Friday, August 06, 2004
Capitol Hill Blue: Dubya Does It Again!
Capitol Hill Blue: Dubya Does It Again!: "'Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we,' Bush said."
Norman Mailer on Protests in NYC
Norman Mailer and John Buffalo Mailer Discuss Protests at the Republican National Convention: "Wisdom is ready to reach us from the most unexpected quarters. Here, I quote from a man who became wise a little too late in life:
“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
That was Hermann Goering speaking at the Nuremberg trials after World War II. It is one thing to be forewarned. Will we ever be forearmed?"
“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
That was Hermann Goering speaking at the Nuremberg trials after World War II. It is one thing to be forewarned. Will we ever be forearmed?"
Timeline of Terror Alerts
JuliusBlog: "
Biltud, from Salon.com's TableTalk, posted a few days ago a series of correlations between past terror alerts and political events unfavorable to the Bush administration. I compiled all these correlations and organized them chronologically into a timeline."
Biltud, from Salon.com's TableTalk, posted a few days ago a series of correlations between past terror alerts and political events unfavorable to the Bush administration. I compiled all these correlations and organized them chronologically into a timeline."
Playing Politics With Terror Alerts
JuliusBlog:
Yesterday they brought Tom Ridge to raise the alert color system, scare the bejeesus out of all New Yorkers:
The quality of this intelligence, based on multiple reporting streams in multiple locations, is rarely seen, and it is alarming in both the amount and specificity of the information. Now, while we are providing you with this immediate information, we will also continue to update you as the situation unfolds.
As of now, this is what we know: Reports indicate that al-Qaida is targeting several specific buildings, including the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in the District of Columbia, Prudential Financial in northern New Jersey, and Citigroup buildings and the New York Stock Exchange in New York.
Today the NY Times and the Washington Post report the following:
Much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas was three or four years old, intelligence and law enforcement officials said on Monday. They reported that they had not yet found concrete evidence that a terrorist plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way.
So the whole thing was a political ploy. This sentence in Ridge's press conference should have given it away:
But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror, the reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan.
Shameless!
"
Yesterday they brought Tom Ridge to raise the alert color system, scare the bejeesus out of all New Yorkers:
The quality of this intelligence, based on multiple reporting streams in multiple locations, is rarely seen, and it is alarming in both the amount and specificity of the information. Now, while we are providing you with this immediate information, we will also continue to update you as the situation unfolds.
As of now, this is what we know: Reports indicate that al-Qaida is targeting several specific buildings, including the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in the District of Columbia, Prudential Financial in northern New Jersey, and Citigroup buildings and the New York Stock Exchange in New York.
Today the NY Times and the Washington Post report the following:
Much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas was three or four years old, intelligence and law enforcement officials said on Monday. They reported that they had not yet found concrete evidence that a terrorist plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way.
So the whole thing was a political ploy. This sentence in Ridge's press conference should have given it away:
But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror, the reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan.
Shameless!
"
Comment on Swift Boats
Political Animal: Long
Article with lots of quotes from Kerry's compatriots.: "Here are the 10 crewmates who served with Kerry in Vietnam. All but Steve Gardner support John Kerry and stood with him as he made his speech to the DNC. (except Tom Belodeau who is deceased)."
Article with lots of quotes from Kerry's compatriots.: "Here are the 10 crewmates who served with Kerry in Vietnam. All but Steve Gardner support John Kerry and stood with him as he made his speech to the DNC. (except Tom Belodeau who is deceased)."
Points made by documentary "Orwell Rolls in his Grave"
JuliusBlog: "As the American media have been concentrated into fewer and fewer hands (5 people own all of the American media now), the conflict of interests of reporters and editors has increased geometrically. This can be seen in the topics the media cover: real news and insight have been replaced by trivia. Real politics have been replaced with propaganda and stenography for conservative politicians.
Reporters can no longer report on business scandals (they are about their owners), on corporate abuses (since they are about their owners), or political scandals on the right-wing (they are about their owners), so they are allowed to only cover TRIVIA, celebrity scandals, meaningless sex-laden trials, and gossip. This 'dumbing down' of the news is only bound to get worse. The coverage of the Democratic Convention is a great example of this trend: they covered image, trivia, timing, and even what the speakers were wearing... nothing about the substance. The substance of the Democratic speeches conflicts with the interests of their owners, therefore it's not covered. It's very simple. Wolfie, Judy, Rather, Tweety, Brokaw, they all like their jobs and would like to keep them. They sure made a good example of Donahue and what happens when you stray from the interests of your network (even when you make great ratings).
"
Reporters can no longer report on business scandals (they are about their owners), on corporate abuses (since they are about their owners), or political scandals on the right-wing (they are about their owners), so they are allowed to only cover TRIVIA, celebrity scandals, meaningless sex-laden trials, and gossip. This 'dumbing down' of the news is only bound to get worse. The coverage of the Democratic Convention is a great example of this trend: they covered image, trivia, timing, and even what the speakers were wearing... nothing about the substance. The substance of the Democratic speeches conflicts with the interests of their owners, therefore it's not covered. It's very simple. Wolfie, Judy, Rather, Tweety, Brokaw, they all like their jobs and would like to keep them. They sure made a good example of Donahue and what happens when you stray from the interests of your network (even when you make great ratings).
"
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004
Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004:
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 307 Bush 231
According to this site, the electoral vote is pretty much a lock for Kerry.
Strong Kerry (189)
Weak Kerry (42)
Barely Kerry (76)
Exactly tied (0)
Barely Bush (45)
Weak Bush (52)
Strong Bush (134)
But a closer look at the map shows how important Florida is to this race. Florida has 27 electoral votes and is listed as barely Kerry. If bush's brother can deliver Florida the numbers become Kerry 280 Bush 258. Bush would still need 22. No Two of the remaining Barely Kerry states will give Bush 22. He would need to win at least 3. Its also interesting that even if Kerry lost Florida and one of his weak states, he still wins.
Since this is really the only thing that matters in the election its looking really good for Kerry.
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 307 Bush 231
According to this site, the electoral vote is pretty much a lock for Kerry.
Strong Kerry (189)
Weak Kerry (42)
Barely Kerry (76)
Exactly tied (0)
Barely Bush (45)
Weak Bush (52)
Strong Bush (134)
But a closer look at the map shows how important Florida is to this race. Florida has 27 electoral votes and is listed as barely Kerry. If bush's brother can deliver Florida the numbers become Kerry 280 Bush 258. Bush would still need 22. No Two of the remaining Barely Kerry states will give Bush 22. He would need to win at least 3. Its also interesting that even if Kerry lost Florida and one of his weak states, he still wins.
Since this is really the only thing that matters in the election its looking really good for Kerry.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Dick Chaney and the Halliburton Agenda
The Education Forum -> : "Another recently published book, The Halliburton Agenda by Dan Briody, provides another reason for the war. The book tells an interesting story.
In 1992 Dick Cheney, head of the US Department of Defence, gave a $3.9m contract (a further $5m was added later) to Kellog Brown & Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton. The contract involved writing a report about how private contractors could help the Pentagon deal with 13 different “hot spots” around the world.
The KBR report remains a classified document. However, the report convinced Cheney to award a umbrella contract to one company to deal with these problems. This contract, which became known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Programme (Logcap), was of course awarded to KBR. It is an unique contract and is effectively a blank cheque from the government. KBR makes it money from a built in profit percentage. When your profit is a percentage of the cost, the more you spend, the more you make.
KBR’s first task was to go to Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope. KBR arrived before the US Army. Over the next few months KBR made a profit of $109.7m. In August 1994 KBR made $6.3m in Rwanda. Later that year they received $150m profit from its work in Haiti. KBR made its money from building base camps, supplying troops with food and water, fuel and munitions, cleaning latrines and washing clothes.
The contract came up for renewal in 1997. By this time Cheney had been appointed as CEO of Halliburton. The Clinton administration gave the contract to Dyncorp. The contract came to an end in 2001. Cheney was now back in power and KBR won back the Logcap contract. This time it was granted for ten years. The beauty of this contract is that it does not matter where the US armed forces are in action, the KBR makes money from its activities. However, the longer the troops stay, the more money it makes.
KBR is now busy in Iraq (it also built the detention cells in Guantanamo Bay). What is more Halliburton was given the contract for restoring the Iraqi oil infrastructure (no competitive bid took place).
Cheney sold his stock options in Halliburton for $30m when he became vice president. He claimed he had got rid of all his financial interests in Halliburton. However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) discovered that he has been receiving yearly sums from Halliburton: $205,298 (2001), $162,392 (2002), etc. They also found he still holds 433,333 unexercised stock options in Halliburton.
The main difference between a democracy and a military dictatorship is that the freedom of the media ensures that serious political corruption does not take place. Yet, in both the US and the UK, political corruption goes to the heart of the war in Iraq. Thousands of people have been killed in order that a few men could become extremely wealthy. It is the most serious charge one can make against a politician. I believe both Bush and Blair are guilty of this charge. Not only should they be removed from power. They should be sent to prison for a very long time.
"
In 1992 Dick Cheney, head of the US Department of Defence, gave a $3.9m contract (a further $5m was added later) to Kellog Brown & Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton. The contract involved writing a report about how private contractors could help the Pentagon deal with 13 different “hot spots” around the world.
The KBR report remains a classified document. However, the report convinced Cheney to award a umbrella contract to one company to deal with these problems. This contract, which became known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Programme (Logcap), was of course awarded to KBR. It is an unique contract and is effectively a blank cheque from the government. KBR makes it money from a built in profit percentage. When your profit is a percentage of the cost, the more you spend, the more you make.
KBR’s first task was to go to Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope. KBR arrived before the US Army. Over the next few months KBR made a profit of $109.7m. In August 1994 KBR made $6.3m in Rwanda. Later that year they received $150m profit from its work in Haiti. KBR made its money from building base camps, supplying troops with food and water, fuel and munitions, cleaning latrines and washing clothes.
The contract came up for renewal in 1997. By this time Cheney had been appointed as CEO of Halliburton. The Clinton administration gave the contract to Dyncorp. The contract came to an end in 2001. Cheney was now back in power and KBR won back the Logcap contract. This time it was granted for ten years. The beauty of this contract is that it does not matter where the US armed forces are in action, the KBR makes money from its activities. However, the longer the troops stay, the more money it makes.
KBR is now busy in Iraq (it also built the detention cells in Guantanamo Bay). What is more Halliburton was given the contract for restoring the Iraqi oil infrastructure (no competitive bid took place).
Cheney sold his stock options in Halliburton for $30m when he became vice president. He claimed he had got rid of all his financial interests in Halliburton. However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) discovered that he has been receiving yearly sums from Halliburton: $205,298 (2001), $162,392 (2002), etc. They also found he still holds 433,333 unexercised stock options in Halliburton.
The main difference between a democracy and a military dictatorship is that the freedom of the media ensures that serious political corruption does not take place. Yet, in both the US and the UK, political corruption goes to the heart of the war in Iraq. Thousands of people have been killed in order that a few men could become extremely wealthy. It is the most serious charge one can make against a politician. I believe both Bush and Blair are guilty of this charge. Not only should they be removed from power. They should be sent to prison for a very long time.
"
AMERICAN MILITARY GOES ON FULL ALERT
AMERICAN MILITARY GOES ON FULL ALERT
Defcon-Two Order Acts On New Intelligence
WASHINGTON, D.C.(DeutscheWelle) The Department of Defense announced today that the nation's military alert readiness level had been raised to Defense Condition (Defcon) Two -- one stage below a declaration of war -- as new intelligence indicated an imminent attack against the United States.
The Pentagon would not reveal details about the intelligence, but specifically alerted U.S. commands in Korea, Singapore, the Phillipines, and Hawaii. Similarly, new curfew orders in cities along the West Coast of the United States were about to be enacted.
Police in seven western states have been sent preliminary instructions to bring under surveillance a large number of people of an unspecified racial or ethnic group -- a move which has brought strident criticisim from civil libertarians and legal advocates.
Sources at the Pentagon indicated that the intelligence information, originating in the Pacific Rim, pointed to a likely attack against U.S. naval assets in Hawaii.
The President noted that 'these are dark days for our country. We must stand together against the possibility of a new threat, unseen in the darkness around us.'
In a related story, the Japanese ambassador was abruptly called to the White House for a forty-minute interview with President Bush. Ambassador Tokyama commented after that he had been asked to 'provide certain assurances' to the administration, and help 'answer certain inquiries'.
Tokyama denied rumors that the intelligence gathered poiinted to an attack by Japan against the U.S. at the end of the year. 'That is very old history. Why would America depend on intelligence over sixty years old?' he added.
"
Defcon-Two Order Acts On New Intelligence
WASHINGTON, D.C.(DeutscheWelle) The Department of Defense announced today that the nation's military alert readiness level had been raised to Defense Condition (Defcon) Two -- one stage below a declaration of war -- as new intelligence indicated an imminent attack against the United States.
The Pentagon would not reveal details about the intelligence, but specifically alerted U.S. commands in Korea, Singapore, the Phillipines, and Hawaii. Similarly, new curfew orders in cities along the West Coast of the United States were about to be enacted.
Police in seven western states have been sent preliminary instructions to bring under surveillance a large number of people of an unspecified racial or ethnic group -- a move which has brought strident criticisim from civil libertarians and legal advocates.
Sources at the Pentagon indicated that the intelligence information, originating in the Pacific Rim, pointed to a likely attack against U.S. naval assets in Hawaii.
The President noted that 'these are dark days for our country. We must stand together against the possibility of a new threat, unseen in the darkness around us.'
In a related story, the Japanese ambassador was abruptly called to the White House for a forty-minute interview with President Bush. Ambassador Tokyama commented after that he had been asked to 'provide certain assurances' to the administration, and help 'answer certain inquiries'.
Tokyama denied rumors that the intelligence gathered poiinted to an attack by Japan against the U.S. at the end of the year. 'That is very old history. Why would America depend on intelligence over sixty years old?' he added.
"
is the situation in Iraq a model for the US?
The Smirking Chimp: "You can consider the situation in Iraq as a model for the US - I'm sure that's how our leadership sees it. Iraq has been a great success, exactly as planned, and even the objection that too few militia were sent there to 'do the job' (ensure peaceful transition to democracy) is irrelevant. The oil has been captured and 14 military bases have been esstablished in Iraq. The museum has been destroyed, the artifacts scattered in the campaign to deprive Iraqis of their history and their national identity.
So Iraq has been reduced to violent pandemonium with just a few isolated pockets of relative safety for the US invaders - the new bases and the protected wells - the areas with an economic interest forthe US. To hell with the rest of Iraq and its people, let them struggle, starve and fight each other.
This is exactly the model for the US - a few enclaves of safety for the super rich amidst a country of pandemonium, violence and martial law. These phony terror alerts are a part of the propaganda process in reacing the desired state of anarchy and repression. More will come. People will accept dictatorship for their safety.
Goddamn the federal government for destroying our freedom. Goddamn the corporate lobbysts for hijacking the government. Goddamn the American people for their criminal gullibility. "
So Iraq has been reduced to violent pandemonium with just a few isolated pockets of relative safety for the US invaders - the new bases and the protected wells - the areas with an economic interest forthe US. To hell with the rest of Iraq and its people, let them struggle, starve and fight each other.
This is exactly the model for the US - a few enclaves of safety for the super rich amidst a country of pandemonium, violence and martial law. These phony terror alerts are a part of the propaganda process in reacing the desired state of anarchy and repression. More will come. People will accept dictatorship for their safety.
Goddamn the federal government for destroying our freedom. Goddamn the corporate lobbysts for hijacking the government. Goddamn the American people for their criminal gullibility. "
OutFoxed exposes the Right Wing Conspiracy at Fox News
Everyone needs to see the movie 'outfoxed' by Robert Greenwald (http://www.outfoxed.org/).
This movie shows how the people on Fox are given daily talking points on how they should cover the issues. It interviews former employees who talk about how they were presured by management to present a right wing version of the news and to always present the GOP in the best light possible.
Also look at this web site: http://www.newshounds.us/
It was formed by the people who monitored Fox for the movie and has daily posts about the abuses on Fox News.
Another site that covers more specific bias in the general media is Media Matters for America at http://mediamatters.org/"
This movie shows how the people on Fox are given daily talking points on how they should cover the issues. It interviews former employees who talk about how they were presured by management to present a right wing version of the news and to always present the GOP in the best light possible.
Also look at this web site: http://www.newshounds.us/
It was formed by the people who monitored Fox for the movie and has daily posts about the abuses on Fox News.
Another site that covers more specific bias in the general media is Media Matters for America at http://mediamatters.org/"
Monday, August 02, 2004
How to Lose the War on Terror
How to Lose the War on Terror:
"Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. He’s now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him. He also saw the Islamic clerical community, from liberal to the most Wahhabist, issue fatwas that were more vitriolic and more demanding than the fatwas that were issued against the Soviets when they came into Afghanistan. They basically validated all of the theological arguments bin Laden has been making since 1996, that it is incumbent on all Muslims to fight the Americans because they were invading Islamic territory. Until we did that in Iraq, he really had a difficult time making that argument stick, but now there is no question.
It’s also perceived widely in the Muslim world that we attacked Iraq to move along what, at least in Muslims’ minds, is the Israelis’ goal of a greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. While we’re beating the hell out of the Iraqis, Sharon and the Israelis are beating the hell out of the Palestinians every day. So we have an overwhelming media flow into the Muslim world of infidels killing Muslims. It’s a one-sided view, but it’s their perception. And unless you deal with what they think, you’re never going to understand what we’re up against."
"Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. He’s now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him. He also saw the Islamic clerical community, from liberal to the most Wahhabist, issue fatwas that were more vitriolic and more demanding than the fatwas that were issued against the Soviets when they came into Afghanistan. They basically validated all of the theological arguments bin Laden has been making since 1996, that it is incumbent on all Muslims to fight the Americans because they were invading Islamic territory. Until we did that in Iraq, he really had a difficult time making that argument stick, but now there is no question.
It’s also perceived widely in the Muslim world that we attacked Iraq to move along what, at least in Muslims’ minds, is the Israelis’ goal of a greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. While we’re beating the hell out of the Iraqis, Sharon and the Israelis are beating the hell out of the Palestinians every day. So we have an overwhelming media flow into the Muslim world of infidels killing Muslims. It’s a one-sided view, but it’s their perception. And unless you deal with what they think, you’re never going to understand what we’re up against."
Sunday, August 01, 2004
The Case Against George W. Bush
Esquire:Feature Story:The Case Against George W. Bush:
"The real—but elusive—prime mover behind the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, was quickly relegated to a back burner while Saddam's Iraq became International Enemy Number One. Just like that, a country whose economy had been reduced to shambles by international sanctions, whose military was less than half the size it had been when the U. S. Army rolled over it during the first Gulf war, that had extensive no-flight zones imposed on it in the north and south as well as constant aerial and satellite surveillance, and whose lethal weapons and capacity to produce such weapons had been destroyed or seriously degraded by UN inspection teams became, in Mr. Bush's words, 'a threat of unique urgency' to the most powerful nation on earth.
Fanciful but terrifying scenarios were introduced: Unmanned aircraft, drones, had been built for missions targeting the U. S., Bush told the nation. 'We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,' National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice deadpanned to CNN. And, Bush maintained, 'Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.' We 'know' Iraq possesses such weapons, Rumsfeld and Vice-President Cheney assured us. We even 'know' where they are hidden. After several months of this mumbo jumbo, 70 percent of Americans had embraced the fantasy that Saddam destroyed the World Trade Center.
ALL THESE ASSERTIONS have proved to be baseless and, we've since discovered, were regarded with skepticism by experts at the time they were made. But contrary opinions were derided, ignored, or covered up in the rush to war. Even as of this writing, Dick Cheney clings to his mad assertion that Saddam was somehow at the nexus of a worldwide terror network."
"The real—but elusive—prime mover behind the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, was quickly relegated to a back burner while Saddam's Iraq became International Enemy Number One. Just like that, a country whose economy had been reduced to shambles by international sanctions, whose military was less than half the size it had been when the U. S. Army rolled over it during the first Gulf war, that had extensive no-flight zones imposed on it in the north and south as well as constant aerial and satellite surveillance, and whose lethal weapons and capacity to produce such weapons had been destroyed or seriously degraded by UN inspection teams became, in Mr. Bush's words, 'a threat of unique urgency' to the most powerful nation on earth.
Fanciful but terrifying scenarios were introduced: Unmanned aircraft, drones, had been built for missions targeting the U. S., Bush told the nation. 'We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,' National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice deadpanned to CNN. And, Bush maintained, 'Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.' We 'know' Iraq possesses such weapons, Rumsfeld and Vice-President Cheney assured us. We even 'know' where they are hidden. After several months of this mumbo jumbo, 70 percent of Americans had embraced the fantasy that Saddam destroyed the World Trade Center.
ALL THESE ASSERTIONS have proved to be baseless and, we've since discovered, were regarded with skepticism by experts at the time they were made. But contrary opinions were derided, ignored, or covered up in the rush to war. Even as of this writing, Dick Cheney clings to his mad assertion that Saddam was somehow at the nexus of a worldwide terror network."
Esquire - Ron Reagan on why bush has to go.
Esquire:Feature Story:The Case Against George W. Bush: "During his campaign for the presidency, Mr. Bush pledged a more 'humble' foreign policy. 'I would take the use of force very seriously,' he said. 'I would be guarded in my approach.' Other countries would resent us 'if we're an arrogant nation.' He sniffed at the notion of 'nation building.' 'Our military is meant to fight and win wars. . . . And when it gets overextended, morale drops.' International cooperation and consensus building would be the cornerstone of a Bush administration's approach to the larger world. Given candidate Bush's remarks, it was hard to imagine him, as president, flipping a stiff middle finger at the world and charging off adventuring in the Middle East.
But didn't 9/11 reshuffle the deck, changing everything? Didn't Mr. Bush, on September 12, 2001, awaken to the fresh realization that bad guys in charge of Islamic nations constitute an entirely new and grave threat to us and have to be ruthlessly confronted lest they threaten the American homeland again? Wasn't Saddam Hussein rushed to the front of the line because he was complicit with the hijackers and in some measure responsible for the atrocities in Washington, D. C., and at the tip of Manhattan?
Well, no.
As Bush's former Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, and his onetime 'terror czar,' Richard A. Clarke, have made clear, the president, with the enthusiastic encouragement of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, was contemplating action against Iraq from day one. 'From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out,' O'Neill said. All they needed was an excuse. "
But didn't 9/11 reshuffle the deck, changing everything? Didn't Mr. Bush, on September 12, 2001, awaken to the fresh realization that bad guys in charge of Islamic nations constitute an entirely new and grave threat to us and have to be ruthlessly confronted lest they threaten the American homeland again? Wasn't Saddam Hussein rushed to the front of the line because he was complicit with the hijackers and in some measure responsible for the atrocities in Washington, D. C., and at the tip of Manhattan?
Well, no.
As Bush's former Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, and his onetime 'terror czar,' Richard A. Clarke, have made clear, the president, with the enthusiastic encouragement of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, was contemplating action against Iraq from day one. 'From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out,' O'Neill said. All they needed was an excuse. "
Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
Capitol Hill Blue: Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior: "President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.
The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President’s mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.
“It’s a double-edged sword,” says one aide. “We can’t have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally.”
Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.
“Keep those motherfuckers away from me,” he screamed at an aide backstage. “If you can’t, I’ll find someone who can.”
Bush’s mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President’s wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.
Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a “paranoid meglomaniac” and “untreated alcoholic” whose “lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad” showcase Bush’s instabilities.
The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas governor and his first campaign for President.
“President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies,” Dr. Frank adds.
Veteran White House watchers say the ability to control information about Bush’s health, either physical or mental, is similar to Ronald Reagan’s second term when aides managed to conceal the President’s increasing memory lapses that signaled the onslaught of Alzheimer’s Disease.
It also brings back memories of Richard Nixon’s final days when the soon-to-resign President wandered the halls and talked to portraits of former Presidents. The stories didn’t emerge until after Nixon left office.
One long-time GOP political consultant who – for obvious reasons – asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush.
“We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony tunes,” he says sadly. “That’s not good for my candidates, it’s not good for the party and it’s certainly not good for the country."
The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President’s mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.
“It’s a double-edged sword,” says one aide. “We can’t have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally.”
Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.
“Keep those motherfuckers away from me,” he screamed at an aide backstage. “If you can’t, I’ll find someone who can.”
Bush’s mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President’s wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.
Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a “paranoid meglomaniac” and “untreated alcoholic” whose “lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad” showcase Bush’s instabilities.
The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas governor and his first campaign for President.
“President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies,” Dr. Frank adds.
Veteran White House watchers say the ability to control information about Bush’s health, either physical or mental, is similar to Ronald Reagan’s second term when aides managed to conceal the President’s increasing memory lapses that signaled the onslaught of Alzheimer’s Disease.
It also brings back memories of Richard Nixon’s final days when the soon-to-resign President wandered the halls and talked to portraits of former Presidents. The stories didn’t emerge until after Nixon left office.
One long-time GOP political consultant who – for obvious reasons – asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush.
“We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony tunes,” he says sadly. “That’s not good for my candidates, it’s not good for the party and it’s certainly not good for the country."
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Reasonable Bush Bashing
CBS News | Reasonable Bush Bashing | July 28, 2004 12:56:03: " The political press simply can't let go of the idea that puffing up your guy is somehow better for democracy than tearing down the other guy. I don't think that's correct in general. The relevant gauge is truth. I think accurate negative claims are better than inaccurate positive claims.
Moreover, if there's one time when negativity would do some real good for the body politic, it's now. For most of the last three years, Democrats have been a minority in both the House and Senate, and thus lacked a megaphone to critique Bush. And Bush has enjoyed an extraordinary series of honeymoons: first the wave of enforced unity after the Florida fiasco; then the genuinely felt unity after 9/11; then a smaller version of the same phenomenon before and during the first stages of the Iraq war. As a result, he has been unusually insulated from criticism. There are major lines of attack against Bush -- that he has inadequately funded homeland security, that he has been unusually profligate in spending tax dollars to bribe swing constituencies -- that are largely unfamiliar to most Americans.
"
Moreover, if there's one time when negativity would do some real good for the body politic, it's now. For most of the last three years, Democrats have been a minority in both the House and Senate, and thus lacked a megaphone to critique Bush. And Bush has enjoyed an extraordinary series of honeymoons: first the wave of enforced unity after the Florida fiasco; then the genuinely felt unity after 9/11; then a smaller version of the same phenomenon before and during the first stages of the Iraq war. As a result, he has been unusually insulated from criticism. There are major lines of attack against Bush -- that he has inadequately funded homeland security, that he has been unusually profligate in spending tax dollars to bribe swing constituencies -- that are largely unfamiliar to most Americans.
"
Whose lies hurt more?
The Australian: Bob Brown: Whose lies hurt more? [July 29, 2004]: "Fahrenheit 9/11 has a signal scene in which Bush regales wealthy Republican donors with a toast to 'the haves and have-mores'. This, in a nation with 30million people too poor to access hospital care. It is an unforgettable scene where Bush exhibits his unfitness as president of a great nation, let alone as world leader.
One is left wondering how else the US might be. What if the President, instead of spending $60 billion extra per annum on armaments for Iraq, had set up a new Marshall Plan to feed, clothe and ensure schools for the world's 1 billion citizens living in abject poverty?
"
One is left wondering how else the US might be. What if the President, instead of spending $60 billion extra per annum on armaments for Iraq, had set up a new Marshall Plan to feed, clothe and ensure schools for the world's 1 billion citizens living in abject poverty?
"
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
The Oft-Asked Question: Why Do They Hate Us?
The Oft-Asked Question: Why Do They Hate Us?: "Arabs and Muslims admire America, like Americans and respect the Western culture. They enjoy American cuisine, American films, American music and American songs. They understand and appreciate American humor. They dislike the attitude of America toward Arabs and Muslims. They hate American policy in the Middle East. They are angry at what they consider an unjust attack on Islam, a lack of respect for the Qur’an and an assault on their deeply cherished values.
Arabs and Muslims want a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. They are angry that America threatens and punishes Arab and Muslim countries, which it suspects of developing nuclear weapons, while it turns a blind eye on the weapons of mass destruction and the large nuclear arsenal in non-Arab and non-Muslims countries in the region.
Arabs and Muslims appreciate that America is psychologically and emotionally tied to Israel and they understand that it is difficult for America to be totally objective in making judgments regarding the complicated and complex Palestinian-Israeli problem. Nevertheless, they are disappointed that America has not used its influence to stop the carnage in the Middle East.
Arabs and Muslims are shocked at the torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners. They are enraged at the policies of assassination of Palestinian leaders, the killing, arrest, humiliation and suffering of Palestinian men, women and children, the demolition of Palestinian homes, the destruction of Palestinian livelihood and annexation of Palestinian lands. They believe that America should not allow a wall of hatred to rise between Palestinian and Israelis. Instead, it should build a strong bridge of justice, respect and understanding, where innocent bloodshed is being daily spilled."
Arabs and Muslims want a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. They are angry that America threatens and punishes Arab and Muslim countries, which it suspects of developing nuclear weapons, while it turns a blind eye on the weapons of mass destruction and the large nuclear arsenal in non-Arab and non-Muslims countries in the region.
Arabs and Muslims appreciate that America is psychologically and emotionally tied to Israel and they understand that it is difficult for America to be totally objective in making judgments regarding the complicated and complex Palestinian-Israeli problem. Nevertheless, they are disappointed that America has not used its influence to stop the carnage in the Middle East.
Arabs and Muslims are shocked at the torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners. They are enraged at the policies of assassination of Palestinian leaders, the killing, arrest, humiliation and suffering of Palestinian men, women and children, the demolition of Palestinian homes, the destruction of Palestinian livelihood and annexation of Palestinian lands. They believe that America should not allow a wall of hatred to rise between Palestinian and Israelis. Instead, it should build a strong bridge of justice, respect and understanding, where innocent bloodshed is being daily spilled."
The goal is perminant bases in the middle east
ZNet |Iraq | Iraq: What Went Wrong? : "The occupation authority, called the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) despite the fact that the US rulers even ignore the opinions of their British 'Coalition partners,' says its only purpose is to create a free Iraq and return sovereignty. They deny plans for any permanent occupation, though US generals keep on upping the length of time US troops will 'have to stay' in Iraq. Meanwhile, 4, or is it 14, permanent military bases are being constructed.53, 54 Very few articles have occurred in the mainstream US press on the construction of these permanent bases. To replace a prewar army of perhaps 400,000, which fought a many years war with neighboring Iran, the US proposes to create, over a number of years, a new Iraqi army of 35,000. This new army will have no tanks, no heavy artillery55, no air force to defend a country that is surrounded by countries -– Iraq, Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -– with whom there has either been recent conflict or who have territorial or other conflicts with Iraq. Iraqis wonder how a lightly armed army of 35,000 is supposed to defend their country, were the Americans ever to leave. The first US ruler of Iraq, Jay Garner, compares the US presence in Iraq to the century-long US presence in the Philippines:
'Noting how establishing U.S. naval bases in the Philippines in the early 1900s allowed the United States to maintain a 'great presence in the Pacific.' Garner said. 'To me that's what Iraq is for the next few decades. We ought to have something there ... that gives us great presence in the Middle East. I think that's going to be necessary.'' - A. S. Klamper. "Former Iraq administrator sees decades-long U.S. military presence." CongressDaily. Feb. 6, 2004.
'Noting how establishing U.S. naval bases in the Philippines in the early 1900s allowed the United States to maintain a 'great presence in the Pacific.' Garner said. 'To me that's what Iraq is for the next few decades. We ought to have something there ... that gives us great presence in the Middle East. I think that's going to be necessary.'' - A. S. Klamper. "Former Iraq administrator sees decades-long U.S. military presence." CongressDaily. Feb. 6, 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)