A Controversial and/or Informative Site [Archive] - Page 8

Saundra Hummer

December 26th, 2005, 02:14 PM

BUT....BUT.....

He HAD no WMD's...

...or did he??December 24, 2005

Saddam's Chemical Supplier Gets 15 Years For WMD
For those who keep insisting that Saddam had no WMD and no way of producing them, The Hague has some embarrassing news. It convicted Saddam's supplier, Dutch businessman Frans van Anraat, to 15 years for selling Saddam the chemicals used to kill at least 5,000 Kurds in Halabja, among others:

Oddly, van Ansaart and his trial have received little attention from the American media. Perhaps that is because, once again, the Exempt Media here do not wish to report on developments that contradict their official Bush Lied!TM narrative. Saddam's partnership with van Ansaart, especially his continued protection of him after 1989, shows that Saddam wanted to ensure that he could get his hands on weapons and chemicals supposedly denied to him by the UN. At the very least, it demonstrates that Saddam had every intention on restocking his WMD at the earliest possible moment

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

AND WHY IS THIS NOT FRONT PAGE NEWS IN THE MSM??

I don't know if it was front page news, but it did receive coverage in all sorts of news media and I remember hearing about it at the time he was arrested. He was convicted, and again it was reported it was all over the place, but I don't know if it was front page or not.

We see our forces readying the field, and then playing soccar with the children in Iraq. We see our forces doing all sorts of good deeds, and that is heart warming. Its not that we ever believed (as you seem to think) they were all monsters, no the majority of the men and women over there make us proud. We know that they aren't all in the torture business, thank God, but when these types of things happen, of course it will be front page news, it is shocking to have learned of. Government mandated and sanctioned, wide scale torture. It needs to be reported don't you think? We all want it stopped, as we don't want to be part of the monster equasion as is Saddam and his forces. Panties on their heads? If this were the only way these men were "tortured". But we know this just isn't so. Deaths occurred, electric drills and dogs were used and any other number of methods those who advocate and implement torture use. If you want us to believe there were only harmless mentally degrading torture such as panties on their heads; sorry, we just aren't falling for it. We aren't so blind to facts as to believe that the Iraqi's and the foreign terrorists haven't done much worse,we have seen the horrors right on national network television, and our press has reported it, it is in the newspapers, and magazines, and like I said on Network News and PBS, and it sickens, it is ungodly and unbelievable, but it's real alright. But it just kills my soul to know we are down wallowing about in the torture business, joining the worst men who have inhabited this planet, and that there are those of us here in this country who condone it. Such eyeopening and sad times. No the press covers it all, but they do tell the worst of it most of the time, and that is understandable, but to think it is anti-American or anti American military, is to be paranoid. It just isn't so.

Here's a google page with just a few of the stories about this man from the Netherlands, this Van Anraat. There's more, but this shows that it was reported on. as far as it being "Front Page", I don't know, but if there were larger stories, perhaps being relagated to somewhere in the middle is understandable.

To be against what this war is about, isn't about troop bashing or being against our country, far from it, it is that we don't want our military men and women or the citizens of that country, the Iraqi's, the innocents, being killed for a less than honorable reason for war.

The "Liberal" press didn't cause the nitwits who abused (physically and mentally) the troops who came home from Vietnam. The press had nothing to do with the ones doing such acts being lowgrades. They were just that. Lowgrades, who were trying to feel superior and maybe even justified in draftdodging, you know as I do, that the press doesn't make someone into something they weren't already. The people doing this were lowgrade neer-do-wells, that type is always about causing havoc, beating their wives, and their children, if not just abandoing them, that's the type. Our press didn't make them, they were already that way, at least that's how I believe.

So the abuses in Vietnam shouldn't have been reported? The massacare at Mei Lei should have been ignored by the press? Of course it should have been reported, of course consequences needed to have been realized. The thing is, stories of good works are reported, but it is the horrific things which happen in war which do grab much of the attention, and the need to be told, as we want to stop that type of behavior. We always know our military will do good works, they've always done great things with the people in countries we occupy, but we do know that we want to stop any unnecessary cruelties, which, face it, also happens, and so do the press. We do need to hear of these things. It isn't bashing the military or our country - it is us wanting to protect it - not have us become the monster, like Saddam, who we are so against. We don't want to become our own enemy.

Here's a link to the google page with story after story about Van Anraat being tried and convicted. Front page? I haven't a clue.

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?query=Dutchman+arrested+for+selling+chemica ls+to+Iraq+Saddam&page=2&invocationType=topsearchbox.search

Saundra Hummer

December 26th, 2005, 03:13 PM

Staying the course

By James Carroll
The Boston Globe
Monday 26 December 2005

American intelligence was proving itself inadequate to the challenge. The president appointed a special commission to make recommendations. The year was 1954. The commission chairman was James Doolittle, the retired bomber general who had led the first air raid against Tokyo.

"It is now clear," he stated in his report to President Eisenhower, "that we are facing an implacable enemy whose avowed objective is world domination by whatever means and whatever cost. There are no rules in such a game. Hitherto acceptable norms of human conduct do not apply. If the United States is to survive, longstanding concepts of 'fair play' must be reconsidered. We must develop effective espionage and counter-espionage services, and must learn to subvert, sabotage, and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated, and more effective methods than those used against us. It may be necessary that the American people be made acquainted with, understand, and support this fundamentally repugnant philosophy."

Sound familiar? Again and again, in the year now ending, the American people have been told by their leaders that strategies based on a new "repugnant philosophy" are required if the nation is to survive the challenge facing it. Forbidden incendiary weapons must be used in urban settings. Prisoners of war must be deprived of Geneva protections. Aggressive interrogations of enemies must approach torture. Commitments to provide US combat forces with adequate protective gear must be forsworn. Extrajudicial kidnapping of bad people must be justified. Allies must be pressured into joining secret networks of detention camps.

Human rights standards must be jettisoned. Traditional obligations to the United Nations must be ignored. Treaties that limit action can be cast aside. Distinctions between foreign and domestic espionage must be left behind, with US citizens subject to unmonitored surveillance by military agencies. Public libraries must be regarded as government peepholes. The lawyer-client privilege must no longer be regarded as sacrosanct. The press must be recruited into the project of information management. Dissent must be labeled as treason.

A great American erosion has occurred this year, and only now are the contours of what is lost becoming apparent. Much more is at stake than the abandonment of "longstanding concepts of 'fair-play' " of which Doolittle wrote. To "subvert, sabotage, and destroy" what threatens us, we have begun to subvert, sabotage, and destroy what protects us: the mutuality of solemn compacts abroad, fundamental safeguards of the Constitution at home. Because the justifying "state of emergency" is an open-ended war, the trashing of "hitherto acceptable norms of human conduct" will be permanent. Get used to it.

Doolittle proposed a break with American traditions and laws for the sake of far more aggressive responses to Soviet communism. The year he did so saw the initiation of unprecedented American covert actions in Iran and Vietnam, with unhappy consequences that reverberate to this day. But Doolittle's remained a minority report in the annals of US government responses. Eisenhower was neither as freaked out by what threatened as his commission chairman, nor as indifferent to basic decency as a standard of national identity. To Doolittle's credit, he and those who saw things his way understood themselves as occupying the country's shadows. They knew enough to be ashamed of what they thought was necessary.

Where is the shame in Washington today? How does Donald Rumsfeld not blush in the presence of the soldiers he so routinely betrays? How does Dick Cheney maintain that straight face, treating core values as a joke? The recasting of the nation's moral meaning - a blatant embrace of ends-justify-the-means - is happening in plain daylight. No shadows here.

Every time the Bush administration is caught in one of its repugnant purposes (Thank God, again this year, for Seymour Hersh), the White House declares its intention to stay the course. Torture? Wiretapping? Kidnapping? Deceit? The president's eyes widen: Trust me, he says with a twisted smile. Then he leans closer to display a snarling defiance. The combination reduces his critics to sputters.

Perhaps Bush's savviest achievement has been to make the public think that Rumsfeld and Cheney are the dark geniuses behind the administration's malevolence. If Bush is taken as too shallow to have a fascist ideology; as too weak to stick with hard policies that undermine democracy; as a religious nutcase whose apocalyptic fantasies don't matter; as a man, in sum, the average citizen can regard as slightly less than average - then what he is pulling off will not be called by its proper name until it is too late. 2005? Oh yes, that was the year of the coup.
-------
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122605C.shtml

Saundra Hummer

December 26th, 2005, 03:33 PM

*****
The absence of significant reaction - the deafening silence even - in the face of the attacks on freedoms constitutes a dangerous and alarming phenomenon. Citizens, get a hold of yourselves; stop being passive through indifference or ignorance! These are your rights and liberties that are at issue. Don't wait until you yourselves are the direct victims of their loss to experience the regret of a too-late awakening.
*******
Freedoms in Danger

By Patrick Baudouin
Libération
Friday 23 December 2005
Against terrorism, the force of the law must win out over lawless force.
The terrorist phenomenon is not new. But everyone observes that the terrorist threat is spreading and growing around the world. By their scope and symbolic weight, the September 11, 2001, attacks on American territory marked a decisive turning point in the history of terrorism and in anti-terrorist measures and practices. They constituted the point of departure for an unprecedented series of dispositions presented as stemming from a "war against terrorism," even a "Crusade of Good against Evil." The bellicose language thus employed by the President of the United States, in line with the expression "terrorize the terrorists" used in his time by Charles Pasqua, betrays a first mistake with loss of control followed by many other departures from normalcy.

The adoption of exceptional anti-terrorist legislation has spread like a trail of powder: The United States' adoption of the Patriot Act on October 26, 2001, and Great Britain's of the Anti-Terrorism Act on December 14, 2001, allowed - for example - these countries' authorities to detain non-citizens for long, indeterminate periods without any specific charges on the mere suspicion of their participation in terrorist activities or links with terrorist organizations. Numerous other countries from every continent followed their lead, from Canada to Australia, by way of diverse European countries, Morocco, Tunisia, and even Indonesia and the Philippines.... Every new attack incites a riposte of one-upsmanship in the adoption of anti-terrorist texts. The caricature of the process was provided by Great Britain after the Summer 2005 London attacks, when we even saw - in a manner strictly unimaginable in the country of habeas corpus - a British prime minister plead for a period of detention without charges for up to three months. France, which has unfortunately played the role of a precursor by adopting exceptional legislation in 1986 that has been broadly exported, does not stand pat, given the "hardening of the arsenal" its populist interior minister has carried out, which pell-mell provides for facilitated access to files, oversight of people's movements, development of video surveillance, and an increase in prison terms.

Even more serious than these measures, the anti-terrorist struggle has served as a pretext for scandalous practices. In contempt of all human rights principles and international conventions, the American authorities, invoking the unheard of concept of "enemy combatant" or "illegal combatant," have authorized themselves to hold hundreds of prisoners in the sadly famous camp at Guantanamo for periods of unlimited detention. Torture was practiced at Abu Ghraib, and recourse to abusive treatment has become expressly recommended. Planes chartered by the CIA use European airports to transport terrorism suspects to secret detention centers implanted in various countries, where, globalization obliging, the most brutal methods of interrogation and incarceration are practiced. And even in Great Britain, an innocent man whose behavior appeared vaguely suspicious was shot down on a London subway platform, without the incident arousing particular emotion or even a very serious apology.

All these avatars of the sweeping war against terrorism raise numerous questions, as much with regard to effectiveness as to legitimacy. Certainly, the terrorism that blindly aims at civilian populations and displays itself almost daily on our television screens can only arouse revulsion and condemnation. Certainly, security and life constitute the citizen's essential rights, and states have the right and the duty to take appropriate measures to assure citizens protection against terrorism. But one must be truly blind not to see that the increase in anti-terrorist practices and measures over the last five years has in no way arrested terrorism, which, on the contrary, never stops developing.

This totally unsurprising observation was, moreover, perfectly predictable. Terrorism is not deterred by the strengthening of repression: It's not because he risks twenty years of prison instead of ten that a terrorist will renounce the performance of his act. As for the serious human rights violations committed at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere, they only succeed in intensifying hatred of the United States and the countries that support it and in producing new suicide bombers' vocations. In this sense, it may be said that George Bush is bin Laden's best ally. Other perverse effects of the "Global War against Terrorism" are manifold in trivializing abuses of power from Chechnya to Palestine, but one may especially evoke the revival made by many authoritarian states, which, under cover of contributing to the anti-terrorist fight, have adopted repressive legislation, used in fact to muzzle opponents and human rights defenders. When regimes despised by their own people a re involved, the only way out becomes extremism, which itself generates terrorism.

The principal victims of these security departures are likely to be - not the terrorists - but citizens and democracies. Not only does terrorism remain an expanding threat, but each of our individual freedoms becomes more and more abused. The measures, which in a first period are said to apply only to terrorism, later extend to other domains: So it is, for example, with the extension of detention periods without charges, or the conditions under which searches may be made. Attacks on privacy are on the rise: from file keeping to video surveillance, monitoring of every kind for the interception of telephone and Internet communications. Administrative arbitrariness grows at the expense of judicial power. A climate of suspicion establishes itself - principally targeting foreigners, who undergo police checks and expulsions - and progressively contributes to deterioration in social cohesion, itself a source of new tensions.

Liberating oneself from respect for the essential rules of freedom and human rights in fact amounts to giving victory to the terrorists. Terrorism aims to destabilize democracies by discrediting their universal values of freedom and humanity. Derogating from these values to fight those who seek to destroy them amounts to falling into the trap that was set, and to undermining the foundations of democratic societies. It is past time to mobilize and break up an infernal mechanism that leads after each resounding terrorist act to the adoption, in an irrational and demagogic manner, under the influence of intense emotion, even panic, of dispositions as counter-productive as they are illegitimate, in contradiction to international human rights legislation.

A reasoned analysis, on the contrary, demands that we impose an anti-terrorist struggle respectful of fundamental laws - the only way acceptable from the points of view of both principle and effectiveness. To satisfy the security imperative, democratic states most often already have adequate police-related and judicial means in the framework of the fight against crime, so that it's not necessary to establish additional repressive measures. In the case of absolute necessity, in specific situations, dispositions for the protection of international human rights make provision for temporary limitation of certain rights, while excluding those described as "absolute," such as the right to life and physical integrity. That prohibits, for example, any derogation for recourse to cruel punishment, or cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. It is essential to demand strict conformity of countries' anti-terrorist laws and practices with their international human rights obligations. As United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote, "Every one of us should be fully aware that human rights protections must not cede before the effectiveness of anti-terrorist action. On the contrary, if one takes a long term view, one sees that human rights, democracy, and social justice form one of the best remedies against terrorism."

Rather than confining ourselves to "warrior" language and measures, it would be better to try - avoiding simplifications and confused amalgams - to determine the causes of terrorism and to attack the roots of this scourge, which are misery and inequalities, discriminations of all kinds, and conflict situations. We must not forget that state-terror takes a higher daily toll on victims globally than terrorism. Now more than ever, in the face of terrorism, the force of the law must overcome lawless force. To this end, recourse to the legal system must be used whenever that is possible, as the first legal successes obtained demonstrate. Thus we must salute the restraints imposed by the United States Supreme Court's decision on June 28, 2004, agreeing to the possibility of judicial recourse for the Guantanamo prisoners, and by the British House of Lords, which, after condemning the principle of unlimited detention on December 16, 2004, decided on December 8, 2005 - unlike the Lon don High Appeals Court - that all information obtained abroad through the use of torture is inadmissible in terrorism trials under English jurisdictions.

The absence of significant reaction - the deafening silence even - in the face of the attacks on freedoms constitutes a dangerous and alarming phenomenon. Citizens, get a hold of yourselves; stop being passive through indifference or ignorance! These are your rights and liberties that are at issue. Don't wait until you yourselves are the direct victims of their loss to experience the regret of a too-late awakening.
--------
Patrick Baudouin is a lawyer and the honorary president of the Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l'homme (FIDH) [International Federation of Human Rights Leagues].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122605H.shtml

Saundra Hummer

December 26th, 2005, 04:00 PM

*****
The Agency That Could Be Big Brother By JAMES BAMFORD

12/25/05 "New York Times" --- -- DEEP in a remote, fog-layered hollow near Sugar Grove, W.Va., hidden by fortress-like mountains, sits the country's largest eavesdropping bug. Located in a "radio quiet" zone, the station's large parabolic dishes secretly and silently sweep in millions of private telephone calls and e-mail messages an hour.

Run by the ultrasecret National Security Agency, the listening post intercepts all international communications entering the eastern United States. Another N.S.A. listening post, in Yakima,Wash., eavesdrops on the western half of the country.

A hundred miles or so north of Sugar Grove, in Washington, the N.S.A. has suddenly taken center stage in a political firestorm. The controversy over whether the president broke the law when he secretly ordered the N.S.A. to bypass a special court and conduct warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens has even provoked some Democrats to call for his impeachment.

According to John E. McLaughlin, who as the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the fall of 2001 was among the first briefed on the program, this eavesdropping was the most secret operation in the entire intelligence network, complete with its own code word - which itself is secret.

Jokingly referred to as "No Such Agency," the N.S.A. was created in absolute secrecy in 1952 by President Harry S. Truman. Today, it is the largest intelligence agency. It is also the most important, providing far more insight on foreign countries than the C.I.A. and other spy organizations.

But the agency is still struggling to adjust to the war on terror, in which its job is not to monitor states, but individuals or small cells hidden all over the world. To accomplish this, the N.S.A. has developed ever more sophisticated technology that mines vast amounts of data. But this technology may be of limited use abroad. And at home, it increases pressure on the agency to bypass civil liberties and skirt formal legal channels of criminal investigation. Originally created to spy on foreign adversaries, the N.S.A. was never supposed to be turned inward. Thirty years ago, Senator Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat who was then chairman of the select committee on intelligence, investigated the agency and came away stunned.

"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people," he said in 1975, "and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide."

He added that if a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A. "could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."

At the time, the agency had the ability to listen to only what people said over the telephone or wrote in an occasional telegram; they had no access to private letters. But today, with people expressing their innermost thoughts in e-mail messages, exposing their medical and financial records to the Internet, and chatting constantly on cellphones, the agency virtually has the ability to get inside a person's mind.

The N.S.A.'s original target had been the Communist bloc. The agency wrapped the Soviet Union and its satellite nations in an electronic cocoon. Anytime an aircraft, ship or military unit moved, the N.S.A. would know. And from 22,300 miles in orbit, satellites with super-thin, football-field-sized antennas eavesdropped on Soviet communications and weapons signals.

Today, instead of eavesdropping on an enormous country that was always chattering and never moved, the N.S.A. is trying to find small numbers of individuals who operate in closed cells, seldom communicate electronically (and when they do, use untraceable calling cards or disposable cellphones) and are constantly traveling from country to country.

During the cold war, the agency could depend on a constant flow of American-born Russian linguists from the many universities around the country with Soviet studies programs. Now the government is forced to search ethnic communities to find people who can speak Dari, Urdu or Lingala - and also pass a security clearance that frowns on people with relatives in their, or their parents', former countries.

According to an interview last year with Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then the N.S.A.'s director, intercepting calls during the war on terrorism has become a much more complex endeavor. On Sept. 10, 2001, for example, the N.S.A. intercepted two messages. The first warned, "The match begins tomorrow," and the second said, "Tomorrow is zero hour." But even though they came from suspected Al Qaeda locations in Afghanistan, the messages were never translated until after the attack on Sept. 11, and not distributed until Sept. 12.

What made the intercepts particularly difficult, General Hayden said, was that they were not "targeted" but intercepted randomly from Afghan pay phones.

This makes identification of the caller extremely difficult and slow. "Know how many international calls are made out of Afghanistan on a given day? Thousands," General Hayden said.

Still, the N.S.A. doesn't have to go to the courts to use its electronic monitoring to snare Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. For the agency to snoop domestically on American citizens suspected of having terrorist ties, it first must to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA, make a showing of probable cause that the target is linked to a terrorist group, and obtain a warrant.

The court rarely turns the government down. Since it was established in 1978, the court has granted about 19,000 warrants; it has only rejected five. And even in those cases the government has the right to appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which in 27 years has only heard one case. And should the appeals court also reject the warrant request, the government could then appeal immediately to a closed session of the Supreme Court.

Before the Sept. 11 attacks, the N.S.A. normally eavesdropped on a small number of American citizens or resident aliens, often a dozen or less, while the F.B.I., whose low-tech wiretapping was far less intrusive, requested most of the warrants from FISA.

Despite the low odds of having a request turned down, President Bush established a secret program in which the N.S.A. would bypass the FISA court and begin eavesdropping without warrant on Americans. This decision seems to have been based on a new concept of monitoring by the agency, a way, according to the administration, to effectively handle all the data and new information.

At the time, the buzzword in national security circles was data mining: digging deep into piles of information to come up with some pattern or clue to what might happen next. Rather than monitoring a dozen or so people for months at a time, as had been the practice, the decision was made to begin secretly eavesdropping on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people for just a few days or a week at a time in order to determine who posed potential threats.

Those deemed innocent would quickly be eliminated from the watch list, while those thought suspicious would be submitted to the FISA court for a warrant.

In essence, N.S.A. seemed to be on a classic fishing expedition, precisely the type of abuse the FISA court was put in place to stop.At a news conference, President Bush himself seemed to acknowledge this new tactic. "FISA is for long-term monitoring," he said. "There's a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring."

This eavesdropping is not the Bush administration's only attempt to expand the boundaries of what is legally permissible.

In 2002, it was revealed that the Pentagon had launched Total Information Awareness, a data mining program led by John Poindexter, a retired rear admiral who had served as national security adviser under Ronald Reagan and helped devise the plan to sell arms to Iran and illegally divert the proceeds to rebels in Nicaragua.

Total Information Awareness, known as T.I.A., was intended to search through vast data bases, promising to "increase the information coverage by an order-of-magnitude." According to a 2002 article in The New York Times, the program "would permit intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials to mount a vast dragnet through electronic transaction data ranging from credit card information to veterinary records, in the United States and internationally, to hunt for terrorists." After press reports, the Pentagon shut it down, and Mr. Poindexter eventually left the government.

But according to a 2004 General Accounting Office report, the Bush administration and the Pentagon continued to rely heavily on data-mining techniques. "Our survey of 128 federal departments and agencies on their use of data mining," the report said, "shows that 52 agencies are using or are planning to use data mining. These departments and agencies reported 199 data-mining efforts, of which 68 are planned and 131 are operational." Of these uses, the report continued, "the Department of Defense reported the largest number of efforts."

The administration says it needs this technology to effectively combat terrorism. But the effect on privacy has worried a number of politicians.

After he was briefed on President Bush's secret operation in 2003, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney.

"As I reflected on the meeting today and the future we face," he wrote, "John Poindexter's T.I.A. project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance."

Senator Rockefeller sounds a lot like Senator Frank Church.

"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge," Senator Church said. "I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."

James Bamford is the author of "Puzzle Palace" and "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency."
*******
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article11382.htmHow interesting!

Saundra Hummer

December 26th, 2005, 04:22 PM

*****Stars turn backs on America's troops in Iraq · Danger and anti-war stance keep celebrities away
· Shows now depend on Christian hip-hop groups

Jamie Wilson in Washington
Saturday December 24, 2005
The Guardian
*******
During world war two American troops away from home for Christmas were entertained by Marlene Dietrich, Bing Crosby and the Marx Brothers. Even in Vietnam Bob Hope was guaranteed to put in an appearance. But soldiers in Iraq are more likely to get a show from a Christian hip-hop group, a country singer you have probably never heard of and two cheerleaders for the Dallas Cowboys.
Just as the seemingly intractable nature of the war has led to a growing recruitment crisis, so the United Services Organisation, which has been putting on shows for the troops since the second world war, is struggling to get celebrities to sign up for even a short tour of duty.

Article continues
It is a far cry from the days following the September 11 2001 attacks, when some of the biggest names in show business, from Jennifer Lopez to Brad Pitt, rallied to the cause. "After 9/11 we couldn't have had enough airplanes for the people who were volunteering to go," Wayne Newton, the Las Vegas crooner who succeeded Bob Hope as head of USO's talent recruiting effort, told USA Today. "Now with 9/11 being as far removed as it is, the war being up one day and down the next, it becomes increasingly difficult to get people to go."
Newton said many celebrities have been wary of going because they think it might be seen that they are endorsing the war. "And I say it's not. I tell them these men and women are over there because our country sent them, and we have the absolute necessity to try to bring them as much happiness as we can."

Fear is also a factor. "They're scared," country singer Craig Morton, who is in Iraq on the USO's Hope and Freedom Tour 2005, told USA Today. "It's understandable. It's not a safe and fun place and a lot of people don't want to take the chance."

The USO was founded in 1941 as a way of boosting morale for the military. For most of that time Bob Hope, who made his first appearance in 1942 and his last in 1990, was its most recognisable face, famed for putting on Christmas extravaganzas on aircraft carriers and American bases during the Vietnam war. Thousands of performers signed up to play the "foxhole circuit" during the second world war, but the USO has a much smaller list.

Some of the entertainers still willing to travel are die-hard true believers - rock musician Ted Nugent carried a Glock handgun to shows in Iraq last year and said in a radio interview that he manned a machine gun on a Humvee. But many of the USO's regular performers are fierce critics of the war, among them the comic and star of Good Morning Vietnam, Robin Williams, who told USA Today he would like to return to the Middle East in the spring for what would be his fourth tour since 2002. "I'm there for the [troops], not for W," he said in a reference to the president. "Go, man. You won't forget it. You'll meet amazing people," is his message to stars that ask him about the tours. But the comedian said he mostly tries to keep politics out of the show after he did a few jokes about Bush's brainpower at a base in 2003 and got a chilly reception.

Other critics of the war who regularly perform include the leftwing comedian Al Franken (who is headlining the current tour along with Christian hip-hop group Souljahz) and the punk legend and actor Henry Rollins, one of the Bush administrations most vocal critics.

The tradition of beautiful women thrilling the troops has continued - although while Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell showed up in Korea and Vietnam could boast Raquel Welch, in Iraq they have had to make do with sometime pop singer and reality TV star Jessica Simpson.

Wartime entertainers
Second world war 1941 - 1945
Bob Hope
Duke Ellington
The Marx Brothers
Judy Garland
Korean war 1950 - 1953Bob Hope
Marilyn Monroe
Jane Russell
Vietnam war 1961 - 1975
Bob Hope
John Wayne
Raquel Welch
Gulf war 1990 - 1991
Bob Hope
Steve Martin
Iraq war 2003 - present
Robin Williams
50 Cent
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1673781,00.html

Saundra Hummer

December 26th, 2005, 04:32 PM

Who Will Fight for the Constitution?
The Year of Vanished Credibility
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Start with Bush. Never at ease before the cameras, he now has the glassy stare and mirthless smile of a cornered man with nowhere left to run. Nixon looked the same in his last White House days, and so did Hitler, according to those present in the Fuehrerbunker. As Hitler did before him, Bush raves on about imagined victories. Spare a thought for the First Lady who has to endure his demented and possibly drunken harangues over supper. The word around Washington is that he's drinking again. At this rate he'll be shooting the dog and ordering the First Lady to take poison, which I'm sure she'll have great pleasure in forwarding to her mother in law.

Certainly it's hard to escape Bush's voice. Every time I turn on the radio, there he is giving a press conference, or yet another bulletin on the great triumphs in Iraq (where the recent election produced utter defeat for the United States and total victory for Iran).There's talk of a bounce in the polls.

A week before Christmas the Washington Post suddenly trumpeted that according to the poll the paper commissions in association with ABC, Bush's pre-Christmas approval had zoomed to 47 per cent, much higher than in simultaneous polls by USA Today and CNN-Gallup, which had him at 41. (The two former polls agree that 52 percent of the population does not believe that the Iraq war is worth fighting or that troops should have been sent in the first place.) The latest numbers from the usually reliable Zogby poll, made public on December 13 found that after edging back up above 40 per cent in November, Bush's job approval rating was once again at 38 per cent.

I'm sure millions of Americans yearn to approve of Bush. He's officially scheduled to be in the White House another three years, and who wants a lemon in the garage that long? And indeed, the president does still have his die-hard fans, clustered in their places of worship in the remoter regions of the country. A mid-November poll by SurveyUSA found that in only seven states did Bush's current approval rating exceed 50 per cent. These consisted of the thinly populated states of Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama and Mississippi. In twelve states, including California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Michigan, his rating was under 35.

All the same, we've mishandled the situation. When Bush landed on the aircraft carrier and said Mission Accomplished, we all sneered. Wrong move. We should have applauded, and said Now leave! Same thing when there turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We sneered again. We should have said, Great! So America's safe. Let's quit while we're ahead.

Now Bush is saying that the job will be done when Iraqis enjoy the democratic freedoms guaranteed Americans. We should say, They do! Bought news stories, secret surveillance of phone calls, emails and faxes, arrest without warrant, disappearances, torture You've brought our democracies into sync. Call it a day, bring the troops home, and then we can start impeaching you.

But who would do the impeaching? The Democrats have lost as much credibility as the President and the Republicans. Ever since the New York Times loitered a year late into print with its disclosure about the NSA spying program (only the latest in a sequence of unconstitutional infamies by that Agency stretching back for decades, mostly against domestic political protesters) I've seen it argued that if the Times had gone with the story last year, Kerry might be president.

But if the Democrats had cared about the Constitution they could have broken the story themselves last year. Democratic congressional leaders knew, because the whistleblowers from the NSA desperately tried to alert them, only to get the cold shoulder. Kerry's prime advisers * Richard Clark and Rand Beers * on such matters knew, because they'd previously been Bush's top functionaries in the war on terror.

We're heading into a year when the Democrats could be making hay, by actually doing the right thing. In 2005 is a pointer, they never will. The latest evidence is that Rahm Emanuel, in charge of selecting Democratic Congressional candidates for 2006, is choosing millionaires and fence-straddlers on the war. He shunned Christine Cegelis, who nearly beat sixteen-termer Henry Hyde in 2004, and whom Illinois polls show to be a popular contender to succeed Hyde. But Cegelis has the disadvantage in Emanuel's eyes of not being very rich and of agreeing with John Murtha on immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Emanuel picks Tammy Duckworth, who embodies the cynicism of the "Democratic strategists", being a double-amputee woman Iraq veteran who is not from the district, has a hot-air position on the war and is thought to espouse a "pro-business/centrist platform".

For years Democrats have been dreaming of having a brawny, non-nonsense type, preferably draped in medals, lead them into political battle. They picked a clunker last year, in the form of John Kerry, who had a glass jaw, six houses, a silly billionaire wife and an infinite capacity for talking out of both sides of his mouth. Along comes Murtha, who was actually a Marine drill sergeant at Parris Island, who has 100 per cent credibility on military matters, who showed how to talk about the war, how to say It's quitting time. And they fled him like a poisoned thing. They still do.

I watched Murtha put Bush away last Sunday. It was effortless.

BLITZER: Here's what the president said this past week addressing you specifically.

BUSH: Setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to our most important audience, our troops on the front line. It would tell them that America is abandoning the mission they are
risking their lives to achieve and that the sacrifice of their comrades killed in this struggle has been in vain.

MURTHA: This is a real war; this is not a war of rhetoric. What the troops get disappointed [about] is they don't have the equipment they need. That's the thing that demoralizes them I found a shortage of 40,000 battle jackets that they didn't have. That's the thing that demoralizes them. And they know they're targets. I was out at the hospital the other day and I talked to a young woman whose husband had been to Iraq twice, wounded very badly, lying there in a hospital bed. She says, you know, he enlisted to fight for America, not for Iraq. The Iraqis have to do this themselves. That's the answer to this whole situation.

So that's it for Christmas, 2005: No credibility for the President, or for the Democrats, or for the New York Times, which took a year to figure out whether the Constitution is worth fighting for.

An earlier version of this column ran in the print version of The Nation that went to press last Wednesday.
=
http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn12242005.html

Saundra Hummer

December 26th, 2005, 05:07 PM

CHRIS FLOYD - EMPIRE BURLESQUE - HIGH CRIMES AND LOW COMEDY IN THE BUSH IMPERIUM
*******GOSPEL TRUTH
:Wednesday, 21 December 2005
Countless words of condemnation have been heaped upon George W. Bush and his hard-Right regime – a crescendo growing louder by the day, with voices from across the political spectrum. But the most devastating repudiation of the Regime's foul ethos was actually delivered almost 2,000 years ago by the man whose birth is celebrated at this season of the year.

Sold American: The Plutocratic PayOff Wednesday, 21 December 2005
-Here's a cold, hard fact for you, dug up by the ever-intrepid Toledo Blade: "Since Mr. Bush took office in 2001, the federal government has awarded more than $3 billion in contracts to the President's elite 2004 Texas fund-raisers, their businesses, and lobbying clients, a Blade investigation shows." (via Common Dreams)

The Enemy Within: Anthrax and the Rollback of American Liberty
Monday, 19 December 2005
It Should Have Been Unforgettable
A brilliant analysis by Tom Englehardt on "The Anthrax Attacks and the Costs of 9/11,"
contrasting the Bush gang's wildly differing reactions to the two separate terrorist attacks of Autumn 2001, and drawing sharp, disturbing insights from the consequences that have followed Bush's choice of responses -- actions that have resulted in a corrosion of the American state that Osama bin Laden could not have hoped for in his wildest dreams. This is yet another piece that should be read in full, but below are few highlights:
=
Predator's Progress: Victory in the East
Monday, 19 December 2005
Two excellent pieces provide a strong counterpoint to Bush's mendacious blather about victory and progress in his predatory war on Iraq. First, Salim Lone, former spokesman for the UN mission in Iraq, in the Guardian: The Nadir of Occupation.

American Dream

Morales Wins Bolivia Poll in Landslide Victory (Financial Times)
The people of Bolivia became the enemy of the United States government yesterday by committing the heinous crime of democracy, voting in an indigenous leader who promises to nationalize the country's gas industry -- long eyed as low-hanging fruit by Bush cronies in the energy bidness.

A Ten-Step Program for Tyranny Run, don't walk to the Huffington Post and pick up Jane Smiley's searing, scouring blast of truth, blistering the gaudy paint from the tin-pot tyranny of the Bush Regime. She has managed to encapsulate in just a few thousand words much of what I've been trying to say in my columns for years. One of her most telling points is the way that the American political/media class persists in its delusion that the Bushists can be brought to "reason," made to see the "error of their ways" and change their destructive policies. As Smiley points out, the Bushists are not committing errors; the destruction they are causing to the American Republic, its people and the world is deliberate. It is what they want to do. They want to gut the law-based, Constitutional government and replace it with a militarized klepto-autorcracy -- and they are achieving exactly the results they intend. Anyone who believes otherwise at this point is simply a fool. -- But enough of this paraphrasing. Go directly to the piece now. (Many thanks to webmaster Rich Kastelein for this catch.)
(2 Comments)
Read More/Comment...

Crips and Blood Money
Sunday, 18 December 2005
Dead Man Walking: Bush Sr. and North Should Join Tookie Williams (Another Day in the Empire)
Kurt Nimmo has the down-and-dirty on the "deep politics" behind the execution of ex-Crip leader Stanley Williams. He leads us into the sinister nexus where the international drug trade meshes with geopolitical "statecraft" -- a deadly interpenetration whose consequences, both intended and unintended, lie behind many if not most of the major events of our time. We'll be tunneling deeper into this dark world in weeks to come, but Nimmo gives us a full plate to chew on here. You should read the whole piece, but here are some excerpts:

"The CIA led its contra army to spend the entire decade terrorizing the Nicaraguan people and their Sandinista government, happily allowing the contras to flood Los Angeles and other North American cities with cocaine to fund their efforts. Gary provided extensively documented evidence that while poor communities in L.A. paid the price of the crack explosion-from rampant addiction in their neighborhoods to oppressive law enforcement and jailing with Reagan's stepped-up 'war on drugs'-the United States government protected the men moving a great deal of the drugs coming into the city. Local dealers faced life sentences while the bigtime narcos from Washington to Managua went free."

[/CENTER]"]Persian Fire
Saturday, 17 December 2005
So now we know: Next time the fire will come in Iran. The blow will be delivered by proxy, but that will not spare the true perpetrator from the firestorm of blowback and unintended consequences that will follow. Even now, the gruesome deaths of many innocent people in many lands are growing in futurity's womb.

The Rubicon of the new war was crossed on Oct. 27. Oddly enough for this renewal of the ancient enmity between the heirs of Athens and Persia, the decisive event occurred on the edge of the Arctic Circle, at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, where a Russian rocket lifted an Iranian spy satellite, the Sinah-1, into orbit. This launch, scarcely noticed at the time, has accelerated the inevitable strike on Iran's nuclear facilities: Israel is now readying an attack for no later than the end of March, The Sunday Times reports.

The order, from embattled Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, puts Israel's special forces at the "highest stage of readiness" for the strike. While Iran's plan to begin enriching uranium -- which will give it the capability of building a nuclear bomb -- is the precipitating factor, the budding Iranian space program is a "point of no return" for Sharon, and that is what is driving the actual timing of the strike. The Sinah-1 is just the first of several Iranian satellites set for Russian launches in the coming months.

Thus the Iranians will soon have a satellite network in place to give them early warning of an Israeli attack, although it will still be a pale echo of the far more powerful Israeli and American space spies that can track the slightest movement of a Tehran mullah's beard. What's more, late last month Russia signed a $1 billion contract to sell Iran an advanced defense system that can destroy guided missiles and laser-guided bombs, the Sunday Times reports. This too will be ready in the next few months.

There is of course another "precipitating factor": the Israeli elections on Mar. 28. Sharon, who has left the Likud Party to form his own cult-of-personality party, faces a fractious electorate, with his former comrades guaranteeing an attack on Iran's nuclear sites if Sharon is too "weak" to do it before the vote. He may well decide to rally the nation -- and stave off this lunge from the right -- with a blow against Tehran. Such a move would doubtless be popular at home; everyone agrees that Iran cannot be allowed to have the kind of nuclear weapons that Israel itself possesses in such bristling abundance.

The move will be popular in Washington as well. Only a fool would believe that the fools in the Bush Regime have abandoned their bloody-minded ambitions for "full-spectrum dominance" in the Middle East, just because Iraq has turned to goo in their hands. To these schemers, Iraq has always been merely a stepping-stone toward the "far enemy," Iran. Indeed, they used Saddam himself for years as a useful stick to bash the Iranians, until he stepped out of line with his attack on the Bush family's longtime business partners, the Kuwaiti royals. Murder, torture and military aggression are always welcome in the service of Washington's power elites, but defiance is not allowed.
Read More/Comment...
==
There's link after link on this site. You will have to access it to see the continuation of the stories which are only outlined above, here's the link to go onsite - just click on it:
http://www.counterpunch.com/floyd12232005.html

Counter Punch is a good site for a different perspective, with many intersting articles. Chris Floyd is one of the contributors.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/

Saundra Hummer

December 26th, 2005, 05:14 PM

*****. .. "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little." Edmund Burke

=

. .. "Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good." Thomas Paine

=

. .. "To change masters is not to be free." Jose Marti y Perez

=

. .. "Nothing in the world is more haughty than a man of moderate capacity when once raised to power." Baron Wessenberg

===

Saundra Hummer

December 26th, 2005, 05:37 PM

*****
EMPIRE BURLESQUE - HIGH CRIMES AND LOW COMEDY IN THE BUSH IKMPERIUM -A LOOK AT THE ROOTS OF THE BUSH DYNASTY -

Samuel Bush ...Friday, 23 December 2005
I did some interesting research on Prescott's father - Samuel Prescott Bush last year and he's the true Patriarch of the family. Let me dig it up... one second...

Aha... found it. It's long and some of the links that I linked to are now down. So I am going to post this in full as an archive. This family has been involved in two World Wars and are now on the cusp of fomenting the next. The history of the Bush family dovetails with the greatest wars over the past century... in each one you can find another Bush warpig enriching himself and his friends.
Samuel Prescott Bush (1863 October 4 Brick Church NJ - 1948 February 8 Columbus OH) was the father of Senator Prescott Bush, grandfather of George H. W. Bush and greatgrandfather George W. Bush.

He was the son of the Rev. James Smith Bush.

The Grand Patriarch of the Bush clan founded the Buckeye Steel Castings Company of Ohio in 1894 as The Buckeye Malleable Iron & Coupler Company. They manufactured steel car couplers for trains, truck bodies, bolsters, truck fenders, yokes, and (among other things) made railway parts for the Harrimans. The two families were closely associated at least until the end of World War II. Samuel, as did all the other Industrialists of the time, grew very wealthy and influential.

He was the first president of National Manufacturers Association, and cofounder of Scioto Country Club and Columbus Academy.

In the spring of 1918, Bush became chief of the Ordnance, Small Arms and Ammunition Section of the War Industries Board of Bernard Baruch and Clarence Dillon, with national responsibility for government assistance to and relations with Remington and other weapons companies. Bush was essentially taking national responsibility for government assistance to his own Remington Arms Company and other weapon makers. Through these weapons manufacturers, Samuel Bush made and sold arms to 75% of the WWI combatants on both sides.

Senate hearings in 1934 by the Nye committee attacked the ‘Merchants of Death’—war profiteers such as Remington Arms and the British Vickers company—whose salesmen had manipulated many nations into war and then supplied weapons to all sides.

Unfortunately most of the records and correspondence of Bush's arms-related section of the government have been burned ‘to save space’ in the National Archives.

Tarpley and Chaitkin say:

"With the war mobilization conducted under the supervision of the War Industries Board, U.S. consumers and taxpayers showered unprecedented fortunes on war producers and certain holders of raw materials and patents. Hearings in 1934 by the committee of U.S. Senator Gerald Nye attacked the "Merchants of Death", war profiteers such as Remington Arms and the British Vickers company, whose salesmen had manipulated many nations into wars, and then supplied all sides with the weapons to fight them. Most of the records and correspondence of Samuel Bush's arms- related section of the government have been burned, "to save space" in the National Archives. This matter of destroyed or misplaced records should be of concern to citizens of a constitutional republic. Unfortunately, it is a rather constant impediment with regard to researching George Bush's background: He is certainly the most "covert" American chief executive."

Samuel Bush was labeled a "Merchant of Death" in the years following the Great War as investigations began into the instigators of the war and of the new emerging world militarism. The German Army under the Kaiser was the largest and most well armed in the world in 1914, and they were largely armed by Samuel Bush. After WWI, Germany was stripped of their arms, but Samuel Bush was allowed to keep his millions, and his arms business was allowed to grow and prosper. In 1944 he was awarded a huge government contract to make armor casings for WWII. He died shortly after the war ended in 1948, within months of the passage of the National Security Act.

The empire of Evil.
THE BUSH EMPIRE
How four generations of arms, oil, fascism, and US Govt. defiance made America's First Family

by Charles Shaw

"Almost everybody knows that George W. is the son of the 41st President. But fewer know that the family has wielded power in corporate boardrooms and capital corridors for a century and a half. On his mom's side, he's related to Franklin Pierce, the 14th President (1853-57). His dad's paternal grandfather, Samuel P. Bush, was an Ohio steel executive and the first president of the National Association of Manufacturers. Samuel's son, Prescott, became a Connecticut senator. Prescott's wife, Dorothy, was the daughter of George Herbert Walker, a co-founder of Brown Brothers Harriman, the oldest and largest private investment house on Wall Street. The Walker family helped finance the construction of Madison Square Garden and the Belmont Park racetrack--and later owned a big chunk of the New York Mets"

--Business Week, Nov 15, 1999

The previous quote embodies the public face of the Bush family, one of the richest and most influential American political dynasties in all our history. But it is almost shocking how little people actually know about the Bush family, particularly the history of the Bush men. I thought we might look beneath the veneer at the true face of America's political dynasty.
I am going to open with a story that is guaranteed to blow your hair back. This is a story that has been impossible to confirm in the mainstream press. Of course, this is part of the whole story, and why curiously the story keeps surfacing and disappearing all over the Internet. At the very least, this story is referred to enough to qualify as a modern legend. This is the extraordinary story of a dinner date that was scheduled to happen on March 31st 1981, the day of the strange assassination attempt on the life of former President Ronald Reagan. What should have been the biggest story of the 1980's seems to have been wiped clean from history, systematically prevented from ever again being mentioned by corporate media.

More at link...

http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/

Here some irony... - Killing his family legacy. What kind of man would do that?

GW BUSH SHUTDOWNS AMTRACK AND BUCKEYE STEEL CASTING BY UNDURFUNDING THE RAIL INDUSTRY.

“Meager federal funding for Amtrak contributes to the closure of large Ohio steel company,” states the Ohio Association of Railroad Passengers last week in a press release.

The Ohio ARP’s administrative director, Stu Nicholson in Columbus, said, “Years of subsistence level funding for Amtrak is now contributing to the near demise of an Ohio steel supplier that provides the passenger railroad’s fleet with most of its undercarriage assemblies. This may result in the loss of hundreds of good-paying jobs.”

The Ohio ARP is a non-profit railroad advocacy association.

Buckeye Steel Castings Corp. of Columbus said it had suspended operations as it negotiates for financing to continue operations.
Buckeye once employed more 1,400 people, but that number shrank to as few 400 two years ago. Business had begun to turn around slightly and employment rose to almost 700 as of last week.

The post-September 11, 2001 downturn in the economy and railroad industry saw the domestic demand for Buckeye products drop.

“This drop in business is due in no small part to the fact that action to fully fund Amtrak, one of Buckeye Steel’s major customers, has been sidetracked by Congress and the Bush Administration,” said Nicholson.

Buckeye Steel’s closure and layoffs follows the loss of another major Ohio rail industry supplier – a Timken bearings plant in Columbus, which also had Amtrak as an important customer. Ohio has more than 100 rail industry suppliers, many of which serve Amtrak and commuter rail agencies nationwide.

“When the federal government starves Amtrak, it also starves Amtrak’s suppliers, their employees and local economies which depend on these manufacturing jobs,” said Nicholson.

“Amtrak’s trains don’t even serve Columbus, and yet the ripple effect from starving Amtrak has had a direct and serious impact on our local economy. If the federal government provided enough funding to create a world-class passenger rail system, world-class economic development would be an obvious result,” Nicholson added.

Buckeye Steel, an OARP corporate member, began 121 years ago as the Murray-Hayden Foundry. Ironically, President George W. Bush’s great-grandfather, Samuel Prescott Bush, was president of Buckeye Steel from 1907-1927.

“Yet, President Bush proposes a $571 million budget for Amtrak in 2003 that would result in its shutdown. Amtrak said it needed at least $1.2 billion for 2003 just to survive,” Nicholson added, “but the General Accounting Office reported earlier this year that Amtrak needs $2.4 billion per year to run the system as-is and begin returning the condition of its physical assets to a state of good repair. That includes the replacement of hundreds of worn-out trucks that Buckeye Steel would likely provide, as well as assemblies for new rail passenger cars.”

Buckeye Steel officials say that would immediately improve its financial situation and preserve valuable jobs.
“It’s ironic that President Bush’s lack of support for Amtrak is contributing to the fall of a company that his great-grandfather helped make a success,” Nicholson said.

“President Bush and Congress can change this tomorrow by working to give Amtrak the funding it needs to rebuild.”

http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df10282002.shtml

VARIOUS COMMENTS – ANTI-ARMS INDUSTRY

“Since the Nye report in February 1936 much water has run under the bridge, but by judging what President Bush is doing today about Iraq, nothing has changed in the Americans’ methods and intentions for war as a stimulant of the ailing national economy. Recently a “Hard Talk” interviewer on the BBC was recounting name by name which members of the Bush Administration were key managers of which American Arms Company before the present Bush Administration came to power two years ago.”

http://www.turkpulse.com/american.htm

The Nye Committee was headed by Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota; his investigation into the reasons for the US entry to WWI sparked controversy. The Nye Committee, 1934-36. The Nye report convinced millions of citizens that the bankers who had lent money to the European allies had been "merchants of death" and had tricked the country into war. The "mistake" of 1917 must never be repeated. United States and World War II. Nye Congressional Committee evaluates WWI experience, 1934-36. Strict Neutrality Laws passed by Congress, 1933-35. 1936-39 Rising Axis Powers threat; appeasement; Munich Conference. September 1939 Hitler Invades Poland; WWII begins. ; US begins to shift away from isolation: “Cash and Carry” Policy, 1939. US-British 50 destroyers deal, 1940. The Nye Committee was headed by Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota; his investigation into the reasons for the US entry to WWI sparked controversy. American bankers and munitions makers profited from WWI. The staff uncovered facts about the lobbying activities and profits of American companies. Example: The Du Pont company’s earnings went from $5 million in 1914 to $82 million in 1918.

http://www.harwich.edu/depts/history/pp/wwiiA/tsld005.h...

Sept. 1934 - Nye Committee (Sen. Gerald P. Nye of N. Dakota)
Findings used by writers and intellectuals and peace movement
* Charles Beard denounced "merchants of death"
* 1935 Walter Millis book "Road to War"
* Dorothy Detzer & Women's International League for peace and Freedom supported Nye's investigation.

INFO ON NAM
(National Manufacturers Association) Samuel Prescott Bush was the organization’s first president.

Besides funding pro-fascists groups like the Silver Shirts, corporate America sponsored several other groups with a hint of respectability. One such organization that figured prominently in spreading the propaganda was the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). Such organizations as NAM would serve as bridge groups between the rich corporate owners and the public.

NAM along with the National Industrial Information Committee picked up the banner of du Pont's free enterprise dogma. It was Fulton Lewis Jr. a former employee of NAM that became the mouth piece for NAM. Using his radio program on the Mutual Network, Lewis spread the NAM propaganda to roughly three million people daily. Lewis denied the truth put forth by the La Follette and the Truman committees and instead aired NAM's propaganda under the disguise as "Your Defense Reporter."21 At the 1942 NAM convention, NAM went on record of supporting Free Enterprise fully. The convention adopted a plank of full support of du Pont’s concept of free enterprise even if it hindered the war effort. In contrast, the 1942 CIO convention went on record for first winning the war. 24 In other words labor was willing to make the sacrifices need to win the war; big business on the other hand wasn't and put profits ahead of the war.

NAM was only one group of many that was used to propagandize America. There were many others including the Chamber of Commerce. In the previous chapter, it was detailed how corporate America used groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and the American Legion as bridge groups between the leaders of corporate America and the workers. The following chapter will detail how NAM served as a bridge group. The reader should be fully aware that the top officials of the John Birch Society in the 1950s were all former officials of NAM.

Many of the members of the National Publishers Association were also members of NAM. William Warner publisher of McCall’s and Redbook was the head of NAM. The Curtis Publishing Company, publisher of the Saturday Evening Post and the Ladies Home Journal was represented by P.S. Collins a spokesman for W.D Fuller the president of NAM. The Luce publications Time, Life and Fortune were also closely associated with NAM.

Today the media is even more consolidated than the media in the 1940s, less than ten corporations control over eighty percent of the airwaves and press. The Republicans have repeated the lie that the media is biased to the left so many times that many people buy into it even though the reverse is true. The corporations in fact censor the media. Two thirds of the editors when questioned have reported that their advertisers have threatened to withdraw advertising because of the content of news stories. Seventy five percent report that large advertisers have tried to influence the content of news stories in a 1992 survey.

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1930sp4.html

Stuart D. Brandes. Warhogs: A History of War Profits in America. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1997. 371 pp. Tables, notes, bibliography, and index. $34.95 (cloth), ISBN 0-8131-2020-9.
Reviewed for EH.Net by Jacob Vander Meulen
Department of History, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 3J5

A new book on wartime profit-making with a title like "Warhogs" might suggest yet another entry for the "merchants of death" school on the relationship between private enterprise and the military in America. The notion that the relation is inherently corrupt, and the idea that the main beneficiaries of war are contractors, bankers, and market capitalism, have been widely shared among Americans at least since the Pequot wars of the 1630s when profiteering gunsmiths scandalized New England (pp. 16-17). During the twentieth-century that perspective assumed an even more sinister hue. Not only did merchants of death profit from war, they instigated it at every opportunity.

Staurt Brandes’ title, however, is tongue-in-cheek. Warhogs traces profiteering and efforts to control it through America’s various wars from the colonial period to the end of World War Two. The author shows how exaggerated were common assumptions and constant charges of graft and malfeasance in military supply. He also shows how basic such suspicions have been to popular republicanism in America and how that ideology has continuously shaped national policy on the business of war. Brandes wants to contribute to what he calls the "New Military History" which, he asserts, offsets ideology and conspiracy-mindedness by concentrating "less opprobriously on understanding civil-military relations" (p. 357).
Warhogs is particularly strong on war-profit politics during World War One and through Senator Gerald P. Nye’s investigation of the munitions industry in 1934-35. Readers might want to compare Brandes’ dismissal of the Nye Committee’s methods as "eerily close to the methods of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy" and the Nye Report as "pure demagoguery" with Matthew Ware Coulter’s recent study. Nevertheless, Brandes credits the Nye Committee and the Vinson-Trammell Act of 1934 for the general success of excess-profit taxation and renegotiated contracts during World War Two.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsw36.htm

The Roaring 20s and the Roots of American Fascism
Part 2: Economic Warfare & Traitors in High Places

On January 1, 1926 an agreement between du Pont, DAG and VCR was consummated, and was similar to another agreement of the same date between du Pont and Imperial Chemical Industries of Britain. This agreement, debated at length in the 1934 Nye Committee hearings, was found unsigned in du Pont files. It was a gentlemen's agreement that could be denied if discovered. The agreement detailed exchanges of patents and technical information. In defiance to the Treaty of Versailles banning German companies from selling military explosives, it provided a means by which du Pont could sell German produced explosives. The Nye report provides the best summary of the agreement:

"In other words, though German munitions companies cannot sell abroad, American companies can sell for them, and to our own government at that." 25
In effect, the agreement between du Pont, DAG and VCR reestablished the pre-war cartel between du Pont, Koln-Rottweiler Pulverfabriken and the British Nobel Dynamite Trust. Under this agreement, du Pont agreed not to erect any powder works in Europe, and the other signers agreed not to erect power
works in the United States. Technical information was exchanged among the signatories, and du Pont agreed to inform the others of the quantity, quality and requirements of all powder sales to the United States Government. In 1910, the Justice Department found the agreement a violation of anti-trust laws, resulting in the breakup of du Pont powder works. This resulted in the formation of Atlas Powder and Hercules Powder. Within a few years of the 1910 ruling, du Pont reorganized in Delaware due to its lax regulations of corporations.

An agreement between du Pont and Dynamit in 1929 controlled the production of tetrazine, a substance for greatly improved ammunition primers. When W.W.II began in 1939, Remington (controlled by du Pont) received huge British ammunition orders. Because of a clause in the agreement with I.G, the British received an inferior cartridge lacking tetrazine.

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1920sp2.html

There's much, much more to this article and interesting it is. Not that GHW Bush and GW Bush are the ones who did several of the things which are written about, but it gives you an idea as to where their perpective is rooted. Perhaps this is why they think and do as they do. It's said we are as much a product of our genetic make up as we are our of our environement, well, perhaps learing of all of this gives us a better idea as to why they think as they do. It has been ingrained in them in more ways than one, perhaps this is it?

Worth a read as well.

Hit all of the links to learn about George W. Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, and Barbara Bush as well, along with history and their families who shaped them.

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1920sp4.html

http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=363&Itemid=1

There's a lot more to this family in this article which I didn't post just in this article alone, and there is so much more scattered around the web, GW's brother being involved in the Silverado Savings and Loan and how so many lost their savings and on and on it goes. An involved story concerning this family and perhaps learning of these things back in GW's history, and in his family history we might understand him a bit more. It seems he is tone deaf to past and present history and where it is taking us, is it a family thing?

Saundra Hummer

December 26th, 2005, 05:49 PM

*****
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE ABOUT THIS!!!!Nearly Four Months after Katrina, Hundreds of Children Still Missing
By Dave McNamara
WWL TV News, New Orleans
Controversy brewed Friday over FEMA's reluctance to release information on evacuees, data that some agencies have said could speed up the process of finding children missing since Hurricane Katrina.

It was not until the FBI began requesting information that FEMA this month turned over the records, which are protected by privacy laws.

Officials on the front lines of the search have said that those federal privacy rules may have hampered efforts to reunite families.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has a database with close to 500 names, all of them children whose whereabouts are still unknown.

Walter Fahr, manager of the Louisiana Clearing House for Missing Children, said FEMA has names, addresses, phone numbers, and social security numbers of evacuees that could help connect parents with children.

A FEMA spokesperson said the agency could only release personal information to law enforcement such as the FBI. FEMA's Nicol Andrews said the FBI made its first request for a broad amount of data on December 5 and that information was released three days later.

There was a request for more information that was given to the FBI Thursday. Andrews said there has been no delay, adding that finding children has been a key priority for FEMA.

In Louisiana, Fahr said the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has had more expertise than FEMA in finding missing children.

The national center is still working to locate 485 children who are either missing or out of touch with their parents or guardian.

In addition to that work currently being done, FEMA has been operating its own missing persons hotline based in Baton Rouge.
-------
Friday 23 December 2005

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122605Q.shtml

truthseeker

December 26th, 2005, 06:06 PM

*****Stars turn backs on America's troops in Iraq ·[I][CENTER]
[SIZE="1"][B]Iraq war 2003 - present
Robin Williams
50 Cent
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1673781,00.html

I know Kevin James did a show for my son's unit, too.

I just don't remember whether it was Iraq or Afghanistan, though.

truthseeker

December 26th, 2005, 06:08 PM

Word Games vs. Security
By Alan Nathan
Washington Times | December 26, 2005

Clearly Americans are great fighters. Just look at the efficiency we apply to kicking our own backsides. Whether deciding how long we should give enemies the benefit of the doubt before attacking them, or weighing civil liberties against the security measures necessary to protect those rights, political battles at home will soon call for ringside doctors and a spit bucket.

For example, the issue of imminent threat still haunts the legitimacy of war argument in Iraq. Michigan Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean insist that President Bush mischaracterized the Iraqi threat as imminent through the manipulation of intelligence. There is no record of the administration having done so and both the Robb-Silberman and September 11 Commissions found no evidence of such prevarication.

However, these points are relevant only to exposing the vapidity of their charge. What's really paramount is the questionable validity of imminent threat as the assumed standard for war, because such a prerequisite has already proven antiquated, misguided, and dangerous to our nation's population. On September 11, "imminence" came and went undetected.

This standard is fundamentally flawed, because it's at the mercy of an often-unattainable determination. If such a frequently out-of-reach criterion must be achieved before action is justified, then by consequence we're consenting to be hit first before acting.

What happens when we're locked into those periodic dynamics of competing interests wherein reality leaves us having to choose the lesser of two evils: either prematurely attack the enemy, or allow the enemy to attack us right on time. The wiser standard for war should be something more flexible granting us the option to err on the side of caution — caution that favors our citizens before the enemy's.

Delaware Democratic Sen. Joe Biden has argued that better intelligence would reveal an "imminent threat" more effectively, thus removing the need for pre-emptive strikes. Agreed. But we should rely on this only after our intelligence community can read threats on a par with our enemy's ability to write them. Until then, we should side with the odds that serve us instead of those who are after us.

This begs another question: What credible latitude was truly granted to Mr. Bush when he, without warrants, ordered the National Security Agency to implement the surveillance of terrorist suspects over phones, e-mails, and faxes? In Article II, Section II of the Constitution it says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States."

All military personnel under the president take an oath upon joining to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Given that during time of war the military can perform searches and surveillance operations without warrants, why is it that their commander in chief can't do the same just because the enemy fluctuates between foreign and domestic? These are the very two enemy categories that our military is sworn to fight, and their boss is no less obligated.

If the Civil War were fought today under such constraints, the Democrats would be without one of their most vital constituencies.

The White House says that it kept congressional intelligence committee leaders abreast of these activities in accordance with The National Security Act, Section 502. While acknowledging these contacts with Congress, California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein said that the exception: "has become increasingly used just to notify a very few people. There are 535 Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States. If the President of the United States is not going to follow the law and he simply alerts eight Members, that doesn't mean he doesn't violate a law."

Sounds to me like the committee leaders had an option to share the intelligence on these secret activities with their colleagues. In light of the New York Times report on it, there doesn't seem to have been a shortage of "sharing."

Finally, the outrage over violated civil liberties seems especially histrionic. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does allow for these activities to bypass normal Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. However, the condition for this is that any criminal activity discovered outside the scope of national security cannot be given to a domestic prosecutor, because that would constitute evidence garnered without the conventional warrant normally required — hence no real infringement of civil liberties.

The only privilege denied is the right to secretly plot the demise of fellow Americans. Please excuse the inconvenience.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20658

truthseeker

December 26th, 2005, 06:09 PM

You know, the Dems keep complaining because they say that Bush said an Iraq WMD attack was "imminent".
Funny thing is, the only person who ever claimed that such an attack was "imminent" was Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-WV.
Bush never made that claim, but Rockefeller did, along with some others on the left side of the aisle.
Yet they want to hang it on the president.
Not only is that hypocrisy, it is a lie, and dishonest.

truthseeker

December 26th, 2005, 06:12 PM

Network Aims to Help Harassed Campus Conservatives
Monday, December 26, 2005
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — Though Christopher Flickinger calls himself "dean" and poses in parodistic photos waving a small American flag and looking stern, he says he's never been more serious about eliminating what he claims is pervasive anti-conservatism on college campuses today.

"When I was on campus, I had no help," the recent Ohio State University graduate told FOXNews.com. "I was harassed, intimidated, shouted down."

Flickinger, schooled in broadcast journalism, said he wants to provide the support he never had as a lonely conservative in college. That's why in November he launched the Network of College Conservatives to act in part as "a link for these conservative students, to let them know they are not alone."

Running the Web site solo from his Pittsburgh, Pa., home, Flickinger said he wants the network to be much more than a shoulder to cry on. Conservative students are still easy targets of liberal intimidation, he claims, but more than ever, they have a growing body of legal and activist support groups to turn to — and he wants his organization to be top among those resources.

Flickinger added that his group plans on "exposing and letting people know what is going on" on campuses by creating a clearinghouse on the Web site for students to pass along information about individual schools and professors.

"By exposing left-wing educators, providing information on liberal and conservative activities on campus and educating students on conservative thoughts, views and opinions, the NCC will counter the liberal bias throughout America's institutions of higher learning," reads the network's mission statement.

But not everyone believes that conservative students are as harassed or marginalized as they say they are or might have been in the past. Megan Fitzgerald is director of the Center for Campus Free Speech , described on its Web site as an organization "dedicated to preserving the marketplace of ideas on college campuses across the country."

Fitzgerald said her center defends speech by liberals and conservatives alike, and her own experience at the University of Wisconsin found that conservatives were vocal, organized and enjoyed the same platform as any other ideological movement on campus.

"I would say, my senior year, the student government, probably a majority of the members would have identified themselves as conservative," said the 2003 graduate

Other critics add that plenty of examples can be offered of anti-liberal attacks on campuses, most of them tacitly permitted by college administrators.

"There is a real blind spot on the part of conservatives, where they think conservatives are the only ones being repressed," said John K. Wilson, a graduate student in Chicago and author of "The Myth of Political Correctness: the Conservative Attack on Higher Education."

He noted several recent incidents of anti-Iraq war protesters being shut down and penalized across the country, including a group of Hampton College students who barely avoided expulsion this month for handing out "unapproved" fliers critical of the Bush administration. He also cited numerous examples of thwarted protests and students being manhandled by campus security for questioning the presence of military recruiters on campus.

"Conservatives have been very effective in promoting their own victimization," Wilson added.

Several conservatives acknowledge that as the country has become more equally divided among conservatives and liberals, today's student bodies are more reflective of those ideological differences.

"It used to be that some conservatives would concentrate on putting their heads down and just getting through," said David French, president of the legal group Foundation for Individual Freedom in Education, which recently supported the right of a University of Wisconsin resident assistant to hold Bible study sessions in his dorm. "Now they are more confrontational."

French said when he was at Harvard Law School 11 years ago there "wasn't a lot of hope" about doing something to counter the anti-conservative bias on campus, but he has seen some positive signs at Harvard since then.

"Now, there is a real sense that the cultural momentum in the [conservative] movement has actually made it to the academy," he said.

Sarah Armstrong, chairwoman of the Connecticut Union of College Republicans and a junior at Connecticut College, said her group has increased membership to 2,000 throughout the state and has even made inroads into Wesleyan University and other schools considered by many to be liberal bastions.

"[We're] very aggressive," in terms of organizing, Armstrong said. Still, she said, the anti-conservative bias is alive and well and most of it comes from the professors, "the people who should know better."

Earlier this year, professors Robert Lichter of George Mason University, Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, released a surveywhich showed that 72 percent of college professors polled held liberal views on current topics such as abortion rights, the environment and homosexuality. However, the debate continues over whether professors let their personal views affect their teaching in the classroom.

Conservatives say they do. Efforts have been made by the group Students for Academic Freedom and conservative author David Horowitz to encourage states and school administrators to adopt an "Academic Bill of Rights," which would attempt, in part, to prevent professors from pushing personal ideology in the classroom.

A number of states have been considering legislation that would require some form of the bill. Meanwhile, the state of Pennsylvania has recently formed a legislative panel that is investigating potential academic bias in its own institutions of higher education.

"This is where reform should happen: on the local levels, on the state levels," said Flickinger, whose ire is mostly directed at what he says is liberal bias in the classroom. He said a "quiet rebellion" is occurring among students who Flickinger calls "(Rush) Limbaugh babies" — students were brought up in households where the popular conservative talk radio host could be heard. "They have developed critical thinking skills and don&'t take at face value what the left is saying."

But Wilson and Fitzgerald say anti-conservative bias in the classroom is not as problematic as Flickinger and others suggest. Wilson said most professors do hold liberal points of view and are registered Democrats, according to the surveys, "but [those surveys] don't tell you anything about the professionalism of the faculty or whether those professors are abusing their positions."

Fitzgerald claimed her professors hailed from both the left and right sides of the political spectrum.

The American Association of University Professors released a lengthy opposition to the Academic Bill of Rights when it was published by Horowitz two years ago, saying it threatens the very freedom it purports to protect. Campus activists suggest that the conservatives behind these efforts merely want to restrict or censure professors with whom they don't agree.

"It does seem like they are people who don't think their ideas have a lot of widespread following and they are uncomfortable with that fact so they are just trying to shut down the other side. It seems, more than anything, an attempt to silence professors, shut them down, restrict them," Fitzgerald said.

Wilson said conservative religious colleges across the country have much stricter policies regarding speech and behavior, and Web sites like NCC seek to work as "spy" sites that smack of fascist tactics to "out" liberal professors.

Flickinger said he welcomes the criticism, and since launching NCC has received hate mail along with letters of encouragement. Meanwhile, the site has already registered conservative students from more than 60 colleges and universities in what he says he hopes will offer "camaraderie through numbers."

"Hopefully, we'll bring this quiet revolution to a loud, boisterous battle," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179736,00.html

Saundra Hummer

December 26th, 2005, 06:55 PM

*****
AN ACT OF PATRIOTS
*******
E.J. Dionne, Jr. Washington Post Writers Group 12.23.05 - WASHINGTON-- It's not too much to say that liberty and democracy were triumphant last week. Remarkably, the willingness of four senators to cross party lines was the key to this victory.

The good news came when the U.S. Senate voted to stall the renewal of the Patriot Act, which granted extraordinary powers to law enforcement in the wake of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Forty-six senators, including those four Republicans, refused to shut off debate on the bill because they believe that some of its provisions go too far in impinging upon civil liberties.

The rebels are not opposed to all of the Patriot Act's provisions and acknowledge that the rise of terrorism requires new approaches to law enforcement. But they insist on preserving traditional American protections for individual rights. They think judges should be able to review the actions of the authorities, they want to avoid police fishing expeditions, and they want to protect privacy.

One of those rebels put the case plainly in last week's debate. "We should not be afraid of a judicial review or setting the appropriate standards of evidence," this senator declared. "We need to be mindful of Ben Franklin's words over 200 years ago: 'Those who would give up essential liberty in the pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."'

No, these are not the words of one of President Bush's ultra-liberal enemies. They were spoken by John Sununu, a proudly libertarian conservative Republican from New Hampshire. The other Republicans who voted with Sununu to force more deliberation on the Patriot Act share his libertarian streak: Larry Craig, Lisa Murkowski and Chuck Hagel. Not a liberal in the bunch. They were joined by 41 Democrats and one independent.

Last week's vote was not a sudden rebellion. Sununu, Craig and Murkowski have been working closely with Democratic Sens. Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin and Ken Salazar to craft a new version of the Patriot Act that would be both tough but sensitive to the concerns of libertarians.

In an interview, Sununu said he had spent months trying to persuade administration officials that they could not wait until the act was about to expire, roll over Senate objections, then "throw something on the floor at the last minute and expect it to pass."

Feingold, as the only member of the Senate willing to stand up against the Patriot Act when it was first passed in 2001, deserves acclaim for bringing around so many of his colleagues. By backing Feingold, Pat Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, and Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, made it easier for others in their party to withstand the inevitable attacks from Republicans that supporting civil liberties made them soft on terrorism. But because Sununu made clear early on that he would not back away from his insistence that more rights be protected in the Patriot Act, he made it far easier for Feingold to attract wavering Democrats.

Remarkably -- but, alas, not surprisingly -- Bush not only attacked Reid, but acted as if the old rhetoric from four years ago would work again. "The terrorists want to strike America again," Bush said on Monday. "And they hope to inflict even greater damage than they did on September the 11th. Congress has a responsibility to give our law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools they need to protect the American people. The senators who are filibustering the Patriot Act must stop their delaying tactics and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act."

Such scare tactics once petrified Democrats. This time, they are protected by the defensive line of Sununu, Craig, Murkowski and Hagel.

In the interview over the weekend, Sununu said he hoped that Bush would realize that the dynamics of this debate had changed since the days immediately after 9/11. "We've had four years," he said. "There are specific aspects of the law we didn't have time to consider in depth between Sept. 11 and the passage of the Patriot Act. We've taken a look at these areas in a more deliberative way."

On Monday, Bush said that "it is inexcusable for the United States Senate to let this Patriot Act expire." Sununu quickly replied with his proposal to extend the act for three months to give the various sides time to work out their differences.

Imagine: A Republican insisting that the president negotiate seriously with Congress. Because Sununu, Feingold and their allies stood up, the checks and balances we regularly praise as part of our constitutional system are, once again, alive and well. It's the act one would expect from patriots.
==
http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=20105

Saundra Hummer

December 26th, 2005, 07:05 PM

*****

A STRANGER THAN FICTION STORY INVOLVING OIL, RELIGION, THE MEDIA AND SO MUCH MORE. THROW HOLLYWOOD IN THE MIX AND IT IS AN UNBELIEVABLE TALE.
*******

THE MOGUL, THE MOVIE AND THE MAN ON A MISSION
Bill Berkowitz - WorkingForChange

12.22.05 - After two fabulous weeks at the box office, Philip Anschutz, the conservative Christian billionaire whose company co-produced the first major film adaptation of C.S. Lewis' popular children's book, "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," is sitting in the catbird seat.

With so many Americans weary of both the long hard slog in Iraq and President Bush's scandal-plagued administration, some would have thought that Christian conservative leaders would have turned the premiere of "The Chronicles" into another culture war battle.

However, with the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel consumed with a phony battle with those out to "destroy" Christmas, little air time has been given over to "The Chronicles" and its religious and political implications.

Despite the fact that Lewis' book has "a frankly religious element" to it, reporter Charles McGrath pointed out last month, "The Chronicles" didn't spark the type of hullabaloo associated with "The Passion of the Christ," actor/director Mel Gibson's ultra-violent portrayal of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus Christ, which made its screen debut last year.

"The Chronicles of Narnia" contains "not just an undercurrent of all-purpose, feel-good religiosity but a rigorous substratum of no-nonsense, orthodox Christianity. If you read between the lines -- and sometimes right there in them -- these stories are all about death and resurrection, salvation and damnation," McGrath wrote in the New York Times Sunday Magazine.

Last year, "The Passion of the Christ" stirred up a hornet's nest. Fundamentalist Christian leaders, privy to a series of pre-release private showings arranged by Gibson, embraced the film and local churches gave away thousands of tickets to parishioners. Jewish organizations worried that the movie's emphasis on Jews as the killers of Christ would result in an up-tick in anti-Semitic violence.

There was no discernible rise in anti-Semitic violence. And, "The Passion" helped revive a faltering box office, taking in more than $370 million in the U.S. and another $200-plus million overseas. ("The Passion" ranks in the top 10 of all-time box office blockbusters.)

While "The Chronicles" will not achieve Passion-like numbers, the movie's producers followed Gibson's lead in terms of generating pre-premiere buzz. To be a box office blockbuster, an extensive pre-release promotional campaign is essential. In early November, The Christian Post reported that "several influential Christian organizations" including Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family, "endorsed and promoted" the movie.

Abram Brook, editorial writer for Leadership Magazine, pointed out that, "The marketing machine" was "getting cranked up." Brook voiced his concern that Disney might be using Christians merely as a promotional tool: "There is a ponderable difference between supporting a movie about the Crucifixion that had input from a broad range of Christian scholars, and endorsing a film that will be seen by some as Christian allegory, or, eventually, nice movies that have vague Judeo-Christian underpinnings."

In the run-up to its early-December premiere, "Narnia Sneak Peek" events were held in churches around the country. But taking steps to avoid a controversy that could hurt box office receipts, Disney -- the film's co-producer, which last year refused to release Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- was careful.

It "issued two separate soundtrack albums, one featuring Christian music and musicians [playing music inspired by the film] and another with pop and rock tunes," the New York Times' McGrath reported. EMI Christian Music Group released its album in early October as an early promotion device.

Christian Billionaire's Plan for Hollywood

The "Chronicles" is a collaboration between The Walt Disney Company and Walden Media, a production company owned by Philip Anschutz, an oil magnate, the owner of several professional sports franchises, and the head of the Regal Entertainment Group, which operates nearly 20 percent of all indoor screens in the U.S. and is the largest motion picture exhibitor in the world.

Born in Kansas in 1939, Anschutz later moved to Denver, Colorado and established the Anschutz Corporation, whose operations focused on the oil industry. By the mid-seventies, he owned oil fields in Montana, Texas, Colorado, and Wyoming as well as uranium and coalmines, and cattle ranches.

After selling a large part of his findings in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska to Mobil Oil, the company diversified. He currently heads up Clarity Media Group, which owns the San Francisco Examiner, and the Washington Examiner, a free conservative-oriented tabloid in the nation's capital. In mid-October, the company announced plans for a spring launching of the Baltimore Examiner. (Clarity has trademarked the Examiner name in 69 cities.)

Recent reports have Anschutz negotiating for control of the Knight Ridder newspaper chain, the second largest newspaper publishing company in the U.S., which owns 32 dailies including the Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald and Kansas City Star.

During negotiations for the purchase of London's Millennium Dome, the BBC dubbed him a "corporate vulture."

Anschutz is also the founder of the telecom company Qwest Communications International, Inc. According to the OC Weekly's Nathan Callahan, in 2000, the company "encouraged employees to keep their retirement savings in company stock even as senior executives were bailing out, selling shares worth hundreds of millions of dollars." SEC filings showed Anschutz had "unloaded 6.1 million shares during that period."

After peaking at 64 dollars per share, "six months later, the same share was valued at 1.95 dollars." Anschutz made over 200 million dollars in profit, and was branded "the greediest executive in America by Fortune magazine... topping a list that included... Gary Winnick, founder of Global Crossing."

Qwest eventually reached a settlement that required a 4.4-million-dollar payout to charity.

Anschutz is no stranger to philanthropy. In addition to generous gifts to a host of mainstream charities, Anschutz-related entities have helped bankroll a number of conservative groups including Colorado for Family Values (CFV), the organization that sponsored Amendment 2, Colorado's notorious anti-gay constitutional amendment approved by the voters in 1992 and later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Anschutz money also supported the Institute for American Values, which campaigns for marriage and against single parenting; Enough is Enough, which claims it is "Lighting the way to protect children and families from the dangers of illegal Internet pornography and sexual predators"; and Morality in the Media, established in 1962 "to combat obscenity and uphold decency standards in the media."

Between 1995 and 2000, according to OpenSecrets.org, a website tracking political donations, the Anschutz Corporation, and assorted members of the Anschutz family, donated nearly 700,000 dollars to the Republican Party and its candidates.

"We expect them [movies] to be entertaining, but also to be life affirming and to carry a moral message," Anschutz told an audience at the conservative Christian Hillsdale College last year. While "Hollywood as an industry can at times be insular and doesn't at times understand the market very well," he also "saw a chance with this move to attempt some small improvement in the culture." With last year's critically acclaimed film "Ray" -- the biopic based on the life of the late great Ray Charles -- Anschutz already made his mark on Hollywood. The success of "The Chronicles of Narnia" will make him a powerhouse to be reckoned with for years to come.
==
URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20099

[. .. Much of this sound just fine, while parts are worrisome, and I have to hope that abuses aren't in being worked up and on. .. SRH. ..]

Saundra Hummer

December 26th, 2005, 08:01 PM

*****
:thewave :thewave :thewave
'Monday Night Football' Signs Off on ABC By CONNOR ENNIS, AP Sports Writer
32 minutes ago

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. - Are you ready for a finale? After 36 years as a television phenomenon, "Monday Night Football" prepared to end its run on ABC with Monday night's game between the New England Patriots and the New York Jets
The series switches networks next season, when ESPN begins an eight-year deal in which it will pay $1.1 billion per year for Monday night rights.

"Obviously we're celebrating a 36-year legacy on ABC and the end of an era but we're also celebrating the start of a new era with this great property on ESPN," George Bodenheimer, the president of ESPN and ABC Sports, said before the game. "It's a bit of mixed emotions."

It's also a long way from where "Monday Night Football" started.

On Sept. 21, 1970, "MNF" kicked off what would be the longest prime-time sports series in television history with the New York Jets at Cleveland. Keith Jackson, Don Meredith and Howard Cosell were in the booth and, it soon became evident, America was watching.

It quickly became appointment television, with the interplay between the Cosell and Meredith providing almost as much entertainment as the play on the field. When Frank Gifford replaced Jackson in the booth for the show's second season, the ratings only went up.

Those announcers have long been gone — though Gifford was at Giants Stadium for the finale Monday night, to be announced by Al Michaels and John Madden — but the program has retained a distinct position in the landscape of American cultural.

"'Monday Night Football' and the bubble-gum card — that was kind of important being in the league if you could do that," Jets coach Herman Edwards said.

It's provided many memorable moments, from Tony Dorsett's record-setting 99-yard touchdown run in 1983 to Brett Favre's emotional 399-yard, four-touchdown performance the night after his father's death. On Dec. 8, 1980, it was Cosell who announced that John Lennon had been shot and killed.

Even the show's misses were interesting: When ratings began to dip, comedian Dennis Miller was hired to be part of the announcing team. He lasted two seasons.

"You look at the body of work that has been completed here over 36 years: the great games, the stars, the story lines, the part of Americana that 'Monday Night Football' is, it's really a magnificent piece of work," Bodenheimer said.

Of course, ABC would certainly prefer a better matchup for its finale. The Jets have long been out of the playoffs, and the Patriots have already clinched a spot, with no chance of improving their position.

With the fracturing of television and the myriad of viewing options that have developed in the era of cable, "MNF" no longer holds the same position it once did. But it is still a top ratings performer week in and week out and its intro — capped by Hank Williams Jr.'s rhetoric "Are you ready for some football?" — are instantly recognizable.

And players still realize its significance. After all, Monday night is still a prime-time showcase, a place to show the country what a team, or a player, is made of.

"It's good to know we're going to be the last one," linebacker Jonathan Vilma said. "That makes it that much more special for us. We're going to be in the history books as the last Monday night game on ABC."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051227/ap_en_tv/fbn_monday_night_finale;_ylt=Am36adp8WQGlJXIfFx_im ces0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YXYwNDRrBHNlYwM3NjI-

I've met both of these fellows, John Madden and Al Michaels, and I knew Al Michaels a bit, we had several of the same friends and enjoyed the same party scene. We somehow used to go to the same places and to parties together at times. Al is like you see him, what you see is what you get, his and John Maddens persona's are the same off screen as on, and so much fun to be around. I remember them because of their continued public careers, and have really enjoyed seeing their successes. Two of my very favorites. I met John Madden at his fraternity house after the USC game, when UCLA beat SC for the first time in years so it was quite a celebration all over Westwood. I remember going home and telling my mother about how I had enjoyed meeting him and how he was more interseting to talk to than the other fellows there at the party. He had some depth and was, like I said, so much fun. He was sitting out on a chair on the brick veranda- back patio area of the frat house and I sat out there and talked to him and some others for most of that afternoon and night. A fun time, and were we all happy for that great win.
==
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051227/ap_en_tv/fbn_monday_night_finale;_ylt=Am36adp8WQGlJXIfFx_im ces0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YXYwNDRrBHNlYwM3NjI-

Saundra Hummer

December 26th, 2005, 09:37 PM

*****
Another World Is Possible

News: Beyond the remains of yesterday’s politics, the change you’re looking for has already begun.
By Gar Alperovitz
January/February 2006
By Gar Alperovitz

Where is America headed? It’s not hard to find pessimists. Author and former Nixon adviser Kevin Phillips believes the nation is dominated by a new “plutocracy” in which wealth reaches “beyond its own realm” to control government at all levels. The writer Robert Kaplan predicts that our society could soon “resemble the oligarchies of ancient Athens and Sparta.” Sociologist Bertram Gross has predicted a “friendly fascism.” Imagine what another 9/11 would do.

It’s also not hard to find optimists. Bush is in trouble, the GOP is struggling to recruit candidates in many races, and liberals are beginning to smell blood. After all, if 70,000 votes had gone the other way in Ohio—and if voters hadn’t been forced to wait in line for endless hours–we might have a Democrat in the White House right now. The Dean campaign, America Coming Together, MoveOn, Wellstone Action, and many other efforts show new energies beneath the surface. The Iraq war is becoming increasingly unpopular. The pendulum will surely swing.

My own view is that both these judgments are almost certainly wrong. Both assume that the crisis we face is a politicalone, pure and simple. But what if it is something different? There are reasons to believe we are entering what can only be called a systemic crisis. And the emerging possibilities are not easily described by the conventional wisdom of either left or right.

The institutional power arrangements that have set the terms of reference for the American political-economic system over roughly the last half century are dissolving before our eyes–especially those that once constrained corporate economic and political power. First, organized labor’s capacity to check the giant corporation, both on the shop floor and in national politics, has all but disappeared as union membership has collapsed from 35 percent of the labor force in the mid-1950s to a mere 7.9 percent in the private sector today. Throughout the world, at the heart of virtually every major progressive political movement has been a powerful labor movement. Liberalism in general, and the welfare state in particular, would have been impossible without union money and organizing. The decline of labor is one of the central reasons traditional liberal strategies are in decline.

Second, globalization has further enhanced corporate power, as the threat to move jobs elsewhere erodes unions’ bargaining capacity, while at the same time working to reduce taxation and regulation. (The corporate share of the federal tax burden has declined in eerie lockstep with union membership—from 35 percent in 1945 to 10.1 percent in 2004.) This in turn has intensified the nationwide fiscal crisis, further undercutting efforts to use public resources to solve public problems ranging from poverty and hunger to energy conservation and even simple repair jobs such as fixing decaying roads, bridges, and water systems throughout the nation.

Third–and most important–the Republican “Southern Strategy” has now completed the transformation of a once (nominally) Democratic South that at least voted for Democratic presidents into a reactionary bastion of corporate power based on implicit racism and explicitly religious divide-and-conquer fervor. Bill Clinton’s brief moment occurred just before the full consolidation of this Southern stranglehold. Very few observers have grasped the full implications of this shift: The United States is the only advanced political economy where the working class is fundamentally–not marginally–divided by race. It is also the only one where a massive geographic quadrant is now essentially beyond the reach of traditional progressive politics. George Bush, though extreme, is no accident; nor can the core political relationships that now define the South be easily unraveled. Hence, yes, a Democrat might be elected president one day. But no, such a shift is not going to nurture an era of renewed liberal or progressive reform. The system of power that once allowed this no longer exists. Period.

Some who have sensed the far-reaching character of these system-wide changes have despaired of any hope for the future. Perhaps the end of one set of structural relationships–the ones we have come to take for granted in our own lifetimes–spells the end of all potentially positive systemic possibilities. Perhaps.

But I am a political economist and a historian, one for whom the best way to understand current events is to think of them as an ongoing movie, not a snapshot. What is interesting is not simply the current reel, but the previous one, and above all what both suggest about the next one. Even though I think times are likely to get worse before they get better, let me explain why I am a prudent optimist about the long haul—even allowing for the profound changes taking place (and in some ways because of them).

To get immediate access to the complete version of this story, you must be a Mother Jones subscriber.

Gar Alperovitz is a professor at the University of Maryland, and the Author of America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy.

Related Articles

Left, Right, & Wrong
What’s missing from the debate over values in America
P L U S :
Left Alone: On the lure of private life in a time of public peril.

Unembedded
An unflinching look at the human faces of war-ravaged Iraq

http://motherjones.org/news/feature/2006/01/another_world_is_possible.html

Saundra Hummer

December 27th, 2005, 02:11 AM

*****
Doug Thompson: GOP Memo Touts New Terror Attack As Way to Reverse Party's Decline,
Capitol Hill Blue, November 10, 2005
We have seen no independent confirmation of this story but, if true, the implications are staggering. "A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and 'restore his image as a leader of the American people'. The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could 'validate' the President's war on terror and allow Bush to 'unite the country' in a 'time of national shock and sorrow'. The memo says such a reversal in the President's fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections." See also Doug Thompson: White House Keeps Dossiers on More Than 10,000 "Political Enemies". (10/15

By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7639.shtml

Go on site by just clicking on the link up above and see these other stories.
Nov 10, 2005, 06:19
Email this article
Printer friendly page

A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."

The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could “validate” the President’s war on terror and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow.”

The memo says such a reversal in the President's fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.

GOP insiders who have seen the memo admit it’s a risky strategy and point out that such scenarios are “blue sky thinking” that often occurs in political planning sessions.

“The President’s popularity was at an all-time high following the 9/11 attacks,” admits one aide. “Americans band together at a time of crisis.”

Other Republicans, however, worry that such a scenario carries high risk, pointing out that an attack might suggest the President has not done enough to protect the country.

“We also have to face the fact that many Americans no longer trust the President,” says a longtime GOP strategist. “That makes it harder for him to become a rallying point.”

The memo outlines other scenarios, including:

--Capture of Osama bin Laden (or proof that he is dead);

--A drastic turnaround in the economy;

--A "successful resolution" of the Iraq war.

GOP memos no longer talk of “victory” in Iraq but use the term “successful resolution.”

“A successful resolution would be us getting out intact and civil war not breaking out until after the midterm elections,” says one insider.

The memo circulates as Tuesday’s disastrous election defeats have left an already dysfunctional White House in chaos, West Wing insiders say, with shouting matches commonplace and the blame game escalating into open warfare.

“This place is like a high-school football locker room after the team lost the big game,” grumbles one Bush administration aide. “Everybody’s pissed and pointing the finger at blame at everybody else.”

Republican gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey deepened rifts between the Bush administration and Republicans who find the President radioactive. Arguments over whether or not the President should make a last-minute appearance in Virginia to try and help the sagging campaign fortunes of GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore raged until the minute Bush arrived at the rally in Richmond Monday night.

“Cooler heads tried to prevail,” one aide says. “Most knew an appearance by the President would hurt Kilgore rather than help him but (Karl) Rove rammed it through, convincing Bush that he had enough popularity left to make a difference.”

Bush didn’t have any popularity left. Overnight tracking polls showed Kilgore dropped three percentage points after the President’s appearance and Democrat Tim Kaine won on Tuesday.

Conservative Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum told radio talk show host Don Imus Wednesday that he does not want the President's help and will stay away from a Bush rally in his state on Friday.

The losses in Virginia and New Jersey, coupled with a resounding defeat of ballot initiatives backed by GOP governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in California have set off alarm klaxons throughout the demoralized Republican party. Pollsters privately tell GOP leaders that unless they stop the slide they could easily lose control of the House in the 2006 midterm elections and may lose the Senate as well.

“In 30 years of sampling public opinion, I’ve never seen such a freefall in public support,” admits one GOP pollster.

Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin says the usual tricks tried by Republicans no longer work.

"None of their old tricks worked," he says.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) admits the GOP is a party mired in its rural base in a country that's becoming less and less rural.

"You play to your rural base, you pay a price," he says. "Our issues blew up in our face."

As Republican political strategists scramble to find a message – any message – that will ring true with voters, GOP leaders in Congress admit privately that control of their party by right-wing extremists makes their recovery all but impossible.

“We’ve made our bed with these people,” admits an aide to House Speaker Denny Hastert. “Now it’s the morning after and the hangover hurts like hell.”

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7639.shtml

Visit this sight to see many more topical stories of the times.

[. .. Surely not, they just can't be wishing to save themselves at our expense with an attack. Surely they wouldn't or couldn't welcome or be part of such a plot! This is just too anti American to be true. The rest yes, but the wish for a saving event such as terrorism, us being attacked again? That thought is just too much to stomach. .. SRH. ..]

Saundra Hummer

December 27th, 2005, 02:16 AM

*****
The political scandal that won't die
By DAN K. THOMASSON
Dec 26, 2005, 04:00

How many rats does it take to spoil the holiday season for a potential boatload of lawmakers? Well, so far there have been two and now it looks like the king rodent in a burgeoning lobbying scandal is in the process of jumping a sinking ship.
Pardon all the mixed metaphors, but according to news reports super influence peddler Jack Abramoff is talking about a deal in the Federal investigation that openly has targeted one House member and is delving into the activities of a number of others, including the former Republican majority leader Tom DeLay, already under indictment in his home state of Texas.

As we all know, Abramoff's two partners, Adam Kidan and Michael Scanlon, already have cut deals with the feds to rat on Abramoff and those they tried to influence with money from Indian tribes. Abramoff himself has been charged with fraud in Florida in connection with a casino boat scam that apparently involved the Mafia.

Where do these guys come from? Like ending a sentence with a preposition, they seem now to be an integral, if offending, part of the language of our time, often rising to the depths of sleaze from a stint on Capitol Hill where they learn how easy it is to sway legislation in an atmosphere where the need to raise tremendous amounts of money to finance reelection collide daily with integrity and duty. Their cont acts and expertise become enormously salable to the special interests seeking advantage for whatever cause or industry, and before one can say the word "bribery" they are riding high on K Street in the dozens of firms who make a huge living off such endeavors.

It is a sad but accurate commentary that most legislation is either written or suggested or enormously influenced by off campus interests _ that is those who haunt the halls and hearing rooms of Congress. Many have either once held public office and decided to make real money as former members; are former aides to those still in office, like Abramoff, or are bright young lawyers who have joined one of the influential law firms and worked their way up to representing one group or another. It's a bipartisan effort.

Don't be so naive as to believe that this is a new problem. It has been going on since the days of Daniel Webster, who allegedly took money to sponsor legislation, but the stakes and the amounts have increased dramatically with the escalation of campaign spending, the growth of government, and the pressures of a global economy. Serving in the House or Senate necessarily has become a full time occupation, and considering the pressures, demands and importance, it is one that does not pay very well.

That fact alone has left the door wide open for the likes of Abramoff and his colleagues who have been nurtured in the corrupting power of the Hill. They simply understand how the game is played and how financially under rewarded are those who are elected to play it. The chance for those outside the official system to make huge amounts of money is so alluring, they are willing to do what is necessary, skirting along the ethical and legal lines until they step over. No manner of precedent seems to deter them. But then why should it? In reality only a tiny percentage of those eligible have ever been caught and punished.

Washington truly is a city where what one knows is far less important than who he or she knows. So much of what goes on here is based on personal persuasion and cronyism. If all this seems inordinately cynical, chalk it up to 42 years of watching the passing political parade. Like the movie Groundhog Day, the same scenario just keeps playing over and over endlessly. It seems there is a Jack Abramoff nearly every decade.

Of course, a preponderance of lobbyists for Native Americans or oil companies or government workers or foreign interests or drug manufacturers, are honest and ethical. They make a public service contribution to the system that is necessary. Lobbying itself is not bad. Only when it is used to utterly corrupt the system at the expense of the public as Abramoff and friends appear to have done in this instance, is it evil.

How many lawmakers Abramoff and his allies will drag down with them is still being determined. But one, like Republican Rep. Robert Ney of Ohio, who has been named a target, is too many. Abramoff should be a lesson to all those who aspire to influence the decisions of government. But don't bet on it.

(Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.)

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7900.shtml

truthseeker

December 27th, 2005, 07:08 AM

Schumer, Clinton Earmark Funds For Contributors
BY BRIAN McGUIRE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
December 27, 2005
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/24957

WASHINGTON - Senators Clinton and Schumer are asking the Pentagon to spend $123 million of its wartime budget for New York projects that the Department of Defense didn't ask for - but that in many cases are linked to the senators' campaign contributors.

The two Democratic senators announced the projects - from a genomics research project at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan to cancer research on Long Island - in press releases this month, touting the impact they would have on the state economy.

But former Pentagon officials and Senator McCain say that the increasing number of "earmarks," as the projects are known, in the federal budget often divert money that would be better spent by the Defense Department's normal competitive bidding process. The number of pork barrel projects, including earmarks, has soared to 13,997 in 2005, from 1,439 in 2005, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, which tracks earmarks. The projects backed by the senators from New York are included in the conference committee report of a $454 billion defense-spending bill that was approved by the Senate on Wednesday and is awaiting President Bush's signature.

Mr. McCain, a Republican of Arizona who could face Mrs. Clinton in the 2008 presidential election, lashed out at earmarks in a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday.

"During a war, in a measure designed to give our fighting men and women the funds they need, the Congress has given in to its worst pork barrel instincts," Mr. McCain said. "The cumulative effect of these earmarks is the erosion of the integrity of the appropriations process, and by extension, our responsibility to the taxpayer. We must do better, for our soldiers and for the American people. ... Our system is broken if we cannot pass a defense bill in wartime without billions of dollars in pork."

In criticizing earmarks, Mr. McCain highlighted an issue that many top Department of Defense officials have complained about for years. A former undersecretary of defense and chief financial officer at the Defense Department, Dov Zakheim, said earmarks have the potential of sending money to projects that are not necessary instead of to projects that are.

"The problem with earmarks is that they tend to divert money away from programs that the Defense Department requires," Mr. Zakheim, now a consultant with Booz Allen Hamilton, said. "And particularly in a time when we are engaged in two conflicts as well as the war on terror, it's really questionable whether those sorts of earmarks are going to help the troops in the field."

A deputy undersecretary of defense in the Reagan administration, Stephen Bryen, said the New York items appear this year to range from the significant to the questionable. He said, however, that senators and congressmen often reserve funds for projects on which the military later depends.

"Some of those are sort of frivolous from the point of view of the defense budget," Mr. Bryen said. "It's like anything else: Some of it's pretty good, and some of it is taking care of their friends. That's what politics is all about. If you think you have a system based on where people who receive donations from their private sector don't tend to favor their friends, I'd like to see it."

An earmark is a specific amount of money demanded by a member of Congress for a designated project. Earmarks make their way into spending bills when a group of conferees from both houses of Congress meet privately to reconcile differences between the Senate and House versions of a bill. Once the earmarks are folded into the bill, members of Congress implicitly authorize and mandate them by voting in support of the larger bill.

The joint conference committee that hashed out the final details of this year's spending bill featured 38 lawmakers, evenly divided between the House and the Senate. The committee was chaired by Senator Stevens, a Republican of Alaska.

A review of the contributions that were made by donors affiliated with New York contractors who ended up winning earmarks suggests that many of the donations are targeted to at least get the attention of the lawmakers who are in the best position to help.

The fact that contractors do look to curry favor with committee members was underscored last month when a Republican of California who was a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, admitted to taking $2.4 million in bribes.

Two New York congressmen sit on the House Armed Services Committee: Rep. John McHugh, a Republican of Watertown, and Rep. Steven Israel, a Democrat of Long Island. Many of the companies and executives who won earmarks this year donated money not only to Senator Clinton, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and to Mr. Schumer, but also to Mr. Israel. And several of those designated for earmarks gave to members of the Joint Defense Appropriations Conference Committee, which wrote the New York projects into the defense spending bill.

Highlights of the earmarks announced by the Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Schumer include:

* $5 million in taxpayer money to STIDD Systems in Greenport, a company whose president and chief executive officer, Walter Gezari, gave $2,500 to the Friends of Hillary political action committee in May. Mr. Gezari, whose company makes seating for military vessels, gave $25,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee in March. He has donated $108,350 to federal politicians since 1998. Federal lobbying records show that his company spent $400,000 lobbying Congress this year.

* $1.8 million in taxpayer money to EDO Corporation, an Amityville defense contractor that makes aircraft equipment. The company's political action committee has given $17,000 to Mr. Israel over the past four years and $15,000 to Rep. John Murtha, a Democrat of Pennsylvania who is the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Defense. EDO's political action committee also gave $1,000 to Mr. Schumer's campaign committee and $853.44 to Boulevard Caterers in Farmingdale for food at a fundraiser for Mr. Schumer. The company spent $1,145 on food for one of Mr. Israel's fund-raisers in April 2001.

* $8 million in taxpayer money to a publicly traded defense contracting firm, DRS Technologies, and its electronic warfare and network systems program in western New York. The firm's political action committee gave $8,000 to Friends of Schumer and $30,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, of which Mr. Schumer is the chair. DRS, which is based in Parsippany, N.J., gave Mrs. Clinton's political action committee $2,000 in May through its DRS Technologies, Incorporated Good Government Fund.

* $2 million in taxpayer money to a Buffalo nanotechnology firm, Nano-Dynamics, Incorporated. Its chairman, Allan Rothstein, contributed $4,400 to the Friends of Hillary political action committee over the past year. Its chief executive officer, Keith Blakely, gave $2,000 to Mr. Schumer's campaign on October 26, 2004, as did the company's president, Richard Berger, and its vice president, Glenn Spacht. Mr. Spacht's contribution to Mr. Schumer was the only political donation he made to a federal campaign last year, according to records at the Federal Election Commission.

* $3.5 million in taxpayer money to SuperPower, Incorporated, a Schenectady subsidiary of Latham-based Intermagnetics General Corporation SuperPower's president, Philip Pellegrino, gave $3,000 last year to a political action committee operated by Intermagnetics that, in turn, gave $2,000 to Mrs. Clinton this year; $1,000 to Mr. Murtha; and $1,000 to Mr. Stevens.

* $2 million in taxpayer money to Plug Power, Incorporated, a Latham developer of fuel cell technology for redundant power supplies. The company's president, Roger Saillant, has given $2,000 to the Friends of Hillary committee over the past two years, and $3,000 to the Friends of Schumer committee over the past four.

When asked about their contributions, donors defended them, saying the money was not spent with the expectation of future contracts or federal grants. Some of the larger firms pointed out that contributions are made to numerous politicians; smaller ones simply denied any connection between their contributions and the contracts they won.

"Absolutely not," Mr. Spacht at Nano-Dynamics said, when asked if he expected a return on his contribution to Mr. Schumer. "People make contributions to all sorts of politicians because they believe that those gentlemen or ladies provide the opportunity for superior government, and it's that simple. Other than that, there's no reason for me to comment on this."

The director of government affairs at STIDD Systems, Dave Wilberding, said Mr. Gezari's contributions to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Schumer represent too small a percentage of the money he gives to politicians in general to be construed as quid pro quo for his most recent federal contract.

"I don't have the numbers for Walter's contributions over the past year," Mr. Wilberding said. "But he's contributed to a number of different people over the years - Senator Clinton and Senator Schumer and many others where we have gotten no connection to anything we do. So there is no expectation, and not only is there no expectation - that's illegal."

A spokeswoman for DRS Technologies, Patricia Williamson, offered a similar defense.

"Members of Congress are prohibited by law from directing or influencing any contract award election," she said. "Contract awards are strictly regulated, especially within the Department of Defense, by a very defined legal process. So it is inaccurate to state or imply the company will receive $8 million in defense spending as a result of the efforts of members of Congress due to contributions."

Other noteworthy earmarks, analysts of government waste said, included a $1.5 million grant for genomics research at the American Museum of Natural History and $1.5 million for cancer research at the Center for Women's Cancer Genetics in Cold Spring Harbor.

The chairman of the natural history museum's board of trustees, Lewis Bernard, is a prominent donor to mostly Democratic campaigns. He gave $25,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in October 2004, and $25,000 to the presidential campaign of Senator Kerry, a Democrat of Massachusetts, last July, the same day that he gave $25,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Mr. Bernard did not return calls for comment.

"If you or I were running the museum, we'd probably be less likely to get the money," the president of the budget watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, Thomas Schatz, said. "I'm not implying that anything untoward is going on, it's just that it's not unusual to see that kind of a relationship."

Mr. Schatz said the number and value of earmarks have increased over the past decade largely because few people have been paying attention. But, he said, the fact that they are not vetted or voted on and that they are added at the last minute to appropriations bills that members of Congress are loath to hold up should be cause for greater scrutiny. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, earmark spending has more than doubled over the past decade to $27.3 billion this year, from $10 billion in 1995.

Still, some analysts say members of Congress are no less qualified to identify worthwhile projects than the Department of Defense. The chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute and a former director of the Center for Peace and Securities Studies at Georgetown University, Loren Thompson, said that he is reluctant to criticize earmarks in general, despite the appearance they often give of a "pay to play" system.

"Obviously a cancer institute has nothing to do with the military," Mr. Thompson said. "On the other hand, if you look at the way the Pentagon has compiled its supplemental spending requests for Iraq, you'd be amazed at what they've been able to justify for the war. I am unaware of any necessary project the military is seeking that is being denied money, and I say this as a person who is generally considered a hard-liner on defense."

Mrs. Clinton's office called the defense programs she supported in next year's budget "vital."

"Senator Clinton has asked the Appropriations Committee to support defense projects for New York firms and institutions which will promote our national security, and she is pleased that the Conference Committee agreed in providing funding for these vital projects," a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Philippe Reines, said. Mr. Schumer's office did not respond to a request for comment.

Some companies acknowledged the difficulty of securing funds without first attracting the attention of politicians with money. A spokeswoman for Super-Power, Traute Lehner, said federal dollars are necessary to keep the company's experimental superconductivity program running, and that contributions help.

"We do contribute to a variety of political people we support, and clearly that's kind of what you need to do to get the kind of support that we need to get the federal funds without which we wouldn't be able to do the kind of work we do," Ms.Lehner said. "It's just helpful to get in their line of vision, and it raises their awareness of what we're doing. If you can't tell them your story, how what you're doing benefits their constituents, you can't really expect any support."

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=24957

truthseeker

December 27th, 2005, 07:27 AM

THE MURTHA FALLACY

Murtha's got it wrong: We're winning in Iraq

December 27, 2005

BY JOHN O'SULLIVAN

Five weeks ago a wave of hysteria swept through Washington. Suddenly the Washington establishment became convinced that the war in Iraq was lost. This conviction was sparked off by the speech of Rep. John Murtha, a crusty former Marine usually described as a conservative Democrat, who declared that U.S. policy in Iraq was "a flawed policy wrapped in an illusion" and called for "immediate redeployment" of U.S. troops.

The speech was like a match on a bonfire. Murtha was the lead story in newspapers and on network news programs. He was echoed first by columnists and, after a cautious period of watching the reaction, by his fellow Democrats. News analysts on all sides stressed the vital significance of what Murtha had said.

From the extreme left, Alex Cockburn confided that Murtha was merely retailing what four-star Pentagon generals believed to be the grim reality of failure in Iraq. On the right, Rod Dreher of National Review Online warned the GOP that this speech could be "a Cronkite moment" when the U.S. people decisively turned against the Iraq venture like the Tet offensive in Vietnam that Walter Cronkite famously (and, by the way, falsely) proclaimed to be an American defeat.

What had happened to provoke this general outburst of pessimism? Nothing on the ground in Iraq suggested a sudden turn to defeat. Indeed, attacks on U.S. troops had been declining. To be sure, murders of "softer targets" such as Iraqi civilians and policemen were continuing -- but they had not increased sharply. The political news was actually favorable: The once-dominant Sunni minority apparently intended to participate in the (then forthcoming) elections. Even Sunni insurgent leaders were turning against the "foreign" al-Qaida terrorists in their midst. And we now know that when Iraq's election was held only days later, there was a larger turnout (70 percent) than is usually the case in the United States itself.

Indeed, any dispassionate assessment of Iraq after three years of the liberation-cum-occupation must be far more favorable than not. Compare it to previous guerrilla wars and insurgencies at this point:

1. In the Malayan communist "emergency" -- generally regarded as one of the most successful post-war anti-guerrilla campaigns -- the British were losing after three years and had to revamp their entire strategy. (They did so successfully.)

2. In Vietnam, the three-year mid-point saw the Viet Cong's Tet offensive -- a U.S. victory obscured by defeatist anti-war reporting that led to a U.S. collapse on the home front and eventually to the destruction of America's Vietnamese allies.

3. In Iraq, the United States has midwifed a democratic political system, protected its citizens as they voted in three free elections, handed over sovereign power to an independent Iraqi government, and is now gradually reducing its military assistance to the civil power as Iraqi military and police forces replace Americans in maintaining order.

Were there serious mistakes in the last three years? Of course. Serious mistakes are inevitable in such major enterprises as war and revolution. Are there still major problems to be overcome? Naturally, since the establishment of democratic institutions -- difficult in ideal conditions such as the collapse of Soviet power in eastern Europe -- is doubly so in the aftermath of war and revolution.

But are we -- the U.S. armed forces and our Iraqi allies -- winning?

I put that question to a friend in the Army reserve, just returned from a year in the Sunni Triangle. He is a level-headed and sober observer, a historian by profession, who was working directly with Iraqis in tasks directly related to fighting the insurgency. His reply was unqualified: "Of course we are winning. We know it. The Iraqis know it. And al-Qaida knows it. The only people who apparently don't know it live in Washington."

If Iraq did not explain Washington's hysteria, what did? Well, one clue lies in how the speech was reported. Murtha was generally described as being a conservative Democrat and a supporter of the Iraq war. That description was essential to the prominence of the story. An anti-war speech from a pro-war conservative was a far stronger sign that America's support for the war was cracking than another criticism of Bush on Iraq from another partisan Democrat would have been.

But Murtha is a partisan Democrat. And just how moderate is he? As Newsweek's Howard Fineman pointed out, Murtha is a close associate of left-liberal Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, whose campaign for the leadership he had managed. As for being pro-war, Murtha had been anti-war for more than two years since calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation in September 2003.

So the initial reporting distorted and exaggerated the significance of Murtha's intervention, the media's first reactions largely amplified those exaggerations, and Washington's subsequent hysteria suggested to the world, including al-Qaida and the Sunni insurgents, that the United States was about to cut and run in Iraq.

This panic attack was eventually sedated by a number of factors -- the success of the Iraqi elections, the Bush administration's fight-back (that included five major speeches from the president), a poll conducted by a (presumably horrified) BBC showing most Iraqis were optimistic about their future, and the reaction of many U.S. troops who rejected Murtha's grim account of their situation. For now a calmer attitude on Iraq prevails.

But the Murtha episode was significant nonetheless. The sudden upsurge of support for U.S. withdrawal that he evoked took place at precisely the point that the United States was making important political and military gains. It showed fear certainly -- not fear of defeat, however, but fear of victory.

In other words, many Democrats, their media allies, and others in the permanent Washington establishment are defeatist. A defeatist is not just someone who thinks his side will lose. Sometimes a prediction of defeat is realistic. A defeatist is someone who, at some level, expects to lose, even wants to lose, seeing a quagmire in every oasis. His dissent is therefore tainted.

We are not supposed, of course, to criticize such dissent. No, we have to call it patriotism.

http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi?getReferrer=http://www.suntimes.com/output/osullivan/cst-edt-osul27.html

Saundra Hummer

December 27th, 2005, 02:04 PM

*****
The injustice theory of terrorismIn my round-up yesterday on the best columns on Steven Spielberg's film "Munich," I missed Edward Rothstein's excellent New York Times commentary: "Seeing terrorism as drama with sequels and prequels." Rothstein is alert to Spielberg's message for America:

"There's no peace at the end of this," warns Avner, the morally anguished Mossad assassin, as Steven Spielberg's new film, "Munich," draws to a close. And by "this" he means the targeted killings that Israel is said to have begun after 11 of its athletes were murdered at the 1972 Olympics by members of the Palestinian Black September offshoot of Fatah.

But Mr. Spielberg, in collaboration with his screenwriters, Eric Roth and the playwright Tony Kushner, also has a different "this" in mind. The camera pointedly settles on the period's skyline of lower Manhattan, showing the World Trade Center in sharp relief.

The warning and image are meant to suggest that militant attempts to destroy terrorism lead not to peace but to cycles of violence, and that the 9/11 attacks may even be consequences of Israel's response to the Munich massacre. A war on terror amplifies terror. Moreover, the movie teaches, opposing sides begin to resemble each other. Moral credibility is destroyed along with hope.

The same argument is being made now about the war in Iraq, of course...

Rothstein's column seems to me an important contribution to the subject. (Thanks to reader Steven Gerber.)
Steve Hayes speaks

Posted by Scott at 08:22 AM | Permalink http://powerlineblog.com/

Concerning the Murtha post above, it's being said that it was Pentagon brass who went to Murtha with their concerns, as they weren't being taken seriously or listened to by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld trio.

Saundra Hummer

December 27th, 2005, 02:59 PM

When the British went in and spent untold years and efforts to carve up the Middle East into little Kingdoms, did they have any idea as to how religion would hold onto it's divisive ways? Did they have any idea that the three divisions and separate religions and peoples would abuse and hate one another down through this short history of the British carved up kingdoms, all because of Bronze age religious rifts?. These rifts making a peaceful situation all but impossible?

Do we think we can undo all of the hatreds which have brewed since Islams inception? There's a lot of water under the bridge. A lot of blood has flowed down through the centuries, so do we think we can turn history around and make things work? No! The people in that region have to do that for themselves.

Sure we could bomb them into a temporary submission, but there go those hatreds being built up once again, this time we are, and would be in that small little club, the Sunni's, the Shiates, Kurds, Israeli's, and now in comes Iran. We will be considered the enemy forever by so many, and sure there are Iraqi's there who are bound to believe we are liberators, but I believe more will hold us as monsters. Us being that to so many for having tortured and killed, all the while innocents are caught up in the web of violence and war. Will they forget the abuses they have suffered at our hands? Will we be hated as they hate Saddam? No need to answer.

I believe we blew the chance of being appreciated for having rid their country of Saddam, all because of how we have treated prisoners and because of our bombing of cities with men women and children in them, all because of an area being a stronghold of resistance, we don't care about the damage to others, even if they are women and children.

Sure, most of our troops are good, humane, caring men and women, but their being good, helpful and kind, is more often than not overshadowed by sanctioned and promoted torture and other things done by the few who are criminal in their behavior. This is how it is. Everyone does notice the bad over the good, as we expect the good, but are shocked and appalled when evil is in action. It's something we don't like to admit to; but it captures our attention, and always has, here in this country and around the world. It is a human trait, there are studies about it, and this is just how it is.

We know there are good things happening in Iraq, but it is the horrible conditions of war, not the good aspects which are most evident. We just can't bring ourselves to think this war and how it has been conducted is a good thing - even though there are many here who are glad to see it "Over there." Fearing if not there it will be here. Well, there are those of us who can't wish war on others to save ourselves, especially when it there's such a lame argument and reason for us being in Iraq. Terrorists sure, we would like to stop them over there, where ever over there is; but Iraqi's weren't terrorists. We sure did spawn some monsters though, so now there are, maybe not wishing to export it, but they're commiting terrorist acts, where before there were none, but in their country, not abroad, not over here. A Jordanian who crossed the border is the one conducting the campaign of terror against us and against anyone pro Allies, an Al Qaida operative, who we in the rest of the world think of as a mad man, and he, because of our actions in Iraq, has developed a following and is recruiting more and more of the easily led and disillusioned. He may surpass Osama in that, and he is more one-on-one brutal, as are his followers. Not as crafty as Osama, but every bit as dangerous. So which of his recruits will spin off their own branch of terror? No, we've created a monstor of a mess in Iraq, and it will be up to the Iraqi's, the Arab nations and Islamic forces to stop it, we won't be able to. Let's not kid ourselves.

Saundra Hummer

December 27th, 2005, 03:15 PM

*****
The Hidden State Steps Forward
By Jonathan Schell
The Nation
09 January 2006 Edition

When the New York Times revealed that George W. Bush had ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the foreign calls of American citizens without seeking court permission, as is indisputably required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, he faced a decision. Would he deny the practice, or would he admit it? He admitted it. But instead of expressing regret, he took full ownership of the deed, stating that his order had been entirely justified, that he had in fact renewed it thirty times, that he would continue to renew it and-going even more boldly on the offensive-that those who had made his law-breaking known had committed a "shameful act." As justification, he offered two arguments, one derisory, the other deeply alarming. The derisory one was that Congress, by authorizing him to use force after September 11, had authorized him to suspend FISA, although that law is unmentioned in the resolution. Thus has Bush informed the members of a supposedly co-equal ranch of government of what, unbeknownst to themselves, they were thinking when they cast their vote. The alarming argument is that as Commander in Chief he possesses "inherent" authority to suspend laws in wartime. But if he can suspend FISA at his whim and in secret, then what law can he not suspend? What need is there, for example, to pass or not pass the Patriot Act if any or all of its provisions can be secretly exceeded by the President?

Bush's choice marks a watershed in the evolution of his Administration. Previously when it was caught engaging in disgraceful, illegal or merely mistaken or incompetent behavior, he would simply deny it. "We have found the weapons of mass destruction!" "We do not torture!" However, further developments in the torture matter revealed a shift. Even as he denied the existence of torture, he and his officials began to defend his right to order it. His Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, refused at his confirmation hearings to state that the torture called waterboarding, in which someone is brought to the edge of drowning, was prohibited. Then when Senator John McCain sponsored a bill prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, Bush threatened to veto the legislation to which it was attached. It was only in the face of majority votes in both houses against such treatment that he retreated from his claim.

But in the wiretapping matter, he has so far exhibited no such vacillation. Secret law-breaking has been supplanted by brazen law-breaking. The difference is critical. If abuses of power are kept secret, there is still the possibility that, when exposed, they will be stopped. But if they are exposed and still permitted to continue, then every remedy has failed, and the abuse is permanently ratified. In this case, what will be ratified is a presidency that has risen above the law.

The danger is not abstract or merely symbolic. Bush's abuses of presidential power are the most extensive in American history. He has launched an aggressive war ("war of choice," in today's euphemism) on false grounds. He has presided over a system of torture and sought to legitimize it by specious definitions of the word. He has asserted a wholesale right to lock up American citizens and others indefinitely without any legal showing or the right to see a lawyer or anyone else. He has kidnapped people in foreign countries and sent them to other countries, where they were tortured. In rationalizing these and other acts, his officials have laid claim to the unlimited, uncheckable and unreviewable powers he has asserted in the wiretapping case. He has tried to drop a thick shroud of secrecy over these and other actions.

There is a name for a system of government that wages aggressive war, deceives its citizens, violates their rights, abuses power and breaks the law, rejects judicial and legislative checks on itself, claims power without limit, tortures prisoners and acts in secret. It is dictatorship.

The Administration of George W. Bush is not a dictatorship, but it does manifest the characteristics of one in embryonic form. Until recently, these were developing and growing in the twilight world of secrecy. Even within the executive branch itself, Bush seemed to govern outside the normally constituted channels of the Cabinet and to rely on what Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff has called a "cabal." Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill reported the same thing. Cabinet meetings were for show. Real decisions were made elsewhere, out of sight. Another White House official, John DiIulio, has commented that there was "a complete lack of a policy apparatus" in the White House. "What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm." As in many Communist states, a highly centralized party, in this case the Republican Party, was beginning to forge a parallel apparatus at the heart of government, a semi-hidden state-within-a-state, by which the real decisions were ade.

With Bush's defense of his wiretapping, the hidden state has stepped into the open. The deeper challenge Bush has thrown down, therefore, is whether the country wants to embrace the new form of government he is creating by executive fiat or to continue with the old constitutional form. He is now in effect saying, "Yes, I am above the law-I am the law, which is nothing more than what I and my hired lawyers say it is-and if you don't like it, I dare you to do something about it."

Members of Congress have no choice but to accept the challenge. They did so once before, when Richard Nixon, who said, "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal," posed a similar threat to the Constitution. The only possible answer is to inform Bush forthwith that if he continues in his defiance, he will be impeached.

If Congress accepts his usurpation of its legislative power, they will be no Congress and might as well stop meeting. Either the President must uphold the laws of the United States, which are Congress's laws, or he must leave office. -------
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122705B.shtml

Saundra Hummer

December 27th, 2005, 03:26 PM

*****

KEEP THE PRESS OFF THE PAYROLL
By: Arsalan Suleman
Issue date: 12/8/05 Section: Opinion

As the Bush Administration's failures in Iraq continue to pile up, pressure has increased domestically for a clear exit strategy to be developed. Regardless of the timetable, that exit is not likely to be a graceful one, especially if one were to critically examine what is to be left behind. If one accepts that the goal of invading Iraq was to spread democracy in the Middle East, then recent reports about improper influence on the Iraqi press is a sure sign that the building blocks of Iraq's nascent democracy are tainted.

On November 30, 2005 the L.A. Times released a story that described how the U.S. military, through subcontractors, is covertly paying Iraqi newspapers to run stories written by American troops in order to improve the image of U.S. troops in Iraq. The story was confirmed last Friday in a briefing to a Senate Republican, as reported by the New York Times on December 3rd. Many of the stories are printed like regular news stories, as if they were written by independent journalists, without a required disclaimer that money was given to have them printed. The stories are a part of the military's information operations, a key element in the battle for Iraqi "hearts and minds." It is bad enough that the battle for Iraqi support has miserably failed, but the tactic of meddling with the press will not only make that failure greater, it will also widen America's credibility gap with the rest of the world.

The role of the press in covering the Iraq war has, from the outset, been rather controversial. The use of embedded reporters during the invasion gave the media access to the war zone, but it allowed the military to control most of the coverage. Given the instability in Iraq, gaining independent access to news stories continues to be a difficult and dangerous task. Ever since the Abu Ghraib scandal broke out, the U.S. has faced the nearly impossible task of regaining some credibility in the eyes of the Iraqis. Paying for positive news stories is a counter-productive way to address this problem. Now that people know that newspapers are being paid to print stories from the U.S. military, any genuinely positive coverage that does come out in Iraq will be read with (even greater) skepticism by readers in the Middle East. On a larger scale, the U.S. has lost even more ground in its ability to lecture other nations about the virtues of democracy. This type of covert use of the media to inject pro-American propaganda in the Iraqi press is not the democratic model of a free press that America should be exporting. A free press must be allowed to print stories without government engaging in nefarious schemes to add stories that praise itself or its policies.

This is a lesson that the Bush Administration should have learned after the No Child Left Behind columnist pay-off scandal. You may remember that columnists, like Armstrong Williams, were paid large sums of money (Mr. Williams reportedly received over $200,000) to promote Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative. Though the Administration gave up this practice at home, it seems to have adopted it abroad in Iraq. Unfortunately, this time the consequences are a further setback to the effort to promote democracy in the Middle East and in Iraq. A recent poll of citizens in six Arab countries conducted by the University of Maryland and Zogby International found that 69% of those surveyed doubted that spreading democracy was the real U.S. objective in Iraq and the Middle East.

The reports of the military paying for printing stories in Iraqi newspapers dovetails with growing speculation and interest in a top secret British memo that may confirm the allegations that President Bush suggested, in discussions with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the bombing of Al Jazeera's central offices in Qatar. Though more information on this may be forthcoming, such a proposal would be consistent with the Administration's unfortunate and dangerous attitude towards controlling the media, especially in relation to Al Jazeera, the region's most popular (and most professional) independent international news network.

The list of failures in Iraq continues to grow, and the Administration's credibility in its claim to be spreading democracy in the Middle East continues to plummet. Regardless of how America ends up exiting from Iraq, it should not engage in practices that might impair the functional aspects of Iraqi civil society, especially in relation to the press. We should be exporting our best democratic practices, not our worst.

FROM: THE RECORD
The Independent Newspaper at Harvard Law School

http://www.hlrecord.org/media/paper609/news/2005/12/08/Opinion/Keep-The.Press.Off.The.Payroll-1126353.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.hlrecord.org

Arsalan Suleman, a 2L, is from Kenner, Louisiana.

Saundra Hummer

December 27th, 2005, 04:31 PM

*****
Guest Blogger: Joseph Onek on Domestic Surveillance
By Joseph Onek, Senior Policy Analyst, Open Society Policy Center and Senior Counsel and Director, Liberty and Security Initiative, The Constitution Project

The Justice Department’s December 22 letter to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees reasserts the administration’s key arguments in support of the President’s authority to engage in electronic surveillance against Americans in the United States without a court order. These arguments can be rebutted in very short order.

First, the Department argues that Congress authorized the President’s surveillance program when it passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) shortly after the 9/11 attacks. But this argument flies in the face of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In FISA, Congress specifically addressed the possibility that in time of war special surveillance procedures might be required. Section 111 of FISA permits the President to authorize electronic surveillance without a court order for a period “not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.” Since the AUMF is at most the equivalent of a declaration of war, it could only provide authority for warrantless surveillance for fifteen days, not for four years and countingThe legislative history of the fifteen-day provision could not be clearer.

The House version of the FISA legislation would have given the President one year to conduct surveillance without court order. But the Conference Committee and then Congress insisted on the fifteen-day limitation. “The Conferees intend that this [fifteen-day] period will allow time for consideration of any amendment to this act that may be appropriate during a wartime emergency….The conferees expect that such amendment would be reported with recommendations within 7 days and that each House would vote on the amendment within 7 days thereafter.”.

Incredibly, the Justice Department letter to the Intelligence Committees does not even mention the fifteen-day provision in FISA. This omission demonstrates an extraordinary disdain for the committees and for the ethical obligations of government lawyers.

The Department also argues that the President could not have sought a legislative change in FISA (or otherwise made his surveillance program public) because this “would have tipped off our enemies concerning our intelligence limitations and capabilities.” But the President would not have needed to disclose intelligence “sources and methods”; he would simply have needed to discuss whatever problems – perhaps delays or standards for issuing surveillance orders -- he had with the FISA court. And that kind of information is of no value to terrorists. Terrorists will not base their actions on the possibility of delays in the processing of FISA orders, particularly since in an emergency the government can initiate surveillance 72 hours before filing in court. Nor will terrorists decide what precautions to take against surveillance based on such intricacies of American law as the concept of “probable cause.” They cannot possibly know whether they will come to the attention of U.S. officials because of facts that would clearly constitute probable cause for the issuance of a surveillance order (e.g. they are named by a detainee) or because of facts that might not constitute probable cause (e.g. their phone number is listed in a suspect’s computer).

The Justice Department advances such palpably specious arguments because its core contention -- that the President currently has the inherent authority to engage in electronic surveillance in the United States without a court order -- is so weak. Whatever authority the President might have had in the absence of FISA, he cannot ignore a congressional statute that expressly restricts his surveillance authority. Therefore, the Department is forced to insist, against all reason, that Congress authorized a departure from FISA in the AUMF and that the President could not have gone to Congress for an amendment to FISA.

http://www.acsblog.org/

From: ACSBlog: The Blog of the American Constitution Society

Lots of opinions and information on this site, check it out by clicking on the above link.

[. .. This article goes into the 15 days proviso I had asked about in an earlier post about illegal wiretapping. This pretty much lays it out. There are blogs about Ann Coulter, on this site, and they're a riot, and for the most part, they nail it. It is her game to say such outrageous things so as to to grab and hold onto the spotlight and the cash. But .....when those of us out here in the real world start basing our beliefs on her off the wall thoughts, such as the "Daisy Bomb", or basing our beliefs on those of the O'Reilly's, and the Limbaugh's with all of the vitriol and nonsense they spit and spew, then look out. Some are totally taken in - "Logic on a stick" - in some peoples minds one blogger said, and that is it. Too many like being fed this drivel, it's like mind candy for perverted thoughts - a lollypop on a stick to so many. Everyone talks about Coulters brilliance, well, I find it hard to think she is coming anywhere near that - being brilliant - especially after her comment (and several others as well) as to how the Arabs have never contributed anything of worth to the world. I thought I was hearing things, then I thought - she must be kidding - then it sunk in with me, I was being so dense, she wasn't kidding one bit. Did she learn nothing in school? Or on PBS for that matter? Oh I remember, it's the Neo-Cons who want to do away with PBS, thinking it's not worth the money, so in all likelyhood - like them, she thinks there's nothing to gain from watching -and hasn't. ..SRH ..]

Saundra Hummer

December 27th, 2005, 05:06 PM

*****
. .. "War is like a big machine that no one really knows how to run and when it gets out of control it ends up destroying the things you thought you were fighting for, and a lot of other things you kinda forgot you had." : Anonymous

=

. .. "...most men have bound their eyes with one or another handkerchief, and attached themselves to some one of these communities of opinion. This conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars. Their every truth is not quite true. Their two is not the real two, their four not the real four; so that every word they say chagrins us, and we know not where to begin to set them right." Ralph Waldo Emerson - Self Reliance - 1841 - From 'Essays", First series

=

. .. "For in every city these two opposite parties [people vs aristocracy] are to be found, arising from the desire of the populace to avoid oppression of the great, and the desire of the great to command and oppress the people....For when the nobility see that they are unable to resist the people, they unite in exalting one of their number and creating him prince, so as to be able to carry out their own designs under the shadow of his authority." (Machiavelli, The Prince, ch. IX)

=

. .. "Protest that endures...is moved by a hope far more modest than that of public success: namely, the hope of preserving qualities in one's own heart and spirit that would be destroyed by acquiescence." Wendell Berry

=

. .. For the saddest words of tongue or pen these are : " It might have been". John Greenleaf Whittier

Saundra Hummer

December 27th, 2005, 05:21 PM

*****
Fear destroys what bin Laden could not

One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.
By Robert Steinback

12/27/05 "Miami Herald" -- -- If back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.
What is there to say now?

All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised attack on Christianity.

I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.

Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''

President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.

Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?''
Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.

Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?

Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.
Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built.

Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?

ROBERT STEINBACK - rsteinback@MiamiHerald.com

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article11388.htm

[. .. Remember? Remember Osama laughing and saying the damage to us as a nation wouldn't be from the World Trade Center and the Pentagon being attacked and so many having been killed, it would be that we will lose our freedoms? Remember him telling us as he sat in his hideout on some unknown mountain - that it would be our own government taking them away from us - he smiled that odd, far away knowing smile of his, and he was oh so right. They are "OUR FREEDOMS" and we are losing them. This is wrong and we will have let terrorism win again if we allow it to continue, this erroding of our rights our constitutional rights, and the erroding of OUR CONSTITUTION itself by this constitution and the lap dogs on Capital Hill. Our country has to return to pre-September 11th, and I'm sure those most changed by it, those who were injured and lost loved ones in those attacks must feel the same if they were to think carefully about it. We and they, would really have sacrificed and died in vain if we lose our hard fought for freedoms. .. SRH. ..]

Saundra Hummer

December 27th, 2005, 05:59 PM

*****Telling It Like It Isn't

By Robert Fisk
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 27 December 2005

I first realized the enormous pressures on American journalists in the Middle East when I went some years ago to say goodbye to a colleague from the Boston Globe. I expressed my sorrow that he was leaving a region where he had obviously enjoyed reporting. I could save my sorrows for someone else, he said. One of the joys of leaving was that he would no longer have to alter the truth to suit his paper's more vociferous readers.

"I used to call the Israeli Likud Party 'right wing,' " he said. "But recently, my editors have been telling me not to use the phrase. A lot of our readers objected." And so now, I asked? "We just don't call it 'right wing' anymore."

Ouch. I knew at once that these "readers" were viewed at his newspaper as Israel's friends, but I also knew that the Likud under Benjamin Netanyahu was as right wing as it had ever been.

This is only the tip of the semantic iceberg that has crashed into American journalism in the Middle East. Illegal Jewish settlements for Jews and Jews only on Arab land are clearly "colonies," and we used to call them that. I cannot trace the moment when we started using the word "settlements." But I can remember the moment around two years ago when the word "settlements" was replaced by "Jewish neighborhoods" - or even, in some cases, "outposts."

Similarly, "occupied" Palestinian land was softened in many American media reports into "disputed" Palestinian land - just after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, in 2001, instructed U.S. embassies in the Middle East to refer to the West Bank as "disputed" rather than "occupied" territory.

Then there is the "wall," the massive concrete obstruction whose purpose, according to the Israeli authorities, is to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from killing innocent Israelis. In this, it seems to have had some success. But it does not follow the line of Israel's 1967 border and cuts deeply into Arab land. And all too often these days, journalists call it a "fence" rather than a "wall." Or a "security barrier," which is what Israel prefers them to say. For some of its length, we are told, it is not a wall at all - so we cannot call it a "wall," even though the vast snake of concrete and steel that runs east of Jerusalem is higher than the old Berlin Wall.

The semantic effect of this journalistic obfuscation is clear. If Palestinian land is not occupied but merely part of a legal dispute that might be resolved in law courts or discussions over tea, then a Palestinian child who throws a stone at an Israeli soldier in this territory is clearly acting insanely.

If a Jewish colony built illegally on Arab land is simply a nice friendly "neighborhood," then any Palestinian who attacks it must be carrying out a mindless terrorist act.

And surely there is no reason to protest a "fence" or a "security barrier" - words that conjure up the fence around a garden or the gate arm at the entrance to a private housing complex.

For Palestinians to object violently to any of these phenomena thus marks them as a generically vicious people. By our use of language, we condemn them.

We follow these unwritten rules elsewhere in the region. American journalists frequently used the words of U.S. officials in the early days of the Iraqi insurgency - referring to those who attacked American troops as "rebels" or "terrorists" or "remnants" of the former regime. The language of the second U.S. pro-consul in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, was taken up obediently - and grotesquely - by American journalists.

American television, meanwhile, continues to present war as a bloodless sandpit in which the horrors of conflict - the mutilated bodies of the victims of aerial bombing, torn apart in the desert by wild dogs - are kept off the screen. Editors in New York and London make sure that viewers' "sensitivities" don't suffer, that we don't indulge in the "pornography" of death (which is exactly what war is) or "dishonor" the dead whom we have just killed.

Our prudish video coverage makes war easier to support, and journalists long ago became complicit with governments in making conflict and death more acceptable to viewers. Television journalism has thus become a lethal adjunct to war.

Back in the old days, we used to believe - did we not? - that journalists should "tell it how it is." Read the great journalism of World War II and you'll see what I mean. The Ed Murrows and Richard Dimblebys, the Howard K. Smiths and Alan Moorheads didn't mince their words or change their descriptions or run mealy-mouthed from the truth because listeners or readers didn't want to know or preferred a different version.

So let's call a colony a colony, let's call occupation what it is, let's call a wall a wall. And maybe express the reality of war by showing that it represents not, primarily, victory or defeat, but the total failure of the human spirit.
-------
Robert Fisk is Middle East correspondent for the London Independent and the author, most recently, of The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East, published last month by Knopf.
-------
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122705S.shtml

truthseeker

December 27th, 2005, 05:59 PM

Saundra Hummer

December 27th, 2005, 06:05 PM

IRAQ: MASS GRAVE FOUND NEAR KERBALA

Karbala, 27 Dec. (AKI) - Police in the Shiite holy city of Karbala say they have uncovered a mass grave containing the remains of men, women and children. The gruesome find was made by workers digging a water pipeline. Local authorities say they believe the corpses are those of a hundred or more Shiites slaughtered just after the end of the first Gulf War, in reprisal for having staged an uprising against Saddam Hussein.

There are believed to be as many as 30,000 victims in the Shiite revolt. Since the overthrow of Saddam in April 2003, scores of mass graves have been found, mainly in the northern Kurdish areas or in the Shiite-inhjabited areas of southern Iraq.

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.243476655&par=0

OH, BUT LET'S WRING OUR HANDS OVER "THE HORRIBLE CONDITIONS OF WAR", SHALL WE???

Good grief, we know of these things, we know that Saddam and the old government, the Baathists, were monsters, and know the new government is doing the same they say, and we know that the insurgency is doing the same. We have also contributed to numerous deaths of innocents by bombing and with weapons which they say have been banned, then there are the shootings as well.

Wring our hands? Why not? Do you know how many-ever wrongs, and there have been plenty, make a right? They don't. They never have. No! -- And you know it. Can't you see the rationale behind it all?

Saundra Hummer

December 27th, 2005, 06:39 PM

*****

AN INTERESTING LOOK BACK IN TIME TO THE FIRST GULF WAR AND PRESIDENT GHW BUSH'S PART IN BROKEN PROMISES AND IMPLIED SALVATION.

*MIDDLE EAST*

COMMENTARY
The Bush family's phony wars

By K Gajendra Singh
Former Indian ambassador to Amman, Jordan

For the Bush family, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is the tempting Apple in the Middle Eastern Garden of Eden. The results of succumbing to the temptation to take a bite could be as disastrous as they were for Adam and Eve.

In 1991 George Bush Sr sought the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. He failed and left the region in a mess. Now his son, President George W Bush, having inherited Dick Cheney and other chieftains from his father's presidency, is pursuing the family vendetta. Ordinary Iraqis continue to pay the price of this vendetta, with more than half a million children reported to have died from lack of medicines and malnutrition since the 1990 embargo. Iraq's US-friendly neighbors like Jordan and Turkey are suffering too. Even during the hiatus of Bill Clinton's presidency, Iraq was not spared: it was bombed whenever Clinton's popularity went down or he got deeper into the Monica Lewinsky mess.

It is difficult to know what to believe of the leaks regarding the US's current options to oust Saddam, ranging from assassination, fomenting a coup or internal rebellion, air strikes against Baghdad and other Iraqi command centers, to a vast amphibious invasion with massive air support, involving up to 250,000 soldiers. The latest plan, involving around 60,000 troops backed by heavy air power, will begin with a swift attack on Saddam's elite Republican Guards around Baghdad, in the hope that the regular Iraqi army would then abandon Saddam. Such balderdash. The result of any such actions could be as catastrophic as Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden. However, there is room for hope that worse may not come to worst: a saving grace of the US constitutional system of checks and balances is that Bush may be the most powerful man in the world, but he can't ignore Congress. And, however much George Bush Sr might hate Saddam, he would not want his son's presidency to end in disgrace.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, one of a few sane voices in the administration, remains opposed to a military strike just as he was in 1991, as it has no clear strategic objectives. Recent media leaks from the Pentagon and the State Department suggested that "many senior US military officers contend that Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that the United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade Iraq". Soon another leak countered that some in the Establishment favored an "inside-out" plan to "take Baghdad and one or two key command centers and weapons depots first, in hopes of cutting off the country's leadership and causing a quick collapse of the government". Such a plan was once dismissed by General Anthony Zinni, the US Middle East envoy, as a recipe for a "Bay of Goats" disaster, like the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba. (Remember too the mess of Jimmy Carter's 1979 attempt to rescue US hostages in Iran.)

As Powell knows, there are no clearly defined strategic objectives for an attack on Iraq. Instead, Bush has his hands on a Pandora's Box that would release incalculable forces and consequences if he were to open it.

One of these incalculables, for example, is Jordan's Prince Hassan. The prince's unexpected appearance at a mid-July Western-rigged assembly of disunited and disgruntled Iraqi opposition leaders led to speculation that he might even emerge as a new consensus ruler of post-Saddam Iraq.

King Abdullah of Jordan has himself repeatedly refuted reports that the US could use his country as a base for attacking Iraq, and furthermore has warned that an attack would further destabilize the region. This is also the consensus of many strategic analysts. But Hassan's cameo appearance remains intriguing.

An intellectual, married to late Indian vice president M Hidayatullah's niece, Hassan was crown prince for decades. But just before his death, King Hussein - Hassan's elder brother - anointed his eldest son Abdullah, from his British wife, as the next king, and made another son, Hamza, from his American wife, the new crown prince, thus creating some emotional Anglo-Saxon vested interest in the perpetuation of the Hashemite dynasty. (The last Iraqi king, Feisel II, was Hassan's cousin and was assassinated after a military coup in 1958.)

Background and seeds of disputes
The Tigris and Euphrates basin has a turbulent history. The armies of Islam carved an empire from the Atlantic to China in the Seventh Century, and the Arabian peninsula became part of it. After Ottoman Sultan annexed the caliphate and guardianship of Mecca and Medina, the peninsula became a peaceful backwater until World War I. But when Turkey sided with Germany, Britain, to protect its Indian possession and the Suez Canal lifeline, encouraged Arabs under Hashemite ruler Sharif Hussein of Hijaj to revolt against the caliph in Istanbul (and deputed spy T E Lawrence to help out). The war's end did not bring freedom to the Arabs as promised; at the same time, by secret Sykes-Picot agreement, the British and French arbitrarily divided the sultan's Arab domains and their warring populations of Shi'ites, Sunnis, Alawite Muslims, Druse, and Christians. The French took most of greater Syria, dividing it into Syria and Christian-dominated Lebanon. The British kept Palestine, Iraq and the rest of Arabia.

When Sharif Hussein's son Emir Feisel arrived to claim Damascus, Syria, the French chased him out. So the British installed him on the Iraqi throne. When the other son, Emir Abdullah, turned up in Amman, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, dining in a Jerusalem hotel, reportedly drew on a napkin the borders of a new Emirate of Trans-Jordan, encompassing wasteland vaguely claimed by Syrians, Saudis and Iraqis.

Later, as Sharif Hussein (who wanted the Caliphate after Ataturk had abolished it) proved obdurate to the British viewpoint, Britain let Ibn Saud and his Wahhabis hound him out of Mecca. Britain also denied Kemal Ataturk's new Turkish republic the oil-rich Kurdish areas of Mosul and Kirkuk, now in northern Iraq. To thwart Germany posing a danger to India via the Berlin-Basra railroad, the British had earlier propped up oil-rich Kuwait, traditionally ruled by Ottoman pashas in Basra. This throttled Iraqi access to the Persian Gulf. Iraq became somewhat (though not fully!) reconciled to an independent Kuwait only in 1961.

By 1917 Britain's Balfour Declaration had also promised a homeland for Jews in Palestine. European Jews began emigrating to Palestine, and the trickle became a flood with the rise of anti-Semitic policies in Nazi Germany and elsewhere in Europe. After World War II, the state of Israel, carved out of British Palestine, was not recognized by the Arabs. The 1948 Arab-Israeli war allowed Israel to expand its area, while Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt took over Gaza. In the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel captured the West bank and Gaza. Thus were laid the foundations for most of the problems of the region.

Following the rise of Arab nationalism in the early 1950s led by Colonel Gamal Nasser of Egypt, socialists and nationalists, mostly military officers, took over the medieval kingdoms of Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Libya - much to the consternation of Western oil companies.

From its very inception, almost all its neighbors coveted Jordan. But astute King Hussein not only survived a dozen assassination attempts, he also fended off conspiracies against his land. When he died in 1999 of cancer, the kingdom had become a keystone of equilibrium in the region and a modern flourishing state, despite lacking oil amd other resources. The sop of the Iraqi throne to Prince Hassan could just be another trick. But it is true that rulers in the region have patience and long memories. Even during the 1991 Gulf War it was put about that neutrality on the part of King Hussein could lead to his kingdom being parceled - but if he sided with the US, he might get parts of Iraq, which after all was once a Hashemite patrimony.

Palestinians make up 60 percent of Jordan's population (some Israeli leaders say that in Jordan Palestinians already have their own state). PLO militants and Palestinian army officers conspired against King Hussein (King Abdullah, his grandfather, was assassinated by a Palestinian in 1951), who expelled the Arafat-led PLO to Beirut in the early 1970s.

Jordan's business community relies heavily on transit and direct trade with Iraq, and still gets free oil from it. Thus, Prince Hassan's maneuver could cost a lot if Iraq so decides. Before the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein had promised full support to the Palestinian cause. During the war, King Hussein maintained neutrality despite Western pressure, anger and bad-mouthing. Palestinians and their leadership had fully supported Saddam in 1990-91, and Jordan's stand. But adroit King Hussein remained a major Arab player in a Middle East peace settlement and was brought from his death bed to bless the White House ceremony for the Arafat-Rabin accord. Some cynics say that Hussein never favored a powerful Palestinian state, and that suits Israel and the US. To survive in Amman, a Hashemite ruler has to be extremely nimble.

Gulf crisis and war, 1990-91
The US stumbled into the 1991 war without any strategic thought or planning. In fact, the West had supported Iraq's long war against Khomeini's Iran, and the US had granted loans to Baghdad worth billions of dollars. Amid high tension between Kuwait and Baghdad over common oil wells, two islands, and the return of a $10 billion loan, Iraq threatened Kuwait with war. A few days before the Iraqi invasion on August 2, 1990, US Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam Hussein that his dispute with Kuwait was a bilateral Arab affair. This was never clearly refuted by the US and Ambassador Glaspie disappeared from view. The Western media never pursued her as they do others, and allowed themselves to become a handmaiden of the Western propaganda machine. (Later, they wrote little about the slaughter of retreating and surrendering Iraqi soldiers, and their credibility has declined further since then.) Meanwhile, all attempts to find a peaceful solution to the Iraq-Kuwait row by Arab nations, led by King Hussein of Jordan and later joined by King Hassan of Morocco, were rebuffed by the US, as was Kuwait's offer of indirect negotiations. Feelers for negotiations by the Saudis were drowned in Western cacophony. Saddam's reported offer to the UN secretary general to withdraw from Kuwait, made just before the US retaliation, was brushed aside. Efforts by Mikhail Gorbachev, who had just unraveled the USSR, were treated with disdain.

Post-1991 Gulf War scene
Bush had attacked Iraq in 1991 without informing the UN secretary general, undermining the world body and further diminishing it. For the countries of the region, the war resolved nothing. Instead, the US made Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other allies pay through the nose, weakening them by an estimated $100-$150 billion. Iraq was bombed into the Middle Ages. Its enemy Iran, now a joint member of the "Axis of Evil", was the major gainer. To guard his back, Saddam in 1990 had agreed to the old boundary with Iran in the Shatt-al Arab waterway, disagreement over which had led to the Iran-Iraq War.

US promises turned sour in the aftermath of the Gulf War. George Bush Sr, without consulting his allies, encouraged Iraqis, especially Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south, to revolt. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, most of which had large Shi'ite populations, were horrified, as a Shi'ite state in south Iraq would strengthen Iran. The prospect of independence for Iraqi Kurds worried Turkey, whose own Kurds were fighting for freedom. The hapless Iraqi Kurds, now protected by the US-UK enforced "no-fly zone", and the Shi'ites paid a terrible price. Tens of thousands were killed by Saddam's biological and other weapons. The Iraqi Kurds and Shi'ites still remember the false US promises. Both Kurdish factions in north Iraq have now expressed opposition to current US plans to attack Iraq.

Turkish President Turgut Ozal, seduced by US hints of winning "lost" Kurdish areas of north Iraq, had become an energetic supporter of the Bush coalition in 1990-91. He almost opened another front in the war against Iraq, but was prevented by stiff opposition from his powerful military. But instead of getting oil-rich Mosul and Kirkuk, the economic sanctions against Iraq and closure of the Iraqi pipeline via Turkey cost Ankara $50 billion in lost trade. Unemployment rose as the sanctions halted the 5,000 trucks that used to roar to and from Iraq daily, aggravating the economic and social problems in Turkey's Kurdish heartland of rebellion. A deputy prime minister once ruefully told this writer, "Mr Ambassador, you cannot trust the Americans, not even their written promises." A sobering thought for those who support the US blindly.

Iraq's emasculation made Israel feel bolder. Now Ariel Sharon wants Palestinians under Israel's heel. But the Palestinians, the most radicalized among Arabs, will not give up. Intifada was and is indigenous. (The PLO, now corrupted, just took the credit.)

Arab and Muslim masses the world over watch what is happening in Palestine with great anger. This, and random US and UK bombing of Iraq, are among the reasons cited for the September 11 attacks on the US. Now, unlike 1991, the rage of the Arab masses could flush away many pro-US regimes.

Turkey's NATO Incirlik air base, used regularly to bomb Iraq, was also used by the US in its war in Afghanistan, after allies like Saudi Arabia had refused their bases. Turkey was also the first Muslim country to offer troops to fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, to help its ethnic Uzbek cousins led by Rashid Dostum. It had earlier supported the Northern Alliance against Mullah Omar's Pashtun Taliban and Osama bin Laden's Arab and Pakistani jihadis.

But watching how the Anglo-Saxons conducted their war in Afghanistan, often bombing civilians without catching the Taliban or al-Qaeda leadership, the Turks have had second thoughts. They were cajoled with money and other incentives to take over the leadership of foreign forces in Afghanistan from the British. In spite of its precarious financial situation and dependence on the International Monetary Fund, Turkey's political and military leaders now strongly oppose current US plans to attack Iraq.

Saddam's counter moves
Even now, a financially squeezed Saddam Hussein sends money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Iraq has normalized relations with most Arab states in the region, including Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. It has trade relations with Saudi Arabia, and its relations with Kuwait have thawed. Its foreign minister recently visited Algeria, Iran and Syria and met with Jordan's king.

The Beirut summit of Arab leaders last March rejected "threats of aggression" against Iraq, called for lifting of sanctions, and urged everyone to respect Iraq's independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. Saddam, disingenuously or not, has indicated willingness to talk about the return of UN weapons inspectors. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan himself opposes renewed US attacks against Iraq.

Qatar - sympathetic to Iraq - officially opposes war, but the US has an air base at al-Udeid. The US also has bases in Saudi Arabia, which opposes their use. But client and real estates in the Gulf and elsewhere can be bulldozed by US pressure or show of force.

Meanwhile, US and British special forces in Afghanistan have little to show from operations like Candor, Snipe, Anaconda, Mountain Lion etc. Al-Qaeda and Taliban have vanished into Pakistan and southern Afghanistan sanctuaries. The Northern Alliance entered Kabul in spite of US opposition and refuses to fully toe the US line. The Afghan regime, led by former Unocal employee Hamid Karzai but dominated by Tajiks, remains insecure. Afghanistan is returning to the days of pre-Taliban warlords. With his US bodyguards, Pashtuns now call Karzai "USA's Babrak Karmal".

It is difficult to trust the US, with its track record in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Bosnia and Serbia. What will Pandora's Box reveal in Iraq? How will Iran and Turkey react in a free-for-all over Kurdish north Iraq? The US was unclear in its strategic aims in 1991 and still is in 2002. At least there was a solid coalition in 1991; now there is none except for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose own people are opposed.

Opposition to US plans
France, Russia and China had opposed US-UK policies for expansion of no-fly zones over Iraq and other measures, and now want action though the UN. Iraq is Russia's old ally and owes it $8 billion. Russia has to worry also about a backlash among its large Muslim population. "Any attack would only be justified if a mandate was approved by the UN Security Council," President Jacques Chirac of France said after a recent meeting with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany. "That is the position of Germany and France." In his election speeches, Schroeder has clearly expressed opposition to US plans to attack Iraq. It is the position of most other countries.

Afraid that a new Security Council resolution would be vetoed by Russia or China, US officials claim that in view of Saddam's defiance of past UN mandates - including his refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors to return - no further UN action is necessary. (It is often reported that Saddam expelled the UN weapons inspectors in 1998: in fact the inspectors withdrew of their own accord shortly before the start of an Allied bombing campaign against Iraq.) To claim that there is already a UN mandate for an invasion is untenable. According to the new Bush doctrine, an attack would be "pre-emptive self-defense". But this doctrine could be used to justify military adventurism from Chechnya to Palestine, or to bomb a schoolboy studying nuclear physics in Rameshwaram.

There is not even a casus belli. Unlike 1990-91, there is no clear-cut aggression. The US administration has failed to establish any link between Iraq and the September 11 attacks. Blair had promised proof but has not yet delivered. In fact, the fanatics who attacked America came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, staunch US allies. No US bombs have fallen on these American protectorates. Instead, more than 5,000 civilians have been bombed to death in stricken Afghanistan.

There is no persuasive evidence that Iraq has rebuilt weapons facilities dismantled after the 1991 war. Even if Iraq has small stockpiles of lethal chemical and biological weapons and some Scud missiles, Saddam will use them only if attacked. Even obedient weapons inspector Richard Butler told the US Senate that there was no evidence that Iraq had passed weapons technology to non-Iraqi terrorist groups. Scott Ritter, another former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, has said that the US has not produced enough hard evidence to justify an attack. Rolf Ekeus, the Swedish arms inspector from 1991 to 1997, accused the US last month of manipulating the UN mission for its own ends. The US was more keen on tracking Saddam's whereabouts, which "could be of interest if one were to target him personally".

Saudi Arabia was misled in 1991 by doctored evidence of Saddam's intentions. The stationing of US troops on sacred Arabian soil after the war is resented by Arabs and Muslims all over the world. They also oppose oppressive pro-US Arab regimes and their siphoning off of oil wealth. After September 11, most Muslims see the Arab-Israel conflict and US plans to attack Iraq as part of Crusade versus Jihad. In Saudi Arabia, the union of corrupt princes and fanatical Wahhabis is already under strain. The Shah of Iran had a very powerful military machine but was forced to flee the aroused masses. Reports now emanating from the US say that Saudi Arabia should be treated as a US enemy because it supports jihadis all over the world. If necessary, its oil fields could be occupied. Anyway, after Saddam's replacement with a "democratic regime", Iraqi oil will be available as a replacement.

The morning after: Post-Saddam Iraq
What of the post-Saddam scenario? Who will run Iraq? In spite of Western belief, Saddam remains popular with the masses, who blame the embargo and frequent bombings for their misery. Given Iraq's 40-year history of repression, it is highly likely that blood will flow with the settling of old scores. And who would stop the Iraqi people turning against the occupying Americans?

What if a Shi'ite state based in Basra declared independence with covert support from Iran? North Iraqi Kurds, almost autonomous since 1991, could also declare independence, leaving a Sunni-dominated center. This could tempt Turkey to move into Mosul and Kirkuk. To keep post-Saddam Iraq united would need security forces of around 75,000, costing about $15 billion, for a year or two, and a force of more than 5,000 for many years after if the reconstruction effort is to succeed. But would the result be any different than in Afghanistan?

Most analysts scratch their heads, only to conclude that US options make little strategic sense. They feel that the leaking of "attack plans" are only psychological warfare. Their preferred option is to continue the existing policy of containment, combined with attempts to destabilize the Iraqi regime. A US attack could dangerously destabilize the region, harm the global economy, and infuriate Arab and Muslim masses. Former British chief of staff Field Marshal Lord Bramall, warned in a letter to the Times that an invasion would pour "petrol rather than water" on the flames and provide al-Qaeda with more recruits. He quoted a predecessor who during the 1956 Suez crisis said: "Of course we can get to Cairo, but what I want to know is what the bloody hell we do when we get there?"

The whole thing is only accentuating the image of the "Ugly American". A respected non-partisan US think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, said in a recent report to the White House, "Around the world, from western Europe to the Far East, many see the United States as arrogant, hypocritical, self-absorbed, self-indulgent, and contemptuous of others."

Conclusion: Raging bull
With its vast military-industrial complex, the US needs constant conflict, ie, wars or near wars, to justify its staggering expenditure. The only superpower, with the most destructive power at its command in history, has pretensions to be an imperial power without the grace or obligations that go with it. After the stunning events of September 11, it is behaving like a raging bull, as if its manhood had been castrated. But the enemy al-Qaeda, with its tentacles around the world, remains free and hidden. Attacking Iraq would give the impression that the flagging "war on terror" is going somewhere. As Bush found in Afghanistan, whacking foreigners is popular with many Americans and wins votes. Iraq and hapless Iraqis would fit and foot the bill. Moreover, an attack would distract attention from financial scandals which threaten to enmesh both president and vice president. To many, it seems that the US administration represents but narrow corporate interests, and already, in this respect, the impending war seems to be going rather well.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DH27Ak01.html

[..."pretensions to be an imperial power without the grace or obligations that go with it." That says a lot. Where is the "Compassionate Conservatism" we heard bandied about like honey on the tip of GW's tongue? It's turned to venom, and we are all hurting, and just you wait. Wait until the bill's in our mail boxes, and it will be, that's for certain, and then see how it is you like what this war is doing, as you will pay for it as surely as I will. .. SRH ..]

Saundra Hummer

December 27th, 2005, 07:22 PM

Statistical Summary
America's Major Wars

I. The Military Participation Ratio
Conflict Population Enrolled Ratio
(millions) (thousands)
Revolutionary War 3.5 200.0 5.7%
War of 1812 7.6 286.0 3.8%
Mexican War 21.1 78.7 0.4%
Civil War: Union 26.2 2,803.3 10.7%
: Confederate 8.1 1,064.2 13.1%
: Combined 34.3 3,867.5 11.1%
Spanish-American War 74.6 306.8 0.4%
World War I 102.8 4,743.8 4.6%
World War II 133.5 16,353.7 12.2%
Korean War 151.7 5,764.1 3.8%
Vietnam War 204.9 8,744.0 4.3%
Gulf War 260.0 2,750.0 1.1%

The military participation ratio is the percentage of people under arms. While the ratio for the Second World War seems surprisingly high compared with those for the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, this is due to the fact that the War for Independence took place before the Industrial Revolution, and the Civil War occurred before its fullest impact, while the nation's womanpower was not tapped in either earlier conflict as well, for either military or economic mobilization. The figure "Enrolled" represents the number of personnel maintained in the service. It is somewhat unreliable, since it includes multiple enlistments in the case of wars prior to 1900, and is a gross figure, including all personnel ever in the service during the conflict. In addition, figures for post-1945 wars are polluted to some extent by the fact that a significant portion of the forces under arms during these conflicts were not actually directly engaged in the war, but were securing the nation's other global commitments.

II. Casualties
<------------Casualties------------>
[-----Deaths---] <-----Percentages-----> Duration
Conflict Enrolled Combat Other Wounded Total Ratio KIA Dead Casualty Months KIA/Month
Revolutionary War 200.0 4,435 * 6,188 10,623 2.4 2.2% 2.2% 5.3% 80 55
War of 1812 286.0 2,260 * 4,505 6,765 3.0 0.8% 0.8% 2.4% 30 75
Mexican War 78.7 1,733 11,550 4,152 17,435 1.3 2.2% 16.9% 22.2% 20 87
Civil War: Union 2,803.3 110,070 249,458 275,175 634,703 1.8 3.9% 12.8% 22.6% 48 2,293
Confederate 1,064.2 74,524 124,000 137,000 + 335,524 1.7 7.0% 18.7% 31.5% 48 1,553
Combined 3,867.5 184,594 373,458 412,175 + 970,227 1.7 4.8% 14.4% 25.1% 48 3,846
Spanish-American War 306.8 385 2,061 1,662 4,108 1.7 0.1% 0.8% 1.3% 4 96 &
World War I 4,743.8 53,513 63,195 204,002 320,710 2.7 1.1% 2.5% 6.8% 19 2,816
World War II 16,353.7 292,131 115,185 670,846 1,078,162 2.6 1.8% 2.5% 6.6% 44 6,639
Korean War 5,764.1 33,651 * 103,284 136,935 4.1 0.6% 0.6% 2.4% 37 909
Vietnam War 8,744.0 47,369 10,799 153,303 211,471 3.6 0.5% 0.7% 2.4% 90 526
Gulf War 2,750.0 148 145 467 ^ 760 2.6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 148

Combat deaths refers to troops killed in action or dead of wounds. Other includes deaths from disease, privation, and accidents, and includes losses among prisoners of war. Wounded excludes those who died of their wounds, who are included under Combat Deaths. Ratio is the proportion of wounded in action to combat deaths. Note that the wounded figures do not include cases of disease. Under Percentages, KIA refers to the percent of those enrolled killed in action, Dead to the percent dead from all causes, and Casualty to the percent killed or injured. KIA/Month, killed in action per month, gives a fair indication of the intensity of combat

Notes:
* Non-battle deaths not known for these wars.
+ Confederate non-battle deaths and wounded estimated.
& Actually only six weeks of sustained combat.
^ There was only one month of combat.

III. Financial Cost
Conflict Cost in $ Billions Per Capita
Current 1990s (in $1990)
The Revolution (1775-1783) .10 1.2 $ 342.86
War of 1812 (1812-1815) .09 0.7 92.11
Mexican War (1846-1848) .07 1.1 52.13
Civil War (1861-1865): Union 3.20 27.3 1,041.98
: Confederate 2.00 17.1 2,111.11
: Combined 5.20 44.4 1,294.46
Spanish American War (1898) .40 6.3 84.45
World War I (1917-1918) 26.00 196.5 1,911.47
World War II (1941-1945) 288.00 2,091.3 15,655.17
Korea (1950-1953) 54.00 263.9 1,739.62
Vietnam (1964-1972) 111.00 346.7 1,692.04
Gulf War (1990-1991) 61.00 61.1 235.00

The table compares the cost of America's principal wars since 1775 on the basis of then current and 1990s dollars. Current dollars are the actual numbers spent at the time. Thus, a 1775-1783 dollar had the equivalent purchasing power of $10.75 in 1990s terms. Actually this conversion is only a very rough guide, but at least gives some idea of the relative costs of the ten wars on an adjusted basis. However, it is not possible to take into account drastic changes in social structure (most Americans were farmers in 1775, and didn't use much money), and the increasing affluence of American society over the two centuries covered by the table.

Note that the figures are for direct costs only, omitting pension costs, which tended to triple the ultimate outlays. The table also omits the cost of damage to the national infrastructure during those wars waged on American soil. Confederate figures are estimated.

For the Gulf War it is worth noting that various members of the allied coalition reimbursed the U.S. for 88-percent ($54 billion) of the amount shown, so the actual cost to the taxpayer was only about $7 billion, roughly the same as for the Spanish-American War, and on a per capita basis only $26.92, arguably the least expensive war in the nation's history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compiled by Al Nofi.

Sources: Table 2-23: "Principal Wars in which the US Participated: US Military Personnel Serving and Casualties" prepared by Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports. US Department of Defense Records.

Other Related Links:

USCWC Links--Casualties
America's Wars and Casualties
America's Wars Fact Sheet
Americans Killed in Action
Back to Index of Civil War Information on the Internet
==

Go on-site to access other information on war, the Civil War is what this site is dedicated to, but other information ties in.

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

Saundra Hummer

December 27th, 2005, 08:55 PM

***
Here's an interesting site, political and there are comments as well. It's Crooks and Liars

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/16.html

truthseeker

December 27th, 2005, 09:18 PM

Good grief, we know of these things, we know that Saddam and the old government, the Baathists, were monsters, and know the new government is doing the same they say, and we know that the insurgency is doing the same. We have also contributed to numerous deaths of innocents by bombing and with weapons which they say have been banned, then there are the shootings as well.

Wring our hands? Why not? Do you know how many-ever wrongs, and there have been plenty, make a right? They don't. They never have. No! -- And you know it. Can't you see the rationale behind it all?

30,000 DEAD. IN ONE ACTION ALONE. 30,000 OUT OF WHAT? ONE MILLION?? 2 MILLION?? WILL WE EVER KNOW FOR SURE?? DO YOU CARE?
WHY AREN'T YOU RAISING AS MUCH HELL ABOUT THIS AS YOU ARE ABOUT WHAT AMOUNTS TO ISOLATED INCIDENTS OF "ABUSE" BY THE U.S.

THE U.S.?? OH NO!! WE'RE THE BAD GUYS. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK TO THE MSM TO REMIND US EVERY DAY OF THE "ATROCITIES" WE COMMIT. HOW CAN YOU BE SO BLIND??

REMOVING SADDAM FROM POWER CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS A GOOD THING. TO DO OTHERWISE IS TO SHOW JUST HOW "COMPASSIONATE" LEFTISM/LIBERALISM REALLY IS.

SHOW ME ONE WAR WHERE INNOCENTS DID NOT SUFFER. THERE IS NO SUCH WAR. THE BEST ONE CAN DO IS TRY TO LIMIT COLLATERAL DAMAGE, BUT IT WILL ALWAYS HAPPEN. AND TO THINK THERE WILL EVER BE NO WAR SHOWS COMPLETE IGNORANCE OF HUMAN NATURE.

I JUST WISH YOU LIBS WOULD RAISE AS MUCH HELL OVER THE LOSS OF INNOCENT LIFE THAT WAS NOT CAUSED BY THE U.S.

I CARE ABOUT THESE PEOPLE. THAT'S WHY I THINK WE WERE RIGHT TO REMOVE SADDAM FROM POWER. TO THINK WE SHOULD HAVE LET HIM CONTINUE TO COMMIT GENOCIDE IS THE HEIGHT OF ARROGANCE AND DISPLAYS A COMPLETE LACK OF HUMAN COMPASSION.

truthseeker

December 27th, 2005, 09:21 PM

THE MEDIA'S SHABBIEST MOMENTSThe Media’s Shabbiest Moments

by L. Brent Bozell III
December 20, 2005

The year 2005 is ending as it began, with another successful election in Iraq and a liberal media still flapping around trying to find other controversies to submerge it. It does not matter to them that a Gallup poll found that 74 percent of Americans express confidence in their military, but only 28 percent express confidence in their newspapers or TV news outlets. The “mainstream” media excels in excoriating the performance of nearly everyone else, but acts as if nothing they do should be held up as ineffective, inaccurate, or just plain absurd.

That’s why the Media Research Center and a panel of more than 50 judges have compiled an annual “Best Notable Quotables,” a collection of the media’s greatest stinkers in the past 12 months. The utterances speak volumes about our supposedly ideologically detached press corps.

In August, NBC’s “Today” show was in Iraq, and Specialist Steven Chitterer told co-host Matt Lauer that "Morale is always high. Soldiers know they have a mission. They like taking on new objectives and taking on the new challenges." Lauer won the “Good Morning Morons Award” for interjecting: “Don’t get me wrong here, I think you are probably telling me the truth, but a lot of people at home are wondering how that could be possible with the conditions you’re facing and with the attacks you’re facing. What would you say to those people who are doubtful that morale can be that high?” Captain Sherman Powell unloaded a quote for the ages: "Sir, if I got my news from the newspapers also, I’d be pretty depressed as well."

The networks specialize in moral equivalence, that we in America need to be held to the highest standard, but what that really meant in 2005 was that our leaders and our troops were to be constantly presented as nearly identical to terrorists. The more extreme example of this came from NBC anchor Brian Williams, who won the “Slam Uncle Sam Award.” He tried to dismiss concerns that new the radical Muslim leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, might have been a holder of American hostages in Iran in 1979-80 thusly: "What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. Presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called terrorists at the time by the British Crown, after all." The father of our country, a terrorist? Why yes, said Williams, according to some.

Some quotes were shorter and yet even dumber. The “Politics of Meaninglessness Award for the Silliest Analysis” went to CNN weekend anchor Carol Lin. She was so politically correct she couldn’t be factually correct. Riots in Paris centered on the deaths of two black French citizens of Tunisian heritage. What did she report on national television? “It’s been 11 days since two African-American teenagers were killed, electrocuted during a police chase, which prompted all of this.”

Some of the awards were predictable. David Gergen of U.S. News won the “Media Hero Award” for sucking up to someone who might be the next president, oozing on CNN that uber-feminist Hillary Clinton has “always had strong religious faith. She’s been a strong Methodist. She does have conservative social values on many issues."

Speaking of journalistic apple-polishers, the “Crazy Chris Award for Matthews’ Left-Wing Lunacy” was a real contest. He swooned over Jane Fonda’s Vietnam views. But the winning quote came on the night Matthews fawned over Cindy Sheehan for being so bright she should run for Congress: “I have to tell you, you sound more informed than most U.S. Congresspeople, so maybe you should run.”

But the media’s biggest losers continue to be the die-hards who went down on the “60 Minutes 2" ship that tried to destroy President Bush with phony National Guard documents. Dan Rather remained “Captain Dan the Forgery Man” by boasting to old colleague Marvin Kalb on C-SPAN that “To this day no one has proven whether it was what it purported to be or not....You know, I didn’t give up on my people, our people. I didn’t and I won’t." Kalb replied: “I believe you just said that you think the story is accurate." Rather affirmed: “The story is accurate.”

He’s still clueless. And so is his comrade in concoction, former CBS producer Mary Mapes, who won “Quote of the Year” honors for her interview with ABC’s Brian Ross. Ross was stunned when Mapes claimed she would retract her story if anyone could disprove it. "But isn’t it the other way around? Don’t you have to prove they’re authentic?...Isn’t that really what journalists do?" Replied Mapes: “No, I don’t think that’s the standard."

And they wonder why only one in four Americans trust their work.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2005/col20051220.asp

Saundra Hummer

December 27th, 2005, 11:46 PM

30,000 DEAD. IN ONE ACTION ALONE. 30,000 OUT OF WHAT? ONE MILLION?? 2 MILLION?? WILL WE EVER KNOW FOR SURE?? DO YOU CARE?
WHY AREN'T YOU RAISING AS MUCH HELL ABOUT THIS AS YOU ARE ABOUT WHAT AMOUNTS TO ISOLATED INCIDENTS OF "ABUSE" BY THE U.S.

THE U.S.?? OH NO!! WE'RE THE BAD GUYS. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK TO THE MSM TO REMIND US EVERY DAY OF THE "ATROCITIES" WE COMMIT. HOW CAN YOU BE SO BLIND??

REMOVING SADDAM FROM POWER CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS A GOOD THING. TO DO OTHERWISE IS TO SHOW JUST HOW "COMPASSIONATE" LEFTISM/LIBERALISM REALLY IS.

SHOW ME ONE WAR WHERE INNOCENTS DID NOT SUFFER. THERE IS NO SUCH WAR. THE BEST ONE CAN DO IS TRY TO LIMIT COLLATERAL DAMAGE, BUT IT WILL ALWAYS HAPPEN. AND TO THINK THERE WILL EVER BE NO WAR SHOWS COMPLETE IGNORANCE OF HUMAN NATURE.

I JUST WISH YOU LIBS WOULD RAISE AS MUCH HELL OVER THE LOSS OF INNOCENT LIFE THAT WAS NOT CAUSED BY THE U.S.

I CARE ABOUT THESE PEOPLE. THAT'S WHY I THINK WE WERE RIGHT TO REMOVE SADDAM FROM POWER. TO THINK WE SHOULD HAVE LET HIM CONTINUE TO COMMIT GENOCIDE IS THE HEIGHT OF ARROGANCE AND DISPLAYS A COMPLETE LACK OF HUMAN COMPASSION.

Don't you get it? We don't, we liberals, want anyone to suffer, not the Iraqi's nor us, so why would you believe we are against our own troops? Seriously. This is a strange belief, or so it seems to me. You're believing we are against our men and women over there. Quite the opposite, we, me included, are against these men in power sending other men and womens children off to die in a war we don't believe in, and all because of how it has been conducted. We are tired of it, and don't you think more would be tired of it, tired of it in much larger numbers if the Bush/Cheney administration allowed the public - we Americans - we the voters, (thus their subterfuge), to see the plainloads of coffins draped in flags to honor them, come home in the dead of the night? Where is the concern over them being hidden from our view? There needs to be honor in the light of day. Why isn't everyone raising their objections about this? Perhaps they are feeling a bit of guilt for not speaking out and against this rich mans war.

The article which sent you off is about war time casualties, mainly about the Civil War and how it compares with the other wars we have fought, and are fighting, it's part of a goverment list. You know how governments like to compile lists.

Why go hysterical over it? It is a list of comparisons, so if 30,000 die in one battle (Or are you referring to the ones killed by Saddam?), and if there were only 30,100 in it to begin with, is that a bigger tragedy than if there were 300,000 in the battle and they lost that same percentage of men? I don't understand your distress over this figure? One person, one man woman or child is too many. Anyone being killed for whatever reason is one too many. I just feel one persons death over, and in, a needless war, is one too many. Evidently we, you and I feel differently about this. You don't seem to get that. None of us, we liberals, a label which I wear proudly, are for the likes of Saddam and his party, none of us. I still have the pictures in my head of the people he brutalized and slaughtered, they never go away. Nor are we for the "Jew bashing Iranian" who we are about to get into it with, what a little backwards man he is - or -- will we pull out - and let the Iraqi's and the Iranians kill each other once again?, Thereby weakening one another, weakening them both so we are once again in an advantagous position. Some seem to think this is a possibility.

The thing about David Gergen, well it's a true statement from him as at one time Hillary had considered going into the ministry so what he was saying about her, it was true, or true in his eyes. David Gergen has never seemed the type to me to fawn over anyone. He has been so highly thought of and trusted he has worked for Democrats and Republicans alike.

You're still going on about Dan Rather? It is such a minor issue. It was a mistake for sure, a mistake he should have questioned, a mistake for which he has paid dearly, so just lets us forget the good years and the times the Bush's had with him. Let's just shoot him at sunrise, as he has caused the death of so many; let's just shoot him the first chance we get because he has set up Corporate behemouths so they can take money right out of our pockets; let's just shoot him because he was against us getting social security; oh hey, I have that backwards! It seems his only mistake was in reporting as fact a rumor, and it does seem that the source was only a rumor, or a made up tale in which a typist remembered what went on years and years earlier. Anyway, in the end most of us believe his not being on base to be true. GW Bush was an absentee from base for most of his time in the guard. It was a base where that was commonplace. It's true, Rather screwed up they say, his source wasn't believable, so he was let go. Forget years and years of straightforward and interesting reporting on Dan Rathers part. Forget that the Bush's involvements in less than honorable events were commonplace, let's just shoot Dan Rather and the talk about the Bush's will go away

There's always been those who shouldn't be news reporters, or commentators for that matter, and since this is so very true, we shouldn't be believing all we hear and read. But then there are facts which too many of us ignore and I'm really pointing this criticism at you, (and others as well), as you are not always looking about, or you would have known a few things being discussed in previous posts. Granted it is hard to know what all is going on as events good and bad are flying at us from every corner, but before we go off on a tangent, being accussatory and angry. We should look up what it is we're discussing. but a bit of objectivity at times couldn't hurt. I do try to read each side, but to my way of thinking, most of the time the articles I post are based on research and facts. Often times opinionated to be sure, but nonetheless, factual..

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 08:20 AM

[QUOTE=Saundra Hummer]*****

AN INTERESTING LOOK BACK IN TIME TO THE FIRST GULF WAR AND PRESIDENT GHW BUSH'S PART IN BROKEN PROMISES AND IMPLIED SALVATION.

*MIDDLE EAST*

COMMENTARY
The Bush family's phony wars

By K Gajendra Singh
Former Indian ambassador to Amman, Jordan

In 1991 George Bush Sr sought the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. He failed and left the region in a mess.

================================================== ======================

B.S.

Revisionist history. The U.S. was prepared and within moments of taking out Saddam. Love the way you guys twist history.

GHB fought tooth and nail with the U.N. for their permission to complete the task (which, by the way WASN'T the original mission; securing Kuwait and disarming Iraq so they couldn't do it again was).

The U.N. refused to go along. And tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis died as a result of the U.N.'s cowardice.

AND SO, HERE WE ARE TODAY.

Of course, if we had taken him out, libs would still be screaming about how horrible we are to this day.

One thing is certain: if we were to leave Iraq today, ten or fifteen years from the same people would be crying about how we "failed and left the region in a mess".

Hopefully, we won't listen to you. We won't make the same mistake twice.

Another reason to a) kick the U.N. out of the U.S. and b) resign from the U.N.

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 11:54 AM

*****
Brazil rediscovers Carmen Miranda 50 years later
By Fernanda Ezabella

With her tropical-fruit headdresses and a smile as wide as Copacabana Beach, Carmen Miranda remains an instantly recognizable show business figure 50 years after her death.

Decades before Brazilian music and women became appreciated worldwide, she took the swing of samba from Rio de Janeiro to Hollywood and became one of the highest-paid entertainers in the United States.

By the end of her life, however, Hollywood had transformed her into such a caricature that only now are Brazilians themselves rediscovering the powerful woman inside those bizarre costumes.

"Brazil has never understood the dimension of such a legend and sometimes was unable to accept her success in America," Ruy Castro, author of a new 600-page book "Carmen -- Uma Biografia," ("Carmen -- a Biography") told Reuters.

"Carmen suffered with this and created a Brazil of her own by her Beverly Hills poolside."

As well as the biography, an exhibition entitled "Carmen Miranda Forever" is currently on at Rio de Janeiro's Museum of Modern Art.

It assembles more than 700 items related to Miranda, including original costumes such as those she wore in the movies "Copacabana" (1947) and "Nancy Goes to Rio" (1950).

The exhibition features documentaries and snippets from musicals including "The Gang's All Here" (1943) and "That Night in Rio" (1941), which brought her fame and fortune in the United States.

Miranda went to the United States in 1939 after a Broadway impresario saw her perform in Rio. She had just created her famous "Bahian" costume of a long colorful skirt and a turban adorned with fruit to go with the song "O que que a baiana tem?" (What the Bahian Lady Has) by Dorival Caymmi.

"When she adopted this costume, she realized it was powerful. When she signed to go to Broadway, it was because of this costume. And there in the United States, she exaggerated the Bahian outfit," Castro said.

The American studios transformed the costume into something more like a Cuban rumba dancer. To the chagrin of Brazilians, she became a cartoonish South American with her heavily-accented English. Her persona became a campy staple for female impersonators.

BACK IN THE FASHION

Born in Portugal in 1909, Miranda moved to Brazil with her parents when she was about 1 year old.

Before her transplant to the United States, she was a samba superstar in Brazil. She helped composers such as Caymmi and Ary Barroso become famous in samba's Golden Age.

As radio grew increasingly popular, she became the queen of Brazilian airwaves and recorded hit songs from Rio's Carnival.

Her move to the United States was well-timed. Technicolor had just been developed and 20th Century Fox loved her studio test.

When she filmed her Hollywood debut "Down Argentine Way" with Betty Grable in 1941 and sung "Down South American Way," a star was reborn.

The movie was criticized in Brazil and banned in Argentina. But she went on to be hugely successful in the United States, where she was known as "the Brazilian Bombshell."

Despite her poor English, her charisma was huge.

"She could sing in Chinese, Japanese, English, any language. Her charisma and the way she moved her hands and danced hypnotized everyone," said her nephew Carmen de Carvalho.

She died aged just 46 from a heart failure.

Even the official Web site run by her estate acknowledges the mixed feelings her countrymen have about her.

"Her importance to the Brazilian historical and cultural context must be redeemed and appreciated," it says.

Certainly her legacy is now reemerging in Brazilian fashion trends. At the last Fashion Rio show -- one of the world's top fashion events -- many brands paid homage to her.

"Carmen was a star who designed her own clothes, her turbans, platform shoes, embroidery and jewelry," said museum curator Fabiano Canosa. "A myriad of them are still being copied and remade."

Carvalho likened the strength of her image to Charlie Chaplin's.

"For him, it was the bowler hat and cane. For her, it was the Bahiana style."
=

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051228/od_nm/brazil_miranda_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AhhlKHFr6wDAZfwDRwmdAU8Z.3QA;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 11:55 AM

Don't you get it? We don't, we liberals, want anyone to suffer, not the Iraqi's nor us, so why would you believe we are against our own troops? Seriously. This is a strange belief, or so it seems to me. You're believing we are against our men and women over there. Quite the opposite, we, me included, are against these men in power sending other men and womens children off to die in a war we don't believe in, and all because of how it has been conducted. We are tired of it, and don't you think more would be tired of it, tired of it in much larger numbers if the Bush/Cheney administration allowed the public - we Americans - we the voters, (thus their subterfuge), to see the plainloads of coffins draped in flags to honor them, come home in the dead of the night? Where is the concern over them being hidden from our view? There needs to be honor in the light of day. Why isn't everyone raising their objections about this? Perhaps they are feeling a bit of guilt for not speaking out and against this rich mans war.

The article which sent you off is about war time casualties, mainly about the Civil War and how it compares with the other wars we have fought, and are fighting, it's part of a goverment list. You know how governments like to compile lists.

Why go hysterical over it? It is a list of comparisons, so if 30,000 die in one battle (Or are you referring to the ones killed by Saddam?), and if there were only 30,100 in it to begin with, is that a bigger tragedy than if there were 300,000 in the battle and they lost that same percentage of men? I don't understand your distress over this figure? One person, one man woman or child is too many. Anyone being killed for whatever reason is one too many. I just feel one persons death over, and in, a needless war, is one too many. Evidently we, you and I feel differently about this. You don't seem to get that. None of us, we liberals, a label which I wear proudly, are for the likes of Saddam and his party, none of us. I still have the pictures in my head of the people he brutalized and slaughtered, they never go away. Nor are we for the "Jew bashing Iranian" who we are about to get into it with, what a little backwards man he is - or -- will we pull out - and let the Iraqi's and the Iranians kill each other once again?, Thereby weakening one another, weakening them both so we are once again in an advantagous position. Some seem to think this is a possibility.

The thing about David Gergen, well it's a true statement from him as at one time Hillary had considered going into the ministry so what he was saying about her, it was true, or true in his eyes. David Gergen has never seemed the type to me to fawn over anyone. He has been so highly thought of and trusted he has worked for Democrats and Republicans alike.

You're still going on about Dan Rather? It is such a minor issue. It was a mistake for sure, a mistake he should have questioned, a mistake for which he has paid dearly, so just lets us forget the good years and the times the Bush's had with him. Let's just shoot him at sunrise, as he has caused the death of so many; let's just shoot him the first chance we get because he has set up Corporate behemouths so they can take money right out of our pockets; let's just shoot him because he was against us getting social security; oh hey, I have that backwards! It seems his only mistake was in reporting as fact a rumor, and it does seem that the source was only a rumor, or a made up tale in which a typist remembered what went on years and years earlier. Anyway, in the end most of us believe his not being on base to be true. GW Bush was an absentee from base for most of his time in the guard. It was a base where that was commonplace. It's true, Rather screwed up they say, his source wasn't believable, so he was let go. Forget years and years of straightforward and interesting reporting on Dan Rathers part. Forget that the Bush's involvements in less than honorable events were commonplace, let's just shoot Dan Rather and the talk about the Bush's will go away

There's always been those who shouldn't be news reporters, or commentators for that matter, and since this is so very true, we shouldn't be believing all we hear and read. But then there are facts which too many of us ignore and I'm really pointing this criticism at you, (and others as well), as you are not always looking about, or you would have known a few things being discussed in previous posts. Granted it is hard to know what all is going on as events good and bad are flying at us from every corner, but before we go off on a tangent, being accussatory and angry. We should look up what it is we're discussing. but a bit of objectivity at times couldn't hurt. I do try to read each side, but to my way of thinking, most of the time the articles I post are based on research and facts. Often times opinionated to be sure, but nonetheless, factual..

No, I DON'T get it. Because there's nothing to get.

"We don't, we liberals, want anyone to suffer, not the Iraqi's nor us,....".

And then, in the same post: "Why go hysterical over it?" 30,000 DEAD!!

Absolutely incredible!!

Sandi, READ THE ARTICLE!! These people weren't killed IN A BATTLE!!

They were 30,000 INNOCENT, UNARMED MEN, WOMEN, and CHILDREN...civilians...who were killed in retaliation. They were NOT combatants! The were exterminated, bulldozed into a hole in the ground, and buried. No flag-draped coffins for them!

FOR GOD'S SAKE, SANDI...WHERE'S YOUR OUTRAGE!!!

You know....the same outrage you show if some army trash puts a pair of panties on some poor captured COMBATANT'S head?? The outrage that comes gushing out if (Newsweek) reports some guard at Guantanamo disrespects the Koran (which, by the way, turned out to be yet ANOTHER liberal MSM LIE, cooked up by the liberal media to FRAUDULENTLY inflame the passions of people against our country).

And yet the media downplays anything that might indicate that hey, maybe we were right to remove Saddam from power. Maybe our government did a GOOD thing (perish the thought). It might get a day of airplay, but that's it. Instead, we'll spend months...years even... wringing our hands over "abuses" at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo.

"....if the Bush/Cheney administration allowed the public - we Americans - we the voters, (thus their subterfuge), to see the plainloads of coffins draped in flags to honor them, come home in the dead of the night?"

AT NO TIME in history has it been policy to plaster "flag-draped coffins" across the daily media. NEVER. This is not something new. The reason, in large part, is out of RESPECT for the fallen and their families. They have suffered a loss, and their privacy should be respected. What could you possibly hope to accomplish by a daily viewing of flag-draped coffins other than to detract from their sacrifice to promote an agenda that would be considered loathesome by most of them (and their families).

As you know by now, I have a son who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He was involved in heavy combat. He lost many, many good friends (if you're interested: "Marines in the Garden of Eden"- to be released 6/6/2006). In talking to some of the families I can tell you, without reservation, that they do not want pictures of the flag-draped coffins of their loved ones made public. They CERTAINLY don't want them made public for the purpose of detracting from their sacrifice. I know that if my son perished I would not want pictures of his coffin broadcast for the world to see, and I sure as hell wouldn't want them used to advance YOUR cause.

Try to respect their wishes, please.

Another example of the same type of thing is the Sheehan debacle in Texas. She and her supporters took the liberty of placing the names of personnel KIA on crosses and planting them around her protest site. Many of the families had a fit when they saw their loved ones names on crosses in the media. Some traveled to the site to remove them (only to find them replaced the next day). This was done without their permission, to advance a cause neither they nor their loved ones agreed with. THIS IS DISGRACEFUL!!

And yet, the media has placed a self-imposed ban on showing images from 9/11. God forbid the American public be reminded of that day. God forbid it inflame anti-Islamic sentiments. God forbid the fragile American psyche be shaken by the fact that WE WERE ATTACKED!!. And we could be attacked again (especially if the left succeeds in handcuffing our intelligence resourses again, as they did during the Clinton administration; they're sure trying hard enough). Let's all stick our heads in the sand, shall we??

But show flag-draped coffins every day?? Sure, why not.

David Gergen?? Hillary Clinton?? Read Dick Morris's "Rewriting History" and "Because He Could". Hillary is an opportunist, a public relations-created fantasy. Her biography is fiction. She is a phony, a liar, and should be in jail due to her criminal financial dealings. So's Bill (although I will say, a lot more likeable in a sympathic way; I almost feel sorry for the poor guy....).

Dan Rather a MINOR issue?? He made a MISTAKE?? You've got to be kidding me!!

Dan Rather a (mistakenly) well-respected news anchor FABRICATES, FALSIFIES, and FORGES documents in an effort to manipulate a national presidential election, and you call it a "minor" issue...a "mistake"?? Where are your priorities?? If Rush Limbaugh had done it, would you think it so "minor".
I doubt it. You and the rest of the libs would still be screaming, just like we still hear about the (totally bogus) claim that "Bush stole the election from Al Gore in 2000" on an almost daily basis. Really, who are you kiddin'?

On to the REALLY minor issues the left just can't seem to let go......

If you really want to discuss the "Scandal that won't go away...", then let's talk about Valerie Plame.

This is the quintessential non-issue. The claim: someone outed a covert CIA operative (whomever, and for whatever reason...).

This is as far as it should go:

Valerie Plame was not "outted". Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent under the law and had not been for quite some time. Therefore NO LAW WAS BROKEN!!! It is impossible to indict someone for breaking a law if the law wasn't broken. Period. (Gee...maybe that's the REAL reason they had to settle for Scooter).

Valerie Plame. She of media fame for appearing with her clown of a husband, Joe) on the cover of an international magazine. She who went to major social affairs all over Washington where she announced, and everyone knew, she worked for the CIA. She who drove to work at the CIA headquarters every morning for the past NINE years. Yep...Valerie Plame, agent 00-Stupid.

Manages to get them to send her husband, who has ZILCH experience in WMD's, to Africa to find out if there were any shenanigans re same. Joe says: "Hey, did you guys sell any materials to Saddam?? No?? Good. Hey, as long as I'm here, could I get a cup of sweet tea??"

And yet, despite this, the libs and their media DEMAND an investigation. Millions of dollars and two years are wasted on an investigation into a law NOT being broken. The result (sorry guys): an indictment for (allegedly) lying to a Grand Jury that shouldn't have been impaneled in the first place.

No indictments for "outting", because no one was outted. The best they could do: Scooter Libby. And after how many grand juries reviewed (and refused to hand down ANY indictments) the "evidence"??

Maybe someone "disclosed" her identity (again, NO more a violation of law than if someone had disclosed mine). Maybe it was someone in the White House (or gee, maybe it was little Joey himself). Maybe it was dirty politics (oh, there's a new concept NOBODY'S ever used, right?).

Maybe whoever it was is a low-down snake-in-the-grass. Maybe he's dispicable. Maybe he's the epitome of everything that's wrong with politics today. It's also the epitome of a MINOR issue.

BUT, he is not a criminal.

Fear not, though.....they have announced that they will continue to waste time and money investigating "The Law That Wasn't Broken"

And, "rich man's war"?? Sorry Sandi, not even worthy of a response.

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 01:13 PM

No, I DON'T get it. Because there's nothing to get.

"We don't, we liberals, want anyone to suffer, not the Iraqi's nor us,....".

And then, in the same post: "Why go hysterical over it?" 30,000 DEAD!!

Absolutely incredible!!

Sandi, READ THE ARTICLE!! These people weren't killed IN A BATTLE!!

They were 30,000 INNOCENT, UNARMED MEN, WOMEN, and CHILDREN...civilians...who were killed in retaliation. They were NOT combatants! The were exterminated, bulldozed into a hole in the ground, and buried. No flag-draped coffins for them!

FOR GOD'S SAKE, SANDI...WHERE'S YOUR OUTRAGE!!!

You know....the same outrage you show if some army trash puts a pair of panties on some poor captured COMBATANT'S head?? The outrage that comes gushing out if (Newsweek) reports some guard at Guantanamo disrespects the Koran (which, by the way, turned out to be yet ANOTHER liberal MSM LIE, cooked up by the liberal media to FRAUDULENTLY inflame the passions of people against our country).

And yet the media downplays anything that might indicate that hey, maybe we were right to remove Saddam from power. Maybe our government did a GOOD thing (perish the thought). It might get a day of airplay, but that's it. Instead, we'll spend months...years even... wringing our hands over "abuses" at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo.

"....if the Bush/Cheney administration allowed the public - we Americans - we the voters, (thus their subterfuge), to see the plainloads of coffins draped in flags to honor them, come home in the dead of the night?"

AT NO TIME in history has it been policy to plaster "flag-draped coffins" across the daily media. NEVER. This is not something new. The reason, in large part, is out of RESPECT for the fallen and their families. They have suffered a loss, and their privacy should be respected. What could you possibly hope to accomplish by a daily viewing of flag-draped coffins other than to detract from their sacrifice to promote an agenda that would be considered loathesome by most of them (and their families).

As you know by now, I have a son who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He was involved in heavy combat. He lost many, many good friends (if you're interested: "Marines in the Garden of Eden"- to be released 6/6/2006). In talking to some of the families I can tell you, without reservation, that they do not want pictures of the flag-draped coffins of their loved ones made public. They CERTAINLY don't want them made public for the purpose of detracting from their sacrifice. I know that if my son perished I would not want pictures of his coffin broadcast for the world to see, and I sure as hell wouldn't want them used to advance YOUR cause.

Try to respect their wishes, please.

Another example of the same type of thing is the Sheehan debacle in Texas. She and her supporters took the liberty of placing the names of personnel KIA on crosses and planting them around her protest site. Many of the families had a fit when they saw their loved ones names on crosses in the media. Some traveled to the site to remove them (only to find them replaced the next day). This was done without their permission, to advance a cause neither they nor their loved ones agreed with. THIS IS DISGRACEFUL!!

And yet, the media has placed a self-imposed ban on showing images from 9/11. God forbid the American public be reminded of that day. God forbid it inflame anti-Islamic sentiments. God forbid the fragile American psyche be shaken by the fact that WE WERE ATTACKED!!. And we could be attacked again (especially if the left succeeds in handcuffing our intelligence resourses again, as they did during the Clinton administration; they're sure trying hard enough). Let's all stick our heads in the sand, shall we??

But show flag-draped coffins every day?? Sure, why not.

David Gergen?? Hillary Clinton?? Read Dick Morris's "Rewriting History" and "Because He Could". Hillary is an opportunist, a public relations-created fantasy. Her biography is fiction. She is a phony, a liar, and should be in jail due to her criminal financial dealings. So's Bill (although I will say, a lot more likeable in a sympathic way; I almost feel sorry for the poor guy....).

Dan Rather a MINOR issue?? He made a MISTAKE?? You've got to be kidding me!!

Dan Rather a (mistakenly) well-respected news anchor FABRICATES, FALSIFIES, and FORGES documents in an effort to manipulate a national presidential election, and you call it a "minor" issue...a "mistake"?? Where are your priorities?? If Rush Limbaugh had done it, would you think it so "minor".
I doubt it. You and the rest of the libs would still be screaming, just like we still hear about the (totally bogus) claim that "Bush stole the election from Al Gore in 2000" on an almost daily basis. Really, who are you kiddin'?

On to the REALLY minor issues the left just can't seem to let go......

If you really want to discuss the "Scandal that won't go away...) then let's talk about Valerie Plame.

This is the quintessential non-issue. The claim: someone outed a covert CIA operative (whomever, and for whatever reason...).

This is as far as it should go:

Valerie Plame was not "outted". Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent under the law and had not been for quite some time. Therefore NO LAW WAS BROKEN!!! It is impossible to indict someone for breaking a law if the law wasn't broken. Period. (Gee...maybe that's the REAL reason they had to settle for Scooter).

Valerie Plame. She of media fame for appearing with her clown of a husband, Joe) on the cover of an international magazine. She who went to major social affairs all over Washington where she announced, and everyone knew, she worked for the CIA. She who drove to work at the CIA headquarters every morning for the past NINE years. Yep...Valerie Plame, agent 00-Stupid.

Manages to get them to send her husband, who has ZILCH experience in WMD's, to Africa to find out if there were any shenanigans re same. Joe says: "Hey, did you guys sell any materials to Saddam?? No?? Good. Hey, as long as I'm here, could I get a cup of sweet tea??"

And yet, despite this, the libs and their media DEMAND an investigation. Millions of dollars and two years are wasted on an investigation into a law NOT being broken. The result (sorry guys): an indictment for (allegedly) lying to a Grand Jury) that shouldn't have been impaneled in the first place.

No indictments for "outting", because no one was outted. The best they could do: Scooter Libby. And after how many grand juries reviewed (and refused to hand down ANY indictments) the "evidence"??

Maybe someone "disclosed" her identity (again, NO more a violation of law than if someone had disclosed mine). Maybe it was someone in the White House (or gee, maybe it was Joey himself). Maybe it was dirty politics (oh, there's a new concept NOBODY'S ever used, right?).

Maybe whoever it was is a low-down snake-in-the-grass. Maybe he's dispicable. Maybe he's the epitome of everything that's wrong with politics today. It's also the epitome of a MINOR issue.

BUT, he is not a criminal.

Fear not, though.....they have announced that they will continue to waste time and money investigating "The Law That Wasn't Broken"

You sound as though you are on a spin doctors payroll. :shrug: I did catch what it was you were saying about the 30,000, however I had just posted the Civil war comparison and so that is what I thought, in the beginning, that was what you were talking about. And had you noticed, I corrected that error, an error on my part.

You need to stop judging what my, or our, we liberals feelings are about when it comes to what is going on over there. For you to believe you are the only one who is outraged about it all is self congratulatory, no, the fact is, we do have compassion for everyone involved in the suffering that is going on. We voice these concerns, and just because of men like Saddam and our own leaders we have to speak up and out and let it be known that there are those of us who disapprove of killings, whether it be by bomb or, in Saddams case genocide, and mass murder, and executions. It is barbaric and shameful. We are outraged about it all. Our emotions, our feelings about these events aren't compartmentalized into little niches while backing and condoning everything else that is happening. Then there's the argument you have of always throwing up the thing about panties on heads, like it is the only thing these men had done to them. Good grief. These were men who it was later found out, weren't terrorists, nor did they have any terrorist ties. This panties on the heads thing you keep bringing up is just a ruse, you're not talking of the men who were actually being tortured, only the talk of "pantie? Disingenious. To say the least. Even you know that, as we know the extent of the abuse, we know the truth of what went on in Iraq, and can only imagine the horrors others have suffered in covert interrogation centers around the world. You conveniently leave out that information.

The thing about the Koran was proven to have been true. I don't know where you are getting your information, who is feeding it to you, but it is short of telling it like it is. Check some more on the Koran abuse, go into it a little more deeply, it's all there for you to see. It was all televised, the admissions. It's a well known fact, that after so many denials of this story, it was then owned up to. Check it out to it's conclusion, not just the first stories written or televised about it.

I understand the parents and relatives of those whose names were put on crosses during the Cindy Sheehan protests wanting them removed, I don't think names should have been put back on them, instead they should have included a blank cross saying name ommited at request of relative. I can understand their consternation and their grief, and about our dead, those killed in this little mean war, I can see some parents backing the dark of night entry, I can understand how some are preferring it that way, (if they do), their not wanting pictures of their sons and daughters coffins being brought home. Not all parents are like Emmit Tills mother, not all want the world to see what happened to their child due to mans inhumanity to man. She was hoping to show the injustices which killed her son, have everyone realize her loss and her grief and horror. I'm not sure I would have the courage and the strength of Mrs.Till, to prolong and perpetuate his story took a certain bravery. Prolonging her grief had to have intensified it. But along side the reasons parents might have for not wanting this and for parents who have children serving over there, it must be extremely fearful to see coffins returning, but we've heard the other reasons for this and it is as I said, there is nothing to do with shielding anyone, it is about numbers at the polls.

About the self imposed ban on the media, all are agreeing not to show the Twin Towers as they did before being asked not to, the first I heard of it was when they announced they weren't going to show the men and women tumbling through the air, jumping to their deaths rather than be burned alive, some already on fire, now that is a self imposed ban that the relatives of those in that building were thankful for as they had asked for that ban themselves. They said even after that was no longer being shown, that it is still too traumatic to see the pictures of the building collapsing and wanting that to stop as well. I still see pictures of the towers, still see pictures of the pentagon, still see pictures of the plane hitting the building, and the towers collapsing, so the ban isn't all inclusive, only those images which are most horrific for the relatives of those who were lost.

But show flag-draped coffins every day?? Sure, why not.A quote from your post, so "every day" we have dead coming home? Everyday there are loved ones to bury? What a shame, what a pity. I keep reading that the President nor the Vice President have never seen fit to attend their services, but can pay lip service to our military by standing on podiums and saying "We're with you" Yeah, right, just like they were when GW said the same thing to the poor people struck by Katrina, they don't have a clue as to what it is like for any of these men and women, they don't even make it a practice of going to visit those who have been maimed and wounded in Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm not buying it.

During Vietnam, we saw plenty, we saw the men being treated in the field with terrible and often times fatal wounds, we saw the body bags laying on the tarmack waiting to be picked up and flown out of the country, we saw it all. During WWII there were pictures of men being buried at sea. We saw a lot, we saw it all in the movie theatre news clips, we read it all in newspapers and in magazines, the government didn't stop it from being seen that I can recall, or if they tried to they weren't successful. We've heard the reasons concerning our dead being hidden away during this little skirmish, and what I hear doesn't jive with your take. We may not have seen the coffins with flags covering them in WWII, in the Korean conflict, or even in Vietnam, but we did see the rest, the wounded being attended to, people being hit by fired weapons of all sorts, nothing was covered up in the beginning, we saw the end days of people in Vietnam falling from helicopter landing rails, falling to their deaths, as we retreated. We saw the actual horrors of war. from beginning to end and I have to believe, us seeing and hearing all about it, ended it.

About Hillary, all I can say, is. Wow, do you ever despise her, however I hear she is doing a bang up job as Senator, this by people who are and who aren't fans. Not up on it myself, but this is what we hear.

I still think that with Dan Rather, it's a fact that he used poor and perhaps wrong information, all the while I still believe that GW Bush was an "Absentee National Guardsman." Most people do. We had heard talk of that base during that time and it is the one everyone was wanting to be stationed at. Met fellows who were going there. So it was no surprise to hear of his role and attendence there.

The arguments you put up about Scooter Libby, and Valerie Plame and to quote you, "her clown of a husband" are so discombobulated I won't even go there, but we'll wait and see how it all turns out. Even then I may or may not agree, depends on the fairness of judges, but that's another topic all together, ha![/

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 02:01 PM

*****
Big Brother Bush
Molly Ivins :hail Creators Syndicate
12.28.05 - AUSTIN, Texas -- The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Thirty-five years ago, Richard Milhous Nixon, who was crazy as a bullbat, and J. Edgar Hoover, who wore women's underwear, decided some Americans had unacceptable political opinions. So they set our government to spying on its own citizens, basically those who were deemed insufficiently like Crazy Richard Milhous.

For those of you who have forgotten just what a stonewall paranoid Nixon was, the poor man used to stalk around the White House demanding that his political enemies be killed. Many still believe there was a certain Richard III grandeur to Nixon's collapse because he was also a man of notable talents. There is neither grandeur nor tragedy in watching this president, the Testy Kid, violate his oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of our country.

The Testy Kid wants to do what he wants to do when he wants to do it because he is the president, and he considers that sufficient justification for whatever he wants. He even finds lawyers like John Yoo, who tell him that whatever he wants to do is legal.

The creepy part is the overlap. Damned if they aren't still here, after all these years, the old Nixon hands -- Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the whole gang whose yearning for authoritarian government rose like a stink over the Nixon years. Imperial executive. Bring back those special White House guard uniforms. Cheney, like some malignancy that cannot be killed off, back at the same old stand, pushing the same old crap.

Of course, they tell us we have to be spied on for our own safety, so they can catch the terrorists who threaten us all. Thirty-five years ago, they nabbed a film star named Jean Seberg and a bunch of people running a free breakfast program for poor kids in Chicago. This time, they're onto the Quakers. We are not safer.

We would be safer, as the 9-11 commission has so recently reminded us, if some obvious and necessary precautions were taken at both nuclear and chemical plants -- but that is not happening because those industries contribute to Republican candidates. Republicans do not ask their contributors to spend a lot of money on obvious and necessary steps to protect public safety. They wiretap, instead.

You will be unsurprised to learn that, first, they lied. They didn't do it. Well, OK, they did it, but not very much at all. Well, OK, more than that. A lot more than that. OK, millions of private e-mail and telephone calls every hour, and all medical and financial records.

You may recall in 2002 it was revealed that the Pentagon had started a giant data-mining program called Total Information Awareness (TIA), intended to search through vast databases "to increase information coverage by an order of magnitude."

From credit cards to vet reports, Big Brother would be watching us. This dandy program was under the control of Adm. John Poindexter, convicted of five felonies during Iran-Contra, all overturned on a technicality. This administration really knows where to go for good help -- it ought to bring back Brownie.

Everybody decided that TIA was a terrible idea, and the program was theoretically shut down. As often happens with this administration, it turned out they just changed the name and made the program less visible. Data-mining was a popular buzzword at the time, and the administration was obviously hot to have it. Bush established a secret program under which the National Security Agency could bypass the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court and begin eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.

As many have patiently pointed out, the entire program was unnecessary, since the FISA court is both prompt and accommodating. There is virtually no possible scenario that would make it difficult or impossible to get a FISA warrant -- it has granted 19,000 warrants and rejected only a handful.

I don't like to play scary games where we all stay awake late at night, telling each other scary stories -- but there's a reason we have never given our government this kind of power. As the late Sen. Frank Church said, "That capability could at any time be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capacity to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide." And if a dictator took over, the NSA "could enable it to impose total tyranny."

Then we always get that dreadful goody-two-shoes response, "Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about, do you?"

Folks, we KNOW this program is being and will be misused. We know it from the past record and current reporting. The program has already targeted vegans and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals -- and, boy, if those aren't outposts of al-Qaida, what is? Could this be more pathetic?

This could scarcely be clearer. Either the president of the United States is going to have to understand and admit he has done something very wrong, or he will have to be impeached. The first time this happened, the institutional response was magnificent. The courts, the press, the Congress all functioned superbly. Anyone think we're up to that again? Then whom do we blame when we lose the republic?

(c) 2005 Creators Syndicate

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20119

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 02:26 PM

*****
Barron's Calls for Impeachment Hearings on Wiretapping
by Matt Stoller
Barron's calls for impeachment (via Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture)
"AS THE YEAR WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, we picked up our New York Times and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of powers . . .
Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another terrorist attack. But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn't last four years . . .

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.

Some ancillary responsibility, however, must be attached to those members of the House and Senate who were informed, inadequately, about the wiretapping and did nothing to regulate it. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, told Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 that he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities." But the senator was so respectful of the administration's injunction of secrecy that he wrote it out in longhand rather than give it to someone to type. Only last week, after the cat was out of the bag, did he do what he should have done in 2003 -- make his misgivings public and demand more information.

Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping. If some had misgivings, apparently they were scared of being called names, as the president did last week when he said: "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."

Wrong. If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror.

Barron's ain't exactly a commie rag, or even a 'Democratic website'. Oh, wait, I forgot, and impeachment talk makes Richard Morin mad. To be clear, it's WAAYYY more legitimate for someone like Rockefeller to decide to obey the law and not disclose what he knows than it is for someone like Bush to break the law. It's not what I would have done, but I get respect for the law. I also wonder why Barron's isn't picking on the Republicans who were informed, and didn't apparently protest even in private. Ah well.

Media :: Sat Dec 24th, 2005 at 10:09:58 AM EDT
Click on the following links to access this article and much more on their respective home pages.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/24/10958/374
http://www.workingforchange.com

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 02:47 PM

The ‘Most Corrupt' Congress Ever
Including Elements of the Black Caucus
by BC Publishers Glen Ford and Peter Gamble

It is not often that we whole-heartedly agree with a "centrist," white Democratic political leader, but these are disturbing times. Harry Reid (NV), leader of U.S. Senate Democrats, recently blasted the current Congress as "the most corrupt in history." Based on the sheer, gross volume of billions diverted to congressional friends and benefactors during this and previous sessions of the Bush Republican Congress, Reid was undoubtedly correct. The fact that Reid made his outburst in response to allegations that he might also be involved in the mighty tide of corruption, does not mitigate the fact of wholesale auctioneering of the public treasure. Rather, the damnation is made more powerful.

But the term "corruption" is vague, as is "theft" and "fraud" and other crimes. The "pork" that seems to be the princely meal savored by American legislative gluttons, is but one aspect of corruption. Putting aside the bid to fund "bridges to nowhere" in Alaska, the most gruesome (and lucrative) manifestation of endemic corruption is the Iraq war and occupation - a cash cow for favored corporations, and even companies that did not exist previous to the war and the promise of "reconstruction" of Iraq. However, even the rip-off of billions in this scam (and the theft of billions in Iraqi oil revenues) does not come close to describing the enormity of the crime: an attempt to steal the resources of a vast swath of the Earth, far beyond the boundaries of Iraq, and to transfer the proceeds to private hands, all the while billing the American public for the military muscle required.

Now, that's corruption, by anybody's definition.To measure the scale of corruption in the current congressional and executive branches, and to put the "most corrupt Congress in history" in perspective, we must take at least a glancing look at history.

Following the American Civil War - which saw such profiteering, fraud and faulty weapons production by military contractors that it may have prolonged the conflict by months or years - financial speculators in the North set their eyes on the West, to build a continental railroad. They became known as the "Robber Barons," because they built enormous fortunes by billing the federal government for every mile of transcontinental railroad laid and demanded ownership of millions of acres on both sides of the tracks, as well. Cities sprang up, which filled the coffers of the "Robber Barons" and others who flocked to the new developments. (The Native Americans were erased from this equation, literally.) Thus, the development of the West was accomplished.

Most school history books mark this period as rife with corruption - as it was. But they did build a railroad, and commerce commenced, and cities sprang up.
In other words, the "Robber Barons" stole a lot, killed a lot, and built a lot. The same can be said for their corporate contemporaries in manufacturing, and those who followed. They committed vast crimes against working people - and excluded and exploited Black workers to their own advantage - but jobs appeared, and smokestacks rose, like a pain against the sky. Lives and families became rooted. Detroit was born. American manufacturing was king of the world, and a portion of the trinkets trickled down - even to some Black folks.

The manufacturing "Barons" had contributed something to society. Or, at least, the society had become richer, in gross terms, as a by-product of their insatiable self-aggrandizement, which involved real enterprise as well as fraud, extortion, subornation of public officials, and manifold corruption. People got jobs, and the prospect of fighting for better working conditions and remuneration.

They were "Robber Barons," too. But at least they built something. (Or rather, caused things to be built by their workers.)
This class no longer exists. They have been supplanted for at least the last three decades by finance capital, which moves money around, and commands manufacturers to do their bidding. They pick and choose the manufacturers, and countries, that are most hospitable to their monetary needs of the moment - to get a higher return on their capital, which is the only asset they have. They decided that the United States was not a good investment for manufacturing, and demanded that it be emptied of its factories. Dream lost.

We at BC call them the Pirate Class. They sail the world, looking for raiding targets of opportunity, and acknowledging no law. However, this class cannot operate without the backing of the U.S. military - the ultimate force of coercion, which can impose the terms of the conversation. Big fat bankers with Hawkeye missiles backing them up, and unlimited U.S. funding for death squads in the targeted country, waiting for contracts on those who disagree.

The Pirates climbed to the cockpit of power with the election of George W. Bush, although they had been in ascendance for decades. They were now in full flower. A class that produces nothing, except through plunder, would demand that the Middle East be transformed into a market they could exploit to the fullest - which is why they have failed so badly in Iraq. It was too complicated for big fat white bankers to deal with.

However, in the United States, the hegemony of the Pirates is all but complete - as was necessary in order to harness the American military machine to their specific projects, and to otherwise loot the U.S. treasury to fund themselves and their class. The conquest of U.S. society was the first priority, and they have achieved it: big capital owns all the corporate media, and thereby controls the national conversation. Their think tanks set the agenda for the discourse, mega-phoned by the monopoly media.

It is in this context that we should discuss the issue of "corruption."

The Depths of Corruption
One definition of "corruption" is the stealing of the people's resources for private gain. The Bush regime - and its Congress - is certainly guilty of that on a monumental scale.

However, there is another version of "corruption" - just as lethal and ugly: the theft of a people's trust, and vested interest. In this regard, the infestation of corruption has spread into the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). For example, ten members of the CBC voted for the Republican bankruptcy bill that was passed in April of 2005. In doing so, they violated their own constituent's trust and vote. As the most targeted consumers of predatory lenders, and as the group that has the least employment security, African Americans are the most likely to face financial crisis. These are the aspiring Black middle class: the same people that form the backbone of Black elected officials' support. Yet, ten Black congresspersons betrayed them, by voting for the Republican bankruptcy bill. Here are the perpetrators' names:

William Jefferson (LA)

Artur Davis (AL)

Sanford Bishop (GA)

Kendrick Meek (FL)

Al Green (TX)

David Scott (GA)

Gregory Meeks (NY)

Harold Ford, Jr. (TN)

Albert Wynn (MD)

Emanuel Cleaver (MO)

Corruption comes in many forms. However, the main root of the current corruption is corporate money, which has subverted the entire politics and culture of the United States. It is not necessary to trace every noxious vote to a specific payoff. Television, radio and print media also reward politicians with favorable coverage - and nearly all of these outlets are components of corporate mega-media, all of them Wall Street denizens answerable to finance capital. There dwell the Pirates.

The Pirates have found that it is efficacious to enlist Black lieutenants in their predatory ventures. Some - too many - are signing on aboard ship. The names cited above are among the Black buccaneers, who have made common cause with the same people who are exporting the jobs of their own constituents, making them more vulnerable to predatory lenders, and waging endless war across the globe. These Black opportunists seek a good life for themselves, while the life of the community is being sucked out.

It is a deep corruption. They must be expelled.

Glen Ford and Peter Gamble are writing a book, entitled "Barack Obama and the Crisis in Black Political Leadership."

http://blackcommentator.com/164/164_cover_corrupt_congress_pf.html

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 02:50 PM

"The thing about the Koran was proven to have been true."

Uh... no Sandi...it wasn't. No matter how much you try to spin it, the allegations were NOT true. Check with real sources, not left-wing propaganda rags.

I won't even go into what happens in their "country of origin" if YOU were to be caught merely in possession of a Bible. I sure you say it's irrelevant. And I wonder...when they had prisoners of ours, do you think they provided free bibles?? Spiritual advisors?? Maybe a confessional for the Catholics?? Before sawing off their heads, of course.

"Torture"?? Sure. To paraphrase one of your liberal heroes, Bill Clinton, it depends on what your definition of torture is. Exacting uncomfortable conditions upon prisoners to save hundreds or thousands from death doesn't equal torture in my book. For that matter, and in that instance, it would be torture not to; it would be torture to the people who had to pay the price for your inaction. Apparently, in your view, this is the same as sawing one's head off with a machete while they're still alive. I disagree.

There are extremely few actual cases of real torture that you can attribute to U.S. forces. And, unlike our enemy, these cases are not condoned by us, and when proven are dealt with harshly. Have you ever heard of one of our opponents being held accountable by their own (other than to be rewarded) for torture committed on our personnel??

But then, we ARE the bad guys, aren't we??

"I still see pictures of the towers, still see pictures of the pentagon, still see pictures of the plane hitting the building, and the towers collapsing, so the ban isn't all inclusive, only those images which are most horrific for the relatives of those who were lost"

But it's O.K. to disrespect the faimilies of those lost at war by demanding flag-draped coffins be shown?? Such logic.

I work in Emergency Services. I stood at ground zero on 9/12 and, along with thousands of others, dug by hand looking for survivors. I don't need to see the images in the media; I see them every waking hour (and some of the sleeping ones) in my mind. In a way, I wish every American citizen could have been there that day, so that they,too, wouldn't forget.

If you really want to show the coffins, fine. But lets show those planes slamming into those buildings just as often. If it gets boring, we can show clips of WTC '93, or the USS Cole bombing, or maybe Khobar towers. How about the Marine Barracks in Lebanon (1983). Hell, if you think about it the possibilities are endless when it comes to how we've been attacked.

DAMN, Sandi....I think we're on to something, now.....

"I keep reading that the President nor the Vice President have never seen fit to attend their services, but can pay lip service to our military by standing on podiums and saying "We're with you".

This is standard protocol. Sandi. See how many similar services Clinton went to (or George H., or Ronnie, or Jimmah, for that matter). More spin.

"....they don't even make it a practice of going to visit those who have been maimed and wounded in Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm not buying it."

WELL, BUY THIS:

BUSH VISITS MARINES WOUNDED IN IRAQ

By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer
Dec 21 11:24 AM US/Eastern

BETHESDA, Md. - Since the Iraq war began in 2003, it has become an annual pre- Christmas rite for President Bush to personally comfort wounded soldiers. He continued that tradition Wednesday, going bed-to-bed in an intensive care unit and handing out Purple Hearts to the valiant. Bush was visiting with Marines wounded in Iraq and the medical staff treating them at the National Naval Medical Center here. Before going behind closed doors to spend about two hours with servicemen and women, Bush spoke briefly to medical care givers and troops able to leave their rooms.

He said the troops' sacrifices are serving an important goal.

"What we're seeing today is brave troops and committed citizens who are not only determined to chase down the killers and bring them to justice before they hurt us again, but understand that by spreading freedom and democracy we're battling an ideology of darkness with an ideology of hope, and we're laying that foundation for peace for generations to come," the president said.

"The task at hand is one that requires determination and discipline and great faith in the ideals of human freedom and human liberty. And so coming here today is a chance to not only thank you for being a part of this incredible team of healers, but also being a part of this historic moment."

The president and his wife, Laura, were seeing Marines in the intensive care unit, and awarding Purple Hearts to two of them. On another ward, he was visiting more Marines and their families and giving out three Purple Hearts, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

The president makes occasional visits to either the Navy facility or Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearby in Washington, to talk with soldiers recovering from injuries suffered in Iraq or Afghanistan. The pre-holiday pilgrimage to one of the facilities has become a staple on the president's schedule in each of the past three years.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/21/D8EKO3J00.html

DID YOU HAPPEN TO CATCH THAT LAST PARAGRAPH, SANDI??

"About Hillary, all I can say, is. Wow, do you ever despise her, however I hear she is doing a bang up job as Senator, this by people who are and who aren't fans. Not up on it myself, but this is what we hear."

Despise is an understatement. Of course, I couldn't depise her any more than you despise GWB. And, you're in Hermosa Beach and as such subject to the media reports; come up here to the northeast, speak to REAL people and you'll find quite a different story. I'm not saying she's universally hated (she isn't), but she's not as well-loved as the media would have you think. It's kinda like the media and Iraq. Reality is one thing, then there's the media.

"I still believe that GW Bush was an "Absentee National Guardsman." Most people do."

Again with the "most people do" (the kissing cousin of "everybody knows"). Maybe most people you assosciate with. Most people I assosciate with don't.

However, most people I know believe John Kerry fabricated the bulk of his Vietnam "hero" stories. Of course, the fact that he STILL won't sign the SF 180 doesn't help his case (I know you'd like me to stop harping on this issue, but the survival of liberalism depends on people forgetting).

AND, just about "everyone KNOWS" that Dan Rather was into that fraud up to his eyeballs. Do you REALLY think that a man of his intellect (and I never accused him of stupidity) was the poor, innocent victim of those around him?? If so he'd just come out and say "I was conned. I'm sorry", instead of still trying to justify his actions like an errant child.

The con suited his agenda, and he went with it. He depended on the general public (both YOU and me) to swallow everything he said because, well, he's Dan Rather, and how dare we question him.

Well, bye-bye Danny-Boy. It might have worked twenty years ago, but no more. I guess it was just his time to go. The world as he knew it changed. He was no longer God. The public was, is, and has been getting fed up with the media lies, and Danny was just the first to fall.

And as long as we're on the subject of discombobulation, what the heck was this:

"We don't, we liberals, want anyone to suffer, not the Iraqi's nor us, so why would you believe we are against our own troops? Seriously. This is a strange belief, or so it seems to me. You're believing we are against our men and women over there. Quite the opposite, we, me included, are against these men in power sending other men and womens children off to die in a war we don't believe in, and all because of how it has been conducted. We are tired of it, and don't you think more would be tired of it, tired of it in much larger numbers if the Bush/Cheney administration allowed the public - we Americans - we the voters, (thus their subterfuge), to see the plainloads of coffins draped in flags to honor them, come home in the dead of the night? Where is the concern over them being hidden from our view? There needs to be honor in the light of day. Why isn't everyone raising their objections about this? Perhaps they are feeling a bit of guilt for not speaking out and against this rich mans war."

I think ya' mighta' tried to cover to many topics in one paragraph. But I responded as best I could given the circumstances. (LOL).

Have a Happy New Year, Sandi.....

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 02:56 PM

*******
CHECK OUT THESE TWO ARTICLES BY GOING ON SITE
*****
MEDIA CLIP

Jack Cafferty: Just Do it!
CNN curmudgeon Jack Cafferty upbraids the Bush administration with a list of its worst abuses. (WMV | QT)
[Crooks and Liars]
ACT FOR CHANGE:
Featured Action

President Bush: No Pardons for Treason
Will President Bush pardon those indicted in connection with the leaking of a covert operative's identity? It would be a travesty of justice and a direct encouragement of treason. Tell him to let justice run its course in these cases.

http://www.workingforchange.com/index.cfm?

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 02:58 PM

*****
Barron's Calls for Impeachment Hearings on Wiretapping
by Matt Stoller
Barron's calls for impeachment (via Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture)

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense.

Media :: Sat Dec 24th, 2005 at 10:09:58 AM EDT
Click on the following links to access this article and much more on their respective home pages.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/24/10958/374
http://www.workingforchange.com

Yeah....gee.....it MUST upset the libs to know that (unlike perjury) NO violation of law occurred.

Of course, we SHOULD spend AT LEAST two years and millions of dollars failing to indict GWB, or at least SOMEONE in the White House, for FAILING to break the law (ala the illegal "outting" of a covert CIA agent who wasn't covert and was not illegal).

Either that, or get them all on RICO (and by all I mean Carter, Clinton AND Bush).

JEEZ...are you THAT desperate??

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 03:06 PM

Email this item to a friend

Congress: Investigate Bush's Illegal Domestic Spying

Contributed by Working Assets

Shockingly, it has come to light that President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on conversations of Americans and others in the United States. This spying apparently occurred without any court order and was focused on telephone and e-mail communications of "hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States."

Even under the insidious USA PATRIOT ACT, electronic surveillance law generally prohibits non-consensual eavesdropping in the U.S. without a court order based on probable cause. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance, except as "authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order." Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies at George Washington University, has said that Bush's secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity.

Since this potentially illegal activity was clearly directed from within the Administration, there is simply no way that the Justice Department can investigate the matter without serious conflicts of interest. Therefore, we are calling on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to appoint a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this matter and bring criminal charges against anyone found to have violated the law.

Call to action

Ask Attorney General Gonzales and the U.S. Congress to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate domestic spying by the National Security Agency.
Deadline: ongoing

I am writing you -- with a copy to my representative and senators in Congress -- to formally request the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been spying on Americans without a court order.

This appears to be a clear violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I am outraged and disgusted at this clear violation of the civil liberties of all Americans.

Since high-level administration officials -- up to and including the President himself -- may be criminally involved in this matter, it will not be possible for the Justice Department to conduct a thorough and independent investigation. Therefore, I call upon you to appoint a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this matter and hold accountable anyone found to have violated the law.

I look forward to your response on this very serious matter.

Sincerely,

Add your name and address below and send this e-mail as is, or personalize it using your own words. When you click Send E-mail, your name and address will automatically be inserted at the bottom of this e-mail letter. The subject of your e-mail will be the title of the action.

If you would like to have your name and address automatically filled in to this form whenever you take action, simply register with ActForChange.

Prefix* -Select Prefix-Ms.Mrs.Mr.Dr.
First Name
Last Name
E-mail
Street
City
State Select StateAKALARASAZCACOCTDCDEFLGAGUHIIAIDILINKSKYLAMAM DMEMIMNMOMSMTNCNDNENHNJNMNVNYOHOKORPAPRRISCSDTNTXU TVAVIVTWAWIWVWYOther Postal Code

Please check this box if you do not want to receive a copy of your e-mail.
Privacy Policy: WorkingForChange/Working Assets does not sell, trade or release your e-mail address to others. We may send you information in the future about Working Assets by e-mail or by post.

* - Congress now requires that constituents include their title when contacting them online.

Your e-mail will be sent to:
Attorney General Gonzales
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Your e-mail will be cc'd to:
Your U.S. Representative
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515 Your U.S. Senators
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Additional Information:

We urge you to personalize the letter, express your views in your own words, and add details about how this issue affects you personally.
Contact information and links for advocacy group(s) working on this issue:

Email this item to a friend

Home | Act | Products | Member Services
NOT ALL OF THIS COPIED, SO GO ON SITE TO SEE THE COMPLETE FORMS, ETC.

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?ItemId=20070

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 03:17 PM

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 03:23 PM

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 03:27 PM

*****
Censuring Bush Requires Citizens' Help
By John Nichols
The Madison Capital Times
Tuesday 27 December 2005

As President Bush and his aides scramble to explain new revelations regarding Bush's authorization of spying on the international telephone calls and e-mails of Americans, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has begun a process that could lead to the censure, and perhaps the impeachment, of the president and vice president.

US Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who was a critical player in the Watergate and Iran-Contra investigations into presidential wrongdoing, has introduced a package of resolutions that would censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney and create a select committee to investigate the administration's possible crimes and make recommendations regarding grounds for impeachment.

The Conyers resolutions add a significant new twist to the debate about how to hold the administration to account. Members of Congress have become increasingly aggressive in the criticism of the White House, with US Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., saying last week, "Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous president. It has become apparent that this administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our country's law-abiding citizens and against our Constitution."

Even Republicans, including Senate Judiciary Committee chair Arlen Specter, R-Pa., are talking for the first time about mounting potentially serious investigations into abuses of power by the president.

But Conyers is seeking to do much more than schedule a committee hearing, or even launch a formal inquiry. He is proposing that Congress use all its powers to hold the president and vice president to account up to and including the power to impeach the holders of the nation's most powerful positions and to remove them from office.

The first of the three resolutions introduced by Conyers, House Resolution 635, asks that Congress establish a select committee to investigate whether members of the administration made moves to invade Iraq before receiving congressional authorization, manipulated pre-war intelligence, encouraged the use of torture in Iraq and elsewhere, and used their positions to retaliate against critics of the war.

The select committee would be asked to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

The second resolution, H.R. 636, asks that Congress censure the president "for failing to respond to requests for information concerning allegations that he and others in his administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for the war, countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in Iraq, and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of his administration, for failing to adequately account for specific misstatements he made regarding the war, and for failing to comply with Executive Order 12958." (Executive Order 12958, issued in 1995 by former President Bill Clinton, seeks to promote openness in government by prescribing a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding and declassifying national security information.)

A third resolution, H.R. 637, would censure Cheney for a similar set of complaints.

"The people of this country are waking up to the severity of the lies, crimes and abuses of power committed by this president and his administration," says Jon Bonifaz, a co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, an alliance of more than 100 grass-roots groups that have detailed Bush administration wrongdoing and encouraged a congressional response. Bonifaz, an attorney and the author of the book "Warrior King: The Case for Impeaching George Bush" (Nation Books), argues, "Now is the time to return to the rule of law and to hold those who have defied the Constitution accountable for their actions."

Bonifaz is right. But it is unlikely that the effort to censure Bush and Cheney, let alone impeach them, will get far without significant organizing around the country. After all, the House is controlled by allies of the president who have displayed no inclination to hold him to account. Indeed, only a few Democrats, such as Conyers, have taken seriously the constitutional issues raised by the administration's misdeeds.

Members of Congress in both parties will need to feel a lot of heat if these important measures are going to get much traction in this Congress.

The grass-roots group Progressive Democrats of America, which has had a good deal of success organizing activists who want the Democrats to take a more aggressive stance in challenging the administration, will play a critical role in the effort to mobilize support for the Conyers resolutions, as part of a new Censure Bush Coalition campaign. (The campaign's Web site can be found at www.censurebush.org.)

PDA director Tim Carpenter says his group plans to "mobilize and organize a broad-based coalition that will demand action from Congress to investigate the lies of the Bush administration and their conduct related to the war in Iraq."

Getting this Congress to get serious about maintaining checks and balances on the Bush administration will be a daunting task. But the recent revelations regarding domestic spying will make it easier. There are a lot of Americans who share the view of US Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., that Bush and Cheney have exceeded their authority. As Feingold says of Bush, "He is the president, not a king."

It was the bitter experience of dealing with King George III that led the founders of this country to write a Constitution that empowers Congress to hold presidents and vice presidents accountable for their actions.

It is this power that John Conyers, the senior member of the House committee charged with maintaining the system of checks and balances established by those founders, is now asking Congress to employ in the service of the nation that Constitution still governs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[SIZE="3"]John Nichols is the associate editor of The Capital Times.
-------
With this congress, it is unlikely, it will be a hard and difficult path, as they are in lockstep with GW and Cheney.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122805K.shtml

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 03:31 PM

AMERICA IS O.K. WITH THE NSA

LATEST RASMUSSEN POLL

Sorry, Libs.....

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

http://michellemalkin.com/

We who are against these practices must have taken what we were taught by the Constitution to heart, while some poor misguided dummies went about too much of their own lives to be concerned about everyone elses. This throwing out of what the Constitution promises and protects us from is just not to be believed. Poor libs, yes poor us, as the Neo Cons are dragging us down as well. Such a sad state of affairs. Yes, "Poor libs" indeed!

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 03:31 PM

FISA vs the CONSTITUTION

Congress can't usurp the president's power to spy on America's enemies.

BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Wednesday, December 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

In the continuing saga of the surveillance "scandal," with some congressional Democrats denouncing President Bush as a lawbreaker and even suggesting that impeachment hearings may be in order, it is important to step back and put things in historical context. First of all, the Founding Fathers knew from experience that Congress could not keep secrets. In 1776, Benjamin Franklin and his four colleagues on the Committee of Secret Correspondence unanimously concluded that they could not tell the Continental Congress about covert assistance being provided by France to the American Revolution, because "we find by fatal experience that Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets."

When the Constitution was being ratified, John Jay--America's most experienced diplomat and George Washington's first choice to be secretary of state--wrote in Federalist No. 64 that there would be cases in which "the most useful intelligence" may be obtained if foreign sources could be "relieved from apprehensions of discovery," and noted there were many "who would rely on the secrecy of the president, but who would not confide in that of the Senate." He then praised the new Constitution for so distributing foreign-affairs powers that the president would be able "to manage the business of intelligence in such manner as prudence may suggest."

In 1790, when the first session of the First Congress appropriated money for foreign intercourse, the statute expressly required that the president "account specifically for all such expenditures of the said money as in his judgment may be made public, and also for the amount of such expenditures as he may think it advisable not to specify." They made no demand that President Washington share intelligence secrets with them. And in 1818, when a dispute arose over a reported diplomatic mission to South America, the legendary Henry Clay told his House colleagues that if the mission had been provided for from the president's contingent fund, it would not be "a proper subject for inquiry" by Congress.

For nearly 200 years it was understood by all three branches that intelligence collection--especially in wartime--was an exclusive presidential prerogative vested in the president by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, John Marshall and many others recognized that the grant of "executive power" to the president included control over intelligence gathering. It was not by chance that there was no provision for congressional oversight of intelligence matters in the National Security Act of 1947.
Space does not permit a discussion here of the congressional lawbreaking that took place in the wake of the Vietnam War. It is enough to observe that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and when Congress attempts to usurp powers granted to the president, its members betray their oath of office. In certain cases, such as the War Powers Resolution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it might well have crossed that line.

Keep in mind that while the Carter administration asked Congress to enact the FISA statute in 1978, Attorney General Griffin Bell emphasized that the law "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." And in 1994, when the Clinton administration invited Congress to expand FISA to cover physical as well as electronic searches, the associate attorney general testified: "Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority" under the Constitution. "We do," she concluded.

I'm not saying that what the president authorized was unquestionably lawful. The Supreme Court in the 1972 "Keith case" held that a warrant was required for national security wiretaps involving purely domestic targets, but expressly distinguished the case from one involving wiretapping "foreign powers" or their agents in this country. In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.

Section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance "without a court order." The question is whether Congress had the power to limit such authorizations to a 15-day period, which I think highly doubtful. It would be akin to Congress telling the president during wartime that he could attack a particular enemy stronghold for a maximum of 15 days.

America is at war with a dangerous enemy. Since 9/11, the president, our intelligence services and our military forces have done a truly extraordinary job--taking the war to our enemies and keeping them from conducting a single attack within this country (so far). But we are still very much at risk, and those who seek partisan political advantage by portraying efforts to monitor communications between suspected foreign terrorists and (often unknown) Americans as being akin to Nixon's "enemies lists" are serving neither their party nor their country. The leakers of this sensitive national security activity and their Capitol Hill supporters seem determined to guarantee al Qaeda a secure communications channel into this country so long as they remember to include one sympathetic permanent resident alien not previously identified by NSA or the FBI as a foreign agent on their distribution list.
Ultimately, as the courts have noted, the test is whether the legitimate government interest involved--in this instance, discovering and preventing new terrorist attacks that may endanger tens of thousands of American lives--outweighs the privacy interests of individuals who are communicating with al Qaeda terrorists. And just as those of us who fly on airplanes have accepted intrusive government searches of our luggage and person without the slightest showing of probable cause, those of us who communicate (knowingly or otherwise) with foreign terrorists will have to accept the fact that Uncle Sam may be listening.

Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant. The Supreme Court may ultimately clarify the competing claims; but until then, the president is right to continue monitoring the communications of our nation's declared enemies, even when they elect to communicate with people within our country.

Mr. Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, served as counsel to the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, 1982-84.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 03:33 PM

We who are against these practices must have taken what we were taught by the Constitution to heart, while some poor misguided dummies went about too much of their own lives to be concerned about everyone elses. This throwing out of what the Constitution promises and protects us from is just not to be believed. Poor libs, yes poor us, as the Neo Cons are dragging us down as well. Yes, "Poor libs" indeed!

With all due respect Sandi, see the above post.

And then go take another look at the Constitution.

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 03:38 PM

*****

. .. "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority." Thomas Jefferson: American 3rd US President (1801-09).

=

. .. "He is not strong and powerful who throweth people down; but he is strong who witholdeth himself from anger." Muhammad

=

. .. "Do not say, that if the people do good to us, we will do good to them; and if the people oppress us, we will oppress them; but determine that if people do you good, you will do good to them; and if they oppress you, you will not oppress them." Muhammad

=

. .. "To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." Bible

=

. .. "Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true." Buddha - Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 03:41 PM

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 04:04 PM

With all due respect Sandi, see the above post.

And then go take another look at the Constitution.

So according to everyone involved, the Constitution, like the great books of faith, (the Bible and the Koran), it as well, can be manipulated, twisted and turned to suit every belief and desire out there?

I still believe this administration has flaunted their power over "Our Constitution", and all this country should stand for. I have to believe this administrations acts alone have been devastating to our self image, to our self worth and we are shamed by their actions.

I think differently about that grand document than you, and I do believe your loyalties are misguided and so very odd. It's like you are running though life with blinders as far as how this Presidency is being conducted, and it is like you are so out of touch with what is good and that which is harmful to us as a nation. I'm not saying you are evil in intent, but what is being done to us as a nation, it is so wrong in my view. I really don't see how you can approve of one thing the GW Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld "cabal" has done. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, even though I disagreed with how they were put in office, I was willing to go along, until the thing with the Energy companies lifted its ugly head; a Hydra. One Vice President Dick Cheney met with behind closed doors. Perhaps you didn't live where it was a problem, I just found that after all that befell the country energy wise, that it was so odd Vice President came out of those meetings unscathed. He refuses any light of day access to those meetings, and it had just became worse as each and every day progressed.

Bad news because of this administrations policies just continues. On and on. It is so terrible. One is leery of reading or hearing the news each and every day. What on earth will they subject us and the rest of the world to next? We know something is coming, so holding our breath isn't a cure all. Perhaps the country and the congress will wake up to the damage this administration has wrought and seek to make some repairs, and if not repairs, then put in some stop gap measures of their own to end this terrible time we're in.

It's not just me, me being one who only has a scattering of knowledge about our Constution, but there are Constutitional scholars, and other journalists who disagree with the article you've posted. Twisting and manipulating the written word is nothing new. I just see things differently, and it's not that I know how to twist and manipulate our Constitution as others have learned to do. Anyway, these are a few of my thoughts on the Constitution and this administration: They George W. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, are, in my mind, killing and invalidating it.

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 04:27 PM

*****

Secret Court Modified Wiretap Requests
By Stewart M. Powell
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Saturday 24 December 2005

Intervention may have led Bush to bypass panel.
Washington - Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of US-based terror suspects without the court's approval.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined.

The court's repeated intervention in Bush administration wiretap requests may explain why the president decided to bypass the court nearly four years ago to launch secret National Security Agency spying on hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans and foreigners inside the United States, according to James Bamford, an acknowledged authority on the supersecret NSA, which intercepts telephone calls, e-mails, faxes and Internet communications.

"They wanted to expand the number of people they were eavesdropping on, and they didn't think they could get the warrants they needed from the court to monitor those people," said Bamford, author of "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" and "The Puzzle Palace: Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization." "The FISA court has shown its displeasure by tinkering with these applications by the Bush administration."

Bamford offered his speculation in an interview last week.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, adopted by Congress in the wake of President Nixon's misuse of the NSA and the CIA before his resignation over Watergate, sets a high standard for court-approved wiretaps on Americans and resident aliens inside the United States.

To win a court-approved wiretap, the government must show "probable cause" that the target of the surveillance is a member of a foreign terrorist organization or foreign power and is engaged in activities that "may" involve a violation of criminal law.

Faced with that standard, Bamford said, the Bush administration had difficulty obtaining FISA court-approved wiretaps on dozens of people within the United States who were communicating with targeted al-Qaida suspects inside the United States.

The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps has approved at least 18,740 applications for electronic surveillance or physical searches from five presidential administrations since 1979.

The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation. In 20 of the first 21 annual reports on the court's activities up to 1999, the Justice Department told Congress that "no orders were entered (by the FISA court) which modified or denied the requested authority" submitted by the government.

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004 - the most recent years for which public records are available.

The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years - the first outright rejection in the court's history.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said last week that Bush authorized NSA surveillance of overseas communications by US-based terror suspects because the FISA court's approval process was too cumbersome.

The Bush administration, responding to concerns expressed by some judges on the 11-member panel, agreed last week to give them a classified briefing on the domestic spying program. U.S. District Judge Malcolm Howard, a member of the panel, told CNN that the Bush administration agreed to brief the judges after US District Judge James Robertson resigned from the FISA panel, apparently to protest Bush's spying program.

Bamford, 59, a Vietnam-era Navy veteran, likens the Bush administration's domestic surveillance without court approval to Nixon-era abuses of intelligence agencies.

NSA and previous eavesdropping agencies collected duplicates of all international telegrams to and from the United States for decades during the Cold War under a program code-named "Shamrock" before the program ended in the 1970s. A program known as "Minaret" tracked 75,000 Americans whose activities had drawn government interest between 1952 and 1974, including participation in the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War.

"NSA prides itself on learning the lessons of the 1970s and obeying the legal restrictions imposed by FISA," Bamford said. "Now it looks like we're going back to the bad old days again."
-------
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122805Q.shtml

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 04:36 PM

Nice quotes.

Now, read the Constitution.

*******

NJ4M Incarnate! No surprise here. How funny. Old ways are hard to disguise.
:cheers

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 04:38 PM

"I still believe this administration has flaunted their power over "Our Constitution", and all this country should stand for. I have to believe this administrations acts alone have been devastating to our self image, to our self worth and we are shamed by their actions."

So....in keeping with the above, I can assume you feel the same way about Clinton and Carter, right??

Not trying to justify this administration's actions (I don't think I need to), just trying to see if "what's good for the goose", etc., etc.

And just to reiterate: I have NO problem with what Carter, Clinton, or Bush have done with regards to this issue.

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 04:38 PM

*******

NJ4M Incarnate! No surprise here. How funny. Old ways are hard to disguise.
:cheers

Now you've totally lost me......

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 04:48 PM

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 05:22 PM

DISHONEST REPORTER AWARDS-2005

By HonestReporting.com
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 28, 2005

Big media was clearly on the defensive in 2005. Dan Rather left the CBS News anchor desk under a heavy cloud while other executives were fired in the wake of Memogate. The use of anonymous sources put journalists like Judith Miller and the NY Times in an uncomfortable spotlight. Newsweek's erroneous report that US Marines desecrated a Koran touched off a firestorm of deadly protests around the world. CNN news chief Eason Jordan was forced to resign over comments at an international forum. And an Al-Jazeera reporter was even convicted for his links to Al-Qaida. In each controversy, bloggers successfully pressured the news services for accuracy and accountability.

Unfortunately, problematic coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continued. We couldn't address all the news services or journalists who were nominated by HonestReporting subscribers, but we thank readers for sharing their thoughts about 2005 and for making our fight for honest reporting your fight too. So without further ado, we proceed with our Dishonest Reporter of the Year Award. We begin with the runner-ups:

Reuters

Of all the coverage we saw of the Gaza pullout, nothing stood out more than this odious comment by Reuters in the lead-up days:

The [Gaza] closure will give about 8,500 settlers a taste of some of the military restrictions and bureaucracy endured by Palestinians living under occupation.

The wire service also remained consistent to its warped principles during the London terror attacks too, refusing to describe the bombings as "terror." To understand the logic behind Reuters' vocabulary gymnastics, see here.

Palestinian Stringers

Western news services rely on Palestinian stringers for reporting, photographs and video footage. They also rely on "fixers" who provide all kinds of other support: arranging interviews, navigating through difficult areas, translating and more. But how reliable and objective are these stringers? The Jerusalem Post exposed a number of AP and AFP stringers who were also on the Palestinian Authority payroll, including Majida al-Batsh, who was a candidate for PA president. (Nobody protested the use of AFP office supplies for her candidacy.) The revelations brought to mind a related special report on the influence of Palestinian organizations on foreign news. But unlike a similar scandal in the White House press corps, the stringers' conflict of interest met deafening silence.

C-Span

C-Span executives took the idea of "balanced coverage" to an illogical extreme in March, deciding that a talk by Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt needed to be balanced out with a talk by Holocaust denier David Irving. Lipstadt told HonestReporting:

The notion that there are 'two sides to every story' is simplistic, fuzzy thinking at best, and far more dangerous than that at worst.

Now jailed in Austria, where Holocaust denial is a crime, Irving awaits a February trial.

The Guardian

The Guardian found itself red-faced by what became known as Sassygate: As exposed by blogger Scott Burgess, the Manchester-based paper hired trainee journalist Dilpazier Aslam, whose coverage of July's London terror attacks included a commentary sympathizing with the bombers. It turned out that Aslam was a member of Hizb Ut Tahrir, an Islamist organization which calls for the destruction of Israel and the rule of a world-wide caliphate. When the dust settled, Aslam was fired and the paper's executive editor for news, Albert Scardino resigned. Aslam is now suing The Guardian for "racial and religious discrimination."

Eric Margolis

The February assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri shocked even the most cynical Mideast experts. Syrian propaganda, predictably blaming Israel, was echoed by the North American syndicated columnist Eric Margolis. Ironically, the same week that the Mehlis report to the UN on Hariri's murder was released, Margolis gave a soapbox to unsubstantiated claims that Israel had a hand in the 1988 plane crash that killed Pakistani dictator Zia Ul-Haq.

* * *

But one news service's skewed coverage stood out the most, "winning" the award in a landslide. From the first day votes came in, it wasn't close, which may explain the dearth of nominations for perennial runner-ups like the NY Times, Associated Press and The Independent. The 2005 Dishonest Reporter of the Year Award goes to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The impact of BBC coverage cannot be understated. A Google study found that for breaking news, internet users around the world were more likely to turn to the BBC than CNN. More than 270 million TV viewers around the world watch BBC World. Even more people listen to BBC World Service, which broadcasts in 42 languages.

Readers provided a full laundry list of complaints and we found the most effective way to condense the biggest offenses was in a simple list form. The examples of bias from the year past indicates a pattern of naiveté, dishonesty, forcing facts conform to a narrow worldview and, arguably, a desire to inappropriately influence events-all paid for by British television viewers through the TV License Fee, which costs the typical household £126.50 per year.

Here are the top 10 reasons (listed in chronological order) why the BBC is HonestReporting's Dishonest Reporter of the Year.

10. In January, Palestinian presidential candidate Dr. Mustafa Barghouti (not to be confused with his better-known distant relative, Marwan) tried to use Israel and the Western media to get some free publicity for his campaign by getting himself arrested at the Temple Mount. The Independent's Donald Macintyre saw straight through Barghouti's ploy, but the BBC's Martin Asser proved more gullible:

A large crowd of journalists has gathered at an East Jerusalem hotel to hear him, and there is some excitement because a rumour is going round he will go to the al-Aqsa mosque later for Friday prayers....

It is meant to be the photo-opportunity highlight of the day - but the Israeli security services have other ideas....

In truth, Mr Barghouti's programme was not unduly affected by the detention, because his next engagement was not scheduled until 1330.

I could be wrong, but that - rather conveniently - left ample time for his headline-grabbing brush with the Israelis before moving on to meet the voters.

9. Every morning, listeners can tune into BBC for an uplifting "Thought of the Day." One February morning, Rev. Dr. John Bell used the feature to describe an Arab-Israeli acquaintance only identified as "Adam." According to Rev. Dr. Bell, this acquaintance was "conscripted" into the Israeli army, where "he was also imprisoned for refusing to shoot unarmed schoolchildren." See the full transcript here.

After HonestReporting pointed out that Israeli-Arabs aren't required to serve in the IDF and that the allegations that soldiers have orders to shoot unarmed kids are wholly unfounded, the BBC apologized-but only for not fact-checking Adam's age and the issue of conscription. We still await a retraction about the non-existent orders to shoot kids.

8. In March, the BBC apologized to Israel for reporter Simon Wilson's handling of an interview with Mordechai Vanunu. A former technician at the Dimona nuclear plant, Vanunu is prohibited from talking to foreign reporters, but Wilson, in 2004, was caught trying to smuggle tapes of his interview out of the country. Although the apology-which paved the way for Wilson to return to Israel-was supposed to remain confidential, it was inexplicably posted on the BBC's own web site for several hours. The BBC once intended to rent out a luxury apartment for Vanunu paid for by British television viewers.

7. He retired from the BBC, but former Mideast correspondent Tim Llewellyn (now an executive member of the Council for the Advancement of Arab British Understanding) makes this list for an interview he gave to Electronic Intifada. We are concerned Llewellyn's views are shared by colleagues within the BBC:

are adopting what they see as an even handed attitude. To me this is a cowardly attitude, it is an attitude which confuses occupier with occupied....

6. In May, BBC correspondent Orla Guerin reported that construction linking Maale Adumim to Jerusalem would split the West Bank in two, destroying any possibility of a viable Palestinian state. HonestReporting noted that construction in the area known as E-1 doesn't take away territorial contiguity. A map produced by our colleagues at CAMERA highlights how the Palestinians would have continuous territory, which, at its narrowest, would be nine miles (or 15 km) wide-which also happens to be the width of Israel's "waistline" between the Green Line and the Mediterranean.

5. When members of the British Association of University Teachers considered a boycott of Israel's Bar-Ilan and Haifa universities, BBC radio tried to influence the vote with a report by correspondent John Reynolds from the College of Judea and Samaria. As Melanie Phillips wrote in May:

Not a word about the fact that more than 300 students at this college are Arabs, and that the Arab mayors of local towns have enthusiastically welcomed the opportunities it gives their students....

The BBC might as well have had a block vote at today's AUT conference. So much for its supposed objectivity, which once again stands exposed as a charade.

4. When terrorists linked to Al-Qaida struck the London transportation system in July, many thought the BBC would finally use the word "terror" to describe the wanton attacks on civilians. To their credit, a small handful of initial reports did. But appearances of the "t-word" in initial coverage were soon removed from the BBC's web site (but not before Tom Gross documented the inconsistencies). Yet Roger Mosey, the head of BBC's television news, contradicted BBC policy when he wrote in The Guardian that there was no ban in the first place!

Then there has been a controversy about our use of language - particularly the question of whether the BBC banned the word "terrorist". There is no ban. It's true the word is contentious in some contexts on our international services, hence the recommendation that it be employed with care. But we have used and will continue to use the words terror, terrorism and terrorist - as we did in all our flagship bulletins from Thursday.

Not surprisingly, subsequent coverage of the London bombings and their aftermath remained "terror free." At the end of the year, however, The Guardian reported that BBC journalists received new "guidance" discouraging-but not banning-the "t-word." Time will tell if this will have a positive impact in 2006.

3. Following the London terror attacks, the BBC admitted loading the studio audience with a disproportionate number of Muslims for Questions of Security: A BBC News Special. (See Biased BBC for links to video of the show.) Among the complaints, one viewer wrote angrily:

I do not pay my license fee to watch an unrepresentative Muslim audience like this.

The BBC's response?

In order to ensure a range of voices on these issues, the studio audience contained a higher proportion of Muslims in the audience than in the population as a whole - around 15% of the audience as opposed to 2.7% of the country as a whole....

This isn't the first time the BBC got in hot water for loading the audience. In 2001, anti-American invective from a Question Time audience discussing the 9/11 attacks got so out of hand that news director Greg Dyke had to apologize to US ambassador Philip Lader, who participated in the show.

Can anyone imagine a BBC program on Israel loaded with Israelis and Jews?

2. Within hours after Israel completed its pull-out from the Gaza Strip, Palestinians wasted no time desecrating synagogues and looting greenhouses. BBC's Orla Guerin was one of several journalists who actually justified the sad, senseless destruction:

Palestinians came streaming to the settlements that caused them so much pain, to sightsee and to loot. Israel stole thirty-eight years from them; today, many were ready to take back anything they could.

1. Whatever happened to Malcolm Balen, who was appointed to help improve the BBC's Mideast reporting? Back in November, 2003, the BBC hired him as a "senior editorial advisor," or, as some put it, "a Middle East policeman. " Some HonestReporting readers were hopeful when Haaretz reported that Balen was supposed to present a "conclusive and comprehensive report" to BBC executives. Balen even told Haaretz:

What I do is a long-term editorial review, and by definition, the review is retrospective, rather than a look at day-to-day output. The truth is, in any editorial job, you are so tied up with your program and deadline, that you simply do not have the time to stand back and look at the coverage as a whole," says Balen.

"Nobody has the time in a journalistic job to trace the course of a single story in an organization as large as the BBC, which is what I was appointed to do. I can concentrate on a single story and look at all sorts of angles and aspects. I can join the dots together, [determine] what the coverage feels like, what the tone is like - crucially, what the content is like, what the balance is like."

Yet with all the resources of the BBC at his disposal, Balen, to our knowledge, has not presented any report. In contrast, Trevor Asserson, a British lawyer working on his own initiative, put together several exhaustive critiques. HonestReporting readers, who also chose the BBC as Dishonest Reporter of the Year in 2001, connected the dots.

Has Balen?

* * *

By October, the deteriorating coverage reached a point where the Board of Governors requested Sir Quentin Thomas to lead an independent panel to investigate its Mideast reporting. (See here for more details.) The panel is supposed to release its findings in the spring. When the Board of Governors released its Programme Complaints: Appeals to the Governors, the forward by the chairman of the complaints committee noted that the majority of the complaints (20 out of 27 in fact) dealt with Mideast coverage. Only one-against Barbara Plett-was upheld.

Yet even in December, former director-general Greg Dyke, a casualty of the Hutton Report, insists that the network's Mideast reporting continues to be fair:

We investigated many of the complaints and most of the time found our reporting had been totally fair. Of course the pro-Israeli lobby didn't accept that but then they had a different agenda.

The stakes are certainly high. News services skewing reports from the Mideast are just as capable of warping other important areas of coverage. For the BBC, that's most notably Iraq. The BBC's royal charter expires at the end of 2006 - one year from now -- and officials must explain how it spends income from the TV License Fee. In 2003, this TV tax brought the BBC nearly £2.4 billion in income. Simply put, the British public is subsidizing lousy news.

As far as we're concerned, the excuses and apologies have worn thin. The BBC must be held accountable.

We appreciate you, our readers for writing the media, alerting us to questionable reports and sharing your insights with us.

HonestReporting covered a lot of ground in 2005 and we'll continue monitoring the media in the coming year. We hope 2006 proves to be a better year of honest reporting.

Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20702

[B]NOTE:

Sandi,

The part about the desecration of the Koran may be of particular interest to you......

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 05:27 PM

*****
The Old Late Friday Media Trick: Pentagon Admits Koran Abuse

truthseeker....Here's the article about the Koran, which you say isn't so, but it's here, and it was all over the news media.

If you say it enough, is that it? If you say it enough you believe everyone will believe you? That, you know, is an old propaganda ploy. We're a bit more sophisticated than that these day, yet a lot of people do buy in, or why one earth would they still be backing, or have ever backed GW Bush for that matter? All he has brought to us is higher cost of living, debt, loss of privacy, and death by the thousands, and lets not forget about national shame.

Now, go ahead and spin that out of reality.

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon on Friday released new details about mishandling of the Quran at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects, confirming that a soldier deliberately kicked the Muslim holy book and that an interrogator stepped on a Quran and was later fired for "a pattern of unacceptable behavior."

In other confirmed incidents, a guard's urine came through an air vent and splashed on a detainee and his Quran; water balloons thrown by prison guards caused an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet; and in a confirmed but ambiguous case, a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran.

The findings, released after normal business hours Friday evening, are among the results of an investigation last month by Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, the commander of the detention center in Cuba, that was triggered by a Newsweek magazine report--later retracted--that a U.S. soldier had flushed one Guantanamo Bay detainee's Quran down a toilet.

The story stirred worldwide controversy and the Bush administration blamed it for deadly demonstrations in Afghanistan.

Hood said in a written statement released Friday evening, along with the new details, that his investigation "revealed a consistent, documented policy of respectful handling of the Quran dating back almost 2 1/2 years."

Hood said that of nine mishandling cases that were studied in detail by reviewing thousands of pages of written records, five were confirmed to have happened. He could not determine conclusively whether the four others took place.

In one of those four unconfirmed cases, a detainee in April 2003 complained to FBI and other interrogators that guards "constantly defile the Quran." The detainee alleged that in one instance a female military guard threw a Quran into a bag of wet towels to anger another detainee, and he also alleged that another guard said the Quran belonged in the toilet and that guards were ordered to do these things.

Hood said he found no other record of this detainee mentioning any Quran mishandling. The detainee has since been released.

In the most recent confirmed case, Hood said a detainee complained on March 25, 2005, of urine splashing on him and his Quran. An unidentified guard admitted at the time that "he was at fault," the Hood report said, although it did not say whether the act was deliberate. The guard's supervisor reprimanded him and assigned him to gate guard duty, where he had no contact with detainees for the remainder of his assignment at Guantanamo Bay.

As described in the Hood report, the guard had left his observation post and went outside to urinate. He urinated near an air vent and the wind blew his urine through the vent into the cell block. The incident was not further explained.

In another of the confirmed cases, a contract interrogator stepped on a detainee's Quran in July 2003 and then apologized. "The interrogator was later terminated for a pattern of unacceptable behavior, an inability to follow direct guidance and poor leadership," the Hood report said.

Hood also said his investigation found 15 cases of detainees mishandling their own Qurans. "These included using a Quran as a pillow, ripping pages out of the Quran, attempting to flush a Quran down the toilet and urinating on the Quran," Hood's report said. It offered no possible explanation for those alleged abuses.

In the most recent of those 15 cases, a detainee on Feb. 18, 2005, allegedly ripped up his Quran and handed it to a guard, stating that he had given up on being a Muslim. Several of the guards witnessed this, Hood reported.

Last week, Hood disclosed that he had confirmed five cases of mishandling of the Quran, but he refused to provide details. Allegations of Quran desecration at Guantanamo Bay have led to anti-American passions in many Muslim nations, although Pentagon officials have insisted that the problems were relatively minor and that U.S. commanders have gone to great lengths to enable detainees to practice their religion in captivity.

Hood said last week that he found no credible evidence that a Quran was ever flushed down a toilet. He said a prisoner who was reported to have complained to an FBI agent in 2002 that a military guard threw a Quran in the toilet has since told Hood's investigators that he never witnessed any form of Quran desecration.

Other prisoners who were returned to their home countries after serving time at Guantanamo Bay as terror suspects have alleged Quran desecration by U.S. guards, and some have said a Quran was placed in a toilet.

There are about 540 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Some have been there more than three years without being charged with a crime. Most were captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002 and were sent to Guantanamo Bay in hope of extracting useful intelligence about the al-Qaida terrorist network.

Both President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have denounced an Amnesty International report that called the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay "the gulag of our time."

The president told reporters at a press conference on Tuesday that the report by the human-rights group was "absurd."

On Wednesday, Rumsfeld called the characterization "reprehensible" and said the U.S. military had taken care to ensure that detainees were free to practice their religion. However, he also acknowledged that some detainees had been mistreated, even "grievously" at times.
[/url]
==
Like I've said, you post articles of your own beliefs, not just media stories, memories you haven't thoroughly followed up on as this post shows. And since you are telling me to read the constitution, why don't you just go ahead and find where in our Constitution that allows for unwarranted non-court approved searches for any longer than 15 days. Enlighten me as to the NON ABUSEs of our Constitution by this the Bush/Cheney administration. Constitutional scholars say that it is the only time frame allowed, only 15 days, and he abused, it was allowed like he was doing for only 15 days, not four years. Wrong is wrong regardless of Administrations. That goes for any party as well. So I believe that the Carter Clinton argument you are tossing about is to feel better about the Bush administrations flagrant abuses. Perhaps you should look up the instances of their having done illegal acts and post them as well, but the fact is, that is old history, history we more than likely should learn of but what we are most concerned with, what I'm most concerned about is going on right now and we probably have a way to stop it now in the present. We have no way to go back and undo past illegal acts. We just have to live with their consequences, whatever they may be, as we surely have never learned of those illegal activities outcome. [/SIZE]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0604-01.htm

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 05:34 PM

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 06:05 PM

DISHONEST REPORTER AWARDS-2005

By HonestReporting.com
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 28, 2005

Sandi,

The part about the desecration of the Koran may be of particular interest to you......
By HonestReporting.com
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 28, 2005

*****
Big media was clearly on the defensive in 2005. Dan Rather left the CBS News anchor desk under a heavy cloud while other executives were fired in the wake of Memogate. The use of anonymous sources put journalists like Judith Miller and the NY Times in an uncomfortable spotlight. Newsweek's erroneous report that US Marines desecrated a Koran touched off a firestorm of deadly protests around the world. CNN news chief Eason Jordan was forced to resign over comments at an international forum. And an Al-Jazeera reporter was even convicted for his links to Al-Qaida. In each controversy, bloggers successfully pressured the news services for accuracy and accountability.

*******

It seems this is another media boo-boo. This organization hasn't checked up on stories either. While pointing their fingers, it does seem the poster or his or her orginazation wasn't as energetic as he or she, and they, should have been This is a glaring example, another case of you can't always believe what you read. I can now see where your mistake came from. So as you can see, there is a need (oftentimes) to look about for more and see what there is that is documented. Perhaps you can go check out the Pentagon releases and dig up the information on the men who were on television admitting to doing the deeds, the urine and the Koran among other taunts and abuses. It was in living color, they were right there on television for us all to see and hear, much less the written reports. I remember the military men, our military men having admitted to having desecrated the Koran and other religious taunts. So everyone needs to follow up.

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 06:14 PM

*****

India Stopping Theft of Ancient Knowledge
By Gavin Rabinowitz
The Associated Press

Saturday 24 December 2005
Protection: The nation is building a database of indigenous knowledge to keep entrepreneurs from making a profit from it.
New Delhi - For thousands of years Indian villagers have used an extract from seeds of the neem tree as an insecticide. So when a US company patented a process for producing the substance in 1994, India reacted with outrage.

After spending millions of dollars in legal fees to successfully overturn the patent, India's government now is creating a 30-million-page database of traditional knowledge to fend off entrepreneurs trying to patent the country's ancient lore.

India is not alone in worrying about "bio-prospectors" profiting from the genetic resources of its plant life with no benefit to its people. It joined China, Brazil and nine other nations a few years ago to begin pushing for international protections.

The database project already has caught the interest of others. A South African team recently visited and a Mongolian mission is coming in January, said V.K. Gupta, chairman of India's National Institute for Science Communication and Information Resources.

The database, called the Traditional Knowledge Data Library (TKDL), will make information available to patent offices around the world to ensure that traditional remedies are not presented as new discoveries.

"If societies have been using it for centuries, why should it be patented?" asked Shiv Basant, a senior official at the Health Ministry's Department of Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy, India's traditional health and medical disciplines.

The government also has successfully challenged patents on the use of the spice turmeric to heal wounds and rashes and a patent on a rice strain derived from India's famed basmati rice.

But that is a fraction of the problem. A 2003 study by Gupta's institute estimated some 7,000 patents worldwide are based on Indian indigenous knowledge, far too many for India to challenge in expensive legal fights. But officials hope the database will head off future battles.

"If we have all the data in TKDL, we will not have to spend all those millions of dollars," said Ajay Dua of the Commerce Ministry's Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion.

It is difficult for overseas patent office researchers to prove purported innovations are really based on old lore because, while the information is widely published in India, it is often in ancient languages like Sanskrit or modern regional languages like Tamil.

Gupta convened a group of 150 experts in traditional medicine, scientists, doctors, patent lawyers and computer programmers to put together the database of traditional knowledge.

Instead of laboriously translating the manuscripts, the scholars structured the texts into classifications widely used by patent examiners. The texts are then entered in the database, where specially developed software translates them into Hindi, English, German, French, Japanese and Spanish.

More than 10 million pages already have been loaded into the system and 20 million more will be available by the end of 2006, Gupta said.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/122805HB.shtml

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 06:27 PM

*****Military releases Koran-abuse findings
By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIME
JUNE 4TH 2005U.S. NAVAL BASE GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba -- An interrogator accidentally stepped on a prisoner's Koran, copies of Islam's holy text got wet when guards tossed water balloons into a cellblock and one was "splashed" by urine, according to the final results of a Pentagon probe.
But the investigation sparked by accusations in the press about desecration of the Koran here found "no credible evidence" that prison guards or interrogators "ever flushed a Koran down a toilet," the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees the prison for terrorism suspects, said yesterday.

The findings show that al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at the detention center themselves mishandled Korans on 15 occasions, three times more than the military prison's guards and interrogators. "These included using a Koran as a pillow, ripping pages out of the Koran, attempting to flush a Koran down the toilet, and urinating on the Koran."
The probe found five confirmed incidents of military guards and interrogators "mishandling" the Koran, a fact cited by military officials before but never described in detail. The incidents were:
•March 5, 2005, a detainee and his Koran were "splashed" by urine while the detainee lay near an air vent inside the prison. A guard was found to have "urinated near an air vent and the wind blew his urine through the vent into the block." The guard was "reprimanded" and reassigned to duties of no contact with detainees.
•August 2003, a "two-word obscenity" was written in English on the inside cover of an English-language version of one detainee's Koran. "It is possible that a guard committed this act; it is equally possible that the detainee wrote in his own Koran."
•August 2003, military officials acting as night guards in the prison tossed water balloons into a cellblock causing several Korans to become wet. Detainees complained to the guards about the incident, which went uninvestigated until last month.
•July 2003, a contract interrogator apologized to a detainee for stepping on the detainee's Koran during an interrogation session. The detainee "accepted the apology and agreed to inform other detainees of the apology and ask them to cease disruptive behaviors caused by the incident." The interrogator was later fired.
•February 2002, military prison guards kicked a copy of one detainee's Koran. A detainee complained about the incident to an interrogator. The incident went uninvestigated until last month.
The Defense Department called for the investigation last month after Newsweek magazine cited sources as saying officials had flushed a Koran down a toilet. Newsweek later retracted the report, but it caused outrage in the Muslim world, including Afghanistan, where more than a dozen people were killed during violent anti-American demonstrations.
"Mishandling a Koran at Guantanamo Bay is a rare occurrence," said Army Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, who oversees the camp. "We defined mishandling as touching, holding or the treatment of a Koran in a manner inconsistent with policy or procedure."
The investigation cited four unconfirmed incidents of Koran mishandling by military officials and interrogators, including one in which a female military police officer was accused of tossing a Koran into a bag of wet towels to anger a detainee, and another in which an interrogator "put his foot on the Koran."
Gen. Hood previously had refused to detail the five incidents of guards "mishandling" the Koran, citing the ongoing investigation. He had said there never has been a confirmed incident of guards flushing a Koran down the toilet.
Military officials said methods for handling Korans, which are offered in 13 languages to the 558 terror suspects detained here, are strictly designed to protect the Islamic holy book's religious and cultural sanctity.
Military officials here have issued more than 1,600 copies of the Koran to detainees. The Defense Department noted detainees often get moved from their cells for interrogation sessions. In all, more than 28,000 interrogations have been conducted on the detainees.
"When one considers the many thousands of times detainees have been moved and cells have been searched since detention operations first began here in January 2002, I think one can only conclude that respect for detainee religious beliefs was embedded in the culture of the [military task force overseeing the prison] from the start," Gen. Hood said.
An al Qaeda handbook preaches to operatives to level charges of torture once captured, a training regimen that administration officials say explains some of the charges of abuse at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
The American Civil Liberties Union last week posted on its Web site 2002 FBI documents regarding accusations from suspected al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at the detention center. The organization had won a court decision that forced the administration to release scores of e-mails between agents who had interviewed captives.
U.S. Southern Command also is investigating interrogation techniques at the prison camp, as well as the FBI-conveyed, unsubstantiated complaints. The U.S. Justice Department inspector general has begun a separate probe.

There's more of course and it is the Pentagon report which is conclusive, I need to try to find it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050604-122746-9402r.htm

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 06:44 PM

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 06:45 PM

*****
"With the other nine incidents, there was either intentional or unintentional mishandling of a Koran," Hood said. He defined mishandling as "touching, holding or the treatment of a Koran in a manner inconsistent with policy or procedure."

Koran Inquiry Reveals Pattern of 'Respectful Handling'

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 4, 2005 – An inquiry into allegations of mishandling of the Koran by U.S. personnel at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reveals "a consistent, documented policy of respectful handling" dating back almost two and a half years, the general who led the effort said June 3.
Army Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, released results of his inquiry, which was launched following allegations in the media that U.S. personnel at the detention facility had flushed a Koran down the toilet.

The inquiry found no credible evidence that the flushing incident occurred, U.S. Southern Command officials said in a news release. "This matter is considered closed," the statement said.

Hood's extensive inquiry of documents and procedures at the detention facility related to alleged abuse of the Koran revealed "five incidents of apparent mishandling by guards or interrogators and 15 incidents of mishandling and outright desecration by detainees," Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said June 3.

Four alleged incidents of mishandling by U.S. personnel could not be confirmed, Hood said.

The inquiry involved a review of 31,000 hard-copy and electronic documents covering 28,000 interrogations, Di Rita noted. In addition, Hood said the inquiry team reviewed 63 Habeas petitions for any incidents involving the Koran, as well as 38 press articles.

It also included a review of procedures involving the Koran. Since January 2002, Joint Task Force Guantanamo has issued more than 1,600 Korans and undergone thousands of cell moves that involved moving detainee effects, including Korans, U.S. Southern Command officials noted.

From those activities, the inquiry team identified 19 incidents in which U.S. personnel handled Korans. Ten of those incidents involved no mishandling, and simply touching of the Muslim holy book "during the normal performance of duty," the statement said.

"With the other nine incidents, there was either intentional or unintentional mishandling of a Koran," Hood said. He defined mishandling as "touching, holding or the treatment of a Koran in a manner inconsistent with policy or procedure."

"We have confirmed that five of these alleged mishandling incidents took place," Hood said. "After thoroughly investigating the four remaining alleged mishandling incidents, we cannot determine conclusively if they actually happened."

Hood's inquiry identified 15 incidents in which detainees mishandled the Koran. These involved using it as a pillow, ripping pages from it, attempting to flush it down a toilet, and urinating on it, SOUTHCOM officials said.

Hood called mishandling of the Koran by U.S. personnel at the Guantanamo facility "a rare occurrence" that "is never condoned."

"When one considers the many thousands of times detainees have been moved and cells have been searched since detention operations first began here in January 2002, I think one can only conclude that respect for detainee beliefs was embedded in the culture of the JTF from the start," Hood said.

Koran-handling procedures in force at Guantanamo Bay are "appropriate," SOUTHCOM officials said the inquiry concluded. However, they said, "a number of recommendations for minor modifications are under review."

"SOUTHCOM's policy of Koran handling is obviously serious, respectful and appropriate," Di Rita said. "The Hood inquiry confirms that."

Related Sites:
U.S. Southern Command
U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

News Archive [/I][/SIZE]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2005/20050604_1552.html

There were subsequent reports and interviews which didn't dance around the issure.

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 06:47 PM

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 07:12 PM

It seems this is another media boo-boo. This organization hasn't checked up on stories either. While pointing their fingers, it does seem the poster or his or her orginazation wasn't as energetic as he or she, and they, should have been This is a glaring example, another case of you can't always believe what you read. I can now see where your mistake came from. So as you can see, there is a need (oftentimes) to look about for more and see what there is that is documented. Perhaps you can go check out the Pentagon releases and dig up the information on the men who were on television admitting to doing the deeds, the urine and the Koran among other taunts and abuses. It was in living color, they were right there on television for us all to see and hear, much less the written reports. I remember the military men, our military men having admitted to having desecrated the Koran and other religious taunts. So everyone needs to follow up.

I stand by what I said.

Seems to me I remember a young Naval officer, years ago, putting together a band of miscreants who swore to abuses that never happened. You'll have to excuse my skepticism.

And even if it were to happen (keeping in mind that I doubt it did), I really can't get too worked up over it, considering what their kind has done to us. I'm sorry, but I don't equate murder, torture, genocide etc., to someone peeing on a Koran.

As I said earlier, try so much as being in possession of a Bible while in their country of origin. Why aren't you raising hell about that??

*****You're on the Kerry thing again? And about the flack on the Koran, nor do I put as much creedence on such an act as you seem to think I do, I think it is more degrading to the ones who commited those acts, than to the writings to the Koran, than to those whose religion it is. The people or the Koran can't be degraded by stupidity, sacriligious acts, or by urine, as our flag can't be by similar crazy actions such as burning. Just watch the people burning it aren't they a site? Burning our flag can't change one thing abour our country, but as far as the reaction over the Koran that is how the Muslims are, our men knew it and used it. That can't begin to come near beheadings and other barbaric acts which those among them are commiting, but you have to realize acts such as these by our military only inflames the Arab world, making it more dangerous for our troops, much more dangerous; all the while we say we're trying to convince the whole of the Arab world our way of life is superiour to theirs. What a way to go!

You have no idea as to how I think of the barbarism and stupidy going on in Iraq, you might have an idea from these posts, but you can't truly know my whole thought process. You don't know what I accept from the Iraqi's, or the terrorists, or the whole of the Arab world for that matter. You don't know what I expect of, or accept in anyone. I can tell you this, I want and expect better than what we're getting. This presidency has been a wreck looking for a place to happen. What a disappointment they have been and the lengths they have gone to to prop up Corporate America while letting us twist in the wind is amazing.

I want peace and harmony everybit as much as you, I want our troops to come home safe and well, free of any mental hangups or physical ailments. You don't know what it is that really drives my thought process anymore than I do yours. I want "our country" to thrive as I watch it plunging into insolvency by the second. Literally. Go on informationclearinghouse.info and watch the money just being spent in the war alone--- ticking away - up, up and away - each and every second. While doing that remember the harsh realities of war, which should come to you quite readily as you have family over there and that has to be a personal hell. No you don't have a clue as to what I want for our country, as it seems we are at opposite ends of the spectrum. We seem to see totally different ways to achieve a good outcome.

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 07:30 PM

"He defined mishandling as "touching, holding or the treatment of a Koran in a manner inconsistent with policy or procedure."

Ohhhh, the horror!!!!!

Of course, stoning someone to death for possessing a Bible, well hell, nothing wrong with that.....

You know or should realize what that report is saying, and to live in the Bronze age while driving a Bentley is another thing altogether, None of us understand anyone being so insecure in their religion that they resort to Bronze age laws and barbarism to protect it.

These acts turn so many away from any belief. Radicalism in any belief is a way most of us are disgusted by.

I don't know why it is you don't remember that the men who did the things you say didn't happen with the Koran were on television. The statement telling of their Koran, a holy book, being handled in an inappropriate maner can cover a lot of ground, you know that. This type of "speak" is used by politicians and attornies all the time. Admit it, it went on. I'm saying that the report you posted by that orginization was lazily put together and really doesn't say a whole lot, not descriptive enough about other perceived abuses as far as I could see. Not a good description of what they say went on.

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 07:42 PM

"Bad news because of this administrations policies just continues. On and on. It is so terrible. One is leery of reading or hearing the news each and every day. What on earth will they subject us and the rest of the world to next? We know something is coming, so holding our breath isn't a cure all. Perhaps the country and the congress will wake up to the damage this administration has wrought and seek to make some repairs, and if not repairs, then put in some stop gap measures of their own to end this terrible time we're in."

Sandi,

I've grown fond of our little discourses and it pains me to see the defeatism and depression you apparently live with every day. I mean that sincerely; I'm not trying to be a wise guy. It seems to be a hallmark of the left to see everything in negative terms. It might help if you stop restricting yourself to the liberal, left-wing, bash America news sources you seem to crave.

In 1981 Ronald Reagan entered the White House and immediately began to give America back its self-respect; something Jimmah Carter had practically destroyed with his failed policies.

Ah....never mind...somehow I feel I'm wasting my time.

Besides.....dinner's ready.

Yes, when it comes to Ronald Reagan, you sure are. He did some pretty dumb things and we paid and paid for it, and believe it or not, we are still paying the piper, and I never did fall in behind him. Medicine was set back thirty years because of him I was told by top doctors, one of whom was on the board of directors at the Veterans Administration. Hospital, and at UCLA Medical center, that alone is a terrible legacy.

I never felt ashamed or in despair until he took office. He could do it, like Sam 'Donaldson said, such a likable man; so interesting and fun to be around, "He would take off his shirt and give it to you, and ten minutes later walk out into the Rose Garden, and with legislation, sign everything you have away." Maybe not an exact quote, but that was the meaning.

Because I don't show anger as do you, I'm depressed? Hardly, just not liking this administration and its goofyness, because it does effect us all in too many negative ways - I don't understand you not seeing it. That's the sad part - watching everyone be led in what I see as the wrong direction.

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 08:39 PM

*****

Dozens Have Alleged Koran's Mishandling
Complaints by inmates in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba emerged early. In 2003, the Pentagon set a sensitivity policy after trouble at Guantanamo
by Richard A. Serrano and John Daniszewski
Published on Sunday, May 22, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON — Senior Bush administration officials reacted with outrage to a Newsweek report that U.S. interrogators had desecrated the Koran at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility, and the magazine retracted the story last week. But allegations of disrespectful treatment of Islam's holy book are far from rare.

An examination of hearing transcripts, court records and government documents, as well as interviews with former detainees, their lawyers, civil liberties groups and U.S. military personnel, reveals dozens of accusations involving the Koran, not only at Guantanamo, but also at American-run detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In one instance, an Iraqi detainee alleged that a soldier had a guard dog carry a copy of the Koran in its mouth. In another, guards at Guantanamo were said to have scrawled obscenities inside Korans.

The Pentagon is conducting an internal investigation of reported abuses at the naval base in Cuba, led by Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt. The administration has refused to say what the inquiry, still weeks from completion, has found so far.

But two years ago, amid allegations of desecration and hunger strikes by inmates, the Army instituted elaborate procedures for sensitive treatment of the Koran at the prison camp. Once the new procedures were in place, complaints there stopped, said the International Committee of the Red Cross, which monitors conditions in prisons and detention facilities.

The allegations, both at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, contain detailed descriptions of what Muslim prisoners said was mishandling of the Koran — sometimes in a deliberately provocative manner.

In one instance, an Iraqi detainee alleged that a soldier had a guard dog carry a copy of the Koran in its mouth. In another, guards at Guantanamo were said to have scrawled obscenities inside Korans.

Other prisoners said Korans were kicked across floors, stomped on and thrown against walls. One said a soldier urinated on his copy, and others said guards ridiculed the religious text, declaring that Allah's words would not save detainees.

Some of the alleged incidents appear to have been inadvertent or to have resulted from U.S. personnel's lack of understanding about how sensitive Muslim detainees might be to mishandling of the Koran. In several cases, for instance, copies were allegedly knocked about during scuffles with prisoners who refused to leave their cells.

In other cases, the allegations seemed to describe instances of deliberate disrespect.

"They tore it and threw it on the floor," former detainee Mohammed Mazouz said of guards at Guantanamo Bay. "They urinated on it. They walked on top of the Koran. They used the Koran like a carpet."

"We told them not to do it. We begged. And then they did it some more," said Mazouz, a Moroccan who was seized in Pakistan soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Recently released, he described the alleged incidents in a telephone interview from his home in Marrakech.

Ahmad Naji Abid Ali Dulaymi, who was held at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq for 10 months, singled out a soldier or noncommissioned officer known to detainees only as "Fox." He said prisoners were forced to sit naked, were licked by dogs, and were soaked in cold water and then forced to sit in front of a powerful air-conditioner.

"But frankly," he said, "the worst insult and humiliation they were doing to us, especially for the religious ones among us, is when they, especially Fox, tore up holy books of Koran and threw them away into the trash or into dirty water.

"Almost every day, Fox used to take a brand new Koran, and tear off the plastic cover in front of us and then throw it away into the trash container."

The hunger strikes erupted in 2002 at Guantanamo when word swept the camp that Korans were being desecrated. In response, the Defense Department's Southern Command, which oversees the prison, issued four pages of guidelines instructing soldiers in the proper way of "inspecting and handling" Korans.

In essence, the books are generally to be handled only by Muslim chaplains working for the military, and guards were instructed not to touch the Koran unless absolutely necessary.

Muslims revere the Koran as the word of God and have rules for handling it. It is always kept in a high place with nothing on top of it. A ritual ablution is required before touching a copy, which must be held above the waist. Some Muslims hold that nonbelievers must not touch the holy book.

At that time, the Red Cross was fielding similar complaints from prisoners, and with the January 2003 written policy the problems seemed to cease.

"The ICRC believes the U.S. authorities did take corrective measures," said Simon Schorno, a spokesman in Washington.

Other sensitivity training is continuing. At Ft. Lewis in Washington state, guards and other soldiers headed to Guantanamo Bay and other facilities go through classes and exercises to increase awareness of Arab and Muslim customs, said Lt. Col. Warren Perry. Much of the training deals specifically with the Koran.

"Don't step on it, don't bump it, don't disrespect it," he said.

When handling a Koran can't be avoided, Perry said, soldiers are taught "to wash hands or put on sterile gloves before you touch."

But several military officials suggested it was ridiculous to think guards and interrogators would bother to desecrate the Koran in an environment as dangerous as a military prison.

"There were scuffles, there were problems, the prisoners were not happy," recalled Army Lt. Col. Raymond A. Tetreault, a Catholic priest and chaplain at Guantanamo Bay during 2002.

He said prisoners sometimes physically resisted when being removed from cells and belongings such as the Koran would be inadvertently knocked around. Other times the books had to be opened and inspected by guards to make sure weapons or other contraband were not hidden inside, he said.

"The guards were trying to do their job, and the detainees were not happy being there," Tetreault said.

Acknowledging that detainees continue to raise allegations of Koran mistreatment, the chaplain said, "Well, it's human nature to embellish a little bit."

Some reports on alleged Koran desecration have suggested it was sometimes a tactic to get prisoners to talk, but four interrogators interviewed by The Times said they never saw intentional mishandling of the Koran, or even its use as a prop during an interrogation.

"We never took the Koran into an interrogation or used it in any way against them," said Paul Holton, a chief warrant officer with the Army National Guard in Utah who questioned high-level Iraqi military officers after the U.S.-led invasion.

"It was just understood that that was off-limits." It was also considered counterproductive, he said.

"We figured it was going to bring about additional anger and hatred toward us," Holton said. "With certain fanatical and religious types, you don't want to inflame them and give them further reason to dislike us, even in an interrogation. They just become more firm, more staunch and more resistant."

An interrogator who served at Guantanamo Bay said he received no formal sensitivity training, and that there were miscues that offended Muslims.

When Korans were delivered to the prison, he said, guards issuing the holy books "would put them on the floor and a lot of the devout Muslims went nuts right away."

Later, guards allowed detainees to cradle their Korans in surgical masks hung from the mesh walls of their cells. The soldiers called them "Koran hammocks."

The recent furor began after Newsweek magazine reported in its May 9 issue that Schmidt and his investigators "have confirmed" several infractions, including an incident where a Koran was flushed down a toilet.

The news item was blamed for a series of protests overseas. At least 14 people died in rioting in Afghanistan and protests were held in several other countries.

On May 15, Newsweek acknowledged that there were errors in the story, saying its source had backed away from an assertion that military investigators had concluded that a Koran had been flushed down a toilet. The next day the magazine retracted the story. "Based on what we know now," said Editor Mark Whitaker, "we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay."

Newsweek also apologized and expressed regret about the violence. But the anger in the Muslim world — and in the White House — has not dissipated.

On Friday, about 500 British Muslims prayed and chanted anti-U.S. slogans like "Desecrate today, die tomorrow," in front of the U.S. Embassy in London.

Martin Mubanga, a Zambian who was detained at Guantanamo Bay, participated in the rally. In an interview with The Times, he said two guards made him kneel and held his wrists in locked positions while others searched his cell. His Koran was thrown to the floor; "I saw it in the corner of my eye," he said.

As the protests continued over the last two weeks, Bush administration officials sought not only to denounce Newsweek, but also to state that the Pentagon did not deem the allegations credible. At the Pentagon, chief spokesman Lawrence Di Rita repeatedly dismissed them as untruths.

"We anticipate, and have seen, in fact, all manner of statements made by detainees," he said, "many of whom as members of Al Qaeda were trained to allege abuse and torture and all manner of other things."

The allegations have come in many forums.

Five former prisoners have told The Times of Koran desecration. Jamal Harith, a British Muslim, said interrogators at Guantanamo often kicked or knocked his Koran around. He said guards once deliberately targeted his holy book while hosing down his cell.

"Everybody was upset, but when you are in Cuba you learn to accept," Harith said after his return to Britain. "You accept it as the norm when you are in there."

Other accounts from former detainees have been posted on the Internet. Tarek Dergoul, another British Muslim who was held at Guantanamo Bay, recalled soldiers insulting Islam.

"They used to read the English translation of the Koran with their feet up, mocking, for example saying, 'There are more questions in it than answers,' " he said.

Other times, Dergoul said, they "ripped up" Korans. When some soldiers were rotating out of Cuba they would write obscenities in the Korans.

And some allegations are contained in lawsuits, such as one filed against Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by seven men held in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One of the plaintiffs is Arkan M. Ali, who was held by U.S. authorities in Iraq for nearly a year, part of that time at Abu Ghraib.

Ali listed 11 incidents of torture and abuse. He said he was twice beaten unconscious during interrogations. He said his arm was stabbed and sliced, his forearm shocked and burned. He said he was locked for several days in a wooden coffin-like box, sometimes naked except for a hood over his head.

But it is his 11th and final allegation that in today's clamor over the Koran that stands out. Ali said U.S. soldiers repeatedly desecrated the Koran in front of him and other prisoners, "including having a military dog pick up the Koran in its mouth."

Serrano reported from Washington and Daniszewski from London. Staff writers Nicole Gaouette, John Hendren, Mark Mazzetti and Greg Miller in Washington contributed to this report.
###
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0522-02.htm

More to come on this issue

I don't pretend to understand the Arab, or Muslim mindset, that is not something I believe I have a even a distant grasp of, but I do know that we are being lowgrade and stupid about the issues surrounding our dealings with them, friend or foe. We are becoming like our enemy, we are sinking lower and lower with our own self esteem. This needs to end.

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 08:51 PM

*****

Published on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 by the Wall Street Journal
Some Conservatives Return To Old Argument
Outside Advocacy Group Aims To Rally Support by Backing Bush's Initial Claims on Iraq

by Yochi J. Dreazen and John D. McKinnon

WASHINGTON –The television commercials are attention-grabbing: Newly found Iraqi documents show that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, including anthrax and mustard gas, and had "extensive ties" to al Qaeda. The discoveries are being covered up by those "willing to undermine support for the war on terrorism to selfishly advance their shameless political ambitions."
The hard-hitting spots are part of a recent public-relations barrage aimed at reversing a decline in public support for President Bush's handling of Iraq. But these advertisements aren't paid for by the Republican National Committee or other established White House allies. Instead, they are sponsored by Move America Forward, a media-savvy outside advocacy group that has become one of the loudest -- and most controversial -- voices in the Iraq debate.

While even Mr. Bush now publicly acknowledges the mistakes his administration made in judging the threat posed by Mr. Hussein, the organization is taking to the airwaves to insist that the White House was right all along.

Similar to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- the advocacy group that helped derail John Kerry's presidential campaign -- Move America Forward has magnified its reach by making small television and radio ad buys and then relying on cable- and local-television news outlets to give the commercials heavy coverage. Move America Forward has no discernible formal ties to the White House or the Republican National Committee, and the group says it operates independently from the Republican Party establishment. Still, the organization provides a clear benefit to the administration by spreading a pro-war message that goes beyond what administration officials can say publicly.

The effect of the ads hasn't been measured. Amid a simultaneous flurry of speeches by the president and a ramped-up RNC effort aimed at boosting the war, polls show that Mr. Bush's job-approval ratings, specifically his handling of the Iraq situation, have risen this month from all-time lows.

"The White House has really done a poor job of getting the message out, which is why we've had to step into the breach," says California-based Republican political strategist Sal Russo, one of the group's three founders. "They should do a better job of coordinating with those willing to get out and tell the story. We shouldn't be the only ones out here fighting."

The White House didn't return several calls seeking comment. A Republican National Committee spokesman declined to comment.

Move America Forward has raised more than $1 million, mainly in small donations, over the past two years. The group grew out of the successful 2003 effort to recall Democratic California Gov. Gray Davis. It was officially founded in 2004 by Mr. Russo, whose company provides office space for the organization; Melanie Morgan, a conservative San Francisco radio host; and Howard Kaloogian, a Republican former state assemblyman seeking the congressional seat of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who resigned recently after admitting to taking bribes from defense contractors.

One of their early efforts was a campaign supporting John Bolton's contentious nomination as United Nations ambassador. Another involved backing U.S. detention policies at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by selling "I [Heart] Gitmo" bumper stickers.

When the White House was caught flat-footed this summer by the emergence of Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier turned vocal administration critic, Move America Forward sent pro-war protesters to her camp in Texas and mounted a parallel bus tour of war supporters that culminated in a large rally in Washington. The counter-Sheehan campaign showed how the organization has raised its profile by staging well-publicized rallies and public events that attract substantial media coverage, even if the number of participants is relatively low.

In July, with the administration facing a torrent of negative media coverage of the war in Iraq, Move America Forward sent five conservative radio-talk-show hosts to U.S. military bases in Baghdad for a week of upbeat broadcasts. Ms. Morgan says that, during her time in Iraq, she rode up and down the so-called highway of death leading from Baghdad's airport seven times to prove to her listeners that it wasn't as dangerous as media reports suggested.

In addition to his Iraq political work in the U.S., Mr. Russo has an open-ended political-advertising contract with the Kurdish Regional Government in northern Iraq for whom he produces advertisements that run in the U.S. seeking investment in Kurdistan. Some critics accuse him of having a vested financial interest in prolonging the U.S. presence there.

Liberals question how the group has maintained its status as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization, which requires strict nonpartisanship, given the anti-Democratic tone of its campaigns. The group's Web site, www.moveamericaforward.org1, for example, attacks the current chairman of the Democratic National Committee, referring to "Howard Dean types who only see a future of failure for this country."

"When you have people participating in partisan activities with nonprofit dollars, that's really something the IRS needs to look at," says Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org, another frequent target for Move America Forward's rhetoric. "An organization with a shady tax status participating in partisan activities and saying things that aren't true is a rogue element in American politics."

An Internal Revenue Service spokeswoman declined to address the issue, saying that it is agency policy not to "comment on individual taxpayers or organizations." MoveOn is a "political action committee," meaning its donations aren't tax-deductible and must be disclosed.

Move America Forward officials acknowledge that the group's leadership is conservative, but insist they are nonpartisan and point out that the organization also has criticized Republicans. They say that the organization has no connections to the Bush administration or the Republican Party and has been unable to get meetings with White House personnel. And they say there is no conflict between the organization's advocacy work and Mr. Russo's financial ties to the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq.

"If you consider being pro-America and pro-troop to be Republican, then we'll proudly take that label," Ms. Morgan says. "But we've never been embraced by the White House or made part of a secret-right wing conspiracy."

Indeed, Ms. Morgan says she is baffled that the White House no longer makes the case that Mr. Hussein had WMDs. The White House dropped the claims after a variety of investigators found no evidence to substantiate them. But Ms. Morgan says her ads are justified, based on documents given to her in Iraq by an Iraqi general she identified as Abdul Qader Jassim, and on information from U.S. officials involved in the hunt for weapons there. She believes Mr. Hussein possessed WMDs, and that those weapons remain in Iraq today. It couldn't be ascertained that Mr. Jassim is a general and he couldn't be reached for comment.

The organization has kept up a steady drumbeat of pro-military and pro-war commercials in recent weeks. Its newest radio ads, timed to the holiday season, feature parents of service people killed in Iraq or on their way back to the country. In one spot, a woman described as military parent Deborah Johns observes that the "the terrorists know they can not defeat our military -- they can only win by beating down the morale of the American people."

Several Move America Forward officials hope to participate in the Iraq debate more actively than through mere advocacy. Mr. Kaloogian has an early fund-raising lead in the crowded field of Republicans hoping to succeed Mr. Cunningham, the former U.S. representative who resigned after admitting taking bribes. And Move America Forward Executive Director Robert Dixon, furious over a recent troop withdrawal resolution passed by the Sacramento City Council, is weighing a run for a seat in the hopes of getting the declaration reversed.© 2005 Wall Street Journal

http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=168461

truthseeker

December 28th, 2005, 09:04 PM

Yes, when it comes to Ronald Reagan, you sure are. He did some pretty dumb things and we paid and paid for it, and believe it or not, we are still paying the piper, and I never did fall in behind him. Medicine was set back thirty years because of him I was told by top doctors, one of whom was on the board of directors at the Veterans Administration. Hospital, and at UCLA Medical center, that alone is a terrible legacy.

I never felt ashamed or in despair until he took office. He could do it, like Sam 'Donaldson said, such a likable man; so interesting and fun to be around, "He would take off his shirt and give it to you, and ten minutes later walk out into the Rose Garden, and with legislation, sign everything you have away." Maybe not an exact quote, but that was the meaning.

Because I don't show anger as do you, I'm depressed? Hardly, just not liking this administration and its goofyness, because it does effect us all in too many negative ways - I don't understand you not seeing it. That's the sad part - watching everyone be led in what I see as the wrong direction.

Well, I'm on my way to bed, but for starters, can you dispute the ended the Cold War. Something no one had been able to do for 40 years?? And he did it by ignoring the libs.

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 09:20 PM

*
The storm that keeps killingIn post-Katrina New Orleans, despair is the enemy
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Chris Rose
She had a nice house in Old Metairie, a nice car, a great job, a good man who loved her and a wedding date in October.

A good life.

He was from Atlanta and had moved here to be with her because she is a New Orleans girl and New Orleans girls never live anywhere else and even if they do, they always come back.

That's just the way it is.

For the hurricane, they fled to Atlanta. His city. His people.

Meantime, her house was destroyed, her car was destroyed and within days, she was laid off from her job. And, of course, the wedding here in New Orleans was canceled.

When all settled down, he wanted to stay in Atlanta. But she is a New Orleans girl and you know the rest. Equanimity courses through our blood as much as platelets and nitrogen -- it is part of our DNA -- so she was determined to return, rebuild, recover.

So they moved back here.

A few weeks ago, they moved into my neighborhood. She arrived first. That afternoon, she came over and joined the group that sits on my stoop every night solving the world's problems.

I introduced her around to the local gang and welcomed her back to the neighborhood; she had been a neighbor many years ago.

Like many Post-Katrina First Timers, she was a wreck on that first night. Didn't say much. Just sat there. Not the girl I used to know. But then, who is?

To add to her troubles that first night, her fiance, who was following her to New Orleans that morning in a rented truck, had gotten a flat tire outside of Mobile and was stranded on the side of the road.

She drove on because she had the pets in her car. He called the rental company for help; it wasn't the kind of vehicle with a tire that just any John Doe can change.

He called the trucking company all day. They kept telling him that they would be there within an hour and that's what he told her so she waited. We all waited.

By 8 p.m., he got fed up with the trucking company and called them and told them he had started the engine and was going to drive to New Orleans on the exposed tire rim. And that's what he did, calling the trucking company every few minutes to give a new location.

When she related this news to us, we all knew right then that we would like this guy.

Naturally, the trucking company showed up within minutes and changed the tire. He arrived late that night. He met all the neighbors and they all knew the story of him driving on the rim and they all thought that was hilarious.

And so their new life began on my block. They were one of us now, the survivors, the determined, the hopeful, the building blocks of the New City. Members of the tribe.

They settled in. I used to see them walking in the park and reading the paper on their front porch and occasionally they sat on my stoop, and life went on.

But I guess things were not going so well. She was always pretty grim -- not the girl I used to know -- but he seemed jolly enough and we would talk in the 'Hey, how ya doin'?' kind of way.

Turns out, he couldn't stand it here. And, truthfully, if you weren't from here, didn't have a history here, didn't have roux in your blood and a stake in it all: Would you want to be here?

I wouldn't.

But she is a New Orleans girl. To hell with no house, no car, no job, no prospects. This is where she belonged. And her mama lives here. End of discussion.

He moved back to Atlanta. She stayed. He came back. Try again. Work it out. Whatever it takes.

A few nights ago, they drank wine and in some sort of stupid Romeo and Juliet moment, decided that they would kill themselves because all hope was lost and living here amongst the garbage and the rot and the politics and the profound sense of failure was sucking the marrow out of their bones.

Not even love could overcome. Here, in the smoking ruins of Pompeii, sometimes it's hard to see the light.

She told friends later that she didn't really think they would do it. Said they got caught in the moment and let the bad stuff crawl all over their minds. The darkness can be so damn dark and they weren't thinking straight. But she didn't think they were really going to do it.

But he did. Right then, right there.

So he's dead, and a family in Atlanta has lost a son, a brother, a friend. Another notch in Katrina's belt.

My stoop is empty these nights. None of us really knows what to say anymore.

This is the next cycle. Suicide. All the doctors, psychologists and mental health experts tell us the same thing: This is what happens next in a phenomenon like this. But has there ever been a phenomenon like this?

Where are we now in our descent through Dante's nine circles of hell?

God help us.

The most open, joyous, free-wheeling, celebratory city in the country is broken, hurting, down on its knees. Failing. Begging for help.

Somebody turn this movie off; I don't want to watch it anymore. I want a slow news day. I want a no news day.

A friend of mine who used to live here said on the phone from Philadelphia the other day: "I don't know how you guys can even get out of bed in the morning."

Well, obviously, some of us don't.

But we have to try. We have to fight this thing until there is no fight left. This cannot be the way we go out, by our own hands.

My neighbor is in a hospital in another part of the state now, learning how to deal. She talked to friends over the weekend and said she is not going to run away from this. She is a New Orleans girl and this is where she is going to stay and try again. And again. And again.

She told her friends this weekend that she still has hope.

I don't know what flavor of hope that she's got, or how she got it, but if she's got a taste of it in her mouth, then the rest of us can take a little spoonful and try to make it through another day, another week, another lifetime.

It's the least we can do.

. . . . . . . Columnist Chris Rose can be reached at chris.rose@timespicayune.com
Suicide rate up in New Orleans

Suicide rate up in New Orleans
12/27/2005 @ 3:32 am
Filed by RAW STORY
Mental health professionals say this city appears to be experiencing a sharp increase in suicides in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and interviews and statistics suggest that the rate is now double or more the national and local averages, the New York Times will report Tuesday, RAW STORY has learned. Excerpts:

Katrina Leaves Widespread Depression in Her Wake
By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter
MONDAY, Dec. 12 (HealthDay News) -- Those who suffered the wrath of Hurricane Katrina didn't just lose their homes.

They lost what Columbia University psychiatrist Dr. Mindy T. Fullilove calls their "way of being in the world" -- their families, their neighborhoods, their communities.

And this overwhelming obliteration is triggering mental-health ramifications of an unprecedented magnitude.

"There has been a virtual explosion in the number of patients I'm seeing with post-Katrina depression , stress anxiety and insomnia," said Dr. Barry Goldman, an internal medicine physician with the Ochsner Clinic Foundation in New Orleans. "I have written more antidepressant, sleep medications and anti-anxiety prescriptions in the last seven weeks than I have in the last seven months."

The problems show up as fatigue, malaise, anxiety, insomnia, crying, marital discord -- even suicide.

And they will only be compounded by the onslaught of the stress-filled holidays and a shortage of mental health-care providers in the region.

"People have a great sense of loss and insecurity," said Goldman.

But that loss is really a series of catastrophic losses so mammoth in its proportions that most people can't even begin to comprehend it.

"It's not just the destruction of a home," explained Dr. Alvin Rouchell, Ochsner's chairman of psychiatry. "One woman lost her home, her church, her supermarket; her three children are in three different states. The whole city is down. The New Orleans we knew and grew up in is forever going to be different. There is going to be a sadness throughout the city."

Fullilove calls it "root shock," also the title of her book, an examination of the upheaval wrought by U.S. urban renewal projects in the mid-20th century.

"It's a whole region more or less crippled," Fullilove said. "A whole region is teetering, so the losses relate to the history and culture, the politics, everything that the people have. The losses are more massive than we can even imagine."

With losses comes grief, sometimes "spectacularly high levels," Fullilove said.

And with grief comes despair.

"Grief and despair are twins," Fullilove said. "If you've lost a lot of stuff, if no one is helping you, FEMA won't give you a housing voucher, then despair sets in."

But now, nearly four months after Katrina's fury, residents of the Gulf Coast have an additional trauma, a "betrayal trauma" resulting from the reaction -- or non-reaction -- of the rest of the nation to their devastation.

"Betrayal trauma is not just limited to the slowness of the rescue but is now in this ambivalence of the nation," Fullilove said. "Instead of saying, 'This is an important region of the nation and of course we're going to repair it,' we're debating are we even going to do anything about this stuff. This is a whole other terrible, terrible thing that really eats up the soul of the people."

More than 1,300 people were killed by Katrina, while thousands remain homeless along the Gulf Coast, according to the Associated Press. One survey found that 53 percent of Louisiana residents reported feeling depressed. Before Katrina, the National Suicide Prevention hotline averaged 3,000 calls per month nationwide. Since then, the calls have doubled, with most new calls coming from the affected areas.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which just unveiled new public service announcements encouraging affected people to seek mental health services, estimates that 25 percent to 30 percent of the population in areas significantly affected by Katrina may experience "clinically significant" mental health needs, with an additional 10 percent to 20 percent experiencing "sub-clinical, but not trivial" needs. Half a million people may be in need of assistance.

So, psychiatrists and other health-care professionals are doing what they can -- prescribing counseling, drugs, support groups. And it can help, at least some.

"Can you alleviate some of the sense of anxiety? Indeed you can, if someone is having a lot of anxiety," Fullilove said. "Does that restore the world? No, it doesn't."

SOURCES: Mindy T. Fullilove, M.D., professor, clinical psychiatry and public health, Columbia University, New York City, and author, Root Shock; Barry Goldman, M.D., member, internal medicine section, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans; Alvin Rouchell, M.D., chairman, psychiatry, Ocshner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans; Associated Press

ScoutNews

#
At least seven people have killed themselves in the four months since the storm, officials say, here in a city whose population is now no more than 75,000 to 100,000.

That compares with a national rate of 11 suicides per 100,000 for all of 2002, and a rate in New Orleans of about 9 per 100,000 for all of 2004. There is broad agreement that the problem is likely to get worse.

Developing... RAW NEWS
*****
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56975

Just one of the websites with these articles, lost the other page,
[Not enough is being done around the world to help those who are in most need. Now we hear that monies the Red Cross took in won't reach Tsunami victims until June. Surely this is erroneous? If June for them, how long for our people from our own Gulf Region? SRH ...]

Saundra Hummer

December 28th, 2005, 09:40 PM

Well, I'm on my way to bed, but for starters, can you dispute the ended the Cold War. Something no one had been able to do for 40 years?? And he did it by ignoring the libs.

The cold war ended for several reasons, and here are just a few of them: The Soviets went broke building up arms and their war machine, Afghanistan was their Vietnam. Ring any bells? Iraq? Ding? Iraq? Dong? The cold war ended because of corruption and vice, because of their not tending to business at home like improving farming practices, and overall production of needed goods. They didn't have the means to insure enough exports to have a healthy economy as well, there were very few goods for export, while they depended on foreign products to keep them alive. Not even their satellites could sustain them. Then they wouldn't allow their people opportunities in free enterprise. They were well on their way to collapse before Ronald Reagan watched the statutes of limitations run out on his being prosecuted for misuse of Screen Actors Guilds funds. Well maybe a bit after, but so much for making you feel good, because of Reagan that is. Check that one out, that is a true one as well. Not MSN make believe as you seem to think everything you read is, unless it suits your purpose.

Saundra Hummer

December 29th, 2005, 12:23 AM

*******
EXPENSIVE PUZZLE TO BUY
For Sale: Island with a Mysterious Money Pit
By Heather Whipps
Special to LiveScience
posted: 07 November 2005
09:39 am ET

It may look like a fixer-upper at first glance, but what is buried beneath scrubby little Oak Island might just make its estimated $7 million price tag worth the investment.

Oak Island, in Nova Scotia, is famous for its Money Pit, a mystery that has endured two centuries, claimed six lives and swallowed up millions in life savings.

The Pit was discovered in 1795 by a local boy named Daniel McGinnis who, spotting an unusual clearing in the earth under one of the island's oak trees, was prompted to start digging. The discovery of layered planks, mysterious stone slabs, and mats made of coconut fibers descending deep into the ground turned his casual afternoon dig into an all-out excavation.

Investors and thrill-seekers would eventually jump in and continue the work, kicking off one of the world's longest running treasure hunts.

Complex trap
What appears to be a complex flooding trap has thwarted efforts to reach the bottom of the Money Pit ever since. Some think the pit was purposely flooded with seawater, via a series of artificial swamps and tunnels, to hide its contents.

Through the murk, drill borings and shafts dug by the island's series of owners have detected what seem to be cement vaulting, wooden chests, and scraps of parchment paper. Radiocarbon dating of these artifacts is consistent: whoever constructed the shaft likely did so sometime in the 16th Century.

Speculation about the contents of Oak Island's Money Pit range from the treasure of the Knight's Templar to Shakespeare's original manuscripts.

Oak Island's current owners, Dan Blankenship and David Tobias, have worked on the island since the 1960s, sinking millions of dollars into the project and revealing some intriguing clues of their own. For many who follow Oak Island developments, their abandonment of the treasure comes as a surprise. As recently as December of 2003, Blankenship told the Halifax Herald that he would announce some new, exciting findings in the following months. The revelation never came.

What's it worth?
The treasure's fate -- assuming there is treasure -- now rests on the outcome of the sale. Court-appointed liquidators in Nova Scotia are currently wrapping up the evaluation of Oak Island's market worth, with an announcement expected before the end of the year.

A growing movement led by the Oak Island Tourism Society calls for the governments of Canada or Nova Scotia to purchase Oak Island and exploit its potential as a major attraction. It seems for now the governments have little interest in throwing their hats into the ring of potential bidders, and that has many who've follow the island's saga breathing sighs of relief.

"The ideal candidate would be an individual or group with a genuine interest in and means to carry out professional archaeological work", Mark Finnan, author of "Oak Island Secrets" (Formac, 1997) told LiveScience in an e-mail interview.

Finnan believes Oak Island has not seen the last of the aging treasure-seeker Dan Blankenship, either.

"He has a strong hunch about the nature of the treasure and may yet pass on his findings to the new owners of the land or even participate in a new exploration effort," Finnan said.

The original pit dug by Daniel McGinnis and friends is thought to be located a short distance behind this shaft, and this is where a great deal of excavation activity has taken place over the past 200 years. Photo by David Van Vugt on a recent tour; used with permission.

> Click to View(photo on-site)

Looking across Smith's Cove from Oak Island. Coconut fiber found here is thought to have been used as a drainage mechanism to supply the flood tunnels with the sea water necessary to flood the Money Pit. The flood tunnels reach the sea, just beyond the beach. Photo by Joanna Atherton on a recent tour; used with permission.
> Click to View(photo on-site)

The Oak Island swamp is thought by some to be artificial and part of the larger workings of the Pit. Photo by David Van Vugt on a recent tour; used with permission.
> Click to View(photo's on-site)

Oak Island is littered with shafts and debris from past attempts to reach the Money Pit. In center of the Borehole 10x shack is one of the shafts. Photo by David Van Vugt on a recent tour; used with permission.
> Click to View(photo"s on-site

Other articles on-site
Archaeologists Unveil Pompeii Treasure
Bulgarians Find Gold Treasure to Match Troy
Mystery Ocean Glow Confirmed in Satellite Photos
Murky History of Quirky 'Da Vinci Code' Chapel
Investigators Search for Canadian Lake Monster
The Reality of Bigfoot
There are many more topics and articles on this site, really diverse and fascinating ones, historical, topical, current, as well as scientific articles.
http://www.livescience.com/history/051107_oak_island.html

Coolguy

December 29th, 2005, 12:58 AM

Well, I'm on my way to bed, but for starters, can you dispute the ended the Cold War. Something no one had been able to do for 40 years?? And he did it by ignoring the libs.
What Bullshit! He ran up deficits, cut social programs, ignored the spread of AIDS at a time it might have been capped, and outspent the Soviet Union with his insane arms race and "Star Wars." He even opposed ending apartheid in South Africa. So the Berlin Wall went down. Fine. But with the demise of the "Red Menace" the Balkans erupted in genocidal warfare. Some of the former SSR's have become fascist police states riddled with racists and neo-Nazis. Russia itself is still corrupt and dictatorial, ruled by a KGB bureaucrat and rife with poverty, prostitution, drugs, and vicious organized crime. What Reagan did was help turn these countries into playing fields for multinational capitalism. But his "ending the Cold War" unleashed much poverty, suffering, and violent nationalism. The world is still paying a heavy price. I am by no means defending Stalinism or any type of political repression, but all things considered, worse things have happened since the "fall of communism." Don't you love those unintended consequences? Just ask folks in many other countries to name the "Evil Empire" and they'll probably point to the good old USA.

Saundra Hummer

December 29th, 2005, 02:33 PM

*****
Anti-Imperialists Beware - Bush Is Reading Again

By Jim Lobe
Inter Press Service

Thursday 29 December 2005

Washinghton - The Reader-in-Chief is at it again, and anti-imperialists around the world have reason to be concerned.

According to the White House, U.S. President George W. Bush has taken two books with him to Texas for his holiday reading, which he will presumably indulge between his favourite ranch pursuits - clearing brush and biking.

The first is about his most admired role model, Theodore Roosevelt, the other on the wonders being achieved by U.S. soldiers around the world.

The choices are not unimportant. Indeed, Bush is known to read so little - both for official business and for diversion - and to be so impressed by the few books he does read that it is imperative for people who are paid to know what's happening in Washington to find out what's on the president's nightstand when he turns out the light.

As the U.S. was gearing up for war in Iraq in the summer of 2002, for example, reporters noticed that Bush had tucked under his arm a rather scholarly - and hence unlikely - book, "Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen and Leadership in Wartime", a book by Elliot Cohen, a neo-conservative military historian and friend of then-Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz

The book argued that great civilian leaders, including Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill and Georges Clemenceau, made far better commanders than the generals who demanded that they be given a free hand in conducting the war. It was perfectly timed for persuading Bush to stand up to the recommendations of the top brass that he deploy far more troops to invade and occupy Iraq than what Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and prominent neo-conservatives were calling for.

Similarly, Bush was given a copy of right-wing Israeli politician and former Soviet political prisoner Natan Sharansky's "The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror" immediately after its publication in late 2004, and was so impressed by its argument for an aggressive pro-democracy policy in the Arab world that the White House asked the author to interrupt a book tour for a personal visit. "I'm already halfway through your book," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reportedly told Sharansky when he showed up the next day. "Do you know why I'm reading it? I'm reading it because the president is reading it, and it's my job to know what the president is thinking." Passages in the book were subsequently incorporated into Bush's 2004 inaugural address. It is in this context that Bush's latest selections should be analysed. The first, "When Trumpets Call: Theodore Roosevelt After the White House", concerns his favourite presidential antecedent, whose famous or infamous 1904 Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine shortly after the Spanish-American War heralded Washington's claim to great-power status and its right to intervene unilaterally anywhere in the Americas against "chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilised society".

The choice may suggest that Bush, who clearly subscribes to the "great man" theory of history that was the rage in Roosevelt's time, is contemplating a very active retirement. If it doesn't take him on safari in Africa or on scientific expeditions to the Amazon (unlikely pastimes for a man who by all accounts is an unenthusiastic and incurious traveler), it could make him a permanent force in the Republican Party and for the kind of aggressive nationalism that Roosevelt espoused through much of his career.

The second book on Bush's reading list, "Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground" by Robert Kaplan is far more worrisome in its implications, at least for the remaining three years of his presidency.

Kaplan, who began his career as a self-described "travel writer" in the 1980s, has evolved into a political thinker whose outlook is explicitly imperialist - a term that he has used and re-used in recent years with unabashed approval - and, in the words of one conservative reviewer and retired Army colonel, Andrew Bacevich, "reactionary".

In his view (and one that would be shockingly familiar to Roosevelt in his "Rough Riding" days in Cuba more than 100 years ago), the "war on terror" and associated conflicts is simply a repeat of the U.S. Army's Indian Wars, but on a nearly planetary scale.

Instead of the Great Plains and western reaches of the 19th century U.S., however, today's "Injun Country", as Kaplan calls it, consists of the entire Islamic world, from the southern Philippines to Mauritania, as well as other un-governed or misgoverned areas in desperate need of order and civilisation.

And who best to civilise these places and their inhabitants than the U.S. military, specifically the "imperial grunts" with whom Kaplan embedded himself - no doubt with the enthusiastic support of the Pentagon and probably Rumsfeld himself - for weeks at a time in various parts of the world on three continents, and who, not incidentally, bear a striking resemblance to Bush's own self-image?

In contrast to the "elites" and "global cosmopolitans" who dominate the media, the State Department, Washington think tanks and academia, and the Democratic Party, these soldiers are "people who hunted, drove pickups, employed profanities as a matter of dialect, and yet had a literal, demonstrable belief in the Almighty", according to Kaplan.

He offers remarkable praise for the war-fighting traditions of "the gleaming officers corps of the Confederacy" - that is, the military arm of the slave-owning southern states, including Bush's Texas, during the Civil War - and for the present-day "martial evangelicalism of the South".

In a "Hobbesian world" where U.S. military commands and deployments span every continent, U.S. imperialism is not a choice, but rather a necessity, just as it was for the British in the late 19th century, according to Kaplan, who argues that Washington's "righteous responsibility (is) to advance the boundaries of free society and good government into zones of sheer chaos".

In one telling piece of analysis, he describes the presumed thoughts of a Filipino in Zamboanga, presumably a descendant of Moro who resisted, at the cost of tens of thousands of their lives, U.S. imperialism 100 years ago: "His smiling, naïve eyes cried out for what we in the West call colonialism."

With a message like that, it's not difficult to imagine Bush, who has met with Kaplan at least once before in the White House, requesting a return visit, in which case it may be useful to review the kinds of policy recommendations he is likely to make.

A U.S. withdrawal from Iraq now, Kaplan has predicted, would result in a "real bloodbath" and a reversal of liberalisation in the Arab world, including the reconstitution of Lebanon by the Syrians "in their own totalitarian image".

He has also cautioned against China's growing political and economic clout in the world. "Unless we begin military cooperation with Indonesia, for instance, at some point the Indonesian military will be captured by the Chinese in some form." -------

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122905M.shtml

truthseeker

December 29th, 2005, 03:15 PM

What Bullshit! He ran up deficits, cut social programs, ignored the spread of AIDS at a time it might have been capped, and outspent the Soviet Union with his insane arms race and "Star Wars." He even opposed ending apartheid in South Africa. So the Berlin Wall went down. Fine. But with the demise of the "Red Menace" the Balkans erupted in genocidal warfare. Some of the former SSR's have become fascist police states riddled with racists and neo-Nazis. Russia itself is still corrupt and dictatorial, ruled by a KGB bureaucrat and rife with poverty, prostitution, drugs, and vicious organized crime. What Reagan did was help turn these countries into playing fields for multinational capitalism. But his "ending the Cold War" unleashed much poverty, suffering, and violent nationalism. The world is still paying a heavy price. I am by no means defending Stalinism or any type of political repression, but all things considered, worse things have happened since the "fall of communism." Don't you love those unintended consequences? Just ask folks in many other countries to name the "Evil Empire" and they'll probably point to the good old USA.

So, I guess you'd prefer nuclear proliferation between the superpowers...good for you. The "insane arms race" ended the cold war. Don't be such a fool.

Lot of good Jimmah Carter did. Skyrocketing interest rates, astronomical unemployment, gas shortages, a hostage situation he couldn't begin to handle, etc., etc.

The hostages were released the day Reagan was inaugerated. Why?? Because the knew he was NO Jimmy Carter.

It's called peace throught strength. And if Clinton hadn't undone it, they would never have had the balls to attack us.

You don't have a clue.

truthseeker

December 29th, 2005, 03:19 PM

truthseeker

December 29th, 2005, 03:36 PM

December 29, 2005, 8:21 a.m.
The Plague of Success
The paradox of ever-increasing expectations.

After September 11 national-security-minded Democratic politicians fell over each other, voting for all sorts of tough measures. They passed the Patriot Act, approved the war in Afghanistan, voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein, and nodded when they were briefed about Guantanamo or wiretap intercepts of suspect phone calls to and from the Middle East.

After the anthrax scare, the arrests of dozens of terrorist cells, and a flurry of al Qaeda fatwas, most Americans thought another attack was imminent — and wanted their politicians to think the same. Today's sourpuss, Senator Harry Reid, once was smiling at a photo-op at the signing of the Patriot Act to record to his constituents that he was darn serious about terrorism. So we have forgotten that most of us after 9/11 would never have imagined that the United States would remain untouched for over four years after that awful cloud of ash settled over the crater at the World Trade Center.

Now the horror of 9/11 and the sight of the doomed diving into the street fade. Gone mostly are the flags on the cars, and the orange and red alerts. The Democrats and the Left, in their amnesia, and as beneficiaries of the very policies they suddenly abhor, now mention al Qaeda very little and Islamic fascism hardly at all.

Apparently due to the success of George Bush at keeping the United States secure, he, not Osama bin Laden, can now more often be the target of a relieved Left — deserving of assassination in an Alfred Knopf novel, an overseer of Nazi policies according to a U.S. senator, a buffoon, and rogue in the award-winning film of Michael Moore. Yes, because we did so well against the real enemies, we soon had the leisure to invent new imaginary ones in Bush/Cheney, Halliburton, the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft, and Scooter Libby.

Afghanistan in October, 2001, conjured up almost immediately warnings of quagmire, expanding Holy War at Ramadan, unreliable allies, a trigger-happy nuclear Pakistan on the border, American corpses to join British and Russian bones in the high desert — not a seven-week victory and a subsequent democracy in Kabul of all places.

Nothing in our era would have seemed more unlikely than democrats dethroning the Taliban and al Qaeda — hitherto missile-proof in their much ballyhooed cave complexes that maps in Newsweek assured us rivaled Norad's subterranean fortress. The prior, now-sanctified Clinton doctrine of standoff bombing ensured that there would be no American fatalities and almost nothing ever accomplished — the perfect strategy for the focus-group/straw-poll era of the 1990s.

Are we then basking in the unbelievable notion that the most diabolical government of the late 20th century is gone from Afghanistan, and in its place are schools, roads, and voting machines? Hardly, since the bar has been astronomically raised since Tora Bora. After all, the Afghan parliament is still squabbling and a long way from the city councils of Cambridge, La Jolla, or Nantucket — or maybe not.

The same paradox of success is true of Iraq. Before we went in, analysts and opponents forecasted burning oil wells, millions of refugees streaming into Jordan and the Gulf kingdoms, with thousands of Americans killed just taking Baghdad alone. Middle Eastern potentates warned us of chemical rockets that would shower our troops in Kuwait. On the eve of the war, had anyone predicted that Saddam would be toppled in three weeks, and two-and-a-half-years later, 11 million Iraqis would turn out to vote in their third election — at a cost of some 2100 war dead — he would have been dismissed as unhinged.

But that is exactly what has happened. And the reaction? Democratic firebrands are now talking of impeachment.

What explains this paradox of public disappointment over things that turn out better than anticipated? Why are we like children who damn their parents for not providing yet another new toy when the present one is neither paid for nor yet out of the wrapper?

One cause is the demise of history. The past is either not taught enough, or presented wrongly as a therapeutic exercise to excise our purported sins.

Either way the result is the same: a historically ignorant populace who knows nothing about past American wars and their disappointments — and has absolutely no frame of reference to make sense of the present other than its own mercurial emotional state in any given news cycle.

Few Americans remember that nearly 750 Americans were killed in a single day in a training exercise for D-Day, or that during the bloody American retreat back from the Yalu River in late 1950 thousands of our frozen dead were sent back stacked in trucks like firewood. Our grandparents in the recent past endured things that would make the present ordeal in Iraq seem almost pedestrian — and did all that with the result that a free Germany could now release terrorists or prosperous South Korean youth could damn the United States between their video games.

Instead, we of the present think that we have reinvented the rules of war and peace anew. After Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and the three-week war to remove Saddam, we decreed from on high that there simply were to be no fatalities in the American way of war. If there were, someone was to be blamed, censured, or impeached — right now!

Second, there is a sort of arrogant smugness that has taken hold in the West at large. Read the papers about an average day in Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Detroit, or even in smaller places like Fresno. The headlines are mostly the story of mayhem — murder, rape, arson, and theft. Yet, we think Afghanistan is failing or Iraq hopeless when we watch similar violence on television, as if they do such things and we surely do not. We denigrate the Iraqis' trial of Saddam Hussein — as if the Milosevic legal circus or our own O.J. trial were models of jurisprudence. Still, who would have thought that poor Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, a mass-murdering half-brother of Saddam Hussein, would complain that Iraqi television delayed lived feeds of his daily outbursts by whimpering, "If the sound is cut off once again, then I don't know about my comrades but I personally won't attend again. This is unjust and undemocratic."

A greater percentage of Iraqis participated in their elections after two years of consensual government than did Americans after nearly 230 years of practice. It is chic now to deprecate the Iraqi security forces, but they are doing a lot more to kill jihadists than the French or Germans who often either wire terrorists money, sell them weapons, or let them go. For what it's worth, I'd prefer to have one Jalal Talabani or Iyad Allawi on our side than ten Jacques Chiracs or Gerhard Schroeders.

Third, our affluent society is at a complete disconnect with hard physical work and appreciation of how tenuous life was for 2,500 years of civilization. Those in our media circus who deliver our truth can't weld, fix a car, shoot a gun, or do much of anything other than run around looking for scoops about how incompetent things are done daily in Iraq under the most trying of circumstances. Somehow we have convinced ourselves that our technologies and wealth give us a pass on the old obstacles of time and space — as if Iraq 7,000 miles away is no more distant than Washington is from New York. Perhaps soldiers on patrol who go for 20 hours without sleep with 70 pounds on their back are merely like journalists pulling an all-nighter to file a story. Perhaps the next scandal will be the absence of high-definition television in Iraq — and who plotted to keep flat screens out of Baghdad.

The result of this juvenile boredom with good news and success? Few stop to reflect how different a Pakistan is as a neutral rather than as the embryo of the Taliban, or a Libya without a nuclear-weapons program, or a Lebanon with Syrians in it, or an Iraq without Saddam and Afghanistan without Mullah Omar. That someone — mostly soldiers in the field and diplomats under the most trying of circumstances — accomplished all that is either unknown or forgotten as we ready ourselves for the next scandal.

Precisely because we are winning this war and have changed the contour of the Middle East, we expect even more — and ever more quickly, without cost in lives or treasure. So rather than stopping to praise and commemorate those who gave us our success, we can only rush ahead to destroy those who do not give us even more.

Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/hanson/hanson200512290821.asp

Saundra Hummer

December 29th, 2005, 03:44 PM

[QUOTE=Saundra Hummer][SIZE="2"][I]The cold war ended for several reasons, and here are just a few of them: The Soviets went broke building up arms and their war machine.

Exactly.

Because they couldn't keep up with the U.S. Reagan knew it and knew used that to break them. Problem??

Reagan was only there for a few years, and he had a minor, although vocal contribution to their demise. Look it up. Then look up how far he set back so many important policies and humanitarian programs. Remember ketchup as a vegetable? Remember the C.O.L.A.'s as he took and took from Social Security? Of course these are two items which is something we all can't forget. However, I believe it is the Reagan Legacy which has hurt us the most, this being the people who would follow his example, the insideous and deep seated beliefs he instilled in those who would live like kings. They saw the posibilities he layed out in front of them - that it was possible to break unions - it was possible to carry on illegal covert operations with little or no consequences, it was possible to cater to big business while taking from the poor and middle class - it was possible to be untruthful and let corruption run amuck as long as you smiled and let the gullible feel good about themselves.

Even during his funeral, political pundits couldn't restrain themselves from telling it like it really was, there were no more spin doctors, none of them followed him to his graveside with their continuing rhetoric, could it be because they were no longer on the payroll, so it was this kind of talk - he was a nice man, but that his politics stunk. How can that be? A contradiction if I ever heard one.

truthseeker

December 29th, 2005, 03:50 PM

[QUOTE=truthseeker]

Reagan was only there for a few years, and he had a minor, although vocal contribution to their demise. Look it up. Then look up how far he set back so many important and humanitarian programs. Remember ketchup as a vegetable? Remember the C.O.L.A.'s as he took and took from Social Security? Of course these are two items which is something we all can't forget. However, I believe it is the Reagan Legacy which has hurt us the most, this being the people who would follow his example, the insideous and deep seated beliefs he instilled in those who would live like kings. They saw the posibilities he layed out in front of them - that it was possible to break unions - it was possible to carry on illegal covert operations with little or no consequences, it was possible to cater to big business while taking from the poor and middle class - it was possible to be untruthful and let corruption run amuck as long as you smiled and let the gullible feel good about themselves.

Even during his funeral, political pundits couldn't restrain themselves from telling it like it really was, there were no more spin doctors, none of them followed him to his graveside with their continuing rhetoric, could it be because they were no longer on the payroll, so it was this kind of talk - he was a nice man, but that his politics stunk. How can that be? A contradiction if I ever heard one.

This is just ridiculous. Presidents like Carter, Clinton, Ford, Bush...none of them can hold a candle to the good works Reagan accomplished. You must really HATE this country.

This is the height of leftist moon-battery. You must live in a total fantasy world. I realize now the I'm wasting my time here.

Saundra Hummer

December 29th, 2005, 03:50 PM

Saundra Hummer

December 29th, 2005, 05:35 PM

*****

U.C.L.A EDUCATION COURSE BLOG

BLOG LEFT: CRITICAL INTERVENTIONS WARBLOG {war blog. Iraq. Operaton Iraqi Freedom, Bush, Gilf War ll, left}
TOPICS
Alito's Zeal for Presidential Power-New York Times
ScAlito is big on wire-tapping, big on increasing presidential power, has advocated using the court to destray Roe vs Wade, and is a consistent rightwing ideologue; this guy must be strongly opposed and stopped
Alito's Zeal for Presidential Power - New York Times

Support Democracy! Comment...
*
U.S. Airstrikes Take Toll on Civilians
Sy hersh was right that US is increasingly turning to Air War in Iraq and that intensified bombing is killing scores of civilians, more blood on Bush's hands
U.S. Airstrikes Take Toll on Civilians
Posted by:
Douglas
at 12/24/2005 05:28:47 AM | Permalink
*
Support Democracy! Comment...

Ex-Powell Aide Moves From Insider to Apostate - New York Times
Big Insiders are starting to speak out against Bush increasingly critically. Will Powell join the voices, or wait until the meltdown and come in as a Savior?
Ex-Powell Aide Moves From Insider to Apostate - New York Times

Posted by:
Douglas
at 12/24/2005 05:19:16 AM | Permalink

Support Democracy! Comment...

*
Congress Never Authorized Spying Effort, Daschle Says - New York Times
Bush lied about authorization of spying operation. This past week I saw video clip after clip of Bush lying, claiming that all wire taps had a warrant, that they were only spying on foreign calls, only al Qaeda suspects, etc, the web of Big Lies that is Bushspeak is unfolding, will people care?
Congress Never Authorized Spying Effort, Daschle Says - New York Time

Posted by:
Douglas
at 12/24/2005 05:16:52 AM | Permalink
Support Democracy! Comment...
*
Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report - New York Times
The Bush-Cheney Gang spyed on multitudes, this story will just keep giving and growing as leaks come out concerning who they spied on...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html?hp&ex=1135486800&en=7e76956223502390&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Support Democracy! Comment
*
[/B]]Salon.com Politics War Room | Politic
latest political buzz from Salon[/SIZE[SIZE="4"]
"Does the president still want to talk about Iraq?
When PBS's Jim Lehrer tried to get George W. Bush to talk the other day about revelations that his administration has been spying on American citizens without obtaining warrants, the president snapped back: "It's not the main story of the day ... The main story of the day is the Iraqi election."

We're wondering if the president still feels that way today. Bush would no doubt like the press to be talking about something other than his surveillance program, but the Iraqi elections probably aren't high on his list, either. In Baghdad today, a number of secular Shiite and Sunni Arab groups said they'll boycott the legislature elected last week unless there's an international investigation into more than a thousand allegations of fraud and other shenanigans related to the voting.

Among those protesting the election: Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a man whose "courage" and "leadership" Bush has been known to praise in the past. A spokesman for Allawi told the Associated Press that the election was "fraudulent" and that the parliament that resulted from it will be "illegitimate."
-- Tim Grieve
[14:17 EST, Dec. 22, 2005]
Post a comment | Read comments
*
Could warrantless spying backfire on the war on terror?We suggested yesterday that the Bush administration's decision to help itself to warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens might actually cause damage to its war on terror. From the Washington Post today comes evidence that we were right.

The Post reports that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who presides over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, has asked top-ranking officials from the National Security Agency and the Justice Department to brief judges on the court about Bush's secret surveillance program. Depending on what they hear, the Post says, the judges could then "demand that the Justice Department produce proof that previous wiretaps were not tainted." Warrants obtained based on information obtained through warrantless surveillance could be called into question, the Post says. And one judge on the court said that there could even be calls -- from the judges themselves -- to disband the secret FISA court in protest of the president's actions.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Judge Dee Benson, a former staffer for Sen. Orrin Hatch who was appointed to the bench by the president's father, said he needs more information before deciding just how troubled he is by the revelations of warrantless spying. "But I wonder," he tells the Post, "if you've got us here, why didn't you go through us? They've said it's faster [to bypass FISA], but they have emergency authority under FISA, so I don't know."
-- Tim Grieve
Permalink [13:15 EST, Dec. 22, 2005]
*
Now starring as the Grinch: Jack Abramoff
If you happen to be sharing Christmas morning with Tom DeLay, Bob Ney or any number of other Republicans in Congress, don't be surprised if they keep excusing themselves from the festivities to check Google News. The Justice Department seems to be fairly far along in wrapping up a plea agreement with indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- a deal that could involve Abramoff's providing testimony about his business dealings with members of Congress.

One participant in the plea discussions tells the New York Times that a deal could be announced early next week. The Associated Press says the deal could resolve both cases in which Abramoff is implicated -- the criminal case pending against him in Florida as well as the investigation into his lobbying activities in Washington.

Not since the 1992 House banking scandal has a corruption probe "struck fear in so many hearts on Capitol Hill," the AP's Pete Yost writes. Even without Abramoff's testimony, Yost says prosecutors are looking into the actions of as many as 20 members of Congress and their aides. Under any plea deal involving the Washington investigation, Abramoff would get a reduced -- but still lengthy -- prison sentence in exchange for telling everything he knows. "And," Yost writes ominously, "he knows a lot."
- Tim Grieve
[11:36 EST, Dec. 22, 2005]
*
Understatement of the dayFormer Republican Sen. Warren Rudman on news that George W. Bush authorized warrantless spying on American citizens: "It seems to me that if you're the president, you have to proceed with great caution when you do anything that flies in the face of the Constitution."
- Tim Grieve
Permalink [09:58 EST, Dec. 22, 2005]
*
A conservative court tells Bush: Enough
When federal government agents arrested Jose Padilla at Chicago's O'Hare Airport in May 2002, then Attorney General John Ashcroft claimed that the government had just broken up a scheme to explode a "dirty bomb" inside the United States. But when it came time for the government to charge Padilla with that crime, George W. Bush deemed Padilla an "enemy combatant," and the government yanked him out of the criminal justice system and put him into the custody of the U.S. military.

That's where he has been for the past three and a half years, and the Bush administration has argued repeatedly that that's where he must stay. But with Padilla's case headed back to a clearly skeptical U.S. Supreme Court, the Bush administration decided last month to switch gears once again. It charged Padilla in an existing criminal case in Florida -- one that has nothing to do with any alleged dirty bomb -- and said it would be transferring him back to the criminal justice system for trial.

That was the plan, at least. But on Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit -- the conservative, administration-friendly court that is Bush's venue of choice for terrorism cases -- issued a ruling in which it refused to let the Bush administration transfer Padilla out of military custody. The upshot of the court's opinion: The shell game has gone on long enough, and the courts aren't interested in being jerked around anymore.

Writing for the court, Judge J. Michael Luttig -- frequently mentioned as a potential Bush Supreme Court nominee -- described the Bush administration's judicial gamesmanship in unusually stark terms: "The government has held Padilla militarily for three and a half years, steadfastly maintaining that it was imperative in the interest of national security that he be so held. However, a short time after our decision issued on the government's representation that Padilla's military custody was indeed necessary in the interest of national security, the government determined that it was no longer necessary that Padilla be held militarily. Instead, it announced, Padilla would be transferred to the custody of federal civilian law enforcement authorities and criminally prosecuted in Florida for alleged offenses considerably different from, and less serious than, those acts for which the government had militarily detained Padilla."

Luttig complained that the government's request to transfer Padilla back to the criminal justice system "included no reference to, or explanation of, the difference in the facts asserted to justify Padilla's military detention and those for which Padilla was indicted." Luttig also noted that the government styled its request an "emergency application," despite the fact that Padilla had been in custody for almost four years and the only "emergency" facing the government seemed to be the upcoming Supreme Court proceedings in Padilla's case.

Allowing the administration to continue its game by transferring Padilla out of military custody, Luttig wrote, would leave, "in the absence of explanation, at least an appearance that the government may be attempting to avoid consideration of our decision by the Supreme Court."

In closing, Luttig delivered a final blow: The Bush administration's actions in the Padilla case, he said, may undermine the government's credibility with the courts and hurt the war on terror as well.

The Bush administration's actions "have left not only the impression that Padilla may have been held for these years, even if justifiably, by mistake -- an impression we would have thought the government could ill afford to leave extant," Luttig wrote. "They have left the impression that the government may even have come to the belief that the principle in reliance upon which it has detained Padilla for this time, that the president possesses the authority to detain enemy combatants who enter into this country for the purpose of attacking America and its citizens from within, can, in the end, yield to expediency with little or no cost to its conduct of the war against terror -- an impression we would have thought the government likewise could ill afford to leave extant. And these impressions have been left, we fear, at what may ultimately prove to be substantial cost to the government's credibility before the courts, to whom it will one day need to argue again in support of a principle of assertedly like importance and necessity to the one that it seems to abandon today. While there could be an objective that could command such a price as all of this, it is difficult to imagine what that objective would be."
-- Tim Grieve
Permalink [09:49 EST, Dec. 22, 2005]
*
On the Patriot Act, Bush and Frist lose a game of chicken
Over the course of the last week, both the White House and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have said that they would not accept a "short-term" extension of expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. "The president has made it very clear that he is not interested in signing any short-term renewal," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

But Wednesday night, the Senate approved -- with Frist's acquiescence and the president's approval -- a six-month extension of expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. Did Bill Frist and George W. Bush get beat, cave to pressure, flip-flop, even? Nope, says McCllelan: Six months is not "short-term."

Frist was a little more honest about the circumstances he faced. As we noted Wednesday, First had been playing a high-stakes game of chicken with the Patriot Act renewal, warning that the act would die -- and Americans would be less safe -- if the Senate didn't approve the version of the renewal legislation that emerged from a House-Senate conference committee. But when 52 senators said they'd agree to a short-term extension of the act in order to work out problems with the legislation, Frist's little game was pretty much over. He told reporters Wednesday night that he had no choice but to go along with the extension after all -- and seemed, finally, to acknowledge that he would have been the one killing the Patriot Act if he didn't. "I'm not going to let the Patriot Act die," he said. Sen. Russ Feingold translated: "They lost the game of chicken."

To be fair, Frist and the White House get something out of a six-month extension that the three-month extension that had been discussed wouldn't provide. Putting a decision off by six months moves the Patriot Act discussions a little farther away from the news that the Bush administration has been spying on American citizens without warrants -- and a little closer to the 2006 congressional elections, when the GOP can use the act, again, as a way to demagogue on national security.
- Tim Grieve
[08:58 EST, Dec. 22, 2005]
*
Who needs the Patriot Act, anyway?As we noted earlier today, there's a lot of teeth gnashing and chicken playing going on as far as renewal of the Patriot Act is concerned. Atrios points us to the right question today: What does it matter?

If the president's commander-in-chief power and the congressional resolution authorizing use of force against al-Qaida give the Bush administration authority to spy on American citizens without a warrant, doesn't it follow that the administration has authority to do whatever else it wants to do in the war on terror, Patriot Act or not?

Reporters put that question to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this morning, and he didn't exactly answer it. Asked if the Bush administration will simply grant Patriot Act powers to itself if the Senate doesn't renew the act this week, Gonzales said: "What I will say is we continue to have hope that these provisions will be reauthorized. To the extent that they're not reauthorized, we will look at the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies throughout the government to see what authorities do exist. And we will do what we can do under existing authorities to continue to protect America."
-- Tim Grieve
Salon.com Politics War Room | Politics
Posted by:
Douglas
at 12/22/2005 03:48:55 PM | Permalink

Support Democracy! Comment...
*
Salon.com News | Bush's impeachable offense
Bush should be impeached, but political will and a functional democracy is missing.... here's Michell Goldberg=
"Bush's impeachable offense"Yes, the president committed a federal crime by wiretapping Americans, say constitutional scholars, former intelligence officers and politicians. What's missing is the political will to impeach him.
By Michelle Goldberg

Dec. 22, 2005 | On Tuesday, Dec. 20, Washington Post polling editor Richard Morin participated in an online chat with readers. The liberal blog MyDD urged its users to take part, and evidently they did. In previous days, legal experts had declared that Bush had committed a federal crime by authorizing the surveillance of American citizens without a court order, and Morin was grilled about the issue of impeachment.

First, someone from Naperville, Ill., asked Morin why the Post hasn't polled on public support for impeaching Bush. "This question makes me mad," Morin replied. Someone else repeated the question and Morin typed, "Getting madder." It came up again, and he wrote, "Madder still."

Finally, a fourth person asked it, and he answered: "[W]e do not ask about impeachment because it is not a serious option or a topic of considered discussion -- witness the fact that no member of congressional Democratic leadership or any of the serious Democratic presidential candidates in '08 are calling for Bush's impeachment. When it is or they are, we will ask about it in our polls."

Morin was wrong. It may be exceedingly unlikely that President Bush will be impeached, but in the past few days, the I-word has become a topic of considered discussion among constitutional scholars, former intelligence officers and even a few politicians.

"If you listen carefully, you can hear the word 'impeachment,'" curmudgeonly commentator Jack Cafferty said on CNN. "Two congressional Democrats are using it. And they're not the only ones."

Indeed, speaking on the Diane Rehm show on public radio, Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, "I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

On Dec. 17, after the story of Bush's domestic spying broke in the New York Times, the president conceded that he had ordered the National Security Agency to intercept Americans' communications without seeking judicial approval. Unrepentant, the White House insisted that Bush had been granted such authority by the post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing "all necessary force" in the fight against terrorism, and that the president would continue to order warrantless searches.

The next day, during a public discussion with Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., former Nixon White House counsel John Dean called Bush "the first president to admit to an impeachable offense." Boxer took Dean seriously enough to consult four presidential scholars about impeachment.

"This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced firsthand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens," she wrote to them. "Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean's statement."

Boxer has not made public any of the responses yet. But other political scholars have weighed in. "The American public has to understand that a crime has been committed, a serious crime," Chris Pyle, a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College and an expert on government surveillance of civilians, tells Salon. "Looking at this controversy objectively, you inevitably end up with a question of impeachment," says Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law.

On Dec. 18, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, released a 250-page report detailing Bush's misconduct and, on his Web site, called for the creation of a select committee to investigate "those offenses which appear to rise to the level of impeachment." Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., said in a radio interview that he would support trying Bush. "If there is a move to impeach the president, I will sign that bill of impeachment," he said.

Assessing the controversy, Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter wrote on Dec. 19, "This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974."

It was bracing to see impeachment mentioned as a possibility in the mainstream media. But experts say it's not unreasonable. According to Turley, there's little question Bush committed a federal crime by violating the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The act authorizes a secret court to issue warrants to eavesdrop on potential suspects, or anyone even remotely connected to them, inside the United States. The bar to obtain a FISA