us to wage his war. They were all lies. This Tuesday he comes back to us, to seek a continuance of his war. What lies of Bush will I write years from now, looking back that the American people fell for this time? I pray it is none. George Bush does not deserve another chance to commit your children to die. He just does not deserve it. An international effort through the United Nations can ensure the continued rebuilding that is necessary after the onslaught we have led. Maybe they will be more concerned about restoring water and electricity then rebuilding oil wells. Bush will do his level best to speak in glowing terms of freedom, a concept he knows frighteningly little about. He will look you in the eye and say that we cannot set a deadline for the troops to come home because that will allow the terrorists to know when we are leaving. Nonsense. That defense means we are never leaving Iraq, and quite frankly, that is closer to the truth than Bush wants you to know. We are not leaving Iraq. We are actually building military bases in Iraq now so we can have a permanent presence in the country. Try that democracy on for size.President Bush comes back to us this Tuesday and he will paint as rosy a picture as he can muster. He will sell us on how much progress has been made. He will speak about sacrifice, a word he has abused and has no right to utter. He will speak to your patriotism, using it like he used your fears two years ago. To the yellow ribbon crowd, if you really supported the troops, you would want them home and not dying for a war conceived in 2001, packaged in 2002, and sold to us in 2003. War is not glorious; it results in only one thing, death. There have been times that war has been wholly justified and those deaths have been honorable to protect the world from the evils of our times. This is not one of those times however. A tinpot dictator who posed no threat to anyone is not worth one life, let alone 1,700, or 7,000. I will leave you with one last quote from the last time Bush came to us to propagate his war. This quote may hit closer to home as to why your kids have died:And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wellsThe answer George, is no. No to your wars George. No to your death. The blood that has been spilled is on your hands George. It is on your head. You are fond of saying you often talk to God George. I pray that just once, you stop talking, and start listening. EXCERPTS FROM: http://opednews.com/wade_062805_answer_is_no.htm

Friday, June 24, 2005

Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove

I just finished an awesome posting - went to publish it and I get a website not responding error message. FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK So, I'm not going to put in nearly the effort I did in the last post because I'm pissed. Needless to say Karl Rove is an asshole!!!!! Time for the democrats to show we ain't lily-livered pussies like these warmongering, lying, thieving bastards try to make us out to be. We're mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore. Put September 24,2005, on your calender and make arrangements to be in Washington, DC. The Impeachment March needs you !!!!! Details are available at WWW.VOTETOIMPEACH.ORG. I know this asshole Rove is just doing his job, tossing out inflammatory remarks in order to distract people from the real issues about what this corrupt bunch is up to and to take the focus off the WWW.DOWNINGSTREETMEMO.COM Well it's not going to work and I smell big trouble for that bunch. KARL ROVE is the real WMD in America... the Bush Cartels Weapon of Mass Distraction. (and he sure has the mass) LOL

Wednesday, June 22, 2005


Well seeing Durbin pussied out I guess I'll have to take over to make his point more palatable for the American tastebuds. Most people seem to need labels or past experiences to bring something visual to mind. Well we've seen the pictures of Abu Ghraib or as the Fearless Leader likes to pronounce -Aba Grab. (dumbass)

What is going on and has been sanctioned by the highest office in the land is torture, American Made. There is the "right" side, you know the type - the self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport-ownin' rednecks who think it's just fine to give them sand jockeys some good old fashion American ass-whoopin'. (Heres where the Toby Keith lyric plays in the background "I'll put a boot in your ass"... but really Toby the correct lyric for this AMERICAN MADE ASS-WHOOPIN' would be "I'll put a chemical lightstick up your ass") Their argument is " Why not - they want to kill us RIGHT ? "

Well we don't need to compare ourselves really to a Soviet Gulag, Pol Pot, or any other past form of torture - we now HAVE OUR OWN!!! Plus, WE HAVE PICTURES AND VIDEOS for the world to see us at our worst. We are no longer the very thing we have stood up over the years to fight for. Human Rights!!!
Hello out there, the United States of America is now being criticized by Amnesty International - this is usually reserved for the lowest forms of abuse to humanity by humanity. Third world stuff. This is a club we never thought we'd be a member of, but here we are.

We are as shameful as the rest of the abusers, PAST AND PRESENT. Our credibility is shot and so it should be and the worse part is that it's OKAY FOR TOO MANY PEOPLE. Shame on US !!!! Shame on the U.S. of A. !!!!! History will judge this time and it won't be pretty. What gives me greatest shame is that someday... someone will come along and hold their torture up and compare it to ours. SEE..SEE.. WE ARE NOT LIKE THE AMERICANS!!!!!

They Died so Republicans Could Take the Senate!

by Thom Hartmann
Richard Nixon authorized the Watergate burglary and subsequent cover-up to advance his own political ambitions. Because Nixon's lies were done for the craven purpose of getting and holding political power, his lies - in the minds of the majority of the members of Congress - were elevated to the level of impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Bill Clinton had sex in the White House with Monica Lewinsky, but Congress concluded he'd lied about it to maintain political power. Another impeachable crime.
The real scandal of the Downing Street Memos, with the greatest potential to leave the Bush presidency in permanent disgrace, is their implication that lies may have been put forward to help Bush, Republicans, and Blair politically. If Bush lied to gain and keep political power, precedent suggests he and his collaborators in the administration may even be vulnerable to impeachment.
Conservatives say the Bush claims of WMD and "mushroom clouds" were a "lie of ignorance." Condoleezza Rice periodically does the talk-show circuit and repeats the "lie of ignorance" myth. "The entire world thought Saddam had WMD," she and other Bush representatives suggest over and over again. "We had bad intelligence."
This is a lie to cover up a more damaging lie. "The entire world" was, in fact, watching and listening to Hans Blix, who was telling us that he couldn't find any evidence of WMD - or any other sort of threat - in Iraq. Most of our allies were convinced that Saddam did not have WMD, or that if he did have some small stockpiles left they were so insignificant and degraded that they were irrelevant. This is why the only permanent member of the UN Security Council to join us in attacking Iraq was Blair's UK: China, France, and Russia didn't believe Iraq represented a threat to them, to us, or even to its neighbors.
Nonetheless, Bush keeps trying to push this lie-to-cover-up-a-lie. In his June 19, 2005 radio address, he suggested that the Saudis who flew the planes into the World Trade Center were actually Iraqis. "We went to war because we were attacked," he said, hoping Americans' memories are short.
US media pundits, knowing the "WMD lie" and the "Saddam attacked us" lie for what they are, mostly suggest that Bush's use of WMD and terrorism to justify invading Iraq was a "lie of convenience." The implicit assumption is that Bush did this because of a "greater good"; that even though he lied, he was doing so to advance America's interests. This helps pundits to feel like they're part of an in-crowd elite who know what's best for America, even if they can't tell the children - er - citizens.
The "lie of convenience" is based on the neocon argument that the US needed a "footprint" in the Middle East to both secure our oil supplies and provide military security to Israel. But it ignores the many nations in the region where we now have military bases (some huge), the power and ability of our navy, and the power of Israel's military. And it doesn't explain how our getting bogged down in Iraq could possibly advance our interests at home or around the world.
Often included in the "lie of convenience" mix is the PNAC suggestion that for America to be safe, we must forcefully project military power all over the world and hold decisive control of the world's largest oil supplies. This flies in the face of most of America's history, starting with George Washington's farewell address warning against "foreign entanglements." It's not only un-American, but is the assumption used throughout history to justify empires, and in every single case has ended up bleeding dry those empires, consigning them to painful contraction or total collapse.
And neither the "lie of convenience" nor the "lie of ignorance" were demonstrably the reasons why Bush invaded Iraq.
So why then did George W. Bush lie us into invading and occupying Iraq?
We know that Bush wanted to massively cut taxes on his corporate sponsors and people, like himself, with substantial inherited fortunes. He wanted to weaken government protections of the environment, children, the poor, the elderly, the ozone layer, and our nation's forests. He wanted his oil-rig and mining-interest friends to have more access to public lands.
We know he wanted to undo Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal by stripping the American workplace (particularly government and schools) of unions, rolling back "socialist" unemployment and Social Security programs, and eliminating SEC and tort restraints on predatory corporate behavior. He'd even campaigned on this platform - particularly Social Security privatization - back in 1978 when he unsuccessfully ran for Congress from Texas.
We know he wanted to increase the police power of the federal government, gut the First and Fourth Amendments, and thus create a "safe and orderly nation" of people under constant surveillance, who never question those in power.
We know he wanted to give billions of our tax dollars to churches he approved of, and bring their leaders into the halls of government. He wanted to pass laws incorporating religious dogma about when human life begins, what is appropriate sexuality, and free churches to use tax-exempt dollars to influence politics.
It was an ambitious agenda. In order to bring about this neoconservative paradise, Bush knew he'd need considerable political capital. And that kind of capital didn't come from his being selected as President by the Supreme Court.
Such political capital - such raw political power - would only come, he believed, by his becoming a "war president."
Bush wasn't the first to realize how war strengthened a president in power, although the Founders saw it as a danger rather than an opportunity.
On April 20, 1795, James Madison wrote, "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."
Reflecting on war's impact on the Executive Branch of government, Madison continued his letter about the dangerous and intoxicating power of war for a president.
"In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive [President] is extended," he wrote. "Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both.
"No nation
," he concluded, "could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
But freedom wasn't the goal of George W. Bush or his neoconservative Republican colleagues. It was political power. And they were willing to lie us into a war to achieve it.
Writer Russ Baker noted in October, 2004, that Mickey Herskowitz, the man Bush had originally hired to write his autobiography ("A Charge To Keep: My Journey To The White House"), told Baker that George Bush was planning his Iraq invasion - to seize and hold political power for himself and the Republican Party - during his first presidential election campaign.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," Herskowitz told Baker. "It was on his mind. He [Bush] said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Bush lied, and Americans died. And continue to die. But politically - at least so far - it has worked out well for Bush.
It was a lie of political expediency, with the war resolution carefully timed just before the 2002 elections to help the Republicans take back the Senate.
It was echoed and amplified and repeated over and over again to help him and other Republicans get elected in 2004.
It wasn't a war for oil - cheap oil was just a useful secondary benefit.
It wasn't a war against terrorism - that was just a convenient excuse.
It wasn't a war to enrich Bush's and Cheney's cronies - those were just pleasant by-products.
It wasn't a war to show Poppy Bush that Junior was more of a man than him - that was just a personal bonus for Dubya.
It was, pure and simple, well planned years in advance, a war to solidify Bush and the Republican Party's political capital.
It was a war for political power. That had to be first. Everything else - oil, profits, ongoing PATRIOT Act powers, easy manipulation of the media - all could only come if political power was seized and held through at least two decisive election cycles.
The Bush administration lied us into an invasion to get and keep political power. It's that simple.
The same reason Richard Nixon authorized Watergate and then lied about the cover-up. The same reason Nixon lied about his "secret plan" to get out of Vietnam.
When Americans - and the US media - finally realize that Bush's lie was just to get "political capital," to increase the "discretionary power of the President" so he could undo Roosevelt's New Deal and seal power across all three branches of government for his Party, they will turn on him and his Republican co-conspirators.
If it comes out in the open before the election of 2006, Republicans could even lose the House and the Senate, which would virtually guarantee investigations of the many other crimes of the Bush administration. (For example, "bribery" is one of two crimes cited in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment - and the Big Pharma/Medicaid and Big Tobacco/lawsuit settlement cases may qualify.)
Probably the only two things that could slow down the American electorate's growing realization of the magnitude and horror of Bush's political lies would be another attack on America or a new Bush-led war into Syria, Iran, or North Korea.
Bush has already shown, by lying us into Iraq, that he's at least capable of the latter. As Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison on February 8th 1776, "It should ever be held in mind that insult and war are the consequences of a lack of respectability in the national character."
And already the cons are working the talk-show circuit, threatening the US with a new attack, and recommending we strike now at Iran or Syria. "Be afraid. Be aggressive. Give us more political power."
But if Jefferson was right when he said that the best defense of democracy was an informed electorate, there is still a small window of opportunity for the American press to do the job they've been so carefully avoiding these past five years.
Instead of just reporting that the Downing Street Minutes and memos exist, they can highlight them against the timeline of Bush repeatedly lying during those days before the war. They can quote him saying that he had no plans for war, was working toward peace, and only wanted Congressional authorization to avoid a war, and point out that this was all after - months after - his administration had told the British that war was a sure thing.
Lying, in other words, to get us to go along with an invasion that would cement in Republican control of the Congress and the White House, and, thus, also the courts. Lying for nothing more than "political capital."
Let us hope our Fourth Estate is up to the task.
Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show and a morning progressive talk show on KPOJ in Portland, Oregon. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection," "We The People," "The Edison Gene", and "What Would Jefferson Do?

Tuesday, June 21, 2005


I enjoyed the great outdoors today while they are still great and "Clear Skies" just popped in my head. I don't know why they don't just call it was it is ..... CLEAR LIES OR I OWE MY FRIENDS ANOTHER BIG FAVOUR FOR PUTTING ME HERE !!!!! Facts About the Bush Administration’s Plan to Weaken the Clean Air Act
In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush touted a plan that mandates a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. But why is the Administration bragging about a plan that will actually result in more pollution than if we simply enforced the existing Clean Air Act? Who stands to benefit from placing communities at risk, particularly children and the elderly who are significantly threatened by air pollution?
Americans don’t have to settle for only a 70 percent cut in air pollution when existing laws and existing technology mean that we can do better.
The so-called "Clear Skies" initiative expands the pollution trading system that results in some communities getting cleaner, but many communities losing out on cleaner air. The two-stage plan isn't even fully in place for another 15 years. Even if the plan caused some net reductions in pollution, many communities would still be threatened by more pollution. Why should some local communities be left behind? And why should we wait so long?
Mercury is a dangerous toxin that threatens people and wildlife as a pollutant from coal-fired power plants. The EPA estimates that enforcement of existing toxic air pollution protections in the Clean Air Act will limit mercury pollution to 5 tons per year by 2008. The Bush Administration’s plan weakens the limit to 26 tons per year by 2010 – allowing 520 percent more mercury pollution. A new EPA report discusses the ways pregnant women pass mercury on to their babies, causing mental retardation, but why did the Administration sit on the report for more than nine months and only release it after journalists exposed their findings?
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) is a major contributor to smog that is linked to asthma and lung disease. Current Clean Air Act programs could result in NOx pollution levels of about 1.25 million tons by 2010. But the Bush plan calls for loosening the cap on NOx pollution to 2.1 million tons by 2008 – effectively allowing 68 percent more NOx pollution.
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) is the major contributor acid rain and soot. Clean Air Act programs could reduce SO2 pollution levels to 2 million tons by 2012. The Bush Administration plan weakens protections to allow 4.5 million tons of SO2 by 2010 – allowing a staggering 225 percent more SO2 pollution.
Despite repeated claims during the 2000 election that he would put forth legislation that would address CO2 emissions, the Administration's plan fails to set any limit on carbon dioxide emissions. Instead the Administration has called for a voluntary approach that will likely increase heat-trapping CO2 that causes global warming.
By the 15th year of the Bush plan: 450,000 more tons of NOx, one million more tons of SO2, and 9.5 more tons of mercury would be allowed than under strong enforcement of existing Clean Air Act programs.
The Bush plan creates a loophole exempting power plants from being held accountable to the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review (NSR) standards and from being required to install cleanup technology (best available retrofit technology or BART). NSR standards require new power plants and upgraded plants to comply with modern federal emissions limits. BART protects communities from persistent haze and other air quality problems by reducing the pollution emitted from antiquated power plants.
"Clear Skies" delays the enforcement of public health standards for smog and soot until the end of 2015.
The Bush plan restricts the power of states to call for an end to pollution from upwind sources in other states. The plan prohibits any petitions of this sort from even being implemented before 2012.
The Word On The Street Strengthening and enforcing the Clean Air Act is the best way to ensure that the air we breathe is clean and healthy, but you don't have to take our word for it. These are just a few of the many editorials recently published in newspapers across the nation, editorials which express concern over President Bush's "Clear Skies" plan and the Administration's new rules on New Source Review.
Editorials from:
New York Times
Asheville Citizen-Times
Philadelphia Inquirer
Lexinton Hearld-Leader
The Journal News
For more information, contact Nat Mund at nat.mund@sierraclub.org or (202) 675-2397.

Monday, June 20, 2005

John Conyers Jr., YOU ROCK !!!

John Nichols Sat Jun 18,11:52 PM ET
There is painful irony in the fact that, during the same month that the confirmation of "Deep Throat's" identity has allowed the Washington Post to relive its Watergate-era glory days, the newspaper is blowing the dramatically more significant story of the "fixed" intelligence the Bush Administration used to scam Congress and US allies into supporting the disasterous invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Last week, when the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee' House Judiciary Committee, Michigan Democrat John Conyers, chaired an extraordinary hearing on what has come to be known as the "Downing Street Memo"--details of pre-war meetings where aides to British Prime Minister
Tony Blair' name Tony Blair discussed the fact that, while the case for war was "thin," the Bush Administration was busy making sure that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"--the Post ridiculed Conyers and the dozens of other members of Congress who are trying to get to the bottom of a scandal that former White House counsel John Dean has correctly identified as "worse than Watergate."
Post writer Dana Milbank penned a snarky little piece that, like similar articles in the New York Times and other "newspapers of record," displayed all the skepticism regarding Bush Administration misdeeds that one might expect to find in a White House press release.
To his credit, Conyers hit back.
In a letter addressed to the Post's national editor, the newspaper's ombudsman and Milbank, the veteran House member was blunt.
"Dear Sirs," Conyers began, "I write to express my profound disappointment with Dana Milbank's June 17 report, 'Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War,' which purports to describe a Democratic hearing I chaired in the Capitol yesterday. In sum, the piece cherry-picks some facts, manufactures others out of whole cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of Congress who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the American people were deliberately misled in the lead up to war. The fact that this was the Post's only coverage of this event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this piece even more egregious.
"In an inaccurate piece of reporting that typifies the article, Milbank implies that one of the obstacles the Members in the meeting have is that 'only one' member has mentioned the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of either the House or Senate. This is not only incorrect but misleading. In fact, just yesterday, the Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid, mentioned it on the Senate floor. Senator Boxer talked at some length about it at the recent confirmation hearing for the Ambassador to Iraq. The House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi, recently signed on to my letter, along with 121 other Democrats asking for answers about the memo. This information is not difficult to find either. For example, the Reid speech was the subject of an AP wire service report posted on the Washington Post website with the headline 'Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight.' Other similar mistakes, mischaracterizations and cheap shots are littered throughout the article.
"The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone, claiming that House Democrats 'pretended' a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room and deriding the decor of the room. Milbank fails to share with his readers one essential fact: the reason the hearing was held in that room, an important piece of context. Despite the fact that a number of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them. Milbank could have written about the perseverance of many of my colleagues in the face of such adverse circumstances, but declined to do so. Milbank also ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Republican Leadership scheduled an almost unprecedented number of 11 consecutive floor votes, making it next to impossible for most Members to participate in the first hour and one half of the hearing.
"In what can only be described as a deliberate effort to discredit the entire hearing, Milbank quotes one of the witnesses as making an anti-semitic assertion and further describes anti-semitic literature that was being handed out in the overflow room for the event. First, let me be clear: I consider myself to be a friend and supporter of Israel and there were a number of other staunchly pro-Israel members who were in attendance at the hearing. I do not agree with, support, or condone any comments asserting Israeli control over US policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is trying to dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11 tragedy disgusting and offensive.
"That said, to give such emphasis to 100 seconds of a 3 hour and five minute hearing that included the powerful and sad testimony (hardly mentioned by Milbank) of a woman who lost her son in the Iraq war and now feels lied to as a result of the Downing Street Minutes, is incredibly misleading. Many, many different pamphlets were being passed out at the overflow room, including pamphlets about getting out of the Iraq war and anti-Central American Free Trade Agreement, and it is puzzling why Milbank saw fit to only mention the one he did.
"In a typically derisive and uninformed passage, Milbank makes much of other lawmakers calling me 'Mr. Chairman' and says I liked it so much that I used 'chairmanly phrases.' Milbank may not know that I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994. By protocol and tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you are always referred to as such. Thus, there was nothing unusual about my being referred to as Mr. Chairman.
"To administer his coup-de-grace, Milbank literally makes up another cheap shot that I 'was having so much fun that [I] ignored aides' entreaties to end the session.' This did not occur. None of my aides offered entreaties to end the session and I have no idea where Milbank gets that information. The hearing certainly ran longer than expected, but that was because so many Members of Congress persevered under very difficult circumstances to attend, and I thought--given that--the least I could do was allow them to say their piece. That is called courtesy, not 'fun.'
"By the way, the 'Downing Street Memo' is actually the minutes of a British cabinet meeting. In the meeting, British officials--having just met with their American counterparts--describe their discussions with such counterparts. I mention this because that basic piece of context, a simple description of the memo, is found nowhere in Milbank's article.
"The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a hearing into a room the size of a large closet to hold a hearing on an important issue shouldn't make us the object of ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed in two places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts to do so; and second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, who do not feel the need to give serious coverage on a serious hearing about a serious matter-whether more than 1700 Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some coverage of that viewpoint.
"Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr"
The years of the Bush presidency will be remembered as a time when American media, for the most part, practiced stenography to power --and when once-great newspapers became little more than what the reformers of another time referred to as "the kept press."
The Conyers letter, like the thousands of communications from grassroots activists to media outlets across this country pressing for serious coverage of the "Downing Street Memo" and the broader debate about the Bush Administration's doctoring of intelligence prior to the launch of the Iraq war, is an essential response to our contemporary media crisis. That it had to be written provides evidence of just how serious that crisis has grown.


Operation Yellow Elephant

Worse than Watergate

I am presently reading "Worse than Watergate" by John W. Dean. Before any Republicans get their panties in a twist this man used to be counsel for Richard Nixon, thus - he is a Republican. I don't want to hear any he's a "liberal" or "lefty" screaming from you so I've nipped that in the bud right off. Nice tactic though that Rush and Sean have pummeled into your brain. You really should ask for the hot wax when you go in for your brain washes. These imbeciles make you disregard important factual information as fake because you've been told it's the "liberal media" and that is just what your Fearless Leader and his Co-Fearless Leader wants.

When this house of crap falls down and it will - you all should be ashamed of yourselves for not having an independent thought in your heads. For allowing this sham of a government to continue this fraud on the American people and to have allowed the deaths of 1,700 + of your fellow citizens. The first election which was really a selection, you all got a pass - the second time around though it still was riddled with corruption, you put these pillagers in for Round Two. Your "culture of life" is a fucking joke. YOU ARE A FUCKING JOKE. I've never seen a greater example of "Party over Country" in my lifetime and I hope I never see it again.

Well, off to personal matters now. I've been on hiatus since Thursday as the wife was home!!!! We went to see Don Henley/Stevie Nicks on Thursday night. He sounded great - I'm not a huge fan of her but she really put on a good show and looked appetizing to boot. First time I've ever seen her that engaged with the audience. Also, for an inside venue what a fantastic sound system. Kudos to the Gwinnett Centre in the backwoods of Atlanta for hiring a serious sound guy who installed something worthy.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005


The worm is turning everywhere now and to see some of these "faith based" citizens splintering against this war and this President is just plain heart warming. Oh happy day. I always wondered that if one of the commandments is "Thou shall not kill" and the religious right will spend tons of dollars and lobbying hours to make sure that it is still posted on public property, how do the lot of them justify this war? Does it look purdy these commandments etched in stone or do they really mean it. I'm thinking it looks purdy. The culture of life that became their recent buzz phrase with the Schiavo case doesn't make a whole lot of sense with 1,700 + dead young American soldiers or 100,000 dead Iraqi citizens, does it ? I watched a news program not too long ago where they were all yelling at each other as per usual and there was a woman representing some church organization as part of this panel. She was going on about this "culture of life" until she stopped me COLDER. The interviewer asked her if she was for the death penalty and she said she WAS !!! Now I'm starting to get what's going on, hypocrisy is a tough one to figure. I think they think it's okay to exterminate the "worst" of the "sinners" due to a passage in the old testament - ya know that eye for an eye thing. They have a habit of picking and choosing the scripture that best suits their agenda - I wonder if Karl Rove is moonlighting ? I think I shall write a letter to these "Christian" groups that scream the loudest and suggest some kind of colour coded "Sinner Alert" like the flashy one the President uses every time his poll numbers fall. Different shades of Black ? Suggestions are welcome. Enjoy the article below, it's honest.
Mother of dead soldier vilifies Bush over war PRESIDENT RIDICULED AT INTERFAITH RALLY By Frank E. LockwoodHERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER
The president of Gold Star Families for Peace, a mother who lost a son in Iraq, criticized the United States' "illegal and unjust war" yesterday during an interfaith rally in Lexington.
Cindy Sheehan of Vacaville, Calif., accused President Bush of lying to the nation about a war which has consumed tens of billions of dollars and claimed more than 1,700 American lives -- including the life of Army Specialist Casey Austin Sheehan.
Sheehan was one of more than a dozen activists who were scheduled to speak at yesterday's anti-war rally at the Red Mile, which was organized by the Clergy and Laity Network and co-sponsored by dozens of liberal religious organizations.
Sheehan ridiculed Bush for saying that it's "hard work" comforting the widow of a soldier who's been killed in Iraq.
"Hard work is seeing your son's murder on CNN one Sunday evening while you're enjoying the last supper you'll ever truly enjoy again. Hard work is having three military officers come to your house a few hours later to confirm the aforementioned murder of your son, your first-born, your kind and gentle sweet baby. Hard work is burying your child 46 days before his 25th birthday. Hard work is holding your other three children as they lower the body of their big (brother) into the ground. Hard work is not jumping in the grave with him and having the earth cover you both," she said.
Since her son's death, Sheehan has made opposition to the Bush administration a full-time job.
"We're watching you very carefully and we're going to do everything in our power to have you impeached for misleading the American people," she said, quoting a letter she sent to the White House. "Beating a political stake in your black heart will be the fulfillment of my life ... ," she said, as the audience of 200 people cheered.
The "Freedom and Faith Bus Tour" -- which brought Sheehan to Lexington, has already visited New York, Chicago and Indianapolis. The next stops include Columbus, Pittsburgh and Cleveland.
Other speakers included state Rep. Kathy Stein, D-Lexington, Clergy and Laity Network executive director Rev. Albert Pennybacker of Lexington, Kentucky Council of Churches executive director Nancy Jo Kemper and Baptist Seminary of Kentucky Professor Glenn Hinson.
Quoting scripture and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Hinson suggested the nation is greedy and morally bankrupt and warned that America's fear of terrorism is excessive and unhealthy. Denouncing "fear that immobilizes, fear that causes you to lash out mindlessly, fear that prompts a nation to launch a preemptive strike against an imagined enemy, fear in excess," Hinson said, "Only God's love can bring that kind of fear under control."

Tuesday, June 14, 2005


Republican Wisdom of Yesterday
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
...President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952

Republican Wisdom of Today
"You fucking son of a bitch. I saw what you wrote. We're not going to forget this." ...George W. Bush to writer and editor Al Hunt, 1988
This sure was a prelude of what was to come. But hey some would say that's not fair that was when he was young and drunk. Well let's try some more recent quotes from the Supreme Leader.
"If you don't stand for anything, you don't stand for anything!" ... Gov. George W. Bush, Nov. 2, 2000, SEATTLE
I know he surely is a master of the obvious. One more because I must.
"States should have the right to enact reasonable laws and restrictions particularly to end the inhumane practice of ending a life that otherwise could live." ... George W. Bush, Cleveland, June 29, 2000

I could put down hundreds more of our Fearless Leader's deep thoughts but I'd rather save that joy for you on some rainy day. http://www.bushisms.com/ You can also Google tons more sites...
The mere fact that there is an overwhelming amount of ..yes I'll say it.....IDIOTIC, RETARDED, INANE, RIDICULOUS AND DOWNRIGHT MENTALLY MIDGETED quotes out there - that by the time you are done reading and digesting them you will wonder how truly IDIOTIC, RETARDED, INANE, RIDICULOUS AND DOWNRIGHT MENTALLY MIDGETED this great country has become to allow this TURD the office he holds.
If you are feeling a little depressed now please keep this amazing quote in mind.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. ...Herm Albright
and for any of the moral majority that pops by ...here is one for you .... EAT SHIT !!!! .....Doobert, June 14, 2005

Monday, June 13, 2005


What a glorious day!!!! Viva Las Vegas Mikey !!!! I can hardly wait for the libel/slander lawsuits to come flying at these pathetic media pundits. I hope Michael sticks it to all of them, one by one. Individual and corporate lawsuits out the ying yang and I'd like to see him reap a buttload (pardon the pun) of coin for it. I can just imagine the fox news crew going into morality overdrive with their hand delivered talking points via Rupert (I am your leader) Murdoch. I wish there had been cameras in the courtroom so I could have witnessed Sneddon lying on the floor crying and begging for his mommy. I am sure Nancy Grace will be on Larry King tonight with all her fellow nutcase pundits espousing their disgust for the legal system and it's favouritism of celebrity. Blah, blah, blah - ya know the charlie brown thing - insert there. I just hope she's disgusted enough to quit. I feel bad for her past but she's nothing but a media whore now. Tito, pass Nancy Grace and the faux moral majority of America a tissue.

Masterful Monday

Article of the Day Winner: Ahhh...it is so nice to see the truth of 911 come out. Slowly the worm is turning and it's about fucking time. I've never seen an administration quite as protected by the media or promoted by propagandists like this one. Sometimes secrets are just too big to be kept secret. I can hardly wait for the explanation to the following article. Can you?
Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'
Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.June 12, 2005
By Greg SzymanskiA former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7."If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11."It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7," said Reynolds this week from his offices at Texas A&M. "If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right." However, Reynolds said "getting it right in today's security state' remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover-up the evidence and the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9/11. Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:-- Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning.. --When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower's flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse. --The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.--FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order. --Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."-- Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.-- The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small. -- WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds. -- WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams. -- In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it. -- It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has brushed aside or basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below. One who supports the official account is Thomas Eager, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT. He argues that the collapse occurred by the extreme heat from the fires, causing the loss of loading-bearing capacity on the structural frame. Eagar points out the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength," or around 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit. Critics claim his theory is flawed since the fires did not appear to be intense and widespread enough to reach such high temperatures.Other experts supporting the official story claim the impact of the airplanes, not the heat, weakened the entire structural system of the towers, but critics contend the beams on floors 94-98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system. Further complicating the matter, hard evidence to fully substantiate either theory since evidence is lacking due to FEMA's quick removal of the structural steel before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, FEMA had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place. And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9/11 attacks at New York's Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named "Tripod II." Besides FEMA's quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.In a detailed analysis just released supporting the controlled demolition theory, Reynolds presents a compelling case. "First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not," said Reynolds. "These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. "On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia's Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that 'beams and girders sagged and twisted, but despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.' Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."After considering both sides of the 9/11 debate and after thoroughly sifting through all the available material, Reynolds concludes the government story regarding all four plane crashes on 9/11 remains highly suspect."In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground," said Reynolds. "Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes."For more informative articles, go to http://www.arcticbeacon.com/.
Greg Szymanski .