Why mommy is a Democrat

Why Mommy is a Democrat

whoo hoooooo... they canned Bolton

This guy was one of the worst Bush appointments of all time. A neocon jerk to the core. I am glad he is finally gone.

more at Crooksandliars.com

AWAKE, MY SOUL, AND WITH THE SUN

Awake, my soul, and with the sun
Thy daily stage of duty run;
Shake off dull sloth, and joyful rise,
To pay thy morning sacrifice.

Thy precious time misspent, redeem,
Each present day thy last esteem,
Improve thy talent with due care;
For the great day thyself prepare.

By influence of the Light divine
Let thy own light to others shine.
Reflect all Heaven’s propitious ways
In ardent love, and cheerful praise.

In conversation be sincere;
Keep conscience as the noontide clear;
Think how all seeing God thy ways
And all thy secret thoughts surveys.

Wake, and lift up thyself, my heart,
And with the angels bear thy part,
Who all night long unwearied sing
High praise to the eternal King.

All praise to Thee, Who safe has kept
And hast refreshed me while I slept
Grant, Lord, when I from death shall wake
I may of endless light partake.

Heav’n is, dear Lord, where’er Thou art,
O never then from me depart;
For to my soul ’tis hell to be
But for one moment void of Thee.

Lord, I my vows to Thee renew;
Disperse my sins as morning dew.
Guard my first springs of thought and will,
And with Thyself my spirit fill.

Direct, control, suggest, this day,
All I design, or do, or say,
That all my powers, with all their might,
In Thy sole glory may unite.

I would not wake nor rise again
And Heaven itself I would disdain,
Wert Thou not there to be enjoyed,
And I in hymns to be employed.

Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Awesome little cartoons.... I love this one:

http://www.minimumsecurity.net/toons2006/6118.htm

THANKSGIVING
21 Reasons to Give Thanks

This Thanksgiving, progressives have a lot to be thankful for. Here's
our list:

We're thankful for our country's troops.

We're thankful America dumped the 109th Congress.

We're thankful Rick Santorum will have more free time to find the WMD.

We're thankful we don’t have to go to war with the Secretary of Defense
we had.

We're thankful for "red state values," like protecting reproductive
rights, supporting stem cell research, and rejecting discrimination.

We're thankful Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who calls climate change the
"greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," will no longer
chair the Senate environmental committee.

We're thankful that Matt Drudge does not rule our world.

We're thankful Al Gore helped the country face the inconvenient truth.

We're thankful Bill O'Reilly does not resort to name calling - well,
besides labeling the Progress Report/ThinkProgress as "far left loons,"
"kool-aid zombies," "hired guns," "vile," "haters," a "far left smear
website," and "a very well-oiled, effective character assassination
machine."

We're thankful minimum wage ballot initiatives passed in six states.

We're thankful the Dixie Chicks aren't ready to make nice.

We're thankful Ted Haggard bought the meth but never used it.

We're thankful for the 100,000 readers who responded to our Tell the
Truth About 9/11 campaign.

We're thankful for "the Google" and "the email" (and the "series of
tubes" that make them possible) -- but not iPods, which are endangering
our nation.

We're thankful Maf54 isn't online right now.

We're thankful people send us Jack Abramoff's email.

We're thankful Keith Olbermann's ratings are up and Bill O'Reilly's
ratings are down.

We're thankful President Bush's secret plan for Iraq is safe with Conrad
Burns.

We're thankful we won't spend Thanksgiving turkey hunting with Dick
Cheney.

We're thankful the "Decider " only gets to make the decision 789 more
days.

And last but not least: We're thankful to the Progress Report readers
for their tips, energy and support.

Happy Thanksgiving! – The Progress Report Team.

P.S. Remember, if you are short on cash over the holiday shopping
season, a gift subscription to the Progress Report is free.

OMFG

Watching the MSM this morning.

I only got one thing to say about the mid term elections....

OMFG.

WinterBear

OpEd in NYTimes today.


Subject: RE: The Difference Two Years Made
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 08:58:16 -0500

The editorial below makes me feel a tiny bit vindicated after years of
concern and comments about the current US administration. When a
centrist, establishment newspaper, that many mistakenly label "liberal"
reaches this point, if I were not sad because of the waste of
resources-people and programs---during the past six years, I would
smile.

I watched C-Spajn last night, Gary Hart on his new book, The Courage of
Our Convictions: A Manifesto for Democrats., His position and statement
of the need for principles and conviction seem to be well stated. He
observes that the Democrats have no principles around which to coalesce.
Remember the "old days" of "platforms?" At least these platforms tried
to stand for something substantial. Hart said that people should look up
the word "liberal." It means open/broad-minded, generous, free,
committed to civic virtue ( not bedroom politics) among other things,
such as LIBERTY, and other progressive thoughts. The dysfunctional,
delusional paranoids in power could use a lot of "shock therapy." I
hope tomorrow applies the needed wattage.

Actually, I do not think either entrenched party has the guts and
grit to pull out of its self-destructive mind-set. Understanding the
reluctance of Americans to move beyond its adolescent concerns, I would
like to hope for the incorporation of less self-serving and more
communally productive ideas to begin to emerge, as in global without
the military-corporate control. After all, Thomas Jefferson named the
first US political party "Democrat-Republican."
g

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: 11/5/2006 3:19:06 PM
Subject: The Difference Two Years Made


Editorial
NY Times
The Difference Two Years Made

Published: November 5, 2006

On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has
endorsed for election, we will include no Republican
Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory.
Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on
national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a
long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House.
Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as
vital and responsible as possible.
That is why things are different this year.

To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House
and for the most part, the Senate during President Bushs tenure
has done a terrible job on the basics. Its
tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the
middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has
refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically
little about the countrys dependence on foreign oil.

Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed
toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too
long in power. They methodically shut the opposition and even
the more moderate members of their own party out of any role in
the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be
self-perpetuation.

The current Republican majority managed to achieve that
burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a
shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It
was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal
austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse
that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even
directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed
their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.

That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page
endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics
reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues
like the environment, civil liberties and womens rights.

For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans attempt to
undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have
safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact
that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one
party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as
everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the
Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has
made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond
any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb
these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated
themselves to removing restraints on the presidents ability to
do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans
feel you dont need to have oversight hearings if your party is
in control of everything.

An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a
partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the
chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.

Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing
questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president
accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It
also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about
whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of
mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one
agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American
contractors who have botched everything from construction work
to the security of weapons.

After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal
detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantnamo Bay,
Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the
atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the
election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House,
Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of
noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though
many of them were clearly sent there in error.

In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful
of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation
for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the
Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the
presidents campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers
used this bill to further Mr. Bushs goal of stripping the powers
of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.

This election is indeed about George W. Bush and the
Congressional majoritys insistence on protecting him from the
consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the
popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an
enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004,
he announced he now had real political capital and intended to
spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to
contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next
Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on
the House and Senate.

In an alternative universe near you.

I am at a public gathering and I get to ask the President of the United States of America one question.

Winterbear: "Sir, You say you work hard. I believe you. Your hair has turned grey while you have been in office. Here is my question for you: 'Sir, Can you define the word Palliative and if you were President in 2009, what would you do to make Palliative Care better or worse."

Keith Olbermann monday Oct 30th

wow... just wow...

Last nights (monday, Oct 30th) Keith Olbermans Countdown show on MSNBC at 7pm and 10pm was terrific.

1) first segment was about how no republicans want to be seen with Bush. In fact, on a Maryland senate candidate, Michael Steele, was on "Meet the Press" on Sunday Steele said, "I am a proud republican. My orientation is the Republican party not just one individual.... If anything I am a Lincoln republican." He went on to kind of dis Bush and distance himself from the president. You can see the video of this on www.crooksandliars.com

2) The next segment was about the irrational boosterism and enthusiasm of Karl Rove. They had Wayne Slater (Dallas Morning News) on who wrote the book and movie "Bush's Brain". He explained the techniques and motivation Karl Rove has for being so publicly enthusiastic about the Republican's chance in these elections. Again, video is up on YouTube and CrooksandLiars.com The big point he made was that the machine that Karl Rove has put together is still very much in tact and will be a big influence on this election.

3) Then Keith did a segment on "Dirty Politics". In the last week he has talked a lot about the dirty ads in Tenn. and the smears on Michael J Fox and the other goofy ads this year. This segment was all about Allen Raymond, a republican political operative, who in 2002 broke a bunch of election laws in New Hampshire and spent 3 months in Jail. He admits what he did was illegal, and then admits that he ran a dirty tele marketing campaign (funded by the RNC) against the democrats that used his phone switch to make non-stop hang up phone calls to tie up democratic phone lines on and before election day 2002(basically a denial of service attack for those of us in the computer industry). He said he was contacted by the RNC and they came up with the idea. He said, "Yes, we were trying to create chaos and prevent the democratic party from operating." Because of this dirty trick, the democratic program to give people rides to the polls on election day had to be shut down and the republican candidate won by a narrow margin. He said, "lets be clear about one thing, the New Hampshire phone jamming was not a dirty trick, it was a criminal act." Raymond pled guilty to conspiracy and was convicted. He also said that what he did was only one of the dirty tricks and that most of the people that do what he does get away with it or are protected from prosecution by the RNC and Bush admin. Again, video is on YouTube and Crooksandliars.com.

4) After a very funny oddball segment he talked about the MilBloggers. He quoted from time magazine and Newsweek magazine that this week printed letters written by men who have died in the last month in Iraq. Both expressed their disillusion with the government, Defense department, Main stream media (especially fox) and who honestly question why we are in this war. Then he had an ex soldier who runs a site called www.chasingghosts.com where he reports and comments on the MilBlogs and how the Military, after allowing them to happen for 6 years is now trying to censure and stifle these dispatches from the grunts in the field. The military has created a special unit to monitor the blogs.

5) top 3 sound bites were interesting...

O'Relly on Letterman. "You want the United states to win in Iraq, Yes or No... Its easy." Dave, "its not such an easy question for me because I am thoughtful. O'Reilly, "it isnt so black and white dave... your saying we are a bad country...". Dave, "I didnt say he was an evil... your putting words in my mouth Just like your putting artificial facts in your head..." Ouch...

then a 2000 pound pumpkin with a baby on it...

6) A very nice story on Red Auerbach, legendary boston celtic coach, dead today

worst people in the world were a moron at National review who complained about Keith's use of "Mr Bush" as a name for bush even though his boss, the great Bill Buckley, has used "mr bush" to refer to george over 150 times in the last year.

that shrill moron that slandered Murtha was at it again, this time advocating storing nuke waste in her district.

and comedian Rush Limbaugh has been saying that the MSM has sped up video of him ridiculing Michael J Fox for his appeals to support stem sell research. Keith, "Hey Rush, your lies used to be slightly amusing. Please... go back on the drugs!"

7) the last segment was about the very sad break up of Sir Paul Mc Cartney's marriage and how his ex-wife (heather fields) is saying horrible things about Linda...

Overall, the best Countdown I've ever seen...

Keith Olbermann Rocks

I have been enjoying Keith Olbermann since I discovered him last year during the Katrina disaster. I set up my 3 tivo's to download all the news during that time and the person I ended up enjoying watching the most of was Keith. Since then I have watched him at least once a week.

His videos are all over the net. You can usually get his most current things at www.crooksandliars.com. They post something of his every couple of days. He is also all over YouTube and other video sites.

Recently he has begun to do a series of commentaries that I think are some of the greatest serious political stuff I have ever seen. When they write the history of this period, I think he is going to be mentioned as one of the great journalists of this age. (Unless the Neocons win and get to re-write the history books...)

I have also enjoyed reading the blog www.olbermannwatch.com. It is run by someone named John Dollar with a serious aversion to Keith, but most of the folks that post to the site are really great and they tend to be about 75% supportive of Keith's point of view. The other 25% of the people that post there are compleatly inarticulate so you get a range of flames from them and they are easy to ignore.

WinterBear says check it out!

great business model

post by by misanthrope101 on slashdot.com

great business model - by misanthrope101 (Score: 5, Insightful) Thread
Since the government doesn’t need warrants/probable cause/oversight anymore, it would be easy to set up a business to sell “confiscated” laptops second-hand. With no oversight, there is no need for record-keeping, no way to see if someone is abusing their power, etc. Just yell “You hate America!” at anyone who questions how you bought your new house. It’s worked so far. The only people who believe in old-fashioned due process are apparently terrorist appeasers, if you believe the dominant Republicans and Fox News. Can anyone think of an argument FOR government oversight, warrants, and due process that would be considered persuasive in the current political environment? We seem to have given up altogether on the idea that government is dangerous to freedom.

What happened to all the “conservatives”? Am I the only conservative who actually believes in limited government? That may be the most tangible benefit of a Democratic victory in an (any) election—the conservatives would be (ostensibly, if dishonestly) anti-government again. Right now we’re stuck with the dichotomy that government-funded healthcare is creeping totalitarianism, but government torture is innocuous. Strange world we live in.

Thomas Paine on defending the rights of your enemy.

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression: for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that
will reach unto himself. -- Thomas Paine

Why does the right still need to hate Clinton.

Why does the right wing still need to blame everything on Clinton?

They have been a complete monopoly of power for over 5 years now. We are living in a world of their making, under their polocies, and of their choosing. So why aren't they happy? Why are they angrier than ever?

Its because radicals can only survive when fear replaces reason. So they need enemies, real or imagined. Being an idealogue robs you of your critical thinking. They have to remain angry in order to continue to hold the radical ideas which they hold so dear.

its a mistake to call it a war

All Quiet on the Terror Front | MetaFilter: "Quite frankly, it was a mistake from day one to call this a War on Terror, and that terminology has driven us into some places we should not have gone [Iraq, domestic spying, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo]. The attack on 9-11 was an enormous crime, but not an act of war, and the terrorists are criminals, not soldiers. Soldiers deserve respect, but criminals deserve to be hunted down and punished. That hunt, from now on, will be an internationally coordinated police action carried out within the bounds of national constitutions and international law. The terrorists should make no mistake -- this does not change our intent to resist terrorism everywhere and to bring those responsible for it to justice. But it will be done, from now on, by making it clear that terrorists deserve the relentless persecution that criminals deserve, no not the respect and admiration soldiers get. I invite the nations of the world to join the United States in the International Major Police Action against Terrorism -- IMPACT."

Detainees Deserve Court Trials

Detainees Deserve Court Trials:

"In a wiser past, we tried Nazi war criminals in the sunlight. Summing up for the prosecution at Nuremberg, Robert Jackson said that 'the future will never have to ask, with misgiving: 'What could the Nazis have said in their favor?' History will know that whatever could be said, they were allowed to say. . . . The extraordinary fairness of these hearings is an attribute of our strength.'

The world has never doubted the judgment at Nuremberg. But no one will trust the work of these secret tribunals.

Mistakes are made: There will always be Adels. That's where courts come in. They are slow, but they are not beholden to the defense secretary, and in the end they get it right. They know the good guys from the bad guys. Take away the courts and everyone's a bad guy.

The secretary of defense chained Adel, took him to Cuba, imprisoned him and sends teams of lawyers to fight any effort to get his case heard. Now the Senate has voted to lock down his only hope, the courts, and to throw away the key forever."

America goes too far - Historian Paul Kennedy

Al-Ahram Weekly | Interview | America goes too far: "Can the US administration say, 'we were wrong'?

This administration can never admit to mistakes. A real leader and a mature administration can say, 'we made a mistake. We failed in our policy. We have to rethink it and do it better.' It takes a mature leader to admit mistakes and the American people would actually be happier if George Bush admitted that the administration was over-optimistic about Iraq.

Ironically, George Bush's great hero in history is Winston Churchill, the former British prime minister. Bush is always talking about Churchill but he does not realise that Great Britain, in the course of World War II, suffered many great defeats and was driven out of France in 1940, nearly lost Egypt in 1941, and Malay and Singapore in 1942. Nonetheless, Churchill went to parliament to say, 'we failed. We lost. And we are going to have to change our policy and pick ourselves up and work harder.'

Churchill did not say, like Bush today, 'Oh everything is going okay and we are winning.' Actually, few people in the outside world believe Bush, and a large number of Americans started not to believe him. He is blinkered and not able to say, 'we made a real mistake.'"

answering Janets questions

Last night when I heard that Keith Olbermann had recieved a fake Anthrax letter I decided to visit the folks at http://www.olbermannwatch.com to get their reaction.

Mostly, the people there just fling trite and nasty comments around... but I found one person asking a serious quesiton:

Janet Hawkins:

"Who would you ans your fellow quislings condemn--Bush et al or The islamofascists to death given a choice?"


So i had to respond:

Janet, honey, if you want something taken seriously, please don't use bogus rhetorical devices like false dichotomy while your asking the question. I know Hannity does it all the time but lets try to be better than that.

Still, I am going to answer your question best I can.

I condemn the Bush for his incompetence, cronyism, inept diplomacy and malfeasance. I also don't like the way his administration has supported torture, no bid contracts for friends, insane budget deficits, lack of respect for human rights and international law (most of which WE authored over the last 50 years). I think his handling of the Iraq war, Katrina, Dubai ports deal, Harriet Myers, Valery Plame and a dozen other issues has been disgraceful.

But I do not think that anyone in the Bush Administration should be put to death for it. I don't even think they should be impeached. I am kind of ambivalent about jail time for the crimes they have committed. I think they and their bankrupt neocon philosophies like preemptive invasion should be marginalized and then put out to pasture with the other bad political ideas of the past. (i.e. monarchy and communism).

At the same time, I also condemn the terrorists for acts of brutality and outright murder of innocents. Its not really an either or thing. These are criminals and should be treated as such and brought to justice. I am not big on the death penalty because I think it would be a greater punishment for these people to be put into jail and kept alive for as long as possible to stew in their own hate.

You see the bottom line is that I hold my president to a higher standard than I do the terrorists. I really want him to be a good guy. I dont hate the guy, but I am bitterly disappointed that he has turned out to be far worse than any president we have ever had. That does not mean I want to give the terrorist a free pass.

By the way... if you want to be taken seriously outside of the right wing echo chambers you should drop the term Islamofascist. It makes no since. A fascist is someone who believes government and corporate interests should work together to form a "more perfect" state. Italy and Germany were the only truly fascist states. The USA has some fascist tendencies but we keep them in check most of the time. The people your calling islamofascists have no state, hate most corporations and want to establish a theocracy. Islamic Extreamists is a much better term.

Amusing Bin Laden

Staying the Course is no doubt a source of great amusement for bin Laden and associates. In one fell swoop, Bush has tied up and drained our military, depleted national funds, provided al qaeda training grounds, fresh recruits, as well as keeping the nation occupied while the Taliban has regained power in Afghanistan, and terrorists across the globe have no doubt closely watched while we're distracted.

Remember Al Qieda's support for Bush in 2004?

We have not had any more attacks on US soil because the Terrorist are perfectly happy with the Bush Administrations actions post 9-11.

100% of Al Qaeda Madrid Train Bombers endorsed their hero, George W Bush in 2004.

'We are very keen that you do not lose in the forthcoming elections as we know very well that any big attack can bring down your government and this is what we do not want.

"We cannot get anyone who is more foolish than you, who deals with matters with force instead of wisdom and diplomacy.

"Your stupidity and religious extremism is what we want as our people will not awaken from their deep sleep except when there is an enemy."

Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade of al Qaeda Quoted by Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

John Hodgeman on the truth

Features : Radar Online: "What is unique about our life today is that The Daily Show is breaking a taboo simply by making plain, truthful, obvious observations about our existing government, its bankruptcy of competence and vision when faced with the basic jobs with which it is tasked."

WWJD - What would Jefferson do?

One of the problems is that the Bush administration has compleatly hijacked our langage.

We have not been "at War" since May or June 2003. We are in an occupation. The war was brilliantly executed and lasted about a month. The occupation has been botched beyond belief.

The neocons want it both ways.. they want to stiffle decent by being at war, but they dont declare war because that complicates things for them. This has worked out really well for them and almost noone critisizes their mastery of orwellian techniques.

Bush loves being the "war president" He started calling himself that shortly after 9-11 and he says it with a gleam in his eye. But it is just another lie in order to stiffle decent and give him more power.

Vietnam was more of a real war. Still undeclared but there was a real governement on the other sides of the lines.

I dont know if you remember, but it was unfashionable in "hawkish" circles to call vietnam a war. One way to rattle the establishment was to call it a war. That didnt become popular until later. It was a "police action" as was Korea.

What if you brought back a founding father... say Jefferson and tried to explain current events to him. You tell him we are in the 3rd year of a war in Iraq. He would ask who is the leader of this Iraq and how many troops do they have. He would be dumbfounded that we are still "at war" with a country with a leader thats been on trial for a year and which has had no army in the field for 3 years.

He woud be dumbfounded. I know I am....

(BTW.. later I would have to explain how last week our senitors comprimised with the president to allow officially sanctioned torture. I am pretty sure his head would explode at that point.)

Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act

Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act: September 23, 2006BY ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN

Thirty-two years ago, President Gerald Ford created a political firestorm by pardoning former President Richard Nixon of all crimes he may have committed in Watergate -- and lost his election as a result. Now, President Bush, to avoid a similar public outcry, is quietly trying to pardon himself of any crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of U.S. detainees.

The ''pardon'' is buried in Bush's proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ''pardon'' provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.

Press accounts of the provision have described it as providing immunity for CIA interrogators. But its terms cover the president and other top officials because the act applies to any U.S. national.

Avoiding prosecution under the War Crimes Act has been an obsession of this administration since shortly after 9/11. In a January 2002 memorandum to the president, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales pointed out the problem of prosecution for detainee mistreatment under the War Crimes Act. He notes that given the vague language of the statute, no one could predict what future ''prosecutors and independent counsels'' might do if they decided to bring charges under the act. As an author of the 1978 special prosecutor statute, I know that independent counsels (who used to be called ''special prosecutors'' prior to the statute's reauthorization in 1994) aren't for low-level government officials such as CIA interrogators, but for the president and his Cabinet. It is clear that Gonzales was concerned about top administration officials.

Gonzales also understood that the specter of prosecution could hang over top administration officials involved in detainee mistreatment throughout their lives. Because there is no statute of limitations in cases where death resulted from the mistreatment, prosecutors far into the future, not appointed by Bush or beholden to him, would be making the decisions whether to prosecute.

To ''reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act,'' Gonzales recommended that Bush not apply the Geneva Conventions to al-Qaida and the Taliban. Since the War Crimes Act carried out the Geneva Conventions, Gonzales reasoned that if the Conventions didn't apply, neither did the War Crimes Act. Bush implemented the recommendation on Feb. 7, 2002.

When the Supreme Court recently decided that the Conventions did apply to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees, the possibility of criminal liability for high-level administration officials reared its ugly head again.

What to do? The administration has apparently decided to secure immunity from prosecution through legislation. Under cover of the controversy involving the military tribunals and whether they could use hearsay or coerced evidence, the administration is trying to pardon itself, hoping that no one will notice. The urgent timetable has to do more than anything with the possibility that the next Congress may be controlled by Democrats, who will not permit such a provision to be adopted.

Creating immunity retroactively for violating the law sets a terrible precedent. The president takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution; that document requires him to obey the laws, not violate them. A president who knowingly and deliberately violates U.S. criminal laws should not be able to use stealth tactics to immunize himself from liability, and Congress should not go along."

So, you're Dick Cheney and you've got a war to start

Letter from Here: "So, you're Dick Cheney and you've got a war to start


Picture this: You're the most powerful vice president the country has ever known. In your dark, saturnine view, there are a lot of good reasons to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein, but you need a casus belli. Weapons of mass destruction should do it. You're sure they've got some stuff left over from 1991. Its just a matter of finding it.

You start to pressure the limp-wristed wimps at CIA to do their jobs and dig up the evidence you know is there. In the summer of 2001, even before 9/11, the agency's Counterproliferation Division expands one of its units and renames it the Joint Task Force on Iraq. They're tasked with finding the evidence. They have a network of covert ops operating under deep cover. But they don't find squat. It seems to you that the JTFI is ineffectual or worse. They keep debunking WMD claims. Even when hand-picked defectors provided by Ahmad Chalabi are set right in front of them, all they do is discredit them. Two years, and they're still empty-handed. Hopeless.The war goes forward, no thanks to the JTFI, but you don't forget. Those crypto-liberals at CIA need to be taught a lesson. You don't want them getting in the way next time -- in Iran, say.

You wait for the right opportunity and eventually, that summer, you arrange to have the covert director of operations of JTFI outed. The entire network has to be rolled up and sources are compromised, and the director's career is ruined. That should be a lesson those weasels in the agency will never forget!The insiders get the message. For everyone else, you cover your tracks by making it seem that the real target of your little vendetta was the director's spouse. Meanwhile, you've eliminated a lot of the dissenters who disagree with your interpretation of the intelligence. The rest should be much more docile now.If all this damage had been done by a spy, it would have been a major scandal, but hey -- you're the vice president and your friends control most of the government.

Oh, and the name of the director of operations? Valerie Plame."

Chris Floyd - Empire Burlesque - High Crimes and Low Comedy in the Bush Imperium - Aid and Comfort: The New Bush-bin Laden Alliance

Chris Floyd - Empire Burlesque - High Crimes and Low Comedy in the Bush Imperium - Aid and Comfort: The New Bush-bin Laden Alliance: "Is anyone really surprised at this? Bush has never had the slightest intention of catching Osama bin Laden. He needs bin Laden like he needs air or water. Without bin Laden, he is nothing. Without bin Laden, he wouldn't be a 'War President' wielding dictatorial powers over a cowed, confused nation. Without bin Laden -- whom Bush has now taken to quoting as an expert on world affairs -- the Potomac pipsqueak would be just another failed, one-term president named George Bush, a national joke, a trivia quiz answer, a half-forgotten goober ridiculed for a feckless reign that made Jimmy Carter look like Bismarck. Without bin Laden, Bush never would have had the chance to seal his prejudices and inadequacies in the blood of tens of thousands of innocent people. How could he ever give up bin Laden, who gave him his truest self? Bush is bin Laden, bin Laden is Bush: they gaze at each other lovingly across the smoldering ruins of cities and the festering pits of mass graves, and whisper tenderly one to the other: 'You complete me.'"

Bush Fascist Index

I wonder sometimes if the people using the word "islamoFacist" have any idea what they are doing or are they purposefully miss using the definition of Facist for effect.

Bush Fascist Index: "'Fascism: Any program for setting up a centralized authcratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition.' --Merriam-Webster Dictionary"

CIA Covert Detention Acknowledged | MetaFilter

CIA Covert Detention Acknowledged | MetaFilter: "The United States does not torture, Bush says....

That's why Bush has JUST SENT yet another bill to Congress which would legalize torture. Although the press is only talking about the bill legalizing kangaroo trials for people the U.S. has kidnapped (a trial where the defendant doesn't get to know the charges against him, see the evidence against him, or present any evidence of his own can't be called anything but a kangaroo court), the bill would also legalize the U.S.'s current practices of psychological torture. The bill redefines torture (again) to be only severe physical pain, and to not include any of the myriad other ways in which man can torture man, such as sleep deprivation, continuous light or darkness, extreme hot/cold, extreme noise, being shackled to the floor in a squatting position for 12 hours at a time, etc. etc.

George Bush is - at the same time as he says the U.S. doesn't torture - amending U.S. law to permit the above. Indeed, when he signed the last bill about torture, his signing statement said he didn't even consider the minimal torture restrictions there to be valid.
Mr Bush also said he was asking Congress to pass urgent legislation[....] He said the laws must make it explicit that US personnel were fulfilling their obligations under the Geneva Convention.
The bill George Bush just sent to Congress would modify (reduce) the U.S.'s obligations under the Genva Conventions. It specifically changes the U.S.'s treaty obligations under the Conventions. So what Bush is saying is, 'We must change the laws of the United States to fit what we are doing.'

The very public and time-coordinated announcement by the Army that they will amend their field manuals to prohibit torture is intended to confuse the issue further. The CIA will be doing most of the torturing, and they've made no such announcement.

I honestly do not know how far the United States has to fall before any significant part of the population starts to push back. I believe, unfortunately, that there is no such limit; I think the fall is actually self-reinforcing. Once the U.S. goes past a certain limit, it will be so dangerous to speak out against it (you'll disappear), that no one will and people who previously spoke against it will fall silent.

posted by jellicle at 3:25 PM
PST
on September 6 "

So, Osama walks into this bar, see? Greg Palast

So, Osama walks into this bar, see? Greg Palast:

"There are three possible explanations for the Administration's publishing a good-day-for-bombing color guidebook.
1. God is on Osama's side.
2. George is on Osama's side.
3. Fear sells better than sex.
A gold star if you picked #3.

The Fear Factory
I'm going to tell you something which is straight-up heresy: America is not under attack by terrorists. There is no WAR on terror because, except for one day five years ago, al Qaeda has pretty much left us alone.
That's because Osama got what he wanted. There is no mystery about what Al Qaeda was after. Like everyone from the Girl Scouts to Bono, Osama put his wish on his web site. He had a single demand: Crusaders out of the land of the two Holy Places.

To translate: get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.

And George Bush gave it to him. On April 29, 2003, two days before landing on the aircraft carrier Lincoln, our self-described "War President" quietly put out a notice that he was withdrawing our troops from Saudi soil. In other words, our cowering cowboy gave in whimpering to Osama's demand.

The press took no note. They were all wiggie over Bush's waddling around the carrier deck in a disco-aged jump suit announcing, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." But it wasn't America's mission that was accomplished, it was Osama's."

The Bush legacy

He also as at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine. His Texas driving record has been erased and is no longer available to the public. Gee, I wonder why.

He went AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during time of REAL war.

He steadfastly refuses to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use, which are of concern to an American public who must depend on the mental and physical well-being of their president.

All records of his tenure as governor of Texas have been sealed in his father's library, unavailable for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into his insider trading or bankrupt companies have been sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which he served on the board have been sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings he attended regarding public energy policy have been sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

That's before he became President. Since then, he's spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury, shattering the record for the biggest annual deficit in history

He's presided over the biggest drop in the history of the stock market. In his first two years in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs. He cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history. He set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a 12-month period. He's the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.

He's the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record. He has appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history. He changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts. But he's also the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

He's set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history. While on a month long vacation, he presided over the worst security failure in US history.

He's presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

He's cut health care benefits for war veterans.

He set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history.

He's set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president, since the advent of TV.

He's signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other US president in history, while dissolving more international treaties than any president in US history.

15 million people simultaneously took to the streets to protest against him, shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

His presidency has been the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history, even that of Nixon, the King of Paranoia.

His cabinet members are the richest of any administration in US history.

He's presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.

He set the all-time record for the biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history.

He's the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community.

He's created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history
of the United States, the Bureau of Homeland Security

He is the first president in US history to compel the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission. He has withdrawn the US from the World Court of Law.

He's the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board. He is the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections. Yet he has spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

He has removed more checks and balances, and has had the least amount of Congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

He refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default
no longer abides by the Geneva Conventions.

He is the all-time US and world record holder for most corporate campaign donations. The biggest lifetime contributor to his campaign presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history, the late Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

He set all-time record for the number of administration appointees who
violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations
bidding for gov't contracts.

He has removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history. In a little over two years.

He is the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability, not Islamic terrorists.

Bush Video 10 years ago!

Interesting video about medical problems that may be contributing to Bush's speech problems.

Why We Are Going to Go to War, Part II | The Huffington Post

Hooman Majd: Why We Are Going to Go to War, Part II | The Huffington Post:
"For Iran to make any public contact with the U.S. (and at such a high level) after twenty-seven years is in itself an overture, even if all the letter says is 'Mr. Bush, please convert to Islam. Shia Islam, preferably. Yours Truly, Mahmoud.' The Iranian regime has based its entire credibility; with its own population, with the Islamic world, and with the Third World on its independence from U.S. hegemony and as non-aligned but proud nation that deserves the respect of the world. A sudden and open embrace of even the idea of talking to the 'Global Arrogance', formerly known as the 'Great Satan', should not be taken lightly. Of course the letter contains 'history, philosophy and religion', Condi: Iranians are proud of their history (and resentful of America's involvement in it), they are proud of their philosophers and poets, and the government is, after all, a religious one. If anyone at the White House or the State Department knew anything about Iranians, they would know that a desire to talk about these things with the U.S. is indicative of a genuine willingness on the part of Iran's leadership to begin a dialogue with the United States that might lead to better relations and, of course, a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue, even if that isn't mentioned directly in the letter.

There's a word in Farsi that has no proper translation into English but that every Iranian knows the meaning of: ta'arouf. Ta'arouf is social convention in Iran; it can be nothing but small talk, or frustratingly incomprehensible back-and-forth niceties uttered in any social encounter. It can be a long-winded prelude to what is actually the matter at hand, whether the matter be a serious negotiation or just ordering dinner. It can also be polite entreaties, or overtures, and on all counts Mr. Ahmadinejad just made ta'arouf to Mr. Bush. For Mr. Bush to refuse to counter-ta'arouf may, to the Iranians, seem extremely rude, but Americans need not be concerned with that. What Americans need to be concerned with is whether there is anything, and I mean anything, that will change the minds of the men who want to go to war."

Notes for converts from Huffington Post

Notes for Converts
Jane Smiley
The Huffington Post: 03.21.2006

Bruce Bartlett, The Cato Institute, Andrew Sullivan, George Packer,
William F. Buckley, Sandra Day O'Connor, Republican voters in
Indiana and all the rest of you newly-minted dissenters from Bush's
faith-based reality seem, right now, to be glorying in your outrage,
which is always a pleasure and feels, at the time, as if it is
having an effect, but those of us who have been anti-Bush from day 1
(defined as the day after the stolen 2000 election) have a few
pointers for you that should make your transition more realistic.

1. Bush doesn't know you disagree with him. Nothing about you makes
you of interest to George W. Bush once you no longer agree with and
support him. No degree of relationship (father, mother, etc.), no
longstanding friendly intercourse (Jack Abramoff), no degree of
expertise (Brent Scowcroft), no essential importance (Tony Blair,
American voters) makes any difference. There is nothing you have to
offer that makes Bush want to know you once you have come to
disagree with him. Your opinions and feelings now exist in a world
entirely external to the mind of George W. Bush. You are now just
one of those "polls" that he pays no attention to. When you were on
his side, you thought that showed "integrity" on his part. It
doesn't. It shows an absolute inability to learn from experience.

2. Bush doesn't care whether you disagree with him. As a man who has
dispensed with the reality-based world, and is entirely protected by
his handlers from feeling the effects of that world, he is
indifferent to what you now think is real. Is the Iraq war a failure
and a quagmire? Bush doesn't care. Is global warming beginning to
affect us right now? So what. Have all of his policies with regard
to Iran been misguided and counter-productive? He never thinks about
it. You know that Katrina tape in which Bush never asked a question?
It doesn't matter how much you know or how passionately you feel or,
most importantly, what degree of disintegration you see around you,
he's not going to ask you a question. You and your ideas are dead to
him. You cannot change his mind. Nine percent of polled Americans
would agree with attacking Iran right now. To George Bush, that will
be a mandate, if and when he feels like doing it, because...

3. Bush does what he feels like doing and he deeply resents being
told, even politely, that he ought to do anything else. This is
called a "sense of entitlement". Bush is a man who has never been
anywhere and never done anything, and yet he has been flattered and
cajoled into being president of the United States through his
connections, all of whom thought they could use him for their own
purposes. He has a surface charm that appeals to a certain type of
American man, and he has used that charm to claim all sorts of
perks, and then to fail at everything he has ever done. He did not
complete his flight training, he failed at oil investing, he was a
front man and a glad-hander as a baseball owner. As the Governor of
Texas, he originated one educational program that turned out to be a
debacle; as the President of the US, his policies have constituted
one screw-up after another. You have stuck with him through all of
this, made excuses for him, bailed him out. From his point of view,
he is perfectly entitled by his own experience to a sense of
entitlement. Why would he ever feel the need to reciprocate? He's
never had to before this.

4. President Bush is your creation. When the US Supreme Court
humiliated itself in 2000 by handing the presidency to Bush even
though two of the justices (Scalia and Thomas) had open conflicts of
interest, you did not object. When the Bush administration adopted
an "Anything but Clinton" policy that resulted in ignoring and
dismissing all warnings of possible terrorist attacks on US soil,
you went along with and made excuses for Bush. When the Bush
administration allowed the corrupt Enron corporation to swindle
California ratepayers and taxpayers in a last ditch effort to
balance their books in 2001, you laughed at the Californians and
ignored the links between Enron and the administration. When it was
evident that the evidence for the war in Iraq was cooked and that
State Department experts on the Middle East were not behind the war
and so it was going to be run as an exercise in incompetence, you
continued to attack those who were against the war in vicious terms
and to defend policies that simply could not work. On intelligent
design, global warming, doctoring of scientific results to reflect
ideology, corporate tax giveaways, the K Street project, the illegal
redistricting of Texas, torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, the Terry
Schiavo fiasco, and the cronyism that led to the destruction of New
Orleans you have failed to speak out with integrity or honesty,
preferring power to truth at every turn. Bush does what he wants
because you have let him.

5. Tyranny is your creation. What we have today is the natural and
inevitable outcome of ideas and policies you have promoted for the
last generation. I once knew a guy who was still a Marxist in 1980.
Whenever I asked him why Communism had failed in Russia and China,
he said "Mistakes were made". He could not believe that Marxism
itself was at fault, just as you cannot believe that the ideology of
the unregulated free market has created the world we live in today.
You are tempted to say: "Mistakes have been made", but in fact,
psychologically and sociologically, no mistakes have been made. The
unregulated free market has operated to produce a government in its
own image. In an unregulated free market, for example, cheating is
merely another sort of advantage that, supposedly, market forces
might eventually "shake out" of the system. Of course, anyone with
common sense understands that cheaters do damage that sometimes
cannot be repaired before they are "shaken out", but according to
the principles of the unregulated free market, the victims of that
sort of damage are just out of luck and the damage that happens to
them is just a sort of "culling". It is no accident that our
government is full of cheaters--they learned how to profit from
cheating when they were working in corporations that were using
bribes, perks, and secret connections to cheat their customers of
good products, their neighbors of healthy environmental conditions,
their workers of workplace safety and decent paychecks. It was only
when the corporations began cheating their shareholders that any of
you squealed, but you should know from your own experience that the
unregulated free market as a "level playing field" was the biggest
laugh of the 20th century. No successful company in the history of
capitalism has ever favored open competition. When you folks
pretended, in the eighties, that you weren't using the ideology of
the free market to cover your own manipulations of the playing field
to your own advantage, you may have suckered yourselves, and even
lots of American workers, but observers of capitalism since Adam
Smith could have told you it wasn't going to work.

And then there was the way you used racism and religious intolerance
to gain and hold onto power. Nixon was cynical about it--taking the
party of Lincoln and reaching out to disaffected southern racists,
drumming up a backlash against the Civil Rights movement for the
sake of votes, but none of you has been any less vicious. Racism
might have died an unlamented death in this country, but you kept it
alive with phrases like "welfare queen" and your resistance to
affirmative action and taxation for programs to help people in our
country with nothing, or very little. You opted not to take the
moral high ground and recognize that the whole nation would be
better off without racism, but rather to increase class divisions
and racial divisions for the sake of your own comfort, pleasure, and
profit. You have used religion in exactly the same way. Instead of
strongly defending the constitutional separation of church and
state, you have encouraged radical fundamentalist sects to believe
that they can take power in the US and mold our secular government
to their own image, and get rich doing it. The US could have become
a moderating force in what seems now to be an inevitable battle
among the three monotheistic Abrahamic religions, but you have made
that impossible by flattering and empowering our own violent and
intolerant Christian right.

You have created an imperium, heedless of the most basic wisdom of
the Founding Fathers--that at the very least, no man is competent
enough or far-seeing enough to rule imperially. Checks and balances
were instituted by Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest of
them not because of some abstract distrust of power, but because
they had witnessed the screw-ups and idiocies of unchecked power.
You yourselves have demonstrated the failures of unchecked power--in
an effort to achieve it, you have repeatedly contravened the
expressed wishes of most Americans, who favor a moderate foreign
policy, reasonable domestic programs, a goverrnment that works,
environmental preservation, women's rights to contraception,
abortion, and a level playing field. Somehow you thought you could
mold the imperium to reflect your wishes, but guess what--that's
what an imperium is--one man rule. If you fear the madness of King
George, you have no recourse if you've given up the checks and
balances that you inherited and that were meant to protect you.

Your ideas and your policies have promoted selfishness, greed,
short-term solutions, bullying, and pain for others. You have looked
in the faces of children and denied the existence of a "common
good". You have disdained and denied the idea of "altruism". At one
time, our bureaucracy was full of people who had gone into
government service or scientific research for altruistic reasons--I
knew, because I knew some of them. You have driven them out and
replaced them with vindictive ignoramuses. You have lied over and
over about your motives, for example, making laws that hurt people
and calling it "originalist interpretations of the
Constitution" (conveniently ignoring the Ninth Amendment). You have
increased the powers of corporations at the expense of every other
sector in the nation and actively defied any sort of regulation that
would require these corporations to treat our world with care and
respect. You have made economic growth your deity, and in doing so,
you have accelerated the power of the corporations to destroy the
atmosphere, the oceans, the ice caps, the rainforests, and the
climate. You have produced CEOs in charge of lots of resources and
lots of people who have no more sense of reciprocity or connection
or responsibility than George W. Bush.

Now you are fleeing him, but it's only because he's got the earmarks
of a loser. Your problem is that you don't know why he's losing. You
think he's made mistakes. But no. He's losing because the ideas that
you taught him and demonstrated for him are bad ideas,
self-destructive ideas, and even suicidal ideas. And they are
immoral ideas. You should be ashamed of yourselves because not only
have your ideas not worked to make the world a better place, they
were inhumane and cruel to begin with, and they have served to
cultivate and excuse the inhumane and cruel character traits of
those who profess them.

6. As Bad as Bush is, Cheney is Worse.

http ://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/notes-for-converts_b_17662.html?view=print

"Network" 1976

"You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I
won't have it!! Is that clear?! You think you've merely stopped a
business deal. That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of
dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb
and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance!

"You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There
are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are
no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one
holistic system of systems, one vast and immanent, interwoven,
interacting, multivariate, multi-national dominion of dollars.
Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, Reichmarks, yen, rubles,
pounds, and shekels.

"It is the international system of currency which determines the
totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things
today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things
today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU
WILL ATONE!

"You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America
and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only
IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those
are the nations of the world today.

"What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state --
Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical
decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost
probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.

"We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The
world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the
immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has
been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr.
Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war or famine,
oppression or brutality -- one vast and ecumenical holding company, for
whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will
hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties
tranquilized, all boredom amused."

Pedro Knows His History... (funny)

How this History Lesson should be an insult to every political
party......

It was the first day of school and a new student named Pedro Martinez,
the son of a Mexican restaurateur, entered the fourth grade.

The teacher said, "Let's begin by reviewing some American history.

"Who said 'Give me Liberty, or give me Death?' "

She saw a sea of blank faces, except for Pedro, who had his hand up.

"Patrick Henry, 1775."

"Very good!" apprised the teacher. "Now, who said, "Government of the
people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the
earth?"

Again, no response except from Pedro: "Abraham Lincoln, 1863."

The teacher snapped at the class, "Class, you should be ashamed! Pedro,
who is new to our country, knows more about its history than you do!"

She heard a loud whisper: "Screw the Mexicans!"

"Who said that?" she demanded.

Pedro put his hand up. "Jim Bowie, 1836."

At that point, a student in the back said, "I'm gonna puke." The
teacher glared and asked, "All right! Now, who said that?"

Again, Pedro answered, "George Bush to the Japanese Prime Minister,
1991."

Now furious, another student yelled, "Oh yeah? Suck this!"

Pedro jumped out of his chair waving his hand and shouting to the
teacher, "Bill Clinton to Monica Lewinsky, 1997!"

Now, with almost a mob hysteria, teacher said, "You little shit. If you
say anything else, I'll kill you!"

Pedro frantically yelled at the top of his voice, "Gary Condit to
Chandra Levy, 2001."

The teacher fainted, and as the class gathered around her on the floor,
someone said, "Oh shit, we're in BIG trouble now!"

Pedro whispered, "Saddam Hussein, 2003."

Finally someone throws a eraser at Pedro, someone shouted "Duck"!

Teacher, just waking, asked "Who said that?

Pedro: Dick Cheney 2006!

Neocon architect says: 'Pull it down'

Scotsman.com News - International - Neocon architect says: 'Pull it down': "Mr Fukuyama once supported regime change in Iraq and was a signatory to a 1998 letter sent by the Project for a New American Century to the then president, Bill Clinton, urging the US to step up its efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It was also signed by neoconservative intellectuals, such as Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, and political figures Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the current defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.
However, Mr Fukuyama now thinks the war in Iraq is the wrong sort of war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
'The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism,' he argues.
'Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally.'
Mr Fukuyama, one of the US's most influential public intellectuals, concludes that 'it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention [in Iraq] itself or the ideas animating it kindly'.
Going further, he says the movements' advocates are Leninists who 'believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practised by the United States'."

Annexing Khuzestan; Battle-Plans for Iran

Annexing Khuzestan; Battle-Plans for Iran: "But, step by step, Iran is being set up for war. What difference does the provocation make? The determination to consolidate the oil reserves in the Caspian Basin was made more than a decade ago and is clearly articulated in the policy papers produced by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) The Bush administration is one small province away from realizing the its dream of controlling the world's most valued resource. They won't let that opportunity pass them by."

Top 10 Mistakes Bush made reacting to Al-Qaeda

Informed Comment : "Top Ten Mistakes of the Bush Administration in Reacting to Al-Qaeda

Usamah Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri murdered 3,000 Americans, and they both issued tapes in the past week, blustering and threatening us with more of the same. Most of us aren't wild about paying for the Bush administration with our taxes, but one thing we have a right to expect is that our government would protect us from mass murderers and would chase them down and arrest them. It has not done that. When asked why he hasn't caught Bin Laden, Bush replies, 'Because he's hidin'.' Is Bush laughing at us?

On September 11, 2001, the question was whether we had underestimated al-Qaeda. It appeared to be a Muslim version of the radical seventies groups like the Baader Meinhoff gang or the Japanese Red Army. It was small, only a few hundred really committed members who had sworn fealty to Bin Laden and would actually kill themselves in suicide attacks. There were a few thousand close sympathizers, who had passed through the Afghanistan training camps or otherwise been inducted into the world view. But could a small terrorist group commit mayhem on that scale? Might there be something more to it? Was this the beginning of a new political force in the Middle East that could hope to roll in and take over, the way the Taliban had taken over Afghanistan in the 1990s? People asked such questions.

Over four years later, there is no doubt. Al-Qaeda is a small terrorist network that has spawned a few copy-cats and wannabes. Its breakthrough was to recruit some high-powered engineers in Hamburg, which it immediately used up. Most al-Qaeda recruits are marginal people, people like Zacarias Moussawi and Richard Reid, who would be mere cranks if they hadn't been manipulated into trying something dangerous. Muhammad al-Amir (a.k.a Atta) and Ziad Jarrah were highly competent scientists, who could figure the kinetic energy of a jet plane loaded with fuel. There don't seem to be significant numbers of such people in the organization. They are left mostly with cranks, petty thieves, drug smugglers, bored bank tellers, shopkeepers, and so forth, persons who could pull off a bombing of trains in Madrid or London, but who could not for the life of them do a really big operation.

The Bush administration and the American Right generally has refused to acknowledge what we now know. Al-Qaeda is dangerous. All small terrorist groups can do damage. But it is not an epochal threat to the United States or its allies of the sort the Soviet Union was (and that threat was consistently exaggerated, as well).

In fact, the United States invaded a major Muslim country, occupied it militarily, tortured its citizens, killed tens of thousands, tinkered with the economy-- did all those things that Muslim nationalists had feared and warned against, and there hasn't even been much of a reaction from the Muslim world. Only a few thousand volunteers went to fight. Most people just seem worried that the US will destabilize their region and leave a lot of trouble behind them. People are used to seeing Great Powers do as they will. A Syrian official before the war told a journalist friend of mine that people in the Middle East had been seeing these sorts of invasions since Napoleon took Egypt in 1798. 'Well,' he shrugged, 'usually they leave behind a few good things when they finally leave.'"

See the article for the full list:

http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/top-ten-mistakes-of-bush.html#comments

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse By Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse By Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.: "The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
By Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D."

The Cost of The War

TPMCafe || The Cost of The War: "NEW STUDY SUGGESTS ECONOMIC COST OF IRAQ WAR MUCH LARGER THAN PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED � A new study by two leading academic experts suggests that the costs of the Iraq war will be substantially higher than previously reckoned. In a paper presented to this week%u2019s Allied Social Sciences Association annual meeting in Boston MA., Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes and Columbia University Professor and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz calculate that the war is likely to cost the United States a minimum of nearly one trillion dollars and potentially over $2 trillion."