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."

Pentagon Expanding Its Domestic Surveillance Activity

Has there been even one, single, solitary instance of a “terrorist” being caught by all this nonsense? What exactly is all this good for, other than spying on citizens at will?

The “evidence” against Padilla was apparently obtained by waterboarding (drowning reflex torturing) two al Queda members until they made up something that the torturers wanted to hear. No case, no evidence, no “dirty bombs”, no admin officals declaring him guilty without trial on TV anymore. And he was one of their Big Wins By Using Theeir New Freedom To Find Terrorists.

Still, people don’t understand what’s happening to their rights. And they won’t care. Torture, false imprisonment, stripping a US citizen of his constitutional rights by executive fiat based on stories made up under torture, keeping him prisoner and helpless to answer his accusers for over three years, then a nonsense charge to maintain face — and he’s still under the King’s justice, unable to examine the evidence against him — because there never was any. Why is a US citizen in a secret gulag under trumped up charges? Why don’t people care? How many others are out there?

They demanded trust, and they blew it. They don’t care about justice, just power. Don’t give them more.

Jeff Huber - Top 10 Bad Reasons for "Staying the Course" in Iraq (and One Good One)

"Top 10 Bad Reasons for %u201CStaying the Course%u201D in
Iraq (and One Good One)
by Jeff Huber"
http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/20051003huber.html

5. We need to support our troops.

I applaud and deeply respect our men and women in uniform for their magnificent service and sacrifice. These are my people, remember? However, comma….

In the first place, we are supporting our troops — to the tune of nearly half a trillion dollars a year.

Second, when we continue to commit those men and women in uniform to a struggle for which there is no military solution, we are abusing them, not supporting them.

Third — and most importantly — America does not exist for the purpose of supporting its military. Our military exists to support America. And if it’s not defending us at home or achieving our national aims overseas, it’s not supporting our country.

1. We set out to establish a military base of operations from which we can control the Middle East and its oil, and we should persist until we "get the job done."

Even though it’s true, the argument’s still specious. Our "besttrained, bestequipped, bestfunded" military can’t get Iraq or Afghanistan under control. How can we possibly expect to lock down the entire Middle East?

Hullabaloo

From Hullabaloo:

"I am of the opinion that alienating our allies, exposing ourselves as having an intelligence community that can't find water if they fall out of a boat and then screwing up Iraq in spectacular fashion, we have destroyed our mystique and have made this country less safe. We were much better off speaking softly and carrying the big stick than flailing around like a wounded, impotent Giant.

I see no reason to believe that these people see that. They believe that to 'cut and run' is the equivalent of emasculating this country and that is what puts us at risk. George W. Bush is not bugging out."

Once Upon a Time...:

"The attacks of 9/11 tore aside a significant part of the veneer of civilization that had shrouded us from certain continuing, ugly truths about ourselves. In the wake of the attacks of that day, many of us -- led by our president, cheered on by the neoconservatives, and also by many conservatives and liberventionists (those alleged "libertarians," who think government should stay out of our lives at home but should simultaneously seek to rearrange the globe by military force -- and who appear to think it represents the apex of intellectual integrity never to even acknowledge this contradiction, let alone try to justify it) -- enthusiastically embraced a simple storyline: Western civilization, more particularly the United States, constitutes the highest point of possible human development. It is only "freedom" and "democracy" as practiced in the West that can guarantee a future of peace. (Never mind the West's uninterrupted history of warfare within its own ranks, and never mind the West's unending, centuries-long interference with the rest of the world.)The West has the answer to successful human life. Since it does, and because certain elements in the rest of the world have now chosen to attack us on our own ground (and never mind that we have invaded and ruled over vast portions of the rest of the world since time immemorial), we must enlighten those benighted portions of the globe in our defense. Our chosen method of enlightenment is brute military force, to be deployed even against countries that did not threaten us. The lack of a genuine threat is no argument against spreading our version of "civilization," for our mission is grounded not only in self-defense: it is also a moral mission. Our success and our "peace" directly correlates to our virtue. Those countries and those civilizations that do not enjoy the same success and peace are without virtue. In the most extreme (and, one could argue, most consistent) version of this tale, non-Western parts of the world are less than human -- and they are subhuman by choice. They are immoral, and sometimes even evil. Since we represent the good and they represent the evil, we are surely entitled to improve them, by invasion and bombing if necessary. If they do not threaten us today, they might at some indeterminate time in the future. And while we might kill many innocent civilians in our campaign of civilization, those who survive will be infinitely better off than they would have been otherwise. Besides, how "innocent" can any of them be -- since they are members of inferior, less than fully human civilizations, and since they are so by choice?">Once Upon a Time...: Myths of New Orleans: Poor, Bad Blacks -- Who Got What They Deserved: "The attacks of 9/11 tore aside a significant part of the veneer of civilization that had shrouded us from certain continuing, ugly truths about ourselves. In the wake of the attacks of that day, many of us -- led by our president, cheered on by the neoconservatives, and also by many conservatives and liberventionists (those alleged 'libertarians,' who think government should stay out of our lives at home but should simultaneously seek to rearrange the globe by military force -- and who appear to think it represents the apex of intellectual integrity never to even acknowledge this contradiction, let alone try to justify it) -- enthusiastically embraced a simple storyline: Western civilization, more particularly the United States, constitutes the highest point of possible human development. It is only 'freedom' and 'democracy' as practiced in the West that can guarantee a future of peace. (Never mind the West's uninterrupted history of warfare within its own ranks, and never mind the West's unending, centuries-long interference with the rest of the world.)The West has the answer to successful human life. Since it does, and because certain elements in the rest of the world have now chosen to attack us on our own ground (and never mind that we have invaded and ruled over vast portions of the rest of the world since time immemorial), we must enlighten those benighted portions of the globe in our defense. Our chosen method of enlightenment is brute military force, to be deployed even against countries that did not threaten us. The lack of a genuine threat is no argument against spreading our version of 'civilization,' for our mission is grounded not only in self-defense: it is also a moral mission. Our success and our 'peace' directly correlates to our virtue. Those countries and those civilizations that do not enjoy the same success and peace are without virtue. In the most extreme (and, one could argue, most consistent) version of this tale, non-Western parts of the world are less than human -- and they are subhuman by choice. They are immoral, and sometimes even evil. Since we represent the good and they represent the evil, we are surely entitled to improve them, by invasion and bombing if necessary. If they do not threaten us today, they might at some indeterminate time in the future. And while we might kill many innocent civilians in our campaign of civilization, those who survive will be infinitely better off than they would have been otherwise. Besides, how 'innocent' can any of them be -- since they are members of inferior, less than fully human civilizations, and since they are so by choice?"

Abraham Lincoln, letter to William Elkins, Nov 21, 1864

HaloScan.com - Comments:

"'I see in the near future a crisis approaching. It unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. The money powers preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy.

It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me & the financial institutions at the rear, the latter is my greatest foe. Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.'

-Abraham Lincoln, letter to William Elkins, Nov 21, 1864 (after the passage of the debt causing National Bank Act [June 3, 1864])"

Latest Mark Morford (SF gate) article: George W. Bush Still Rocks

All:

Mark has always had a rapier-like writing style; this time
he skewers with great abandon.

Note: not for the squeamish. But Mark usually isn't.

WinterBear

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


George W. Bush Still Rocks!
Stop criticizing! The rich man's CEO president is
executing his job requirements perfectly
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

By Mark Morford, San Francisco Gate columnist
Friday, September 9, 2005


Everyone is slamming poor Dubya. Everyone is saying,
oh my God, he's more inept than we ever imagined, he
has no idea what's really going on, he's oblivious and
in denial and he pretty much let all those poor black
people die in filth and misery, and he basically
ignored the massive Katrina disaster for days before
finally being pressured into cutting his umpteenth
vacation short and actually taking action.

This is what they're saying. Kanye West was right,
Bush doesn't care about black people, or the poor, or
anything that doesn't directly serve his handlers'
agenda or flatter his monochromatic ego or anything
that isn't spelled out for him in nice simplistic pie
charts and reassuring matronly tones.

And lo, the darts are slinging in from around the
world, according to SF Gate's own World Views column:
"Maddening incompetence ... reminiscent of a
drought-stricken African state," says Britain's Daily
Mail. "Can't get it together," says a major paper in
Italy. "A plethora of grim tales of disaster," says
the Scotsman. "Superpower or Third World?" asks the
Spanish daily Noticias de ?lava. Why did BushCo fail
its first great national-security test since Sept. 11,
despite having two days' advance notice of Katrina's
wrath? asks Le Monde. And on it goes, the world's
powers looking on in one part shock and one part
disgust and all parts repugnance for Bush's rampant
ineptitude and America's apparent inability to take
care of its own.

But it's so unfair, isn't it, to attack poor Dubya
like this? Just a little misplaced? After all, Bush
has always been the rich white man's president. He is
the CEO president, the megacorporate businessman's
friend, the thug of the religious right, a big
reservoir-tipped condom for all energy magnates,
protecting against the nasty STDs of humanitarianism
and progress and social responsibility.

He has always been merely an entirely selective
figurehead, out of touch and eternally dumbfounded, a
hand puppet of the neoconservative machine built and
fluffed up and carefully placed for the very specific
job of protecting their interests, no matter what.
Repeat: No. Matter. What. Flood hurricane disaster war
social breakdown economic collapse? Doesn't matter.
Corporate interests ?ber alles, baby. Protect the
core, reassure the base, screw everyone else unless it
begins to affect the poll numbers and then
finger-point, deflect, prevaricate. All of a piece,
really. Because Bush, he was never actually meant to,
you know, lead.

So maybe it's time to stop with the savaging of poor
Dubya. He is, after all, doing a simply beautiful job
of kowtowing to his wealthiest supporters while
slamming the poor and running the nation into a deep
hole and creating the largest deficit in American
history, all while his cronies in oil and industry and
military supply and Big Energy gain immense and
staggering wealth and pay less and less tax on it.
This is what he was hired to do. This is why he is in
office. Hell, the day after Katrina, Bush flew right
by Louisiana and headed straight to San Diego to party
with his Greatest Generation cronies. Reassure the
masters, first and foremost, eh Shrub? Understood.

Is this not what we all expected? Can you reasonably
say you thought it would be different? Just look. All
major social services are being gutted. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency is a joke, second in line
only to the ungodly useless Homeland Security
Department, which has become about as reassuring and
trustworthy and humane an organization as a prison in
Guant?namo.

The Associated Press reported that the Army Corps of
Engineers asked for $105 million for hurricane and
flood programs in New Orleans just last year. The
White House hacked that down to about $40 million,
even as it passed the most bloated and nauseatingly
pork-filled $12.3 billion energy bill in recent
history, one that guaranteed we'd be sucking at the
tit of foreign oil and kneeling before Bush's pals in
Big Energy for decades to come, even as more and more
teenagers die in Iraq for Bush's inept and failed war.
Yay politics.

Why didn't National Guardsmen from Louisiana and
Mississippi march into New Orleans immediately after
Katrina exited to take charge and keep the peace? Why,
because most of them are serving in that same violent
and brutally costly war in Iraq, silly. Fully 30
percent of the guard is stuck over there, along with
50 percent of their equipment. Yay Vietnam 2.0.

Why did FEMA chief Michael Brown wait hours after
Katrina struck to timidly plead with his parent
company, Homeland Security, for some backup, not to
actually get their hands dirty but rather to help
"convey a positive image" about the government's
response to the victims? Why, because he's an
incompetent lackey Bush appointee who was fired from
his former job as head of something called the
International Arabian Horse Association. Yay pathetic
nepotism.

Just look. Senate majority leader Sen. Bill Frist,
icon of hollow self-righteousness and the energy
magnate's friend, has already leveraged the Katrina
nightmare to argue for more drilling in Alaska, much
in the way BushCo whored Sept. 11 to cram the Patriot
Act down the nation's throat and make fear and
xenophobia a national pastime. And let's not forget
trusty profit-sucking sidekick Halliburton, which has
already scored a sweet deal to help repair Katrina
damage, thanks to the fact that the former director of
FEMA is now a Halliburton lobbyist. Ah, war and death
and tragedy. They are just so goddamn profitable,
right, Dubya?

And then, the kicker. Then you read that Bush has
actually ordered an official probe into the botched
Katrina relief efforts, a formal federal investigation
into what went wrong, which is a bit like a shark
ordering an investigation into what happened to all
the fish. Unless this probe starts and ends in the
White House, unless it hangs Bush himself up by his
monkey ears and dangles him over a river of toxic
Louisiana sewage, it's merely useless and insulting
and more than a little sad.

Let's say it outright. The truest measure of any
president, of any leader, is how well he takes care of
his own people. And Bush, well, Bush has done a simply
spectacular job of taking care of exactly his own
people -- the wealthy, the corporate, the extreme
religious right, his core base of supporters -- while
happily and fiercely ignoring, restricting,
condemning, destroying the rest. Are you educated or
progressive or liberal or alternative-minded or
sexually open or homosexual or anti-war? This means
you. Are you dirt poor and belong to a minority and
don't drive an SUV and contribute six figures per
annum to the RNC and maybe live in a flooded swamp in
the Louisiana bayou? This means you, squared. Sucker.

Here, then, is the new American motto, as reimagined
by BushCo: Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled
masses, and we'll let them die in a filthy and
decrepit storm-ravaged American football stadium while
our president languishes on vacation and ponders his
oil futures and fondly remembers his good ol' days of
getting drunk at Mardi Gras before going AWOL from the
military. God bless America.

Fox gets a Clue. Wow.

OMFG.... who woulda thunk it.

Fox. Yep, Fox News. yes, the mouthpiece of the NeoCons... That Fox.

Fox Gets a Clue. Astonishing.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169041,00.html

for more stuff on Fox News check out the blog:

www.newshounds.com

Winterbear

Who to blame, who to blame

Blanche,

I have seen this kind of thing talked about in various news outlets, web sites and on msnbc and cnn. Nobody is faulting the federal response before the event. The problems is what happened from Tuesday until now and into the future.

Local and state wide failures were also horrendous. if your going to start assigning blame, mayor and the Governor are for sure on the list.

But, the failure of the federal government was huge and I think the reasons for that failure were the following:

1) Lowering the status of FEMA from a Cabinet Position to a sub organization within HomeLand Security. In a time of Crisis, this extra level of bureaucracy got people killed.

2) In the last 4 years FEMA has been given a lot more to do (Terrorist response) while having its budget cut. One former employee of FEMA claims that this lack of focus on FEMA's traditional role got a lot of people killed. Many current and former FEMA employees are speaking out and expressing same in whats happened to their organization.

3) The last two directors of FEMA have been hand picked political appointees who have almost no experience at disaster relief and have made some terrible decisions that got a lot of people killed. Both were appointed to this "Plum" posting because of the work they did for the election campaigns.

4) Michael Brown, Current director of FEMA has no executive management experiance, has no experiance with any form of disaster or emergency response. His previous job was with the International Arabian Horse Association as a lawyer. According to people at the association, he was fired for gross incompetence and the association had to change its name because it was bankrupted.

5) President Bush didnt get engaged and didnt take this seriously quickly enough. That got a lot of people killed. He has created an environment around himself where no one tells him bad news so he didnt really find out there was a problem until late wednesday. And they he did not take charge of the situation and kick butts to fix the problem until Friday and some are saying that was pretty weak. He congratulated his cronies for doing a good job when things were completely out of control.

Blanche, please stop watching fox news. They are trying to spin this whole thing as a failure at the local level. It was that, but its shameful how the Bush administration is ultimately to blame for the failure at the federal level.

We live in a wonderful time where incompetent politicians can no longer control information. Google around a bit and find people who are reporting the truth. Dont trust the left wing blogs or the right wing either... but get the real story... its out there and available via the net.

Who's on First, FEMA addition

HorsesAss.Org: "Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff and FEMA director Michael Brown: make headway%u2026
Chertoff: All I%u2019m tryin%u2019 to find out is what%u2019s the guy%u2019s name in charge of food and water.
Brown: : Oh, no, wait a minute, don%u2019t switch %u2018em around. What is in charge of evacuation.
Chertoff: I%u2019m not askin%u2019 you who%u2019s in charge of evacuation.
Brown: : Who is on food and water.
Chertoff: I don%u2019t know!
Brown: : He%u2019s in charge of media spin%u2026now we%u2019re not talkin%u2019 %u2019bout him.
Chertoff: Now, how did I get on media spin?
Brown: : You mentioned his name!
Chertoff: If I mentioned the media spin guy%u2019s name, who did I say is in charge of media spin?
Brown: : No%u2026Who%u2019s in charge of food and water.
Chertoff: Never mind food and water, I wanna know what%u2019s the guy%u2019s name in charge of media spin.
Brown: : No, What%u2019s in charge of evacuation.
Chertoff: I%u2019m not askin%u2019 you who%u2019s in charge of evacuation!
Brown: : Who%u2019s in charge of food and water.
Chertoff: I don%u2019t know!
Brown: : He%u2019s in charge of media spin.
Chertoff: Aaah! Would you please stay on media spin and don%u2019t go off it?
Brown: : What was it you wanted?
Chertoff: Now who%u2019s in charge of media spin?
Brown: : Now why do you insist on putting Who in charge of media spin?
Chertoff: Why? Who am I putting over there?
Brown: : Yes. But we don%u2019t want him there.
Chertoff: What%u2019s the guy%u2019s name in charge of media spin?
Brown: : What is in charge of evacuation.
Chertoff: I%u2019m not askin%u2019 you who%u2019s in charge of evacuation.
Brown: : Who%u2019s in charge of food and water.
Chertoff: I don%u2019t know.
Brown: & Chertoff: MEDIA SPIN!!
Chertoff: You got someone in charge of fixing the levees?
Brown: : Oh yes!
Chertoff: The guy%u2019s name?
Brown: : Why.
Chertoff: I don%u2019t know, I just thought I%u2019d ask you.
Brown: : Well, I just thought I%u2019d tell you%u2026"

Hughes for America: Barbara Bush: First Moron

Hughes for America: Barbara Bush: First Moron: "Barbara Bush: First Moron

What the hell was Barbara Bush thinking when she said this today on National Public Radio's 'Marketplace' (Crooks and Liars has the audio)?In a segment at the top of the show on the surge of evacuees to the Texas city, Barbara Bush said: 'Almost everyone I%u2019ve talked to says we're going to move to Houston.'

Then she added: 'What I%u2019m hearing is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.

'And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this %u2013 this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them.'Yeah, if by 'working very well' you mean 'their worst fear realized,' then you'd be onto something, Barbara. Making light of the victims being underprivileged while also making light of the fact they're displaced largely because of your incompetent son's criminal negligence: Now that's what I call a Texas two-step!"

-----------------
Barbra is like an awful lot of older American women who voted for George W in the last election. I know for a fact that her thought process here is exactly like that of my mother.

My Mom doesnt want to hear about any bad news. She watches Fox because "there are lots of possitive things going on in Iraq too." and she would rather hear stories of happy evacuees in shelters than about floating bodies and hellish conditions at the convention center.

So, she can honestly say "everything appears to be going well... the problems are being taken care of. This was a massive disaster and some people got hurt but you cant blame the Hurricane on the president"

I call it the "Happy Happy Hurrican Syndrome". Fox and to some extent the other news channels have made it possible for people to watch hours and hours of the news and never see anything that is in the least bit disturbing to their world view that everything is going well.

Florida compared to New Orleans - Bush's election year response to disaster

Whiskey Bar: Where There's a Will: "This catastrophe isn't a product of the anti-government biases of the conservative true believers; it's a product of the uses to which government has been put by the Mayberry Machiavellis and their GOP ward heelers in Congress.

Even the legally blind can see the Rovians are serious about the essential functions of government. It's just that in their value system, funneling federal money to sympathetic interest groups while simulatenously redistributing the tax burden away from those same groups are the two essential functions of government.

Likewise, the Bush family is prepared to spend almost unlimited amounts of federal money on preventative measures -- that is, on efforts to prevent them from losing an election.

It's instructive, on that score, to compare the current response to Hurricane Katrina (in which the Three Stooges apparently have seized control of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in a bloodless coup) with the administration's efforts on behalf of the voters of Florida following last year's triple storms -- Charley, Frances and Ivan.

True, the 2004 disasters didn't completely take down a major metropolitan area by turning its urban center into a bowl of shit soup. But the difference in the federal goverment's performance before, during and after those storms had passed is stlll rather striking. It appears there's something special about years divisible by two -- and particularly every other year divisible by two -- that can inspire amazing feats of bureaucratic energy and competence, at least in large, populous swing states."

Head of FEMA has an unlikely background

THE NEWS BLOG: "Head of FEMA has an unlikely backgroundBY MATT STEARNS AND SETH BORENSTEINKnight Ridder NewspapersWASHINGTON - (KRT) - From failed Republican congressional candidate to ousted 'czar' of an Arabian horse association, there was little in Michael D. Brown's background to prepare him for the fury of Hurricane Katrina.But as the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Brown now faces furious criticism of the federal response to the disaster that wiped out New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast. He provoked some of it himself when he conceded that FEMA didn't know that thousands of refugees were trapped at New Orleans' convention center without food or water until officials heard it on the news.'He's done a hell of a job, because I'm not aware of any Arabian horses being killed in this storm,' said Kate Hale, former Miami-Dade emergency management chief. 'The world that this man operated in and the focus of this work does not in any way translate to this. He does not have the experience.'Brown ran for Congress in 1988 and won 27 percent of the vote against Democratic incumbent Glenn English. He spent the 1990s as judges and stewards commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association. His job was to ensure that horse-show judges followed the rules and to investigate allegations against those suspected of cheating.'I wouldn't have regarded his position in the horse industry as a platform to where he is now,' said Tom Connelly, a former association president."

The 14 characteristics of Fascism

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

tonypierce.com busblog

This president of ours, youre right, had to do something after 9/11, but what he did was start a trillion dollar war with a country that had no wmds, no ties to al queda, and was not responsible for 9/11.

He turned a terrible moment which had created the largest outpouring of support for the usa into what we have now which is a moment in time when we are currently despised by more nations than ever before.there are times when we can show our teeth but we have to show them to the right people and we have not done that. there are times when we should dethrone tyrants but we chose the wrong tyrant.the majority of the terrorists of 9/11 were saudi, a land of run by much more stronger tyrants than saddam and a country that most say are supplying the majority of insurgents. but we wont fight the real fight because bush is in bed with the saudis. if anything we have proven that the us military, as strong as it is, cannot win battles alone, and the world is too smart to enter into wars that they know are unjust. this is not a world war. this is the us and the brits fighting a war that they lied about against a phantom enemy that did not attack us four years ago.

We will continue to lose, and there will continue to be anarchy in that country until we get out of there and let the iraqi people stand up for themselves and determine their own future, which very well may be another dictator.

All george bush has done is kill hundreds of thousands of people, ruin our relationships with the world, and waste money we didnt have."

The Project for the New American Century

The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required.

William Rivers Pitt: 02/25/03

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.

VERBATIM QUOTES FROM WHEN CLINTON WAS COMMITTING TROOPS TO BOSNIA

DW: "VERBATIM QUOTES FROM WHEN CLINTON WAS COMMITTING TROOPS TO BOSNIA:

'You can support the troops but not the president.'--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

'Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.'--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

'Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?'--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

'[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.'--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

'American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.'--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

'If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.'--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

'I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.'--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

'I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today'--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

'Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.'--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) "

Someone Tell the President the War Is Over - New York Times

Someone Tell the President the War Is Over - New York Times: "Someone Tell the President the War Is Over

By FRANK RICH

Published: August 14, 2005

LIKE the Japanese soldier marooned on an island for years after V-J Day, President Bush may be the last person in the country to learn that for Americans, if not Iraqis, the war in Iraq is over. 'We will stay the course,' he insistently tells us from his Texas ranch. What do you mean we, white man?
Skip to next paragraph

A president can't stay the course when his own citizens (let alone his own allies) won't stay with him. The approval rate for Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq plunged to 34 percent in last weekend's Newsweek poll - a match for the 32 percent that approved L.B.J.'s handling of Vietnam in early March 1968. (The two presidents' overall approval ratings have also converged: 41 percent for Johnson then, 42 percent for Bush now.) On March 31, 1968, as L.B.J.'s ratings plummeted further, he announced he wouldn't seek re-election, commencing our long extrication from that quagmire."