Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Gotta Love These Dems

So, let me see if I've got this right...

Bill Clinton is "McCarthy," while Bill Richardson is "Judas," Geraldine Ferraro is a "racist" while Jeremiah Wright is the Dem's leading candidate's "spiritual adviser," mentor and close personal friend and guru of the last two decades.

Bill Clinton, when he's not Joe McCarthy, is a "racist," this, just a few years after the Democrats told us he was America's "first black president." Hillary makes up stories about her trip to Bosnia -- not dissimilar in the least to John Kerry's fake stories about Vietnam. 10 years or so ago there was a "vast right wing conspiracy" out to get those lovely, lovely Clinton folks, now it's the Clintons who are corrupt and evil and, well, everything the Democrats denied not all that long ago.

Meanwhile, Joe Lieberman, the great and moral "conscience of the Senate" and the Democrats' choice to be but a heartbeat away from the presidency? Turns out he's a "warmonger" and maybe even a "zionist" (read: Jew), making at least two out of the last five or so Democrat Veep candidates purely evil. We should have known that Lieberman was a Nazi because, that's what the Democrats told us BEFORE he was "the conscience of the Senate," when he asked record companies if they wouldn't voluntarily put warning labels on the musical version of what Jerry Wright preaches to Obama and his kids. Lieberman has had more ups and downs than Bill on a fat chick.

Oh, wait, don't forget John Edwards. He's a guy who ran not once but twice on the incredible dual platform that, in evil, horrible America it is impossible to go from poor to rich and concurrently selling himself as someone who understands the "other" America because he himself went from, uh, poor to rich. Now THAT'S good, no wonder they made him the Veep choice -- bringing us to three out of the last five.

Now, in a move he must have learned from watching John Edwards, Obama is running a campaign as a "post-racial" candidate and, to prove it, he makes a big speech on race, where he throws his white grandmother -- you know, that "typical white person" -- under the bus to defend the hate-mongering of his mentor, friend, spiritual guru and campaign adviser, Jeremieh "God DAMN America" Wright.

At the same time, the man who set out to "prove" that he was post-patriotic by consciously refusing to wear even the tiniest of American flag lapel pins (and whose wife publicly testifies that she has never been proud of America) stands up and makes his pro-Wright, anti-white-grandma speech in front of not one, not two, not three, not four but EIGHT giant American flags.

Welcome to the Democrat Party -- racists, warmongers, liars, cheats and hypocrites... and this is just what they call each other!

190 comments:

slummer said...

Don't worry...his next column will be all about what the GOP has been calling McCain...apparently the moron hasn't been around long enough to know about primaries. Now, I've got to check up and see if Limbaugh, Coulter and all the other reichos are still planning on voting for HIllary over Insain McCain who is really an extreme liberal, senile, out of control angry and well you know...has an illegit black tar baby.

Evan Sayet said...

The difference, of course, slummer, is that nobody leader in the Republican party has said any of those slanders that the leftists use constantly. It's LEADING DEMOCRATS who call each other "Judas" and McCarthy and "racist."

So you point to political writers -- and then lie about what they said -- while I speak the truth about what the Democrat PARTY says about each other.

slummer said...

More really pathetic lies from Sayet...there are all kinds of attacks from leaders of the GOP on McCain, as we know...and, of course, their hate spouting pundits are in fact GOP leaders, often with more power than the party members. Now, tell me where I lied about the statements...so I can post them and expose you as a liar like so many have done before on here.

ajgentile said...

@Slummer, ole chap: There is certainly criticism -- in some instances harsh criticism of McCain from various sects within the Republican party. However, this criticism is all based on ideology and record.

I can't recall McCain being attacked personally by any leader of the Republican party. It doesn't happen.

The Democratic party is the more emotional party. The further left you go, the more emotional you are. (You are case n' point, Slummer)

Emotional outbursts such as we've been seeing are to be expected... and enjoyed.

Anonymous said...

John Hofmeister, head of Shell, says that not only is climate change man caused, but that the debate is OVER...damn commie.

lawrence said...

Another moron exposes himself...we've heard numerous complaints about Insain McCain's pathological outbursts and his inability to deal with others and his erratic changes of course...all critisicms of his over emotional character from GOP senators who've had to work with him. Now, tell me more about that emotional leftist thing...I'm sure there's a shitload of grotesque humor in that theory. Tell me,do you guys work at sounding sillier every time you open your lieholes?

slummer said...

Gee...it looks like that whole surge thing is coming like todully apart...I'm getting all emotional about it.

slummah said...


I can't recall McCain being attacked personally by any leader of the Republican party. It doesn't happen.


guy telling us he can't be expected to tell what's happening with his head up his ass.

drambuie said...

He's right -- spot on ass they say -- about that emotional lefty deal. To the Dead Parrot Society of the reich, all life that breathes is excessively emotional and mocks their shrivelled, lifeless, selfish, greedy, little lizard souls with hints of things beyond them. Poooooor gize.

Scottie said...

"Wise people created civilization over the centuries and clever people are dismantling it today. You can see it happening just by channel surfing on TV or hear it in rap music or read it in the pompous nonsense of academics and judges." -- Thomas Sowell

I think we could add the snarky observations of anonmyous posters to that list. They are just so darn clever.

Scottie said...

"One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans-- anything except reason." -- Thomas Sowell

scav said...

"One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans-- anything except reason." -- Thomas Sowell


Man, that dude is right on...check that Hofmeister thing above...and this...Polar ice shelf breaking up
Ice shelf hanging by a thread, 'as big as Northern Ireland. These dumbed down reicho fruitcakes are dragging us all down to their level. Great quote, man.

degoutez said...

"Wise people created civilization over the centuries and clever people are dismantling it today. You can see it happening just by channel surfing on TV or hear it in rap music or read it in the pompous nonsense of academics and judges." -- Thomas Sowell


Bravo...that brilliant Cheney response the other day is the ultimate example...."So?"
What you'd expect from a slimy, sociopathic case of arrested development whose idea of fun is to kill 300 tame birds in one day. The right has become so dumbed down that this kind of scum is what represents them. Disgusting.

slummo said...

I just checked out some of Scottie's previous posts, scav...naive, earnest little guy...simple and apparently believes he's well meaning, but evil and callous at heart without even knowing it...natural fodder for the cynical reichos who bend twits like that ...likes to execute people a lot...doesn't have any idea who should get that treatment, however...

scav said...

Headline: US hasn't felt this bad since Watergate

It's the old GOP hangover...only this one is going to get a LOT worse...

skav said...

Goop Ol' Days: Sasha Abramsky, reporting for In These Times, writes: "Across America, close to 40 million people are listed as being 'food insecure,' according to the USDA. That means that even if they don't actually go hungry, they constantly worry about how to put food on the table."

scav said...

Conservatives' Hate-Based Campaign Against Obama

The right-wing smear campaign against Barack Obama has already begun. Conservatives intend, as they have so many times before, to appeal to Americans' ugliest prejudices and most craven fears.

Prof. Ricardo said...

"Across America, close to 40 million people are listed as being 'food insecure,'...

A friend of mine is a fireman. He says a lot of the section 8 housing they go in, the people have big-screen TV's. I don't live in section 8 housing and I don't have a big-screen TV. Maybe I need to re-allocate some of that grocery money and then I can have things that are important to me.

PaulK said...

Amazing how that works, isn't it Professor?

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

Ah, racial divisiveness. Is there any right-wing knucklehead who doesn't fall back on it when they're backed into a corner?

eric swift hubble said...

A friend of mine is a fireman. He says a lot of the section 8 housing they go in, the people have big-screen TV's. I don't live in section 8 housing and I don't have a big-screen TV. Maybe I need to re-allocate some of that grocery money and then I can have things that are important to me.

Yar, them niggers, they all drive Caddylax and watch them big screen tvs while sucking on the Ripple bottle...shore I could go hungry too if I done that instead of sloppin the pigs.

eric swift hubble said...

PaulK said...
Amazing how that works, isn't it Professor?



haha...yeah das amazing...every honky hog has got a buddy that thinks just like he does and reaffirms everything he already thought he knew...you morons like giving it to the rich, don't you? and they like giving it right back to you...up the ass. Suckahs!!!

joyce said...

They should change their party name to the Disgusting Hypocrite Party. Filled with liars, panderers and idiots.

the scope said...

Now, these Xtian assholes are infectuating the democrats...they aint no excape...git armed and go down fighting for Satin.


Steven G. Brant: Say Hillary, What About The Religious "Family" You Have Chosen To Be Part Of? 'while we mostly hear about her Methodist upbringing - Hillary Clinton has chosen to associate herself with The Family (also known as the Fellowship), a very conservative, fundamentalist organization started by Abraham Vereide.'

the scav said...

Emotional outbursts such as we've been seeing are to be expected... and enjoyed.


You mean like where we call you a dink and you burst into tears? I did that to a fat YAFer one time and he started playing with himself while sobbing...said it took his mind off the pain...sounded sooo GOP to me.

e s hubble esquirrely said...

Gotta Love These Dems

I sho do...know any?

Prof. Ricardo said...

Ah, racial divisiveness....
Yar, them niggers, they all drive Caddylax....
you morons like giving it to the rich...
Disgusting Hypocrite Party...


Interesting that Skav mentions 40 million people being ‘food insecure’ and I think of people with limited resources. But when I mention ‘section 8 housing’ you all think of blacks. Talk about prejudiced. When Mr. boil wrote “Ah, racial divisiveness..., I literally thought he was responding to someone else’s post since I didn’t even mention race. Yet, is this how you people think? Have you pigeon-holed blacks into certain categories and one of them is section 8 housing? I never new such enlightenment could be gleaned from this blog.

Let me take a poll of you gentlemen.

On a scale of 0 - 100, generally speaking, what percent of a percent of a person's economic circumstance is self determined?
0 = no control
100 = complete control

Montag said...

Way to go, Evan!

That just about sums up the campaign thus far. And the Libs who've responded are all mischaracterizing what's been said to make their weak points.

Oh, and Prof. Ricardo: The Democrat Party is the Party of slavery, secession, segragation, Jim Crowe, and the soft bigotry of low expectations. Now, they engage in racism through black clergy and affirmative action.

Notice, that Conservatives aren't the folks who are obsessed with race. It is the Left.

Read Montag's World on blogspot

montagsworld.blogspot.com

Evan Sayet said...

Democrats can't help but think in terms of race and sex because, having no other thought (thoughts being bigoted) then everything MUST be race and sex.

If you don't support a neophyte, first term, junior Senator spewing "hope" and "change" while pocketing money from Tony Rezko, in bed with Louis Farrakhan and Jeremieh Wright, who meets privately with murderers and terrorists who plans to bomb our allies and appease our friends the it MUST be because he's black.

Unless you DO vote for him, and then you MUST hate women! Democrats are not allowed to think, that's why they're Democrats.

eric swift hubble said...

Hahaha...three honkies in a row all saying, "I am not a racist." It seems every other post on here is a variation of that convincing statement...geez, I wonder why they feel the need so bad?

Sho nuff, boys...yooze good people...jes astannin up for your kind. Whus rong wid dat?

Hubble looks deep into the vacuum said...

Notice, that Conservatives aren't the folks who are obsessed with race. It is the Left.


No, you never mention it....you are NOT a bigot...NOT a damn bigot nossir. hahahahaha...tooo much

Prof. Ricardo said...

Hahaha...three honkies in a row all saying, "I am not a racist." It seems every other post on here is a variation of that convincing statement...geez, I wonder why they feel the need so bad?

Sho nuff, boys...yooze good people...jes astannin up for your kind. Whus rong wid dat?


At first I thought the contrarian views on this blog were just a less sophisticated version of the Left which I have enjoyed discourse with on other sites. Then I realized, these are all plants by Mr. Sayet to prove his philosophical point. People really can’t be this vacuous.

If they are real, it’s proof that all public education should be scraped.

serge' said...

The surge is over; they won:

Heavy Fighting Rocks Iraq's Basra City
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032708J.shtml
Agence France-Presse reports: "Heavy fighting erupted in a bastion of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's militia in Basra on Thursday, witnesses said, as military operations against gunmen in the southern city entered a third day."

protagoras said...

"prof" ricardo bleats... At first I thought the contrarian views on this blog were just a less sophisticated version of the Left which I have enjoyed discourse with on other sites.

You mean you found leftists out there naive enough to take you seriously?!! Hang on to them, buddy...they must be as stupid as you are...probably Hillary supporters. In any case, sophistrycated is the correct term for them.

prodicus said...

If they are real, it’s proof that all public education should be scraped.


And percraps scrapped, as well, eh,"professor?"

hippias said...

Still, Prodandcuss, don't you think he has a point about pubic education...it must be taught to the tots, don't you agree? Or they end up married to a sheep or maybe even an Australian...or get knocked up by a priest, fundamentalist or other Repubican pervert.

gorgias said...


At first I thought the contrarian views on this blog were just a less sophisticated version of the Left which I have enjoyed discourse with on other sites. Then I realized, these are all plants by Mr. Sayet to prove his philosophical point. People really can’t be this vacuous.


Prim, pretentious, little twit isn't he, Hippias?

hippyass said...


Prim, pretentious, little twit isn't he, Hippias?


Yas, Gorgeous, he's a fake, right wing professor; whud you expect?

hubble said...

I am here to help losers peer ever fudder into the void: got any idea what this means for The Failure in the whorehouse? Coarse ewe aint.



Pakistan's New Leaders Tell US: We Are No Longer Your Killing Field
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032708L.shtml
Declan Walsh reports for The Guardian UK: "The Bush administration is scrambling to engage with Pakistan's new rulers as power flows from its strong ally, President Pervez Musharraf, to a powerful civilian government buoyed by anti-American sentiment.... On Tuesday, senior coalition partner Nawaz Sharif gave the visiting Americans a public scolding for using Pakistan as a 'killing field' and relying too much on Musharraf."

eric swift hubble said...

Marriage falls to 110 year low
Conservatives blamed the decline on the government's social and fiscal policies.
Libs say people are finally waking up to the evils of enforced monogamy.

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

Lieberman has had more ups and downs than Bill on a fat chick.

The fact that this guy used to make a living as a "comedian" just boggles the mind, doesn't it?

cratylus said...

Yeah, Monica was more of a fat pig than a fat chick...

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

Conservative humor at its finest.

pighood said...

The fact that this guy used to make a living as a "comedian" just boggles the mind, doesn't it?


That was during the third and a half rike's very short lived heyday...they had no real comedians as the modrun conserv has no sense of humor due to the fact that he has no sense of tragedy...the two go together like a pimp and his leather...so they let some guys play comedian for a while. Now, they really need cheering up and the bogus clowns don't do the job and are well just FAILUREs...

oinks and away

anonyms said...

Obama's Race Speech on YouTube Tops Cable News Ratings
By Ari Melber, The Nation
Posted on March 26, 2008, Printed on March 27, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.thenation.com/80568/

One week later, it's clear that Americans heard The Speech.




About 3.8 million people have now watched Barack Obama's Philadelphia address through the campaign's official YouTube channel, which has over 40,000 subscribers. "It is the highest viewed video ever uploaded by a presidential candidate to YouTube, surpassing Mike Huckabee's Chuck Norris endorsement video," says Steve Grove, who directs News and Politics for YouTube. Aside from the Obama channel, which promotes videos through blogs, news sites and supporter networks, another 520,000 people watched excerpts of the speech uploaded by random YouTube users. Taken together, the total YouTube viewers for Obama's speech over the past week beat all the cable channels combined. Last Tuesday, about four million viewers tuned into one of the three cable channels to watch the speech.



This is not the first time that Obama's YouTube audience has rivaled cable news. His second most popular video ever, a rebuttal to President Bush's final State of the Union, drew 1.3 million views. The President's actual address reached 3.2 million homes through a Fox News broadcast, making it the seventh highest program on cable that week. It is not a direct comparison, since the Presidential address is widely promoted and broadcast on many stations. Yet without the bully pulpit of the White House and its built-in television coverage -- or the high cost of campaign ads -- a candidate can now reach supporters and interested voters with unfiltered, even substantive addresses.




Of course, Obama's most popular YouTube video was itself a response to videos of Jeremiah Wright that had riveted cable news and YouTube. "If it wasn't for the replaying of Wright's remarks on YouTube, Obama wouldn't have been forced to give the speech on race in the first place," contends Slate's John Dickerson, yet "Obama decried the YouTube era of politics that reduces everyone to small, grainy clips endlessly replayed on cable news." But YouTube, just like television, depends on the programming. Salacious clips can always draw viewers. What is remarkable here is the overwhelming public demand for deeper, unfiltered campaign information -- regardless of who voters support. So Obama was not decrying the "YouTube era of politics" in his speech, as Dickerson argues, so much as the way that political brawling and cable bickering become the lowest common denominator of our entire public discourse:



For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism.. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card...We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, 'Not this time'...


Millions of people heard that appeal on television, and millions more heard it on YouTube. Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman, told me that the campaign embraces web outreach to route around the television filter, and rather than assail YouTube politics, Obama "was speaking to the ease with which political opponents can unfairly splice quotes and how quickly they are circulated and on television news." Apparently the campaign thinks that a higher road is possible for YouTube politics, just like regular politics, if you give it a chance.


Ari Melber is a regular contributor to The Nation, focusing on American politics, public policy and Internet activism, and a writer for The Nation's Campaign 08 blog.

© 2008 The Nation All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.thenation.com/80568/

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

And meanwhile, while this failed comedian and neocon apparatchik makes up straw men, Basra goes to shit. 130 dead since Tuesday, and the Glorious Surge begins to crack. And somehow, these people have convinced themselves that those of us who didn't support this bullshit war are the ones who were wrong.

genelli said...

Iraqi surge:

Shiite militants are hammering the U.S.-protected Green Zone with rockets and mortars for the fourth day this week.

spawk spawk said...

And somehow, these people have convinced themselves that those of us who didn't support this bullshit war are the ones who were wrong.


They hate facts, reason and evidence. They hate rationality. Their egos are involved.

dumbed down democrat said...

First the Left applauds the fact that we went after Osama in Afghanistan, but then complained when we diverted to Iraq.

Then the USA goes after the actual terrorists of al Qaeada in Iraq during the surge and kicks their asses out... and the Left hates us for it. Now, the Iraqi government goes after some of their own militias, and somehow the "surge" has failed.

So what is it... you want us to fight against the terrorists or not? I'm cornfuzed.

Oh, I get it, you idiots are still fighting nation vs nation wars like WWII and can't wrap your minds around a different paradigm.

Grow up.

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

First the Left applauds the fact that we went after Osama in Afghanistan, but then complained when we diverted to Iraq.

This is the most half-assed defense of the Iraq War yet. That's exactly what we did, for reasons that should be self-evident to anyone with an ability to reason.

Now, the Iraqi government goes after some of their own militias, and somehow the "surge" has failed.

Up is down, black is white. Violence erupts in the most important port city in the country, and this is proof that the surge is working? That is motherfucking brilliant right there.

Oh, I get it, you idiots are still fighting nation vs nation wars like WWII and can't wrap your minds around a different paradigm.

Ah, the icing on this cake of stupid. Our military was in Afghanistan, looking for the stateless group that had murdered 3000 people on 9/11. Then, instead of finding the leader of that group, that military was diverted by the right to attack a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no direct threat to the US. So since finding Osama bin Laden was hard, and fighting a nation vs. nation war was easy, the right took the latter course, and ended up in a quagmire. And somehow, this is the left's fault, because we're the ones still stuck in the 20th century paradigms. You are a genius.

slummo said...

Now, here's good gummint:

Busheviks "entrusted a 22-year-old previously arrested for domestic violence and having a forged driving licence to be the main supplier of ammunition to Afghan forces at the height of the battle against the Taliban, it was reported yesterday."

serge' said...

Baghdad lockdown as bombs fly
Bush may suspend troop pullout; Iraq holds emergency session.

serge' said...

Bush achieves great surge in bullshit:
Hagel: Bush Iraq speech like 'Alice in Wonderland'Nick Langewis and David Edwards
Published: Thursday March 27, 2008

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) suggests to CNN's Wolf Blitzer that there is no cause for optimism towards the situation in Iraq, propagated by arrogance, with an ever-growing cost in lives and money, despite a recent speech by President Bush.

"I think this is another episode of 'Alice in Wonderland,'" the Senator says. "What's up is down, and what's down is up. What do you mean, 'stability and security?' Baghdad, for example, has been over the last year essentially ethnically divided."

"And," Hagel adds, "when you look at the casualties the United States has taken since since the so-called 'military surge,' over 900 deaths; you look at almost 30,000 wounded, and the money we've put in there.

eric swift hubble said...

Although housing costs had risen at a yearly rate of 1.8% over inflation since the Carter presidency, they shot up an average of 7% a year from 2000 to 2004. Easy money under Bush's policy of an "ownership society" increased ownership rates 1.4% and pushed the cost of the median home from $130,000 in 2000 to a peak of $221,900 in 2006.

"Obviously, the policy and economy under this president has radically accelerated American debt," said Max Fraad Wolff, an economist with Global Macroscope. "Household debt doubled since Bush came into office and the president's dream of an 'ownership society' has become an 'owership reality.'"

Wages remained stagnant; adjusted for inflation, hourly wages fell below those of 1972. In 2007, the Census Report found median household income was $1000 less than in 2000, and those living in poverty increased by 5 million.
"Every member of the household is now at work and they still can't make ends meet in a consumer society that now demands an enormous amount of debt."


In 2000, Phil Gramm, the Texan who headed the Senate Banking Committee, pushed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act through a Republican Congress. The bill prevented the regulation of "derivatives," exotic, complex, little understood investment packages, such as "collateralized debt obligations," which operated in a gray zone of nebulous trading. Innovative subprime or adjustable rate, 100% financed, no down payment, negatively amortized mortgages were bundled and sold to investors, with no oversight.

"They created a situation where people didn't know what was in packaged pools of mortgages, so no one knew their value," said Abromowitz. "When all regulations were pulled back to let the free market take over, creative people did what they normally do, made more money. This lead to an over-hyped market."

1dimensional man said...

Violence erupts in the most important port city in the country, and this is proof that the surge is working? That is motherfucking brilliant right there.

Exhibit A in one dimensional thinking: Violence erupts in the most important city, and so the surge is NOT working?

catch 22 4 loser trolls said...

No matter how you cut it, the DNC loses in November.

No wonder Evan's troll is on the warpath. Their candidates are so pathetically weak, they've got to try and smear anything with an 'R' near it... and in doing so, scare the normals away.

Vincent Freeman said...

Our military was in Afghanistan, looking for the stateless group that had murdered 3000 people on 9/11. Then, instead of finding the leader of that group, that military was diverted by the right

I have a question about this statement... What was the troop strength in Afghanistan at the time of the diversion, how much was diverted to Iraq, and what was the total invasion strength for Iraq including the diverted troops?

My thoughts are that only someone that doesn't know the troop strengths or was intentionally lying could make such a statement. But if you have even rough numbers as evidence I'd be willing to consider that conservatives might be wrong.

helper said...

But if you have even rough numbers as evidence I'd be willing to consider that conservatives might be wrong.


Haha...what a clown...wants to pretend he doesn't know about tora bora or that the Afghan effort was relegated to the back burner so GW could go down for the record of losing two wars at once. Who cares what you consider...the country's made up its mind on that one already...you're one silly, screaming wingbat with your hands over your eyes. Where's Osama?

helper said...

Hagel: Bush Iraq speech like 'Alice in Wonderland

Is Hagel a Democrat?

Vincent Freeman said...

Haha...what a clown...wants to pretend he doesn't know about tora bora or that the Afghan effort was relegated to the back burner so GW could go down for the record of losing two wars at once.

The Battle of Tora Bora occured in Dec of 2001. Thats 2 months after the air campaign in Afghanistan began, and about a month after Northern Alliance forces captured Kabul.

It wasn't until Sept of 2002 that Bush called for unconditional inspection of Iraq weapon sites in the UN (thats almost a year after Tora Bora) resulting in resolution 1441.

So again I'll ask, how were troops diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, and how many were diverted?

eric swift hubble said...

What...you want to hide behind some numbers? Do your own research and tell us all about it. The thing you know beyond a doubt is that they pulled far too many troops out ...which is why we'e still there six years later and getting our asses kicked in both countries. Where's Osama?

erics not so swift hubble said...

LOL!

Hide? The numbers (and timeline) have exposed your COMPLETE ignorance.

hubble said...


Bushonomics at work: ' American tourists with dollars turned away from currency exchanges in Amsterdam ' 3/29



What else do you need to say about the disaster of this administration

hubble said...

Are we losing in Afghanistan -- after SIX YEARS?...is Osama home on the range?...YES...and the pinheads want to hide behind some numbers they think will change reality...hahahahah you can't beat these morons for laughs. It's obvious that the "timeline" and "the numbers" were great enough to fuck us up...and you want us to do some research for you!!!!

lawrence said...

LOL!

Hide? The numbers (and timeline) have exposed your COMPLETE ignorance.



Wow...what is this, Genius Central?
I guess we caught Osama and won in Afghan before we ran off to Iraq...and here I did not know that. I hope no one actually tries to explain any of this to these morons!!

lawrence said...

When does this guy post? I can't wait to see his latest blurt?

blossom said...

I think he's afraid to show up at his own blog...he is good, though, isn't he? As stupid as his fans but even more grotesque and uniquely weird. Can you imagine reading a book this guy wrote? You'd have to be a zombie from hell. Is it true what his wife claimed in her divorce suit? Like it's possible to even imagine this guy was ever married.

rogerthat said...

Maybe it's those DUIs....keeping him in lockup.......away from the computer...it certainly isn't embarrassment-induced fear.

L. said...

Yeah, this guy is like David Lynch if Lynch had Down's Syndrome. Did he get violent on the sauce?

Blitz said...

According to many ancient sages, prophets and gurus, The Secret of The Ages, the Key to Enlightenment, The much-sought-but-seldom-found Holy Grail of self-actualization is really one very simple, easily read sentence. (You guys know a bunch more than any Bush-lover about self-awareness, right? Wasn't that Nancy I saw with the Dalai Lama?)

I welcome you to study various scriptures and religious texts of as many denominations as you find yourself able, religions of the West such as Christianity and Judaism as well as seemingly diverse Eastern beliefs such as Buddhism, Kashmir Shaivism and the Hindu faith, to gleam for yourself this single common gem. Perhaps you already know the answer! C'mon, write it down now and see if you guessed correctly....

How about another clue then, "When fully realized within, it needs no other knowledge to be complete." "It is true Awareness and when contemplated reveals a comprehensive understanding [of the Modern Liberal]." What then, is "The Secret of the Blue Pearl?"

"We see only That in others which we recognize in our own Self."

Silly Liberals, all you have been looking for is the simple understanding that we are living in a world full of mirrors! Only One exists. Name calling simply announces your percieved defects to the rest of the world.

Now, one final question to really warp your senses, "How would this Reagan Conservative know the Truth?"

I said...

Cheney: Vulture capitalist...


By Allan Sloan
Tuesday, January 11, 2005; Page E03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64535-2005Jan10.html


It's time for yet another Halliburton story -- but not the one you may be expecting. This isn't about the endlessly scrutinized Iraq contracting business of the big energy services company that Dick Cheney ran before he became vice president. And it's not about Halliburton's profit-boosting accounting change during Cheney's regime, or the scandals and problems currently affecting some of the firm's far-flung projects.

Instead, let's talk about Halliburton's well-executed $5 billion escape from its asbestos problems, most of which Cheney created when he orchestrated Halliburton's purchase of Dresser Industries in 1998. Few people connect this problem with Cheney, but they should, given that he was in charge at the time and got a raise as a result of buying Dresser. Dresser's asbestos problem was only a potential one when Halliburton bought it, but rapidly metastasized into a threat to Halliburton's existence. By then, though, Cheney had gone off to Washington.

Had he still been Halliburton's chief executive, Wall Street might have forced him to take responsibility for the asbestos problem he imported to his company. But because he wasn't around -- and because his successor, Dave Lesar, was a stand-up guy -- Cheney has largely escaped scrutiny for this fiasco.

Now that Halliburton has managed to extract itself from its asbestos liability by paying a ton of cash and stock to trusts that will compensate victims and their lawyers, we can get a handle on how much Dresser's piece of the problem cost Halliburton. It turns out to be almost as much as Halliburton paid for the company.

While Halliburton's all-stock takeover of Dresser was valued at $7.7 billion when it was announced in February 1998, it was worth only $5.3 billion when it was completed seven months later. The bankruptcy settlement is costing Halliburton just about that much: around $2.8 billion in cash, Halliburton stock with a market value of $2.3 billion the day before Dresser's bankruptcy was resolved and miscellaneous odds and ends and potential payments.

The bankruptcy resolution, which became final on Jan. 3, covered both the Dresser problems and the smaller asbestos problems that Halliburton already had.

Halliburton hasn't said how much each set of liabilities cost, but Dresser is clearly way more than half. How do I know that? Because a Halliburton bankruptcy filing discloses that "historical Dresser" accounts for about two-thirds of the claims, and the filing also shows that claims from Dresser's business average from 2.5 to five times as much as equivalent claims from Halliburton's businesses.

Do the math, and at least five-sixths -- 83 percent -- of the claims costs are from Dresser. So let's attribute 85 percent of the costs to Dresser. That seems reasonable, if not conservative.

That works out to around $4.3 billion. That doesn't include what Dresser-related claims cost Halliburton between the purchase in 1998 and the Chapter 11 filing in 2002 by Dresser and other Halliburton subsidiaries. It doesn't include offsets for possible insurance payments, either, but I don't know how to value those.

I give Halliburton's current management huge credit for pulling off this tricky maneuver. And I give them big credit for dealing with the problem rather than awaiting a miracle rescue from Congress. Almost from the day it took office, the Bush administration has pushed hard to get Congress to limit asbestos liability. That includes President Bush's visit to Illinois last week to push his "reform" proposals.

Halliburton, whose fortunes are tied to the oil industry, has profited from the surge in oil prices. Even though its stock has quadrupled from its asbestos-woe low, it's still below what it was when Cheney left in the summer of 2000. Imagine what Halliburton shares would fetch today had the Dresser problems never happened. Much more than it currently sells for, I'm sure.

A Cheney spokesman said the vice president wouldn't comment about Halliburton, and referred all queries to the company.

Halliburton, which is understandably eager to put the whole asbestos mess behind it, wouldn't discuss Cheney's role or how much Dresser's asbestos problems have cost it. "We are certainly glad to close the asbestos chapter in Halliburton's history," said company spokesman Wendy Hall. "We are focused on moving forward in 2005, not backwards."

Even if it had been a non-celebrity CEO who messed up big-time with Dresser, this would still be a tale worth telling. That's because this deal shows that when you analyze a transaction, you have to look long-term as well as short-term.

As Cheney's Dresser misadventure shows, today's triumphant deal champ can be tomorrow's chump.

Riker said...

Police Arrest Anti-War Protester, 80, At Mall

by Anastasia Economides & Matthew Chayes

An 80-year-old church deacon was removed from the Smith Haven Mall yesterday in a wheelchair and arrested by police for refusing to remove a T-shirt protesting the Iraq War.

Police said that Don Zirkel, of Bethpage, was disturbing shoppers at the Lake Grove mall with his T-shirt, which had what they described as “graphic anti-war images.” Zirkel, a deacon at Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal in Wyandanch, said his shirt had the death tolls of American military personnel and Iraqis - 4,000 and 1 million - and the words “Dead” and “Enough.” The shirt also has three blotches resembling blood splatters.

Police said in a release last night that Zirkel was handing out anti-war pamphlets to mallgoers and that mall security told him to stop and turn his shirt inside out. Zirkel refused to turn his shirt inside out and wouldn’t leave, police said. Security placed him on “civilian arrest” and called police. When police arrived, Zirkel passively resisted attempts to bring him to a police car, the release said.

But Zirkel said he was sitting in the food court drinking coffee with his wife Marie, 77, and several others when police and mall security officers approached and demanded they remove their anti-war T-shirts.

The others complied, but Zirkel said he refused, and when he wouldn’t stand up to be removed and arrested, authorities brought over a wheelchair. “They forcibly picked me up and put me in the wheelchair,” said Zirkel, a deacon at one of the poorest Catholic parishes on Long Island, where a devastating fire recently destroyed the rectory and storage areas.

Zirkel was charged with criminal trespassing and resisting arrest. He was released on bail. A spokeswoman for mall owner Simon Property Group did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Generally speaking, a mall has the right to control what happens on its property, said John McEntee, a Uniondale commercial litigation lawyer.

Activists with dueling opinions had gathered to support and oppose America’s five-year campaign.

As Zirkel was being wheeled to the police car, the crowd chanted “We shall not be moved!” Moments later, they moved; police and mall security had ordered them off the property. Many joined a larger anti-war crowd assembled by the mall’s entrance, off mall property, on Veterans Memorial Highway.

They were complemented nearby by protesters saying the Iraq war is vital for security.

Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

toms a hawk said...

Shiite Surge Stunning Success

Portions of Basra fall to Shiite militia
Iraqi army forces defect to Mehdi Army's Moqtada al-Sadr.

cheney said...

I'm a crook, a blood thirsty prick and you morons are still supporting me...hahaha, you're even stupider than I thought.

twitz said...

I like attaching a lot of pretentious shit to my peabrain belief system. I'm the kind of goofball you guys come here to laugh at. Am I doing good?

yermuslimnitemare said...

Holy Allah...we're blowing the shit out of that green zone...hit us a bigwig pretty soon.

anais said...

Ya know, I've heard of a time when people went to carnivals, that is, when there were carnivals instead of theme parks, and paying to see "the bearded lady" and/or other "oddities." And, although there is definitely an element of that fascination of abomination (very different from the bearded lady who turns what is considered, for the most part, repellant to the general society into something that she can use to make a living).... to this blog because I can feel--something...I don't want to call it sympathy, because that isn't correct....or empathy because that isn't right at all...that people are being suckered into the insanity of the cynicism of Evan Sayet, a man who professes and passes himself off as a person of "family values," whatever that is, but is divorced and has been arrested for DUIs. I would not compare him to David Lynch but more like Marmet Apostasy Now, even though Sayet is way out of his league with either of these dudes. But, like Marmet, he is taking these people for a ride.

quake said...

Hey, guys...great job...great liberal blog...you post some patented right wing drivel with a front man named Soyet as its imaginary blogger... and then procede to rip what he says apart. Brilliant stroke...I'd never have thought of it. This site needs more attention...maybe we can get some of the lib blogs to link to it.

immaculate conception strikes 2x said...

Relating the story of how his parents met, Obama said: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Junior was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama.”

After bloggers pointed out that the Selma bridge protest occurred four years after Obama’s birth, a spokesman explained that the senator was referring to the civil rights movement in general, rather than any one event.

more fudging from the fudgepackers said...

Addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Ala., a year ago, Sen. Barack Obama traced his “very existence” to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother.

The Camelot connection has become part of the mythology surrounding Obama’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Caroline Kennedy endorsed his candidacy in January, Newsweek commentator Jonathan Alter reported that she had been struck by the extraordinary way in which “history replays itself” and by how “two generations of two families — separated by distance, culture and wealth — can intersect in strange and wonderful ways.”

It is a touching story — but the key details are either untrue or grossly oversimplified.

Contrary to Obama’s claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama’s father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton acknowledged yesterday that the senator from Illinois had erred in crediting the Kennedy family with a role in his father’s arrival in the United States. He said the Kennedy involvement in the Kenya student program apparently “started 48 years ago, not 49 years ago as Obama has mistakenly suggested in the past.”

local 3-8 of the fudgepackers union said...

Fudge straight from the fudgepacker's lips...

fudgepacker-in-chief said...

Obama's first pile of baked fudge wasn't as balanced as his second...

cob said...

Bush booed loudly while throwing out first pitch in Nationals home opener at new ball park. Watch the videotape and listen for yourself. 3/31

cob said...

Yet Another Bushevik Scandal: The U.S. housing secretary will resign Monday morning under pressure after accusations of improper allocation of federal contracts, the Wall Street Journal reported in its Monday edition. 3/31

evenmorebushcrap said...

Iraq Phony "Surge Success" Update: Baghdad Green Zone hit yer again by mortars, this time after alleged truce 3/31

losingtwowars said...

WP: "President Bush heads to Europe today to try to rescue the faltering mission in Afghanistan, and key NATO allies plan to meet his demands for more forces with modest troop increases, though not by as much as U.S. military officers say is needed to put down a stubborn Taliban insurgency." 3/31

mr cash in the fridge (d) said...

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to step into a legal fight between the Justice Department and a member of Congress who has been indicted on bribery charges.

The court declined to review an appeals court ruling that the FBI reviewed legislative documents in the office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., in violation of the Constitution.

Jefferson has pleaded not guilty to charges of soliciting more than $500,000 in bribes while using his office to broker business deals in Africa. His trial has been delayed indefinitely.

cob said...

Haha...Jefferson... there's a new GOP thief every day,and these poor freaks are still whining about Jefferson...ages ago and probably not even guilty...just today another Bush housing official had to resign and Siegleman is out and it looks like the only crooks involved are ...what...REPUbLIcons. hhahahah how pathetic. Wait, there was that Teddy thing forty years ago...

eric swift hubble said...

Chaos on Wall Street
The big banks' fear of big losses is threatening to bring down the entire system, with dire consequences for all of us. Here's what's going on, and what we can do about it.
By Allan Sloan, senior editor at large



THE BAILOUT BOYS: S.E.C. Chairman Christopher Cox (left) with Paulson, President Bush and Bernanke.

POINT MAN: New York Fed President Geithner
An accident waiting to happen

More VideosNow what?
How would I mop up this mess? I have no magic cures, but I can offer a few modest suggestions.
Profit Sharing
If we taxpayers are going to subsidize Wall Street, as we're now doing, the Fed - or some agency the government sets up - should get a piece of the action for us in return for saving those firms.
Model: the $1.2 billion of Chrysler loans the Treasury guaranteed in 1980 and 1981. Chrysler repaid the loans, and the government made $311 million from stock-purchase warrants it extracted for issuing the guarantee.
If firms can't raise the capital they need, Uncle Sam himself should recapitalize them, as Israel did for its banks in the 1980s, with an eye toward making a profit by selling stock when things improve.
Regulation
If Wall Street is going to create its own banking system, let's regulate it - especially the hedge funds - or restrict what it can do. Otherwise, how can regulated banks, which need to follow rules and have capital, compete with the cowboys that don't have to worry about either?
Transparency
Wall Street has made tons of money by selling and trading esoteric securities without informing investors in any meaningful way about the mortgages or other assets that underlie them. It's now in everyone's interest to disclose more, so these securities can be analyzed and trust in the market restored.
I'd start with Richard Field, founder of TYI - it stands for "trust your input." TYI's programs let you track individual assets like auto loans, credit card debts, and medical receivables that are in collateral pools. It's worth a look.
Mortgages
The one thing I won't try to do is solve the home mortgage problem that started all this. I'd like to save the truly innocent homeowners, while punishing speculators and imprudent lenders. Alas, I have no idea how to do that quickly, cost-effectively, or well.More from Fortune
How to crack the credit crunch

Wake up Wall Street. Joe Investor is hurting too

The last days of Bear Stearns


FORTUNE 500
Current Issue
Subscribe to Fortune

(Fortune Magazine) -- What in the world is going on here? Why is Washington spending billions to bail out Wall Street titans while leaving struggling homeowners to fend for themselves? Why are the Federal Reserve and the Treasury acting as if they're afraid the world may come to an end, while the stock market seems much less concerned? And finally, what does all this mean to those of us who aren't financial professionals?

the sky is falling said...

And finally, what does all this mean to those of us who aren't financial professionals?

That's easy... that the Democrat's cheerleaders in the MSM are playing "Chicken Little" with the economy to get their boys elected in '08... AGAIN.

Yeah, I know. They'd do ANYTHING to win.

herby hoover II said...

That's easy... that the Democrat's cheerleaders in the MSM are playing "Chicken Little" with the economy to get their boys elected in '08... AGAIN.


Too bad, looney...it looks like it's working.

abongo serenada said...

The way Barack Obama describes his oldest half-brother in his book, Abongo (Roy) Obama inherited their father's hard-drinking ways but straightened his life out by embracing Islam and his African heritage.

Abongo Obama began using his Luo tribal first name and had sworn off pork, smoking and drinking by the time of his younger brother's 1992 wedding.

"Abongo's new lifestyle has left him lean and clear-eyed, and at the wedding, he looked so dignified in his black African gown with white trim and matching cap that some of our guests mistook him for my father," Obama wrote in Dreams From My Father.

An accountant, Abongo Obama also argued that the black man must "liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture," Obama wrote. "But the magic of his laughter remains, and we can disagree without rancor."

Varant Majarian said...

Slummer , I been reading your posts -- I must say you acting like a "typical" DEMOCRAT because DEMOCRAT are so evil and they WANT everyone believe on THERE issues .. its your buddy JIMMY CARTER yes another DEMOCRAT made this economy in trouble and our president bush trying to fix his damage

JIMMY CARTER was the one who increased interest rates to 12 % and up make the eccommy broke .. Please don't "bash" Mr Sayet because Mr. Sayet absolutely right

Give me a break , you want a President "obama" president with THAT last name ???

Keep up the good work Mr Sayet

eric swift hubble said...

Hey, Varant, been here long? Here's a clue...learn ENGLISH, learn to spell, learn a little grammar...and try shutting up until you do. You're embarrassing yourself.

hubble said...

Oh, I'm sure Slummer is proud to be a typical Democrat; I know that I certainly am. By the way, don't ever run for President...who'd want a pres with a last name like Majaran...what are you, some Hindu terrorist? Go back home, foreign leech.

Varant Majarian said...

Oh Eric , this is what I mean by being democrat like yourself , DEMOCRAT thinks that they always right .. Truth Hurts

I tell you what kid , I will learn how to spell proper grammar , if you become a republican and grow up .. you need to go out there and learn kid

Varant Majarian said...

foreign leech ? oh my god I am so scared by your words haha .. its the DEMOCRATS picking OBAMA as your president

stolibaby said...

Senile old coot does it again:

McCain Gets Iraq Facts Wrong Again: Says Sadr — Not Maliki — ‘Asked’ For Ceasefire»
Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he was “surprised” by violent clashes between central Iraqi government and militias connected to Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr last week in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. “Maliki decided to take on this operation without consulting the Americans,” McCain told reporters on his campaign bus.

As MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann noted last night, at the same time McCain expressed surprise about the developments in Basra, he also got basic facts wrong about the ceasefire that halted the violence on Sunday. McCain claimed that “it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire,” not Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malki:

Asked if the Basra campaign had backfired, he said: “Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire, declared a ceasefire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a ceasefire. So we’ll see.’’

Watch it:




As Mother Jones’ Jonathan Stein notes today, McCain’s description of what happened is “completely misleading” and wrong. In fact, Sadr’s call for a ceasefire only came after members of Maliki’s political party traveled to Iran to broker a deal with him:

The backdrop to Sadr’s dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran’s holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country.

There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.

Ali al Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party, and Hadi al Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq.

According to the AP, “the peace deal between al-Sadr and Iraqi government forces” not only “left the cleric’s Mahdi Army intact,” but it also left Maliki “politically battered and humbled within his own Shi’ite power base.”

This is not the first time in recent memory that McCain has gotten basic facts about Iraq wrong. Two weeks ago, he repeatedly made false claims that Iran was training al Qaeda fighters in Iraq.

glen fiddich said...

Pentagon balked on gay partner travel
By: Patrick O'Connor and David Rogers
April 1, 2008 06:25 AM EST
Prior to the Easter recess, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was forced to intervene with Defense Secretary Robert Gates in order to get Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin's domestic partner on a military flight for a congressional fact-finding trip to Europe.
The speaker succeeded, but the issue continues to simmer for both sides. The Pentagon appears to be self-conscious about transporting gay domestic partners at a time when it continues to enforce a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in its own ranks. The speaker is sensitive to the gay rights issue but doesn't want to be drawn into a situation where it appears she is dictating policy for the use of military planes.
Under House guidelines, members of Congress may take their spouses with them on military flights if there is room for them and when it is "necessary for protocol purposes." Although Baldwin, the only openly gay woman elected to Congress, exchanged wedding vows with Lauren Azar in 1998, her home state of Wisconsin does not officially recognize same-sex marriages, and military officials were apparently unwilling to consider Azar a "spouse" within the meaning of the House guidelines.
In appealing to Gates, Pelosi aides said their boss was simply asking the defense secretary to follow a precedent established by her predecessor, former Republican Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois. Pelosi told Gates that Hastert had allowed Baldwin to take Azar on a previous trip abroad.
Gates, who was apparently unaware of any earlier trips, told the speaker that she was responsible for the House travel rules and had the authority to make an exception, according to officials on and off the Hill. His only requirement was that Pelosi send him a letter authorizing the trip. Pelosi sent such a letter moments after the phone call ended, and Azar was allowed on the plane.
The Pentagon and the speaker's office remain divided over what the Gates-Pelosi agreement means for member travel abroad. Pelosi's office awaits a follow-up letter from Gates laying out new criteria for the congressional use of military airplanes, while the Pentagon argues this was one instance in which the speaker waived her own rules to create an exception for an individual lawmaker.
"This is not an issue of DOD regulations," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. "Secretary Gates honored a request from Speaker Pelosi to make an exception to the House rules.
"But that's really as far as it goes," Morrell continued. "This should not be viewed as a precedent which would now permit all nonspouse travel. That said, Secretary Gates will, on a case-by-case basis, entertain the speaker's future requests to make exceptions."
Morrell said he expects Pentagon officials to send the speaker's office their letter within the next few days.
Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said, "We want to work with Secretary Gates to establish a procedure going forward."
Baldwin's office declined repeated requests for comment.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), another openly gay lawmaker, believes the military's initial refusal to let Azar fly with Baldwin has more to do with the Bush administration's opposition to same-sex marriage than with the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
"I think the military was following orders," Frank said. "I think the administration disapproves of same-sex marriage."
Pelosi was scorched early in her tenure as speaker for her use of a military jet larger than the one Hastert used, a controversy that eventually died down after she pointed out that the smaller plane Hastert used cannot make the trip from Washington to her San Francisco district without stopping to refuel.
Congress established a special entitlement for military travel in 1954 as part of broader legislation to expand the country's foreign aid programs. At the time, lawmakers gave themselves discretion to reimburse the military directly from the Treasury for any travel expenses, meaning the Pentagon doesn't have to dip into its own budget to pay for members' trips abroad and in the U.S.
All committee chairmen have the discretion to make a travel request. In the House, the speaker signs off on those requests and then works with the Pentagon to find an available aircraft.

If members' spouses cannot travel, lawmakers may bring "an adult child" when protocol calls for it, according to the House guidelines. In select circumstances, members may also bring an adult child if their spouse is on the trip, but they must reimburse the government for the flight expenses.

The main issue with Baldwin's trip concerns the definition of the term "spouse."

During her tenure in the House, Baldwin has been a forceful advocate for gay rights. She unsuccessfully pushed party leaders last year to include protections for transgender people in legislation prohibiting workplace discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual employees.

Late last month, she sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in which she asked her to establish basic protections for gay and lesbian State Department employees. Among the changes Baldwin requested were equal travel rights for domestic partners accompanying foreign-service officers to their postings overseas.

Baldwin and Azar travel together frequently, according to records filed with the House clerk. Baldwin registered Azar as her spouse on each of those disclosure forms, and last December, the House ethics panel officially cleared Azar to travel with Baldwin to a health care conference in Philadelphia. Ethics committee Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) and Washington Rep. Doc Hastings, the committee's ranking Republican, both signed off on that waiver to the chamber's gift rules.

Azar, an environmental attorney in Madison, has a deep background in public policy. Gov. Jim Doyle appointed her last March to the Public Service Commission, a state board that oversees local utilities and economic development.

The Easter recess trip on which Azar accompanied Baldwin was organized by Democratic Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia, who chairs the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, was also on the trip, according to sources on and off the Hill, and he was very vocal in his support of Baldwin.

Many other members got involved in the debate over Azar's attendance on the trip, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill, and the arguments did not break down along partisan lines.

The issue of spouse travel in same-sex couples came up when Republicans controlled the House, too, according to a member and former aides. One former aide disputed Pelosi's argument that Hastert had ever authorized Baldwin to take Azar on a trip. The aide said Hastert did not learn that Azar was on the trip until it had already begun.

"If someone is recollecting that he authorized anything, my recollection would be the opposite," the former aide said.
© 2007 Capitol News Company, LLC

snark said...

DOJ Sues Wal-Mart For Not Rehiring Air Force Veteran

March 31, 2008: 06:05 PM EST


DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

The Department of Justice filed suit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) for allegedly violating the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.

A representative for Wal-Mart couldn't be reached for immediate comment.

The government alleges the Bentonville, Ark., retail chain violated USERRA by failing and refusing to reinstate Air Force airman Sean Thornton to his position of cashier at a Florida outlet after he was discharged by the Air Force.

The employment act requires that individuals who leave their jobs to serve in the military be reemployed by their civilian employers in the same position had they not left to serve.

Shares of Wal-Mart fell 43 cents to $52.25 in recent after-hours trading.

navel gazing troll's hemroid said...

Don't you hate it when the military tries to stick to its' own policies...

I don't.

surge surrendercrat said...

Is it uncharitable to suggest that when the fighting erupted in Basra last week between Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the U.S.-trained Iraqi army, some opponents of the war hoped it would become George Bush's Tet Offensive? That is, a battle whose military details are largely irrelevant, but whose sudden violence "proves" to voters that a U.S. military commitment is unwinnable and should be abandoned?

It was hard not to miss the antiwar spin coming off reports of the fighting, after a year of unmistakable gains from the Petraeus surge strategy.

An Obama foreign policy adviser, Denis McDonough, said it "does raise a handful of concerns as it relates to the surge and, more importantly, about the prospect of political reconciliation." The New York Times noted that Hillary Clinton, campaigning in Pennsylvania, said the Bush commitment to keeping up troop levels in Iraq is a "clear admission that the surge has failed to accomplish its goals."

The Democrats appear so invested in a failure that a half-week of violence erases a year of progress. What is the source of such instincts?

Anonymous said...

Haha...just one lonely moron muttering to himself about the surge...

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

When everything you advocate has been proven to be a complete failure, rejected by the public at large and subjecting you to no small amount of ridicule for being a mindless follower of idiots and opportunists, that's your tactic of last resort - to accuse your opponent of rooting for that failure.

Anonymous said...

It's also their excuse...when people finally quit supporting their endless investments in failure...3 trillion...they say they only failed because people stopped supporting them. Of course, it's he other way around but...

mathmatically impaired democrat said...

$3 trillion. LOL!

I hear Spielberg is looking for a new accountant. I think you'll qualify for the job.

who will buy this wonderful whitehouse... said...

A Texas oilman who's accused of defrauding the Nigerian government by illegally pumping and exporting 10 million barrels of oil is a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Kase Lawal of Houston is at least the fourth person accused or convicted of criminal wrongdoing to help finance Clinton's political ambitions since 2000 and the second in her quest for the White House.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
It's also their excuse...when people finally quit supporting their endless investments in failure...3 trillion...they say they only failed because people stopped supporting them. Of course, it's he other way around but...


And you don't need an MSF to understand that.

slummah said...

Nobel laureate, Stiglitz says: EXCLUSIVE–The Three Trillion Dollar War: Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Economist Linda Bilmes on the True Cost of the US Invasion and Occupation of Iraq
One week after President Bush rejected charges the war in Iraq has hurt the US economy, a new book puts a conservative estimate of the war’s cost at $3 trillion so far. In their first national broadcast interview upon their book’s publication, Nobel laureate and former chief World Bank economist, Joseph Stiglitz, and co-author Linda Bilmes of Harvard University say the Bush administration has repeatedly low-balled the cost of the war—and even kept a second set of records hidden from the American public. [includes rush transcript]



butt Sayet's butt monkey says no....hahahahahahha

algore proves nobels r worthless said...

LOL! And so when are you going to own up to the "true lifetime costs" of liberal social programs?

Oh, that's right, NEVER.

btw - The cost of Iraq is MUCH less than $3T. 99% of the money being counted in THAT number would have been spent regardless... only the soldiers and airmen would have been tearing up "training facilities" and "target drones" in the US instead of in the deserts of Iraq.

In fact, fighting an actual war is probably LESS expensive than "realistic training" equivalent. As for re-building Iraq... screw 'em. That's the only "throw away".

Anonymous said...

In fact, fighting an actual war is probably LESS expensive than "realistic training" equivalent.

Hahahaha this is one stupid piece of shit...are there more like him appearing here from time to time, or are they all the same unabashed monkey?

the monkeys uncle said...

That question reveals a lot about you trolly. Unlike some of your other unabashedly simian statements...

Anonymous said...

Where is the sicko? He doesn't have a clue as to what fun he is to poke fun at.

the unabasher said...

That question reveals a lot about you trolly. Unlike some of your other unabashedly simian statements...


Alright; I'll bite. What does it say about him...other than he knows an UNABASHED moron when he sees one?

Anonymous said...

Where is the sicko? He doesn't have a clue as to what fun he is to poke fun at.



I think he does have a clue...that's why he's been run off his own blog.

Anonymous said...

anonymous said: I think he does have a clue...that's why he's been run off his own blog.

It would be the only thing that he has a clue about. Also, he's disappeared for months at a time and then returned to peddle the same shop-worn lies. He's not the only one, though, who's abandon their blog....for only a while, I hope.

Anonymous said...

Published on The Smirking Chimp (http://www.smirkingchimp.com)
Bush Military Spending Recalls Stalin and Hitler
By Sherwood Ross
Created Apr 6 2008 - 10:54am

The relentless increases in Pentagon spending President Bush has pushed through since taking office recall the actions of Hitler and Stalin prior to the outbreak of World War Two.

Both European dictators escalated their war machines and both dictators showed little concern when their domestic economies and workers' incomes suffered as a result. In 1933, his first year in power, Hitler pushed up German arms spending from less than a billion to four billion Reichsmarks. He jumped that figure to 10 billion in 1936; 17 billion in 1938 and 38 billion in 1939, the year he invaded Poland. Similarly, Stalin steadily boosted military spending in the Thirties from two billion rubles to 41 billion rubles.

As historian Richard Overy put it in "The Dictators" (W.W. Norton & Co.): "The share of defence spending in the state budget in Germany reached 54% in 1938/39; in the Soviet Union it reached one-third of the budget by 1940." The commitment to military spending, he says, "was historically exceptional" and created by the late 1930s "something approaching a war economy in peacetime."

Today, President Bush is right up there with the European dictators. His military spending has soared from $291 billion to a lavish $515 billion and he's proposed a stunning $651 billion next year. The Friends Committee on National Legislation, of Washington, D.C. says that 44 cents out of every dollar in his proposed record 2009 budget will go for war, compared with 2.2 cents for social programs. Typically, he calls for cutting 47 education programs while handing the generals 8% more.

Under Bush, U.S. military spending is now roughly equal to the combined total of all other nations. What's more, Uncle Sam is the world's Number One arms peddler, selling about half of all weapons bought by the developing nations, and showing few scruples about sales to dictators. The Center for Defense Information reported last year that U.S. arms sales to 25 countries it studied increased 400 percent over 9/11.

Of course, the two criminal 20th Century dictators didn't build their war machines for sport, and neither has Mr. Bush. By mutual agreement in 1939, the "CommuNazis," as they were known, carved up Poland, Hitler invading from the West and Stalin from the East. In the summer of 1941, Overy writes, Hitler remarked "what one needs and does not have, one must conquer." That's not much different from Bush's view of Middle East oil. Having made war on Iraq based on lies and having subjugated that small country by force, Bush is pushing its cabinet to put through a giveaway law to profit the oil companies. And he's threatening oil-rich Iran with an attack.

As for the quality of life on their home fronts, Stalin and Hitler didn't mind sacrificing their people one bit to a war economy. Neither of them tolerated labor unions. In the Kremlin-controlled economy, real hourly wage rates in 1937 were 40% lower than in 1928 and by 1940 they were down another five to ten percent, Overy writes. There was food on the table for Hitler's workers but few consumer goods to buy. In 1932, consumer industries accounted for 40 percent of Germany's investment. By 1938, this had shrunk to only 17 percent, a trend similar to that in Russia under Stalin. Under Bush, the real wages of Americans have stagnated as well. Despite their fantastic productivity, U.S. workers are earning less today in real dollars than five years ago. And restrictive laws make union organizing tougher than ever.

As ever more Americans lose their jobs and homes, favored Pentagon contractors reap record profits, not necessarily from operating on free market principles. As the Center for Public Integrity noted, only one of the top 10 defense contractors "won a majority of its contracts through full and open competition. All the rest collected most of their contract dollars through sole source contracts or other no-bid procedures." CPI identified Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, United Technologies, General Electric, Carlyle Group, and Newport News.

One might think in these hard times -- when the price of a gallon of gas has doubled in good part because of the Iraq war -- the White House might ask this supine Congress for a windfall profits tax on the oil majors. With two former oil executives holding the two top jobs, though, that's not likely to happen, any more than the Iraqi people will ever see the profits from their oil resource as long as George Bush is president.

The bottom line is that the people both of Iraq and America are suffering from a needless war to profit USA's military-industrial complex. Recall that Thomas Jefferson opposed a standing navy because he had observed the way the Royal Navy pushed Great Britain to wage wars. If you don't remember that bit of history, it's safe to say President Bush doesn't, either.
_______
Dear Chimp Readers, Yo! Yo! Ahoy! Please take note: the column about Ford's superlative treatment of his work force referred to his early days, before he changed and hired goons and thugs to cow and beat his employees. Right at the beginning the column sa

Anonymous said...

$3 Trillion May Be Too Low
Our original estimate of the cost of the Iraq war was too conservative: in reality the cost for the US will be much higher

by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes
President Bush has tried to give the impression that the $3 trillion dollar estimate of the total cost of the war that we provide in our new book may be exaggerated.

We believe that it is in fact conservative. Even the president would have to admit that the $50 to $60 billion estimate given by the administration before the war was wildly off the mark; there is little reason to have confidence in their arithmetic. They admit to a cost so far of $600 billion.

Our numbers differ from theirs for three reasons: first, we are estimating the total cost of the war, under alternative conservative scenarios, derived from the defence department and congressional budget office. We are not looking at McCain’s 100-year scenario - we assume that we are there, in diminished strength, only through to 2017. But neither are we looking at a scenario that sees our troops pulled out within six months. With operational spending going on at $12 billion a month, and with every year costing more than the last, it is easy to come to a total operational cost that is double the $600 billon already spent.

Second, we include war expenditures hidden elsewhere in the budget, and budgetary expenditures that we would have to incur in the future even if we left tomorrow. Most important of these are future costs of caring for the 40% of returning veterans that are likely to suffer from disabilities (in excess of $600 billion; second world war veterans’ costs didn’t peak until 1993), and restoring the military to its prewar strength. If you include interest, and interest on the interest - with all of the war debt financed - the budgetary costs quickly mount.

Finally, our $3 trillion dollars estimate also includes costs to the economy that go beyond the budget, for instance the cost of caring for the huge number of returning disabled veterans that go beyond the costs borne by the federal government - in one out of five families with a serious disability, someone has to give up a job. The macro-economic costs are even larger. Almost every expert we have talked to agrees that the war has had something to do with the rise in the price of oil; it was not just an accident that oil prices began to soar at the same time as the war began.

We have been criticised, but for being excessively conservative, for including only $5 to $10 of the $75 to $85 increase in the price of oil since then. Money spent on the war - on a Nepalese contractor working in Iraq - does not stimulate the economy as much as money spent on hospitals or research or schools at home. These contractionary effects were temporarily covered up, hidden, by the flood of liquidity and lax regulations that led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom - with household savings plummeting to zero. But this simply postponed paying these costs - and increased them.

With the exception of a few lonely surviving supply-siders, most economists believe that deficits matter, and the huge deficits to finance the war will have their toll in the long run. Deficits matter in both the short run and the long. They help crowd out private investment that would have stimulated the economy far more than the war expenditures; and the reduced investments reduce long-run productivity. With 40% of the funds borrowed from abroad, Americans will be sending interest payments abroad - lowering living standards at home. Finally, even Fed Chair Bernanke (formerly the president’s economic adviser) admits that the deficits have reduced the room to manoeuvre - the ability of the government to respond to the looming economic crisis.

Spending so much on the war has economic consequences, even if you don’t think there is any connection between the war and the economy’s current woes.

In adding up the quantifiable costs of the war, it is hard not to come up with a number in excess of $3 trillion. In putting a $3 trillion price tag on the war, we believe we have been excessively conservative - a $4 or $5 trillion tag would be more reasonable. And remember - this is just the cost for America.

Joseph E. Stiglitz is university professor at Columbia University and was the recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics. Linda Bilmes teaches at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. They are the co-authors of the recently published book The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict.

© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.


Discuss this story Print This Post E-Mail This Article
27 Comments so far
iammyself April 6th, 2008 11:30 am
I heard this pair speak on one of the speech forums on NPR not long ago (to NPR’s shrinking credit) - it was chilling, as is this article.

In the article, “How to Sink America,” ( http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884 ) Chalmers Johnson was quoted as saying, “Such expenditures are not only morally obscene, they are fiscally unsustainable. Many neoconservatives and poorly informed patriotic Americans believe that, even though our defense budget is huge, we can afford it because we are the richest country on Earth. Unfortunately, that statement is no longer true. The world’s richest political entity, according to the CIA’s “World Factbook,” is the European Union. The EU’s 2006 GDP (gross domestic product — all goods and services produced domestically) was estimated to be slightly larger than that of the U.S. However, China’s 2006 GDP was only slightly smaller than that of the U.S., and Japan was the world’s fourth richest nation.”

So, we have already lost much ground economically and are in a lot of debt. Debt is the main reason why the poor from third world countries clamor to come into the US and Europe by whatever means possible. Will there be a day when the poor from the impoverished United States will try to flee to richer countries by whatever means possible?

There is a quote that goes something like: “If something cannot be sustained, it won’t be.” It’s time we as individual Americans realize that our nation is bankrupt. We need to take individual action to protect ourselves, our families, our communities, and our nation.
Thanks to Stiglitz and Blimes for the wake up call ! They seem to get more coverage from media outside of America than they do in this nation of denial.

The American war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan may very well become a slow death for the American empire.

But if current war spending continues, Big Oil and the MIC will manage to prosper while the rest of the economy suffers, that is, if other countries are willing to continue purchasing our debt.

In short, our entire economy and legitimacy as a nation is being sacrificed to serve the neo-conservative dream of hegemony over the oil and gas resources of Iraq and Central Asia. This is imperial over-extension at it’s worst and has become a case of endless public debt for private profit.

Arguably the damage done to date is even beyond the discussion of this article.

According to Stiglitz the sub-prime credit crisis developed as a complication of the cost of financing war. In a recent interview, Stiglitz explained, “ The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit.” And now that policy has backfired.

From: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23286149-2703,00.html

The inter-related economic dominos effects have become astronomical as the American economic structure is imploding with job losses, tax revenue losses, inflation, stagflation, and with consumers now unable or unwilling to spend and keep the economy alive.

We are also not drawing international investment to our capital markets as we have in the past in addition to these complex conditions drastically weakening the dollar. International confidence in our economy is a very real factor. At the moment, American government and financial institutions look like a nasty bunch of incompetent criminals not to be trusted.

And another consideration is that if American aggression is ever brought before an international war crimes court, there will be trillions more in reparations owed to our victims. Etc.

Anonymous said...

Bernie Sanders Does Small ‘d’ Democracy
by Katrina vanden Heuvel and Greg Kaufmann
Last Monday, well over 300 Vermonters packed City Hall in downtown Burlington. It was standing room only with every seat on the floor and in the balcony occupied. The occasion was a town hall meeting with Senator Bernie Sanders, a forum he thoroughly enjoys and frequently hosts throughout the state because, as he said later, “it brings the government close to the people.”

Ambassador Pekka Lintu of Finland was the guest speaker. Sanders invited him because he wants his constituents to know about a country that has quality universal healthcare, free childcare, free college education, employment benefits unimaginable to most American workers, virtually no childhood poverty, and one of the most competitive economies in the world. While Sanders anticipated a good turnout, the actual attendance exceeded his expectation. “It shows,” he would later say, “that people are hungry to hear about alternative visions to the way we are doing things in this country.”

Neither Lintu nor Sanders denied the differences between the US and Finland - in population, size, and diversity. “Yet as we acknowledge the difference we should also acknowledge that we are all human beings with very much the same DNA, the same kind of intelligence and the same human needs,” Sanders said. “Is there something that we can learn from [Finland’s] model?”

Lintu is a striking presence - tall and debonair. (One woman in the audience joked that he was “Finland’s best evidence of the quality of its healthcare system.”) But while Sanders has a straightforward, fearless style that his constituents have grown accustomed to, Lintu has a dry sense of humor and is soft-spoken. So much so that as he began his remarks several audience members called out for him to speak louder. Lintu finally joked, “Finns are rather non-talkative people, rather known as shy people. We say that you can know the difference between an introverted Finn and an extroverted Finn. An introverted Finn, when he talks to you, he’s looking at his own shoes. An extroverted Finn, when he’s talking to you, he’s looking at your shoes.”

Lintu spoke openly of some of the challenges now facing his country - an aging population, a need for alternative energy, unemployment just under 6 percent, alcohol that is “still a mythic thing for young people.” There was an economic crisis in the early 90’s when unemployment rose from 4 percent to 17 percent in just two years. Lintu said that Finns by no means enjoy paying taxes - the total taxes per capita were 43.1 percent in 2007 - but they do enjoy what they get for their money. It allows for stability and confidence in planning a family, and for adjusting to the pressures of a global economy.

Lintu described Finland as both a welfare society and a competitive country. He believes that the strength of the welfare society stems in part from women getting the vote and the right to run for political office in 1906. “The decision to involve women in decision-making [early on] has a lot to do with it,” he said. “Maternity and childcare, education, healthcare… many of these issues that are important ‘family issues’ I trace back to early involvement and ownership of women in politics.”

Today, women in Finland hold 83 of 200 Parliament seats; 12 of 20 cabinet positions; and the presidency.

The keys to Finland’s economic success, according to Lintu, are the safety net which help people adapt to the pressures of globalization and change; an education system recognized internationally as one of the best in the world; economic development that uses environmental sustainability as a framework; and good governance - ranked as the “#1 least corrupt government” by Transparency International, a global network that fights government corruption and advocates for reforms. Finland also ranks second in the world in percentage of GDP spent on Research and Development.

Lintu quickly turned the floor over for a Q&A and they fired away. (In fact, two hours later a number of hands would still be in the air when Senator Sanders called it a night. Lintu had spent the day meeting with college students and professors, business and community leaders, labor representatives and activists, and Sanders didn’t want to wear out his guest.) Does universal healthcare mean long waiting lists and poor care? Do people fear immigrants inundating the country with different languages and values? How do you create a culture that sees taxes as a positive thing? Does Finland invest in teachers and give them room for creativity in the classroom? Does the government tax greenhouse emissions and how does that impact the economy? How much of the budget is devoted to defense spending? What is the gap between top-paid CEO’s and workers? Is there a strong lobbying presence and are campaigns publicly funded? What is Finland’s view on globalization?

Lintu said of the healthcare system that waiting lists were indeed a problem for non-urgent operations a few years ago. So the government allowed people to pay a premium for an earlier appointment - for non-emergency operations only and on the doctor’s own time, not during regular hours of the free system. This has shortened the queues. Sanders noted that despite healthcare being almost free for everyone, it still “ends up costing about half as much per capita as our system.” (Even with almost 50 million people uninsured, the US spends 14 percent of GDP on healthcare, Finland spends 7.5 percent.) As for quality of care - infant mortality is quite low, and the average lifespan is approximately 75 years for men and 82 years for women.

The economic gap between people isn’t “enormous…. at least it’s on the same planet,” and Lintu sees this allocation of resources as important to the success of the welfare society. There are no caps on what people can earn but the very largest corporations pay CEO’s 3 to 5 million US dollars. Sanders asked Lintu why CEO’s aren’t asking for outsized US-style salaries? Lintu said that companies are free to pay what they want to but the CEO’s are sometimes criticized for their salaries.

Lintu tied the success of Finland’s education system to the holistic approach raising kids. There is maternity leave for 3 months at full-pay, and 7 more months of either maternity or paternity leave at 70 percent of salary. Then a parent is permitted to take two more years - without pay, but with a guaranteed job to return to when the child is three years old. (Sanders contrasted this with the Herculean fight in Congress over the Family Medical Leave Act, which provides three months leave without pay.) For parents who work, states and municipalities are required to provide daycare with accredited staff for every child. When children turn six they are entitled to enroll in pre-school if desired, and compulsory “basic school” begins at age 7, through age 16. The graduation rates are astounding - 99.7 percent complete basic school; 87 percent complete “upper secondary” (ages 16-19); and 70 percent of upper secondary graduates go on to study at a university or polytechnic.

Lintu said it’s true that the curriculum is more flexible than in the US, allowing teachers freedom to adapt to the needs of the class. But the nation is perhaps most proud - not of the high-rankings internationally - but that “the system produces a rather egalitarian result, with less than a 5 percent difference in the testing results between the best and worst schools.”

And then there are the workers. Imagine, one of the most competitive economies in the world, 80 percent unionized, 30 days paid vacation, 10 national holidays. Sanders noted, “The American worker now works the longest hours of anyone in a major country… many of our families are stressed out and exhausted…. The benefits that workers receive [in Finland]… dwarf what workers in this country receive.” As for immigration, the government doesn’t view it as a threat, but as one of the possible solutions to the problem of an aging population and the need for skilled labor. There are now 1.7 employed workers to every welfare recipient. Given current population trends, the ratio would be 1:1 in 2030.
What about paying for all of these services? “Well, I think it would be an exaggeration to say that Finns love taxes,” Lintu joked. “But taxes are not a bad word…. I think that the success of the system… what you get, a family with two kids… free daycare, free preschool, primary school, high school and university. And then healthcare.” Sanders added, “I think the issue is not so much what you pay - it’s what you get for what you pay.”

The Ambassador and the Senator spent a half-hour continuing to speak with Vermonters after the meeting had adjourned. When his last constituent had left, Sanders reflected on the importance of this gathering. “If you think about human history, the fact that a nation has been able to virtually abolish poverty, take care of its people, and be so competitive - it’s amazing. People need to know about it. Agree or disagree, we should learn from it, debate it, and adopt these models where they make sense.”

It was a good night in Burlington. A good night for small-d democracy. A good night to express the yearning citizens feel for a better way for America. A good night for looking beyond our own borders for vision, inspiration, and concrete examples of how things are working - and working well - in another nation.

Katrina vanden Heuvel has been The Nation’s editor since 1995 and publisher since 2005. Greg Kaufmann is a freelance writer residing in his disenfranchised hometown of Washington, DC.

doctor zaus said...

What does it say about him...

That the only time he's ever honest is when he's admitting he doesn't know something... and that the rest of the time, he's an UNABASHED fool.

anonyzaus said...

If you ever catch a neocon being honest and/ or admitting that they don't know something, then they are about to join the other 70% of Americans.

anonyzaus said...

I meant %75 of Americans....

long term weather forecaster said...

...who unabashedly believe in global warming.

anonyzaus said...

More than that believe that America is "on the wrong track," silly boy.

anonyzaus said...

More than that believe that America is "on the wrong track," silly boy. And, where is sicko sayet????????????????

anonyzaus said...

List of Republican offenders (are there any who aren't?) grows:

http://www.republicanoffenders.com/

Ringo, Robert R.
RoBold, Warren
Rosen, Steve
Rowland, John
Rudy, Tony
Russell, Beverly
Ryan, George
Safavian, David Hossein
Scanlon, Michael
Scannapieco, Matthew V.
Schepp, Brent
Schofield, Robert T.
Schrenko, Linda
Seidensticker, Mark
Shortridge, Tom
Siljander, Mark Deli
Skandalakis, Mitch
Skiles, Paul
Smeltzer Jr., Fred C.
Smith, Rick
Stanley, Roger “The Hog”
Stillwell, Roger
Stockman, David
Stroupe Jr, Wade
Stumbo, Bobby
Swartz, David
Symington, Fife
Taff, Adam
Taft, Bob
Tanonaka, Dalton
Tate, Mark
Tebano, Armando
Teele, Arthur
Temple, Merle
Thompson, Joe
Thompson, Donald
Thomson, Gary Russell
Tobin, James
Treffinger, James
Tristano, Michael
Turbyfill, Basil
Van Vleet, Rick D.
Vanderwall, Robin
Velella, Guy J.
Vellanoweth, Robert
Volz, Neil
Wade, Mitchell
Warner, Larry
Weissmann, Keith
Weldon ,Terance
Westberg, Craig
Westlake, John E. "Jack"
Westmoreland, Keith
Weyhrauch, Bruce
White, C. Stephen
Wilkes ,Brent
Williams, Robin
Wilson, Bob
Zachares, Mark
Zimmerman, Al

listkeeping loser said...

Just go to any jail house and take a survey. You'll get 95% Democrats.

anonyzaus said...

Hell, I left off most of them.
http://www.republicanoffenders.com/


Abramoff, Jack
Adams, Tom
Adams, Jim
Aiken, Steve
Alishtari, Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali
Allen, Bob
Allen, Claude
Allen, Bill
Alonos, Miram
Anderson, Tom
Ankeney, Randal David
Aragoncillo, Leandro
Atchison, John David R.
Bakker, Jim
Barnes, Martin G.
Barter, Merrill Robert
Beaird, John
Bena, Parker J.
Beres, Lou
Beverage, Sam
Bird, Calvin
Bland, Wilton Frederick
Blessing, Louis
Bloom, Philip H.
Blundell, Brian
Bobrick, Bill
Boggio, Scott
Botes, Stephan
Brady, Kevin
Brock, Darrell
Broderick, Thomas
Brooks, Howard L.
Brown, Shawn
Bryan, John
Bundy, Ted
Burcham, Tom
Burt, John Allen
Butler, John
Cagle, Charles "Chig"
Cappelli, Angelo
Carona, Deborah
Carona, Michael S.
Carpenter, Jared
Carroll, Cherie
Casseday, Randall
Childers, W.D.
Childs, Keola
Cianci, Vincent
Coan, Kevin
Collins, John J.
Colyandro, John
Condos, James
Constantine, Lee
Corrigan, Larry
Cortelyou, Scott Eller
Coughlin ,Paul
Coutretsis, Andrea
Craig, Larry
Cramer, Carey Lee
Crawford, Lester
Cunningham, Randy “Duke”
Curtin, John R.
Dasen Sr., Richard A.
Davis, Ronnie
Davison, Pat
DeLay, Tom
Delgaudio, Richard A.
DeShon, Ronnie Gene
Dibble, Peter
Dickens, Joshua
Disponett, Dave
Doolittle, John
Doyle, Dan
Doyle, Victoria
Doyle, Brian J.
Druen, Dan
Elizondo, Nicholas
Ellef ,Peter
Elliott, Matthew Joseph
Ellis, James
Fabian, Alan
Fawell, Scott
Federici, Italia
Fields, Vincent
Fleischman, Donald
Fletcher, Earnie
Floren, Livvy
Flory, Michael
Floyd, Larry Dale
Foggo, Kyle “Dusty”
Fox., Galen
Franklin, Larry
Frankum, Eddie
Gallagher, Dennis
Gardner, Richard
Garofalo, Dave
Gillin, William
Giordano, Philip
Glavin, Matthew
Gosek, John
Goyette, Richard R.
Graves, David
Grethen, Mark A.
Griles, J. Steven
Groe, Trish
Hamilton Jr., John J.
Hansen, Shaun
Harbin, Ben
Harding, Russell
Harris, Mark
Hazlette, Tim
Healy, Chris
Heaton, William
Heldreth, Howard Scott
Hicks, Brian
Hiller, Bradley R.
Hintz, Mike
Hoffman, Debra V.
Holland, Robert
Hooks Sr., Michael
Hopfengardner, Bruce D.
Horsley, Neal
Houchen, Pamela J.
Hughes, J. Marshall
Hurley, Steven M.
Iadanza, Richard
Matricarid, Edmund III
Isenhour, James K.
James, Rayfield
Janklow, Bill
Jensen, Scott
Juliano, Richard
Kaelin, Jeffrey
Kauffman, Allen D.
Kerik, Bernie
Kidan, Adam
Kimmerling, Earl "Butch"
King, Lawrence E.
"Larry" Jr.
Klaudt, Ted
Kline, Ronald C.
Kohring, Vic
Kontogiannis, Thomas
Kott, Pete
Lambert, James R.
Law, David
Lay ,Michael Aaron
Leonard, Richard
Leung, Katrina
Libby, I. Lewis "Scooter"
Limbaugh, Rush
Linnen, Stephen
Loren-Maltese, Betty
Lukens, Donald "Buz"
Luongo, Gerald J.
Malloy, Patrick G.
Malone, Lance
Martin, Hayes
Mathes Jr., James R.
Matricardi, Edmund III
Matthews, Jon
McCurnin, Joseph
McGee, Charles
McGuire, Patrick Lee
Meadows, Cory
Merla, John
Michael, John
Mixon, Michael
Monteleone Jr., Joseph
Morency, Nicholas
Murgatroyd, Dick
Murphy Jr., Glenn
Nash, James J.
Neal, Rebecca
Newton, Chris
Ney, Bob
Nielsen, Jeffrey
Nighbert, Bill
Nixon Jr., Kenneth E.
Noe, Bernadette
Noe, Thomas
Noonan, Thomas J.
Novak, Lawrence
Nugent, Johnny
O’Grady, Raymond
Oleen, Lana
Owens, Leonard Ray
Palughi, Anthony J.
Parker, Brent
Patti, Jeffrey
Pazuhanich, Mark
Privette, Coy
Prokos, Alexandra
Pugh, Edward
Rader, Dennis L.
Randall, Tom
Randall, Jeffrey Kyle
Rathmann, Rolf
Ravenel, Thomas
Raymond, Allen
Regola, Robert
Renzi, Rick
Rice, Steve

alois said...

And these are just the pervs:Refresh Your Memory: The GOP Has Always Been the Party of Perverts

Bush Character
Department of No! They Would Never to Do That!
foley
pederasty
Republicans



* Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

* Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

* Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

* Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor. we’re just getting started, kids.

* Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for attempted rape of a juvenile.

* Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.

* Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.

* Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

* Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a juvenile.

* Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

* Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

* Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

* Republican Congressman Donald “Buz” Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

* Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges.

* Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

* Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.

* Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a minor working as a congressional page.

* Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.

* Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had sex with a 16 year old when he was 28.

* Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

* Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

* Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. “Republican Marty”), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with a juvenile and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

* Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.

* Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

* Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was arrested after allegedly offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

* Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.

* Republican anti-gay activist Earl “Butch” Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

* Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.

* Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.

* Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.

* Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to minors under 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).

* Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15-year old girl.

* Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a child.

* Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

* Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.

* Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.

* Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.

* Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.

* Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

* Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

* Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.

* Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a “good military man” and “church goer,” was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

* Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.

* Republican director of the “Young Republican Federation” Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.

* Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.

UPDATE: oooh, here’s an even better list (links at original post)


Edison Misla Aldarondo, Republican legislator, was sentenced to 13 years in prison for molestation of his daughter and her friend for eight-year period starting when they were 9. [1]

Randal David Ankeney, Republican activist, arrested on suspicion of sexual assault on a child with force. He faces 6 charges related to getting a 13-year-old girl stoned on pot and then having sex with her. [2] Also accused of sexually assaulting another girl. [3]

Jim Bakker, televangelist with Pat Robertson at Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting network. Committed adultery with Jessica Hahn [4] and then used charitable donations to pay her hush money[5]. Fellow televangelists say he’s gay. [6][7] Indicted on 23 federal charges of fraud, tax evasion, and racketeering [8].

Merrill Robert Barter, Republican County Commissioner, pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy. [9]

Robert Bauman, Republican congressman and anti-gay activist, was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar. [10]

Parker J. Bena, Republican activist and Bush Elector, pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography (including children as young as 3 years old) on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000. [11]

Louis Beres, chairman of the Christian Coalition of Oregon. 3 of his family members accuse him of molesting them when they were pre-teens. [12]

Howard L. Brooks, Republican legislative aide and advisor to a California assemblyman, was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography. [13]

John Bolton Bush’s appointee ambassador to United Nations, corroborated allegations that Mr. Bolton’s first wife, Christina Bolton, was forced to engage in group sex have not been refuted by the State Department. [14]

Mike Bowers Former State Attorney General, prosecuted the famous Bowers vs. Hardwick case, based on Georgia anti-sodomy laws. Admitted to a 10-year adulterous affair. [15]

Andrew Buhr, Republican politician, former committeeman for Hadley Township Missouri, was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy. [16]

Ted Bundy campaigned for the Republican Party. Infamous serial rapist who murdered 16 women. [17]

Jim Bunn Congressman of Oregon: With his success due in great part to support from the Christian Coalition, Bunn won his congressional seat, then left his wife (and mother of his five children), married a staffer, and put his new wife on the state payroll with a salary of $97,500. [18]

John Allen Burt, Republican anti-abortion activist, convicted of sexually molesting a 15 year old girl at the home for troubled girls that he ran.[19]

Dan Burton, Republican Congressman who, while married, fathered a child by another woman. [20]

George W. Bush, Republican president, accused in a criminal complaint and lawsuit of raping Margie Schoedinger, who later committed suicide. Accused by Tammy Phillips, a former stripper quoted in the National Enquirer in 2000 saying she had an affair with Bush that had ended in 1999.[21][22]

John Butler, Republican activist, was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.[23]

Ken Calvert, Congressman (R-Ca), champion of the Christian Coalition and its “family values.” Sued as an alimony deadbeat by his ex-wife. Said “We can’t forgive what occurred between the President and Lewinsky.” In 1993 he was caught by police receiving oral sex from a prostitute and attempted to flee the scene.[24]

Helen Chenoweth, Congresswoman (R-Id.). Admitted to a six-year adulterous affair with a married associate. In 1995, Chenoweth had denied the affair when asked about it by The Spokane Spokesman-Review, but now she claims a pardon from a higher authority: “I’ve asked for God’s forgiveness, and I’ve received it,” she revealed. [25]

Keola Childs, Republican County Councilman, pleaded guilty to sexual assault in the first degree for molesting a male child.[26]

Kevin Coan, Republican St. Louis Election Board official, arrested and charged with trying to buy sex from a 14-year-old girl whom he met on the Internet.[27]

Dan Crane, Republican Congressman, married, father of six. Received a 100% “Morality Rating” from Christian Voice. Had sex with a minor working as a congressional page. [28]
On July 20, the House voted for censure Crane, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct.[29]

Paul Crouch Televangelist, Former President of Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). Paid $425,000 in hush money in an attempt to cover up a gay affair.[30]

Richard A. Dasen Sr., Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, convicted of sexual abuse of children, promotion of prostitution and several counts of solicitation, enough to add up to a sentence of 126 years in prison. [31][32][33]

Richard A. Delgaudio, Republican fundraiser and Bush pioneer, was found guilty of child porn charges. [34]

Peter Dibble, Republican legislator pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl. [35]

Nicholas Elizondo, Director of the Young Republican Federation molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison. [36]

Larry Dale Floyd, Republican Constable in Denton County, Texas Precinct Two. Arrested for allegedly crossing state lines to have sex with an 8-year old child and was charged with 7 related offenses. Age 62 at time of arrest. [37][38]

John Fund, of the Wall Street Journal, a prominent anti-abortion columnist and GOP fund raiser. He lost his position after it was revealed that he impregnated the daughter of an old girlfriend and then encouraged her to abort his child. [39]

Jeff Gannon Partisan blogger with no journalism credentials and a fake name who got invited to Bush’s Press conferences. Is also a pimp and a gay prostitute.[40]

Jack W. Gardner, Republican Councilman, had been convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl. when the Republican Party, knowing of these crimes, put him on the ballot.[41]

Richard Gardner, a Nevada State Representative (R), admitted to molesting his two daughters. [42]

Newt Gingrich, married three times. Gingrich campaign worker Anne Manning admitted that she gave Newt oral sex while he was still married to his first wife. Informed one wife he was filing for divorce while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer treatments.[43]

Philip Giordano, Republican mayor sentenced to 37 years for forcing two 8 and 10 year old girls to perform oral sex on him in his City Hall office. [44][45]

Rudy Giuliani, had an adulterous affair.[46][47]

Matthew Glavin, president and CEO of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, big player in the Clinton Impeachment, and many anti-gay jihads, has been arrested multiple times for public indeceny, one time fondling the crotch of the officer who was arresting him. [48]

Mark A. Grethen, Republican activist, convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.[49]

Jon Grunseth, Republican businessman and candidate for Minnesota governor, withdrew his candidacy after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter, and tried to grope one. [50]

Dr. W. David Hager Bush appointee, member of Focus on the Family’s Physician Resource Council, player in movement to ban the morning-after-pill. Had an adulterous affair, before divorcing his wife he sexually abused her, including sodomizing her in her sleep.[51]

Mark Harris, Republican city councilman who is described as a “church goer,” was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.[52]

John Hathaway, Republican Senate candidate, was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media. [53]

Howard Scott Heldreth, anti-abortion activist who gained fame during the Shiavo media-circus, was convicted of two charges of raping a child in 2002. [54]

Mike Hintz, a First Assembly of God youth pastor, introduced by Bush on the campaign trail, and promoted his policies.[55] Says he supports Bush’s values. Two months later, this married father of four turned himself into police, charged with the sexual exploitation of a child. [56][57]

Neal Horsley has called for the arrest of all homosexuals. Admitted on the Fox News Radio’s The Alan Colmes Show, that he’s had sex with mules.[58][59]

Tim Hutchinson, divorced his wife of 29 years to marry a congressional aide he was having an affair with.[60]

Henry Hyde, Judge who oversaw Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, prominent opponent of reproductive rights, who had an extramarital affair with a woman who was married and had three children, during the course of which she and her husband were divorced. [61]

Don Haidl, Assistant Sheriff of Orange Country, in violation of California’s rape shield law, led a smear campaign against the child his son poisoned and then violently gang-raped on videotape, adding up to 24 felony counts. He said that his son “acted accordingly” because the child was a “slut”. [62]

Paul Ingram, Republican Party leader of Thurston County, Washington, pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.[63]

Earl Kimmerling, sentenced to 40 years in prison after he confessed to molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.[64]

Lewis Libby, former Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. In 1996 published a novel containing bizaree sexual content, including beastiality and pedophillia. [65]
Rush Limbaugh, triple-divorcee[66], 30-pill a day drug addict. [67]

Bob Livingston, former Congressman (R-La.) resigned from the House in the wake of revelations about his past adultery.
Donald Lukens, Republican Congressman, was found guilty of having sex with a minor - a girl he was accused of sleeping with since she was 13. [68]

Pat McPherson, Douglas County Election Commissioner. Arrested for fondling a 17-year-old girl. [69]

Jon Matthews, Republican talk show host in Houston, was indicted for indecency with a child, including exposing his genitals to a girl under the age of 17. [70]

Jeff Miller, (R-Cleveland), Senate Republican Caucus Chairman in Tennessee and the sponsor of Tennessee’s Marriage Protection act, getting divorced (as of April 2005) because of an affair he was having with an office aid. Miller described the Tennessee Marriage Protection Act as a means of preserving the sanctity of marriage. He opposed an amendment, however, which stated that “Adultery is deemed to be a threat to the institution of marriage and contrary to public policy in Tennessee.” [71][72]

Nicholas Morency, Republican anti-abortion activist, pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor [73].

Sue Myrick, Congresswoman (R-NC), describes herself as a “devout Christian.” Committed adultery with a married man.
Bill O’Reilly Right-wing conservative talk show host on Fox News, sued for sexual harrassment by his producer.
Bob Packwood, Senator (R-Ore.), resigned in 1995 under a threat of public senate hearings related to 10 female ex-staffers accusing him of sexual harassment.
Jeffrey Patti, Republican Committee Chairman, was arrested for distributing what experts call “some of the most offensive material in the child pornography world” - a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped. [74]

John Paulk, lied about prowling for gay sex while running a fundamentalist group to cure gays.
Brent Parker Utah State Representetive. Arrested for soliciting sex from an undercover officer posing as a male prostitute. [75][76]

John E. Peterson, Congressman (R-Pa), accused of sexual harassment and creation of a hostile work environment by six women. Peterson has refused to admit a crime, saying only “I may have been an excessive hugger.”
Harvey Pitt, SEC Chief under George W. Bush until he was forced to resign in 2002. Worked for New Frontier Media, a firm which distributed teen sex videos.
Mark Pazuhanich, Republican judge, pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation. [77]

George Roche III, carried on a 19 year affair with his son’s wife, while serving as president of , which “emphasizes the importance of the common moral truths that bind all Americans, while recognizing the importance of religion for the maintenance of a free society.”
Beverly Russell, County Chairman of the Christian Coalition, sexually molested his step-daughter, Susan Smith, who later drowned her two children. [78][79]

Jack Ryan, 2004 Republican nominee for US Senate from Illinois, pressured his wive, actress Jeri Ryan, to have sex with other men. Tricked her into visiting sex clubs, where he asked her to have sex with him while others watched.[80]

Joe Scarborough, former Republican Congressman, currently a conservative talk show host. Resigned his congressional seat abruptly to spend more time with his family, amidst allegations of an affair. His intern, Lori Klausutis, was soon after found dead in his office. The medical examiner, who had his license revoked in for falsifying information in an autopsy report, and suspended in for six years, ruled the case an accident, after giving conflicting information about her injuries. He said he lied about them because “The last thing we wanted was 40 questions about a head injury.”

Ed Schrock, two-term republican congressman, with a 92% approval rating from the Christian Coalition. Cosponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, consistently opposed gay rights. Married, with wife and kids. Withdrew his candidacy for a third term after tapes of him soliciting for gay sex were circulated.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger, right wing conservative radio host. Promotes family values, estranged from her mother, opposes birth control, has had her tubes tied, espouses saving oneself for marriage, admits to having had sex before she was married, opposes adultery, has committed adultery while she was married, and has slept with a married man, opposes divorce, is divorced and remarried, has posed for nude photos which are available online.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican governor, had sex with a 16 year old when he was 28.
John Scmitz, right-wing republican congressman, who had had his committee chairship taken away from him in the California State Senate after issuing a press release attacking Jews, feminists and gays. Forced out of office in 1982 for having an adulterous affair and fathering two children out of wedlock with one of his students. He was caught because his baby was admitted to hospital for having hair tied so tightly around his penis that it was almost severed. His daughter, Mary Kay LeTourneau, was convicted of having an adulterous affair with one of her students, and giving birth to two of his children. [81]

Larry Jack Schwarz, Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, fired after child pornography was found in his possession. [82] With his political career over, he went to work in the hard-core pornography industry for Platinum X Pictures, owned by his daughter, porn starlet Jewel De’Nyle (Stephany Schwarz).[83]

Jim Stelling, Seminole County Republican Party chairman who believes in “family values”, as he told a judge. Filed a defamation lawsuit againt Nancy Goettman, a former county GOP executive committee member, for falsely claiming he had been married six times. Stelling has been married 5 times. [84]

Don Sherwood, Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Eventually admitted to an affar with a woman 30 years younger than him, after she accused him of physical abuse and attempting to choke her. [85]

Tom Shortridge. Republican campaign consultant, was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl. [86]

Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr., Republican City Councilman, pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison. [87][88]

Craig J. Spence, Republican lobbyist, organized orgies with child prostitutes in the White House during the 1980s. [89][90]

Jimmy Swaggart, televangelist, said during a sermon “I’m trying to find the correct name for it … this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. … I’ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I’m gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I’m gonna kill him and tell God he died.” Had an affair with a prostitute.

David Swartz, Republican County Commissioner, pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison. [91]

Randall Terry, Right to Life activist, founder of Operation Rescue, involved in the Terri Schiavo protests. Once imprisoned for sending former President Bill Clinton an aborted fetus. His son Jamiel is gay; his daughter Tila had sex outside of marriage, became pregnant, had a miscarriage - she is no longer welcome in his home; his daughter Ebony had 2 children outside of wedlock and became Muslim. He has campaigned against infidelity and birth control, gays and unwed mothers. Terry himself was censured by his church after committing adultery.

Bill Thomas Republican congressman, had an affair with Deborah Steelman, a health care lobbyist who steered huge campaign gifts to Thomas’ war chest.
Strom Thurmond, republican senator and racist, raped and impregnanted a 15-year old African American maid. [92]

Robin Vanderwall, Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate, director of Faith & Family Alliance, (a Christian Coalition spin off), former student of Pat Robertson’s Regent Universtity, member of Ralph Reed’s inner circle who funneled money to from lobbiest Jack Abromoff to Reed [93], convicted in Virginia for soliticing sex from a 13-year-old-boy[94] and on four other counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet. [95]

Jim Wesr, Spokane Mayor. Had a sexual affair with an 18 year old. Supported a bill, which failed, would have barred gays and lesbians from working in schools, day-care centers and some state agencies. Voted to bar the state from distributing pamphlets telling people how to protect themselves from AIDS. Proposed that “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person” among teens be criminalized. boy.[96]

Keith Westmoreland, a state representative (R), was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to minors under 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children). [97]

Stephen White, Republican preacher. Was arrested after allegedly offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him. [98] [99]

wolfie said...

Now subtract the total number of republicans on that list from the 3 million Americans currently in prison, and you have the number of Democratic Party lawbreakers and perverts...

...but I'm glad you're into keeping track of all the man bites dog stories out there.

Anonymous said...

Betrayus Makes it Official...

The SURGE is a failyah...like sane people didn't already know it...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Here's some lovely updates:
March 7, 2008

GOP Chairman Donald Fleishchman back in court on
pedophile charges

Donald Fleischman, faces criminal charges for allegedly fondling a
16-year-old Ethan House runaway and providing the boy with
beer and marijuana late last year. He was charged with two
counts of child enticement, two counts of contributing to the
delinquency of a child and a single charge of exposing himself to
a child.

If convicted, Fleischman faces 52 years in prison.

Ex-GOP chair in court on sex charges



Hahahaha "COY" Privette... March 1, 2008

Republican Commissioner
Privette won't give up seat after
prostitution arrest

On August 22, 2007 North Carolina
Republican Coy Privette pleaded guilty
to aiding and abetting prostitution and
was sentenced to 48 hours of community
service.




Most of the Republican party in North Carolina have called for
Privette to resign from the Cabarrus County Board of
Commissioners. He has chosen not to. Also on Privette’s resume
is his unsuccessful campaign for Governor in 1976 and President
of the Christian Action League.

'Hell has just frozen over'

Despite prostitution plea, Privette stays


He Keeps Trying:

March 12, 2008

Tate Indicted a 2nd Time for Election
Fraud

Republican state Senate candidate Mark Tate
has been indicted on nine counts of perjury and
two counts of election fraud by a grand jury. A trial
date has been set for September 8, 2008.

Trial Date Set in Election Fraud Case

Anonymous said...

You forgot this guy March 13, 2008

Republican Rick Van Vleet Indicted

Long time Republican supporter from Fort
Collins Colorado, Rick D. Van Vleet, allegedly
bilked nearly $3 million from investors by
promising an unusual high rate of return on a
$10,000 investment in a kiosk Music Machine.
An associate called it a classic Ponzi scheme.





Van Vleet was indicted by a grand jury on five counts of securities
fraud and two counts of theft of more than $15,000. All are class 3
felonies, and Van Vleet, 63, could face 84 years in prison and
more than $5 million in fines. He’s 63 now.

Music machine scam alleged
Fort Collins resident could face prison time

Anonymous said...

You forgot this guy March 13, 2008 Republican Rick Van Vleet Indicted...

It's nearly impossible to keep up with all of them.....nearly, but not completely.

shitty little country said...



UN Expert On Israel/Palestine Stands By Nazi Comparison

by Tim Franks

The next UN investigator into Israeli conduct in the occupied territories has stood by comments comparing Israeli actions in Gaza to those of the Nazis.

Speaking to the BBC, Professor Richard Falk said he believed that up to now Israel had been successful in avoiding the criticism that it was due.

Anonymous said...

Since the original owner has departed, this is now a Liberal Blog--a vast improvement. So:

Climate Change Will Erode Foundations Of Health, World Health Organization Warns


Climate chang threatens fundamental of health such as access to clean drinking water. (Credit: iStockphoto/Claudia Dewald)ScienceDaily (Apr. 8, 2008) — Scientists tell us that the evidence the Earth is warming is "unequivocal." Increases in global average air and sea temperature, ice melting and rising global sea levels all help us understand and prepare for the coming challenges. In addition to these observed changes, climate-sensitive impacts on human health are occurring today. They are attacking the pillars of public health. And they are providing a glimpse of the challenges public health will have to confront on a large scale, WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan warned on World Health Day.

"The core concern is succinctly stated: climate change endangers human health," said Dr Chan. "The warming of the planet will be gradual, but the effects of extreme weather events -- more storms, floods, droughts and heat waves -- will be abrupt and acutely felt. Both trends can affect some of the most fundamental determinants of health: air, water, food, shelter and freedom from disease."

Human beings are already exposed to the effects of climate-sensitive diseases and these diseases today kill millions. They include malnutrition, which causes over 3.5 million deaths per year, diarrhoeal diseases, which kill over 1.8 million, and malaria, which kills almost 1 million.

Examples already provide us with images of the future:

European heat wave, 2003: Estimates suggest that approximately 70 000 more people died in that summer than would have been expected.
Rift Valley fever in Africa: Major outbreaks are usually associated with rains, which are expected to become more frequent as the climate changes.
Hurricane Katrina, 2005: More than 1 800 people died and thousands more were displaced. Additionally, health facilities throughout the region were destroyed critically affecting health infrastructure.
Malaria in the East African highlands: In the last 30 years, warmer temperatures have also created more favourable conditions for mosquito populations in the region and therefore for transmission of malaria.
Epidemics of cholera in Bangladesh: They are closely linked to flooding and unsafe water.
These trends and events cannot be attributed solely to climate change but they are the types of challenges we expect to become more frequent and intense with climate changes. They will further strain health resources that, in many regions, are already under severe stress.

"Although climate change is a global phenomenon, its consequences will not be evenly distributed," said Dr Chan. "In short, climate change can affect problems that are already huge, largely concentrated in the developing world, and difficult to control."

To address the health effects of climate change, WHO is coordinating and supporting research and assessment on the most effective measures to protect health from climate change, particularly for vulnerable populations such as women and children in developing countries, and is advising Member States on the necessary adaptive changes to their health systems to protect their populations.

WHO and its partners -- including the UN Environment Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the UN World Meteorological Organization -- are devising a workplan and research agenda to get better estimates of the scale and nature of health vulnerability and to identify strategies and tools for health protection. WHO recognizes the urgent need to support countries in devising ways to cope. Better systems for surveillance and forecasting, and stronger basic health services, can offer health protection. WHO will be working closely with its Member States in coming years to develop effective means of adapting to a changing climate and reducing its effects on human health.

Adapted from materials provided by World Health Organization.

Anonymous said...

Since the moran has gone AWOL like his hero:

Officials in Gitmo Trials Not Even Pretending to be Impartial
By Ross Tuttle, The Nation
Posted on April 3, 2008, Printed on April 9, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/81211/
On March 27th, Lieut. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, defense attorney in the office of military commissions, filed a motion to dismiss charges against his client Salim Hamdan, the alleged chauffeur of Osama bin Laden, who has been detained at Guantánamo since 2002. In his motion, Mizer alleges unlawful interference in the affairs of the defense and prosecution by political appointees within the Pentagon and by the office of Susan Crawford, the convening authority.

Hamdan has been at the center of several pivotal developments within the military commissions process -- most notably as named plaintiff in the Supreme Court case (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) that upended the previous incarnation of the tribunals. His case is slated to be tried this summer, one of the first under the new system developed by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. But this latest motion could result in yet another stinging setback for an administration desperate for victories in a maligned process that has seen only one case resolved in six years.

Central to Mizer's claim is a piece of evidence suggesting that Crawford's legal adviser, Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, is so ensconced in the prosecution that he has become the de facto chief prosecutor -- a highly improper role according to observers, participants and the Military Commissions Act itself.

"The convening authority is supposed to be this quasi-neutral, quasi-judicial functionary who chooses the jury that hears Hamdan's case and others," says Mizer. "So if that person has become a partisan, you essentially have the prosecutor picking the jury, and that's simply unfair."

In addition to selecting the jury, the convening authority (Crawford) must also review the charges, refer them to trial, approve allocations for expert witnesses and serve as the first stop in the appeals process -- roles that all require neutrality. By extension, the convening authority's adviser (Hartmann) must also be impartial.

Mizer's motion draws heavily on familiar claims made by the former chief prosecutor, Col. Morris Davis, who resigned last October, complaining of the use of coerced testimony and political pressure to try "sexy" cases in the run-up to the 2008 elections. Davis had singled out Crawford, Hartmann and former Pentagon general counsel William Haynes, who has since resigned, for interfering in the process or applying political pressure. Davis, who has also submitted his resignation to the Air Force, has agreed to testify as a witness for the defense at Hamdan's April pretrial hearing.

Mizer's motion also introduces new evidence to corroborate Davis's account -- chiefly an e-mail that deputy chief defense counsel Mike Berrigan inadvertently received on January 29th. The e-mail was titled "9-11 Draft Charges-25 Jan," and it came with an attachment of the draft charges against the six high-value detainees alleged to have participated in the 9/11 plot. That a defense attorney received these charges in draft form two weeks before charges were announced was unusual enough, but the source of the message was even more surprising. It had come from Wendy Kelly, chief of staff in the office of the convening authority.

"What that e-mail shows is who's drafting the charges," says Mizer. "It's not the prosecutor, which is intended to be an independent office according to Congress. It's the convening authority."

Two weeks later, when Hartmann announced the charges, he opened his remarks by stating, "Today, the convening authority for military commissions received sworn charges against six individuals alleged to be responsible for the planning and execution of the attacks upon the United States of America, which occurred on September the 11th, 2001."

"It's an outright fraud," says Mizer. "The convening authority is supposed to receive the charges from the prosecutor and make an independent assessment on whether or not this goes forward. General Hartmann didn't just receive those charges; they'd been circulating in his office a full two weeks before he held that press conference."

After Berrigan received the e-mail with the draft charges, he notified the sender, asking whether she had meant to send it to him. The convening authority's office then asked for the immediate return of the charges. But when Berrigan refused, recognizing that the e-mail could be evidence of unlawful influence, Hartmann sent what Mizer called an implicitly threatening letter to chief defense counsel Steven David.

"He [Hartmann] said something like, 'I went to the ethics advice committee in the Navy, Marine Corps and Army, and they said you had no ethical basis to hold this document,'" recounted Mizer. "It's this implicit threat that what you've done is outside of the scope of ethical conduct of an attorney and you need to turn this over. And then he [Hartmann] said, 'I don't know what state you're licensed in, but I'm sure it's unethical there too.'"

To Mizer, this also qualified as unlawful influence -- in that it was an attempt to "coerce" defense counsel.

According to scholars, unlawful command influence has frequently been called the mortal enemy of military justice. One way to protect against it is to mandate an independent defense and prosecution. Indeed, when two of the Military Commissions Act's authors, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, asked Davis what he would need in order to do his job as chief prosecutor, Davis said unequivocally: independence.

As a result, the authors included in the act relevant language that Davis himself wrote. Section 949b(2)c states, "No person may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence the exercise of professional judgment by trial [prosecution] counsel or defense counsel."

It is this rule that Hartmann appears to be flouting; at times, he seems to be celebrating his prosecutorial participation. During a February 22 NPR interview he boasted, "Colonel Davis was part of the process for two years. In that period he was able to get two cases sworn and charged. In the period of time since he's left, just four months, we've charged ten new cases."

"He's not even concealing the fact ... He's making open comparisons to his role and that of the chief prosecutor," says Mizer.

According to legal experts, therein lies the problem. Hartmann likely feels no compunction to conceal his role of "supervising the prosecution" because his appointing orders, signed in October 2007 by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, authorize him to do so. Despite language in that document requesting that he maintain the ability to "objectively and independently provide cogent legal advice" to the convening authority, the order leaves room for selective interpretation -- and to some, the dual orders are actually irreconcilable.

"This arrangement is rife with conflicts of interest," says Eugene Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale Law School and Washington College of Law. According to Fidell, the Military Commissions Act stresses the "exercise of professional judgment," but such neutrality would be eviscerated if England "can insert the legal adviser as a substantive supervisor to the ... chief prosecutor."

"It makes for an un-impartial convening authority and an un-independent prosecutor," says Fidell. "I rather doubt that's what Congress had in mind."

To Fidell, the problems are structural, and the revelations in Mizer's motion bear that out. "The convening authority performs a quasi-judicial function," he says. "And the convening authority and legal adviser are apparently reviewing charges before they're filed? That's not how judges work."

The prosecution has until April 11th to respond to the motion, though it has already signaled opposition. If Mizer is unsuccessful at getting a dismissal, he will then seek to have Crawford and Hartmann disqualified from further participation in the Hamdan case.

"I think he [Hartmann] has a misconception of what the role of legal adviser is in the military commissions process -- someone that's supposed to neutrally evaluate the evidence and decide if someone is supposed to go face trial in front of military commission," says Mizer. "Our motion is that he's become the de facto chief prosecutor and that he has to be recused."

Anonymous said...

natch, I meant moron.

Anonymous said...

True?

Memo Proves Detention Is Illegal, Attorneys Say
By Jerry Markon
The Washington Post

Wednesday 09 April 2008

An accused "enemy combatant" told an appellate court yesterday that a controversial Justice Department memorandum exploring the legal boundaries of military interrogations proves that his detention was illegal.

Attorneys for Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatari national the government calls an al-Qaeda sleeper agent, said the 2003 memo was a key part of a legal analysis backing Marri's detention that the Justice Department has repudiated. The memo "further demonstrates that al-Marri's detention lacks legal basis," the attorneys wrote in a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, which is considering Marri's case.

The memo, declassified and released last week, asserted broad presidential powers in a time of war. It argued that federal laws prohibiting maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president's authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes. Legal experts said they believe Marri is the first prisoner to cite the memo as evidence in his own case.

Although Justice Department officials told the Defense Department to stop relying on the memo nine months after it was issued, President Bush designated Marri as an enemy combatant before the memo was withdrawn. The designation relied in part on an opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, where the memo's author, John C. Yoo, was then a deputy, the government has said in court filings.

"The memo makes plain as day that al-Marri was declared an enemy combatant based on discredited legal opinions and for the illegal purpose of abusive interrogations," Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the Brennan Center for Justice who represents Marri, said yesterday. Defense attorneys contend that Marri, who is being held at a Navy brig in South Carolina, has been subjected to such interrogation methods as sleep deprivation and being forced to stand in uncomfortable positions for long periods.

The government has not said whether Yoo's memo was included in the Office of Legal Counsel analysis, and Hafetz conceded that he could not prove that it was. Justice Department officials declined comment yesterday, saying they would respond in court.

Marri, who was arrested in December 2001 in Illinois and designated a combatant in June 2003, is the last of three suspected enemy combatants held in the United States whose detentions triggered a fierce battle over governmental powers to fight terrorism. Government officials have said that Marri was planning a second wave of attacks after Sept. 11, 2001. The government contends that Bush has the power to detain Marri and that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from attacks.

Attorneys for Marri - a lawful permanent U.S. resident - argue that the military cannot indefinitely detain, without charge, a U.S. citizen or resident captured on U.S. soil. A three-judge 4th Circuit panel ruled last year that Bush had exceeded his constitutional authority and ordered the government to charge Marri in a civilian court or free him. The government appealed to the full court, which has not issued a decision.

Legal experts split yesterday over whether the memo would influence the outcome.

"I'm not sure the Yoo memo is of direct assistance to Mr. Marri," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor who headed the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the Reagan and first Bush administrations. "The memo primarily concerns aggressive forms of interrogation, not primarily the president's authority to designate individuals as enemy combatants."

But David H. Remes, who represents 16 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, said it was "perfectly legitimate for al-Marri's counsel to bring this to the court's attention."

He said: "The detention and treatment of al-Marri rest on the premise that as an enemy combatant he enjoys no constitutional protections. If the administration has repudiated the memo supporting that premise, then the government's justification for holding al-Marri as an enemy combatant crumbles."

Anonymous said...

Military Mom Says She Was Brutally Raped in Iraq
By Maddy Sauer
ABC News

Wednesday 09 April 2008

Dawn Leamon, who alleges she was raped by two men, will tell her story on Capitol Hill.

Yet another woman has come forward saying she was brutally raped in Iraq while working for the U.S. contractor Kellogg Brown Root (KBR).

Dawn Leamon, who has two sons on active duty, says she was raped earlier this year by a U.S. soldier and a KBR colleague.

She will tell her horrific story to members of Congress today at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Leamon says that following her rape, she spoke with a woman at the KBR Employee Assistance Program. "She discouraged me from reporting, saying, 'You know what will happen if you do,'" Leamon said.

Leamon says KBR then assigned full-time security guards to her which gave her no privacy to talk about the incident, and her movements around camp were restricted, yet her attackers' movements were unrestricted.

"KBR did little or nothing to restore my sense of safety after I reported being raped," said Leamon.

KBR released the following statement to ABC News this morning. "First and foremost, KBR in no way condones or tolerates sexual harassment. Each employee is expected to adhere to the Company's Code of Business Conduct, and when violations occur, appropriate action is taken. Any reported allegation of sexual harassment or sexual assault is taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. KBR's top priority is the safety and security of all employees, and our commitment in that regard is unwavering."

Also at today's hearing, for the first time the Department of Justice is slated to answer questions on the investigation and prosecution of alleged sex crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one has yet been charged in Leamon's case.

Last December, the department declined to send an official to testify before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on law enforcement efforts to protect U.S. contractors in Iraq. The hearing featured testimony by Jamie Leigh Jones, a young Texan woman who also says she was gang-raped while working for KBR in Iraq.

Like Jamie Jones, Leamon believes she was drugged before her attack.
In January, several lawmakers pounded the Justice Department for flatly refusing to answer their questions about how sexual assault cases in Iraq involving U.S. citizens are handled. "We still have heard nothing from your office," complained several Democratic senators, including presidential hopeful Barack Obama, D-Ill.

Now, sources says the Justice Department has agreed to send a representative to the Senate hearing entitled, "Closing Legal Loopholes: Justice for Americans Sexually Assaulted in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Meanwhile, Jamie Jones will receive the Susan McDaniel Public Awareness Award at the Congressional Victim's Rights Caucus Awards ceremony. There was a grand jury hearing in Florida concerning her case in January of this year, but no indictment has yet been filed.

Anonymous said...

Hey, y'all: JOHN MCCAIN FAILS HIS PILOT TEST...The John McCain campaign is all excited about a statement that West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, made about McCain's service in Vietnam.

Unlike other war heroes who have been shot down in battle and risked their lives behind enemy lines, such as former South Dakota Senator George McGovern, McCain has chosen to make his military service a central feature of his political campaigning. Unfortunately, McCain and his supporters are hyper-sensitive about discussion's of the Arizona senator's service as a fighter pilot and a prisoner of war.

So they go crazy whenever anyone deviates from the campaign's official story-line.

Rockefeller did that when he told the Charleston Gazette in an interview published today that, "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

To be sure, Rockefeller showed ignorance with his talk of laser-guided missiles -- as opposed to the plain, old-fashioned bombs that were used in 1967.

But his point was clear. He was questioning whether McCain had ever thought seriously about the human beings on whom those bombs were dropped.

As someone who grew up in an Air Force family, I'm sensitive to discussions about issues such as this. I know that pilots ponder these questions, with a seriousness and a moral intensity that merits respect. To my mind, a pilot or any member of an Air Force crew does his duty in the same sense that an infantryman does. They follow orders. I'm much more concerned about the morality of those who give the orders -- especially in a country where the military is supposed to be under civilian control -- than that of the pilots.

My sense, as someone who has spent a good deal of time with McCain over the past decade -- though surely less than has Rockefeller -- is that the Republican contender has considered the moral questions rather more seriously than his critics may suggest.

So, from the state, I had real doubts about Rockefeller's challenge -- doubts that the West Virginia senator, upon reflection, came to share. He quickly apologized for a statement he described as "an inaccurate and wrong analogy."

But I have even more doubts about the McCain campaign's response to the West Virginia senator's discussion of the military record the Arizona senator has made central to his campaign.

The campaign's answer to criticism from McCain's fellow senator was not to unleash the candidate and have him talk about his service in a thoughtful manner. It was to send a rather too frequently over-the-top supporter to launch a silly, bombastic attack on one of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's fellow senators.

"Senator Rockefeller's statement is an insult to all the men and women who are serving or have served in America's military," said Lt. Col. Orson Swindle, USMC (Ret.), a longtime McCain ally. "Had Senator Rockefeller served himself, he would appreciate and understand that most who have been to war emerge with a much deeper concern for humanity than they otherwise might. If he knew what he was talking about, he would know that John McCain wasn't dropping laser-guided missiles at 35,000 feet in 1967."

The jab at the end is appropriate, but the rest of the statement a load of embarrassingly cheap political spin.

The only thing worse was the appropriately-named Swindle's attempt to try and hold Rockefeller's choice in the Democratic race responsible for Rockefeller's words.

Barack Obama has always been respectful of McCain's service, yet Swindle spewed on about how the Illinois senator "has a responsibility to denounce Senator Rockefeller's smear against John McCain's character and military record. The question remains: Does Senator Obama have the courage to stand up and hold himself to the principles of 'new politics' he outlined in his book, The Audacity of Hope?"

No, the question is this: Does John McCain have the courage to defend himself and his record rather than sending Orson Swindle out to play politics for him?

John McCain has chosen to make his military record a campaign issue. He has done so throughout his career. He has a right to do that. But his choice does not come without responsibility. If he wants to challenge Rockefeller's assessment of that record, he should do so -- aggressively, thoroughly and, ideally, with the offer of some insight into his own thinking about the fundamental questions that so many other pilots have pondered so seriously and so responsibly.


Posted by John Nichols at 04/08/2008 @ 5:24pm | Email This Post

Anonymous said...

Digg Follow the Leader: In Defense of John Yoo
Written by Chris Floyd
Tuesday, 08 April 2008
John Yoo has been getting a bit of guff in the liberal media recently for some legal memoranda he wrote a while back defending the president's right -- and duty -- to protect the American people from terrorism. This criticism is as short-sighted as it is pernicious -- and we are here today to defend this good and faithful public servant against the unwarranted calumnies that have besmirched his name.

Fortunately for the security of our Republic, the far left's attempt to turn Yoo's patriotic labors into yet another persnickety"moral outrage," a la Abu Ghraib or My Lai or Wounded Knee, hasn't really taken off. The usual suspects -- Washington Post, New York Times -- have put out a few stories, usually buried, quoting a few so-called legal "experts" wringing their hands -- while sitting comfortably on the backsides that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have kept safe for them all these years -- about Yoo's allegedly "unconcionable document."

And of course, some of the radical far left socialist "bloggers" like Scott Horton -- who used to work with the "father of the Commie A-bomb," Andrei Sakharov (need we say more about Horton's pinkish tint?) -- have been throwing the usual BDS hissy fits about how Yoo's memoranda constitute part of a "joint criminal enterprise" on the part of the Bush Administration, whose members, says Comrade Horton, had to know that "these memoranda would result in serious harm, including assault, torture and death, to protected persons in the custody of the United States."

[Hey Scott – enough with the Atticus Finch act already! This ain't good old Tom Robinson you're sticking up for here -- it's worthless scum who hate our freedoms and want to kill us all. Let's see what you say about the "rule of law" when some Islamofascist is killing your wife and breeding 15 more Islamocommies with your enslaved daughter, eh? You'll be sorry you tied our interrogator's hands then, won't you? You'll be wishing we'd had a bit more of the eye-gouging and acid-throwing and waterboarding and strappado and beating nearly to the point of death or organ failure -- and crushing the testicles of children -- that Yoo has stoutly defended as the president's prerogative, won't you?]

In fact, some extremist terror-symp America-hating moonbats have even gone so far as to say that the Bush Administration memoranda and directives on enhanced interrogation literally constitute a form of perverse pornography, lingering in great, obsessive detail over the specific methods of pain and humiliation that can -- and should -- be inflicted upon a captive. This "pornography of power," say the fifth columnists, is characterized not only by its fascination with violent, punishing contact with human flesh (preferably naked), but also -- perhaps chiefly -- by its maniacal insistence that the captives be rendered completely helpless, without the slightest shred of legal cover or due process to shield them from interrogators -- and their well-informed superiors -- who have been absolved in advance of any culpability for their actions.

All of this remarkable outpouring of traitorous filth is being laid directly at John Yoo's door. Indeed, General Secretary Horton and the rest of the pinkblogger Politburo are demanding that Yoo -- now a rightly honored professor of law at one of the nation's most respected educational establishments -- be disbarred for his alleged "complicity" in this "criminal conspiracy"; a conspiracy which according to Commissar Horton includes such other outstanding defenders of America's freedom as Doug Feith, Stephen Cambone, Steven Bradbury, Michael Chertoff, Alice Fisher, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, I. Lewis Libby, Jay Bybee, Jim Haynes, Richard B. Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, William Boykin, and Major General Geoffrey Miller, among others.

Well, I call BS on these bat-brains. John Yoo is not to "blame" for these torture memos. And neither is Mr. Addington or Mr. Feith or Mr. Gonzales or any of the other honorable, hard-working public officials caught up in the far left's mile-wide net of "conspiracy." John Yoo served at the pleasure of George W. Bush: the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, and the Chief Executive of our Republic. John Yoo wrote those memos at the request and direction of the White House and the Pentagon. Even Comrade Horton himself makes this crystal clear:


According to the official narrative, the Bush Administration turned to the Justice Department for legal guidance on what could be done to give interrogators the latitude they were demanding in dealing with prisoners taken in the war on terror. However, not a single element of the official narrative is entirely true. The interrogators were not "pushing for broader authority." Indeed, the pushing was all coming out of the White House (from Vice President Cheney, to be specific), and the intelligence professionals were actually pushing back. Moreover, torture was being used almost from the start of the "war on terror." Special operations units operating under the authority of Dr. Stephen Cambone, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, had been authorized to use torture techniques from the opening of the war, and they used them with gusto.


In another article, the Commie nuke-enabler quotes British crypto-Muslim Phillipe Sand's article in Vanity Fair with further details:


The real story, pieced together from many hours of interviews with most of the people involved in the decisions about interrogation, goes something like this: The Geneva decision was not a case of following the logic of the law but rather was designed to give effect to a prior decision to take the gloves off and allow coercive interrogation; it deliberately created a legal black hole into which the detainees were meant to fall. The new interrogation techniques did not arise spontaneously from the field but came about as a direct result of intense pressure and input from Rumsfeld's office. The Yoo-Bybee Memo was not simply some theoretical document, an academic exercise in blue-sky hypothesizing, but rather played a crucial role in giving those at the top the confidence to put pressure on those at the bottom. And the practices employed at Guant·namo led to abuses at Abu Ghraib.

The fingerprints of the most senior lawyers in the administration were all over the design and implementation of the abusive interrogation policies. Addington, Bybee, Gonzales, Haynes, and Yoo became, in effect, a torture team of lawyers, freeing the administration from the constraints of all international rules prohibiting abuse.


Hah! To paraphrase their great hero, Vladimir Lenin, if you give the Pinko Taliban enough rope, they will always hang themselves. The evidence laid out in their own propaganda rags clearly shows that the enhanced interrogation techniques -- which, as we all know, are the only things standing between us and the horde of super-potent overbreeding Muslims who have already taken over Europe -- were laid out at the direct order of those at the very top level of our freely elected democratic (small D, thank God!) government. John Yoo always was -- and always will be -- nothing but the faithful factotum of those who hold the power in our system.

So let's quit kicking John Yoo around, all right? He was only following orders. He did what he was told. He carried out the arbitrary will of our Leader, without question, without hestitation, without any quibbling over the rule of law. And isn't that the American way?

If you have some kind of problem with the President of the United States being able to order his flunkies to throw acid on a naked, chained-up captive -- who might have been sold into custody by a bounty hunter or rounded up in a random sweep or denounced by a business rival or snatched off a city street for having the wrong name, the wrong religion, the wrong skin; if for some reason it bothers your delicate liberal sensibilities that the President of the United States claims the power to hold any person on earth for as long as he likes, on no evidence or charges at all, and then slit the captive's ear or piss down his throat -- or grind the testicles of prisoner's five-year-old child under a bootheel; if you're such a big girl's blouse that you get all wiggly at the thought of the President of the United States claiming the arbitrary, unchecked power to kill any person on earth that he -- or his designated agents -- declares an "enemy combatant" or even a "suspected terrorist" -- then don't blame John C. Yoo. For God's sake, have the balls to put the responsibility squarely where it belongs: on the President of the United States, George Walker Bush, and the Vice President of the United States, Richard Bruce Cheney. Have the guts to demand their impeachment, now -- yes, now, right in the middle of a presidential election campaign, right in the middle of their last year in office -- for the capital crime (by U.S. law) of torture.

If you believe that what the Bush Administration has done is torture, then you have no other choice. And any elected officials in the national government -- including Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- who do not call for the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney on these charges, and the subsequent prosecution of their myriad minions who carried out their orders, are implicity condoning these crimes and acting as willing accomplices for them.

But as we see, no Democratic leaders are calling for impeachment; in fact, time and again, they specifically and adamantly rule it out. What's more, they are not even launching any formal, full-scale, high-profile investigations of the "torture memos" and the entire apparatus of enhanced interrogation, indefinite imprisonment and rendition that the leftist jihadis liken to the gulag -- even though they control both houses of Congress and could make life a living hell for the Bush Administration and John McCain, the loyal little lapdog who hopes to follow in the Leader's footsteps. But it is obvious that, deep down, the Democratic leaders agree with the President's actions and policies; they recognize the deep wisdom behind the aggression in the name of liberty in Iraq, the surveillance in the name of freedom at home, and the torture in the name of civilization that the Leader has made a hallmark of our enlightened age.

How then do they differ from the honorable John Yoo? They too are countenancing, assisting and following the arbitrary will of the Leader. They too look at the murder of a million innocent civilians in Iraq and refuse to treat it as a crime. They too look at the torture of helpless, uncharged, unprotected captives and refuse to treat it as a crime. Oh, they may preen and posture, they may lay some hot and heavy rhetoric on the rubes out there; but they DO nothing. And these are crimes which they actually have the power to investigate and prosecute.

Where then is the actual moral difference between these progressive paragons and John Yoo? He is simply more honest about his bootlicking servility to abitrary, brutal – and avowedly, unashamedly unconstitutional -- power, that's all. He has the courage of his lawless convictions. What do those Democratic leaders who claim allegiance to the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States have? The cowardice of their ambitions.

it:

Anonymous said...

Most interesting...neocons all over the nation are abandoning their posts in despair, and their sordid, little sties are being taken over and rejuvenated by liberals. It's a renaissance ...keep up the good work...clean this nasty little spider hole up good.

Anonymous said...


There is no situation so bad that a sufficiently talented fool cannot foul it up worse.

source unknown, but inspired by GWBush.

Khalil regrets toppling statue of Saddam

By AFP

09/04/08 "AFP" -- - Baghdad - Ibrahim Khalil, who five years ago took part in the iconic toppling of a giant statue of Saddam Hussein in central Baghdad, said on Wednesday he now regrets taking part in the hugely symbolic event.

"If history can take me back, I will kiss the statue of Saddam Hussein which I helped pull down," Khalil told reporters on the fifth anniversary of the statue's toppling.

"I will protect the statue more than my own self," Khalil said in Firdoos Square alongside a monument erected where Saddam's statue once stood before US marines and Iraqis strung a chain around its neck and brought it crashing down.

The action marked the end of Saddam's iron-fisted regime and served as a premonition of the dictator's own end on December 30, 2006, when he was hanged in Baghdad for crimes against humanity.

Khalil, dressed in a blue T-shirt and grey trousers, said he is now sorry he was one of the dozens of jubiliant Iraqis who pulled down the statue and cheered the end of Saddam's rule.

"All my friends who were with me that day feel the same as me," Khalil told reporters in Firdoos Square, which was virtually deserted on Wednesday amid a vehicle ban in the capital imposed by the government to prevent insurgent attack.

Describing the events five years ago, Khalil said crowds of people had gathered at the square when the invading US marines arrived.

"A few of us managed to climb up to the statue which had been placed on a tall concrete structure. The soldiers gave us a long rope which we put around the neck and started pulling," said Khalil, a stocky 45-year-old.

"But the rope broke. Then the soldiers gave us a steel chain which my brother Kadhim put around the neck. The (US) tanks then started to pull the chain and soon the head was chopped off and the statue came tumbling down."

He said the cheering crowd and some marines pounced on the concrete structure "immediately".

"We hit the face of the statue with our shoes," he said, referring to an action considered the ultimate insult in Arab culture.

"It was a historic moment.. I felt like I was born again. Most Iraqis felt happy as they all were affected by Saddam's regime."

But five years on, Khalil says the jubilation has long since vanished and that the situation in the country has vastly deteriorated.

Iraqi forces are still battling bloodshed that has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced millions of others.

The International Committee of the Red Cross says the plight of millions of Iraqis who still have little or no access to clean water, sanitation or health care is the "most critical in the world".

The economy, the main concern of Iraqis after security, is also a wreck.

"Now I realise that the day Baghdad fell was in fact a black day. Saddam's days were better," said Khalil, who along with his brother runs a car repair shop.

"I ask Bush: 'Where are your promises of making Iraq a better country?'

"These days when we go out we have to carry a pistol. In Saddam's regime, we were safe. We got rid of one Saddam, but today we have 50 Saddams."

Anonymous said...

Book: McCain temper boiled over in '92 tirade, called wife a 'cunt'
04/07/2008 @ 10:19 am
Filed by Nick Juliano


Enjoy this story? Get Raw headlines in your browser, or in RSS.

Advertisement
John McCain's temper is well documented. He's called opponents and colleagues "shitheads," "assholes" and in at least one case "a fucking jerk."

But a new book on the presumptive Republican nominee will air perhaps the most shocking angry exchange to date.

The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month, reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop. An advance copy of the book was obtained by RAW STORY.

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.
The man who was known as "McNasty" in high school has erupted in foul-languaged tirades at political foes and congressional colleagues more-or-less throughout his career, and his quickness to anger has been an issue on the presidential campaign trail as evidence of his fury has surfaced.

As Schecter notes, McCain's rage is not limited to the political spectrum, and even his family cannot be spared the brute force of his anger.

Schecter, who also blogs at The Agonist, said in an interview the anecdote is "an early example of his uncontrollable temper." In the book he outlines several other examples of McCain losing his cool and raises the question of how that would affect a McCain presidency.

What should voters make of this pattern? In February 2008 Tim Russert succinctly described McCain on MSNBC's Morning Joe. A devilish grin spread from ear to ear as Russert, no McCain hater, leaned forward and spoke in a whisper, "He likes to fight." Russert got it right. But the big question isn't whether McCain likes to fight: it's who, when, and how.
The exchange between McCain and his wife was not reported anywhere when it happened, Schecter said (a LexisNexis database search confirms this). In 1992, McCain's mention in the national media revolved mostly around his involvement in the Keating Five scandal, and only local reporters closely followed his re-election bid.

McCain is well known for his rapport with the national media covering his presidential bid (he's jokingly referred to the press as "my base"), but Schecter said this incident was buried not out of fealty to the Arizona senator. Rather, it was uneasiness about how to get such a coarse exchange into a family newspaper, and he didn't fault the local press for not covering the incident.

"Members of the media are squeamish covering stuff like this so they let it go," Schecter told RAW STORY in an interview Monday. "Back in '92, when people use naughty words, [reporters] don't know as much what to do with it."

Much has changed since then. President Bush's reference to a New York Times reporter as a "major league asshole" was reported in at least 47 newspapers during the 2000 campaign, when the off-color remark was overheard, according to a database search. And more than a dozen newspapers have reported Dick Cheney's recommendation that Sen. Patrick Leahy "fuck yourself."

McCain and his aides have brushed off suggestions that his temper could impede his ability to perform the sometimes-delicate tasks asked of a president. The candidate was asked about his legendary temper last week on "Fox News Sunday," where he cited his ability to work "across the aisle" while in the Senate.

"You can't scare people or intimidate them if you're going to reach agreement with your colleagues and your contemporaries And I've worked hard at that, and that's what the American people want," McCain said. " The second thing is if I lose my capacity for anger, then I shouldn't be president of the United States. ... When I see the waste and corruption in Washington, I get angry."

McCain's campaign did not return a call from RAW STORY seeking comment Monday morning.

Schecter says McCain's anger is much more than a passion for the issues. One can only imagine what would happen if McCain were to try to squeeze that temper into the tight confines of diplomacy.

"The public certainly has to know what this guy might do as president," Schecter says. Examples like the ones in his book "should worry people, quite frankly."
http://rawstory.com//printstory.php?story=10016

Vincent Freeman said...

McCain temper boiled over in '92 tirade

He lost his temper once? Gosh, thats almost as bad as 20 years of God Damn America...

rot said...

Just checked your blog, Freeman...you've got the tastes of a conventional, middle brow moron.

no qualifications critic said...

...said the blog-less freeloading troll.

Anonymous said...

omg, after so many repetitions, his terrible act finally got the hook

Alice Gorable said...

Mr. Sayet,

I loved your YouTube video. Don't let these naysayers discourage you!

Anonymous said...

U.S. college drop-out rate sparks concern
Educators turn attention to getting students all the way to graduation
The Associated Press

NEW YORK - For decades, getting more students into college has been the top priority of America’s higher education leaders. But what’s the point, a growing number of experts are wondering, when so few who go to school finish a degree?

Just 54 percent of students entering four-year colleges in 1997 had a degree six years later — and even fewer Hispanics and blacks did, according to some of the latest government figures. After borrowing for school but failing to graduate, many of those students may be worse off than if they had never attended college at all.

Now the question of what to do about the country’s unimpressive and stagnate graduation rates is on the agenda, from college presidents’ offices to state houses. The latest sign of the trend comes Wednesday, when former Princeton President William Bowen lays out an ambitious research agenda on the question during a speech in New York.

Top scholar takes on topic
Normally, a scholar’s decision to take on an academic topic is hardly news. But Bowen, president of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, is the kind of researcher whose work is so influential that his very curiosity about a subject can raise its profile.

His data-driven studies on college athletes, affirmative action and college access for the poor have all sparked nationwide debate in recent years, and he attracted widespread attention last year with a speech at the University of Virginia that called for class-based affirmative action in college admissions.

Bowen’s latest project will examine in detail who graduates and who doesn’t — and why — at a group of about 20 varied universities. In an interview, he described the message he will deliver to a Goldman Sachs Foundation gathering on issues facing college trustees as his opening salvo on the topic.

“The United States has always said it believes in opportunity and social mobility and fairness,” Bowen said. “If you find that the odds of getting through are very different for different groups of people, that’s something you ought to be concerned about.”

Who is to blame?
It’s known that elite schools have generally higher graduation rates than non-elite schools. But what’s less clear is why the graduation rates at seemingly similar colleges vary so much. For instance, the main campuses of Penn State and the University of Minnesota have comparable price tags, student SAT scores, and percentage of students from poor backgrounds. Yet Penn State graduates more than 80 percent of its students, and Minnesota barely half.

Racial gaps are another concern. Overall, the federal figures report 57 percent of white students finish their degree, compared with 44 percent of Hispanics and 39 percent of blacks. A 2004 Education Trust report found a quarter of schools have gaps between whites and blacks of 20 points or more.

Traditionally, experts say, blame has fallen on high schools, or on the students themselves.

“You walk into a high school and 50 percent of the kids aren’t graduating, people say ’What’s the matter with this place? Get me the principal. Get me the school board. Let’s put this place in receivership,”’ said Patrick Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. “But people walk into (a college) and say 'What’s the matter with these students? We gave them a chance to go to college.”’

While student responsibility is a factor, “an awful lot of institutions just assumed that getting them in the door was the most important thing,” said Kati Haycock, director of The Education Trust.

On the agenda
Now, both Haycock and Callan say there are signs that is changing. Graduation rates are on the agenda of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings’ new national commission on higher education. There is growing research on how colleges can get students more involved in campus life, which makes them more likely to stay enrolled. And Callan says some state legislatures, even in the face of pressure to increase capacity, are exploring budget incentives for schools to improve graduation rates, not just increase enrollment.

“But you have to do it carefully, because if you put all the incentives on completion then you just encourage colleges to cherry pick the population” of students most likely to graduate, Callan said. “There’s already too much of that.”

Sarah Turner, a University of Virginia education economist, has assembled data showing graduation rates have stagnated over recent decades even as enrollment has climbed. Explanations range from rising college costs to insufficient academic support to students simply not realizing how valuable a college degree is.

But which factors matter most, and how they overlap, is not well understood, largely because the topic is hard to measure. Tracking enrollment numbers is relatively easy, but tracking what happens to individual students over six years is much harder.

Bowen, however, specializes in studies that look at large numbers of individual students over time. His previous work tapped into a huge data set of student records from a group of about 20 highly selective colleges. Those schools have atypically high graduation rates, but Bowen says his new work will be based on data from a more representative group of less selective schools.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053859/

Hubble looks into the black hole said...

Dick Cheney Inc. Micromanaged and Orchestrated Torture Interrogations

by Mark Karlin

Editor and Publisher

April 11, 2008

We’ve been so worn down and numbed by more than seven years of outrageous and extremist Bush Administration behavior that revelations of the worst excesses now pass us by like distant storm clouds.

The recent Iraq hearings in which a General, who was handpicked to reflect the Bush-Cheney obsession with Iraq and Iran, read from the same script we have heard for years and failed to rouse but passing, dazed interest. It was like the movie "Groundhog Day" in which events are doomed to keep repeating themselves. (The basic context of Bush and Cheney having purged all the top Pentagon brass who disagreed with them, including most recently Admiral Fallon (the head of CENTCOM and Petraeus’s superior), went virtually unnoticed.)

But the revelation that Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Ashcroft and Powell personally orchestrated torture interrogations from a room in the White House once again shocks us into acknowledging the macabre and horrifying deviant behavior of this administration.

Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post recounts an ABC News report,

Top Bush aides, including Vice President Cheney, micromanaged the torture of terrorist suspects from the White House basement, according to an ABC News report aired last night.

Discussions were so detailed, ABC's sources said, that some interrogation sessions were virtually choreographed by a White House advisory group. In addition to Cheney, the group included then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then-secretary of state Colin Powell, then-CIA director George Tenet and then-attorney general John Ashcroft.

At least one member of the club had some qualms. ABC reports that Ashcroft "was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

"According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: 'Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

If you recall, Ashcroft was the one who resisted, from his hospital bed, a White House effort to strong arm him into signing off on actions that he deemed unConstitutional. When you have John Ashcroft as a conscientious objector, you know that Cheney Inc. has crossed the line into uber illegal activity.

But there is something here that is not just in violation of our Constitution. It passes into the realm of the sadistic to have our senior government officials spending their time (and remember that they are our employees) as torture planners. It’s not only revolting beyond words, but can anyone claim that they have any expertise in this area? We don’t mean to be crass, but we are talking about the most senior members of the administration personally overseeing each step of the torture process.

As Froomkin’s article quotes ABC News, "At one meeting in the summer of 2003 -- attended by Vice President Cheney, among others -- Tenet made an elaborate presentation for approval to combine several different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time, according to a highly placed administration source."

You can bet your bottom dollar that Bush was also somehow involved in this. Remember that there have been reports that Bush personally asked to watch the infamous videotapes of one or two of the torture sessions. After all, this was a guy who got a thrill out of executing more people than any governor in modern times when he was the top guy in Texas. There’s a sadistic vein in George W. Bush that runs a mile wide and a mile deep.

As progressives, we are passionately hashing out who will be the Democratic nominee, with a percentage of each candidate so attached to their choice that they claim that they will vote for McCain if their candidate doesn’t get the Democratic nomination.

Take a moment and fully absorb the horrifying revelations detailed above. When the people at the top of a national government personally plan torture interrogations, the fish has rotted fully from the inside out. This is the type of unsanctionable behavior that would no doubt continue in a pro-war McCain administration.

For those of you who would vote for McCain over either Obama or Clinton, because of your current passion for either candidate, think about that and whether your conscience could live with it.

It is eminently obvious to our readers where we have stood -- and continue to stand -- on the campaign tactics of the Clinton camp, but we made it clear a long time ago that we will fully support the Democratic nominee. Period.

Whatever serious flaws the Clinton campaign has, they pale by comparison to the continuation of a third Bush term via the ascension to the presidency of John McCain.

The latest revelation about the torture planning sessions in the Bush White House just reconfirm that.

Like the vast majority of our readers, we would like to see the principals of the Bush Administration in jail for war crimes. Given the record of Congress – and the direction of the Obama and Clinton campaigns – we believe that the Democrats will once again make the mistake, as Bill Clinton did, of letting Republican crimes go unpunished in the name of "national unity."

But the least we can do is work together to ensure that the Democrats control the White House, no matter who is the nominee.

We’ll continue to express our concerns about the primary contest, but the repulsive actions under the current Republican leadership reconfirm our commitment to supporting the Democratic candidate for President, whichever candidate that might be.

Whatever flaws he or she may have pale by comparison to the nightmare of the last few years.

We need to return America to civilized standards of international behavior, justice and democracy.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

BuzzFlash Note: For the record, Ms. Rice chaired these "meetings" in her former role as National Security Advisor. V.P material? We don't think so.





Bookmark/Search this post with:
buzzflash | delicious | digg | technorati
Technorati Tags: EditorBlog Cheney Rice Bush Torture


» login or register to post comments | printer friendly version
War crimes, plain and simple
Submitted by GOPHater on Fri, 04/11/2008 - 11:30am.
As I've been saying for years now: Bush and Cheney are war criminals who should be in prison awaiting execution for war crimes, treason, murder, torture, violations of the U. S. Constitution and violations of International Law.
» login or register to post comments
Congress is compromised
Submitted by cagey on Fri, 04/11/2008 - 11:46am.
I've read that certain members of Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, were briefed about the torture and even saw the tapes and did nothing. Thus they would be liable, and that could be why impeachment is off the table. And at the very least, if McCain is "elected" it will probably be so that he can pardon anyone who is involved in these high crimes. The Republican crime syndicate always have an exit strategy for themselves.
» login or register to post comments
Degenerate, Perverted, Republican Priorites
Submitted by phred42 on Fri, 04/11/2008 - 10:59am.
They left New Orleans in the hands of a Horse Show Promoter and Micromanaged Torture
» login or register to post comments
Impeachment
Submitted by NoMore on Fri, 04/11/2008 - 10:23am.
Impeachment is not enough. Trials need to follow in Cuba for Gitmo, in Iraq for Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan for what happened there, and so on. The idea that US citizens all have "diplomatic immunity" for crimes committed overseas is preposterous, as a matter of law, as a matter of morals, and as a matter of diplomacy.
» login or register to post comments
No justice, no recovery
Submitted by urthsong on Fri, 04/11/2008 - 10:04am.
I understand the reason BuzzFlash is talking about the importance of supporting the ultimate Democratic candidate. But Dr. Wolman is right that the issue concerning the heinous violations of our laws and treaties is that justice must be done. Impeachment must go forward. Otherwise, no matter who becomes president, Americans will never be safe again. It must be clearly shown what laws have been violated. Leaving a history of illegal presidential and administration decisions and actions based on the fraud of the unitary presidency unchallenged will put us in a permanent legal limbo. It will leave the way open to continued disputes over our basic constitutional law that destroy any possibility of redeeming democratic processes. Pat Williams
» login or register to post comments
right argument, wrong conclusion
Submitted by cwolman on Fri, 04/11/2008 - 9:32am.
Carol Wolman, MD Yes, it's horrifying that the top government officials spend their time, on the taxpayer's dime, sadistically planning torture. But the conclusion is not- vote for either Democrat. The conclusion is- stop being distracted by the election media circus, and IMPEACH THE BASTARDS, before it's too late. DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT! Peace, Carol Wolman, MD Green Candidate for Congress, CA District 1 www.carolwolmanforcongress.com Coordinator, nbc http://newbroomcoalition.org Cochair, Impeach Bush-Cheney http://www.opednews.com/author/author20.html http://www.paracove.com/HighCrimes.html
» login or register to post comments
You got that right!
Submitted by Juli in Jax on Fri, 04/11/2008 - 10:39am.
Carol is right, of course, but there is another side to the inaction of Congress. I do believe they are scared s***less about what the madmen of BushCo will actually do when their backs are up against the wall. As I said in response to PMCarpenter's blog this AM, BushCo is holding our troops hostage, actually our whole nation hostage with his threats and plans for an attack on Iran. We should have impeached him and Cheney immeadiately following the 2006 elections, while we still had public opinion and momentum riled up against the Repugs. The other thing not to lose sight of is that it is not just a change in the POTUS and VEEP that our nation needs to repair itself, but all the positions in the exewcutive branch: all of the Cabinet level positions who choose those posts such as head of the FAA, FDA etc (with congressional confirmation), and of course a new ATTORNEY GENERAL. Wouldn't John Edwards be wonderful in that position?!?

Vincent Freeman said...

Just checked your blog, Freeman...you've got the tastes of a conventional, middle brow moron.

You can’t possibly know how emotionally devastated I am that some anonymous figurehead finds my list of entertaining films too bourgeois to meet there standards. Please suggest something more enlightening, I do so desperately wish to be held in the esteem of the people that I believe are doing everything in their power to enslave the spirits of a free nation.

ps - It's not a blog, its a profile. Remember words mean things, unless its the preacher you've been going to for twenty years screeching "God Damn America," then its just minor kerflufflery.

Anonymous said...

The first Bush-Gore debate (Oct 3 2000):

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about, as president, deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it’s in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are — our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today’s military is too low. We’re having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we’re overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It’s to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.

FROM THINKPROGRESS:

The Ever Changing Definition of ‘Mission’ In Iraq
In June 2005, ThinkProgress noted the Bush was constantly revisingthe definition of our “mission” in Iraq.

Reporting on his escalation strategy this week, President Bush claimed “satisfactory” [whatever the hell he meant by that] progress in many areas of the
“new mission”

in Iraq. Bush has changed the definition of our “mission” in Iraq so many times, he has made it impossible for the American public, U.S. forces, and the Iraqi population to have any confidence that the mission will be ever completed.

THE PRE-WAR MISSION WAS TO RID IRAQ OF WMD

Bush: “Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.” [3/6/03]

AFTER THE WAR BEGAN, THE MISSION EXPANDED

Bush: “Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” [3/22/03]

Bush: “Our forces have been given a clear mission: to end a regime that threatened its neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction and to free a people that had suffered far too long.” [4/14/03]

THEN THE MISSION WAS COMPLETE

Bush: “On Thursday, I visited the USS Abraham Lincoln, now headed home after the longest carrier deployment in recent history. I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: Their mission is complete, and major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” [5/3/03]

BUT THEN IT CONTINUED AGAIN

Bush: “The United States and our allies will complete our mission in Iraq.” [7/30/03]

THEN THE MISSION WAS TO DEVELOP A FREE IRAQ

Bush: “That has been our mission all along, to develop the conditions such that a free Iraq will emerge, run by the Iraqi citizens.” [11/4/03]

Bush: “We will see that Iraq is free and self-governing and democratic. We will accomplish our mission.” [5/4/04]

AND TO TRAIN THE IRAQI TROOPS

Bush: “And our mission is clear there, as well, and that is to train the Iraqis so they can do the fighting; make sure they can stand up to defend their freedoms, which they want to do.” [6/2/05]

Bush: “We’re making progress toward the goal, which is, on the one hand, a political process moving forward in Iraq, and on the other hand, the Iraqis capable of defending themselves. And we will — we will complete this mission for the sake of world peace.” [6/20/05]

THEN IT SHIFTED TO ADVANCING DEMOCRACY

Bush: “We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission. … Advancing the ideal of democracy and self-government is the mission that created our nation — and now it is the calling of a new generation of Americans.” [11/30/05]

AND PROTECTING AMERICA FROM TERRORISTS

Bush: “In the coming days, there will be considerable reflection on the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and our remaining mission in Iraq…By helping the Iraqi people build a free and representative government, we will deny the terrorists a safe haven to plan attacks against America.”
[3/11/06]

Bush: “We will finish the mission. By defeating the terrorists in Iraq, we will bring greater security to our own country. And when victory is achieved, our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.”
[3/18/06]


THEN THE MISSION WAS PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE IRAQI POPULATION

Bush: “In fact, we have a new strategy with a new mission: helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad. Our plan puts Iraqis in the lead.”

[1/13/07]

Bush: “[I]t’s the combination of providing security in neighborhoods through these joint security stations, and training that is the current mission we’re going through, with a heavy emphasis on security in Baghdad.”

[4/10/07]

AND NOW?

Bush: “It’s a new mission. And David Petraeus is in Iraq carrying it out. Its goal is to help the Iraqis make progress toward reconciliation — to build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and is an ally against the extremists in this war.”

[6/28/07]

Anonymous said...

Haha...would that be called defensive quibbling? Words do mean something, though...except when GW says the constitution is a goddamn piece of paper or Larry says he was just taking a wide stance in the crapper.

Anonymous said...

Oh, that was meant for Slavetoboobwahtrends...Casablanca, It's Jus Such a Wunnerful Gooey Life...hahaha, too much...how many times do these morons have to be told this mediocre crap is mahvlus before they start salivating and repeating it like fucking parrots? You should get together with Alice Gorable and breed morons...they're needed to keep the reicho movement going, you know.

cob said...

Pope says GW a dickhead...who knew?

Pope won't break bread with BushNick Juliano
Published: Friday April 11, 2008

|



Print This Email This




Pontiff not attending dinner in his honor, White House says
The White House has scheduled a dinner next week in honor of Pope Benedict XVI's first visit to the United States, but one guest will be conspicuously absent from the proceedings: the pope himself.

There are no competing events listed on the pope's schedule, and the White House was unable to explain Benedict's absence from the dinner.

The pontiff will be greeted by the president and first lady upon his arrival to the US Tuesday and participate in a Rose Garden appearance and Oval Office meeting with President Bush the next day. A dinner scheduled for later Wednesday night didn't make it onto the Benedict's schedule, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Friday.

From Friday's press briefing:

Q Just to clarify, for the pope's visit to the White House, you said that now there's a dinner in the East Room in honor of the pope?
MR. STANZEL: Yes.
Q Will the pope actually be attending that dinner?
MR. STANZEL: I don't believe so, no.
Q Okay. Thank you.
[...]
Q I'm sorry. The pope doesn't attend a dinner in his honor?
MR. STANZEL: No.
Q (Off mike.)
MR. STANZEL: He doesn't come into the building.
Q Well, then it's not a dinner for the pope, is it?
MR. STANZEL: It's in honor of his visit. There will be leaders from the Catholic community from all over the country who are in town for that visit.
Q Is there a reason the pope doesn't attend the dinner?
MR. STANZEL: I don't know. I don't have the full extent of his schedule.

Benedict's schedule does not indicate any events that would conflict with his ability to attend the 7:30 p.m. dinner that Wednesday. He is just scheduled to return to the Vatican embassy in Washington at the same time after a meeting with US bishops at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington.

It's unclear why the Pope won't be attending the dinner in his honor, but he is expected to touch on issues upon which he and President Bush disagree during the visit, especially the Iraq war.

During his visit to the United Nations a few days later, the Pope will address "the false notion that might makes right," according to a Vatican representative.

Some experts also predict the Pope would criticize the "culture of fear" in the United States. The Rev. David Hollenbach, director of Boston College's Center for Human Rights, said recently that this culture is seen as integral to the US involvement in Iraq.

"Fear can lead to angry responses," Hollenbach said, according to the Connecticut Post. "I think the pope's message is going to be 'Don't be afraid.' I think the overcoming of fear can take away the impulse for war."

wishing for a droller troll said...

Hey Vincent...

Don't you wish that every Leftist were as dumb as this troll is? He has no thoughts of his own, and all he can do is cut and paste articles from the Huffington Post.

If I were as dumb as boring as him, I'd kill myself.

droller troller said...

OMG - You don't think that's what made he become a troll, do you? He had no original thoughts of his own... and so he had to come here and pretend by cutting and pasting Huffington Post articles to Evan's blog that his life has meaning.

Do something truly meaningful for a change, troll. Do something original!

Anonymous said...

Prior Convictions
Did the Founders want us to be faithful to their faith?

by Jill Lepore
April 14, 2008

Far from establishing a religion, the Constitution doesn’t even mention God.
“A wise man adheres not to his religion, because it was that of his ancestors,” a smooth-tongued mullah says to a tongue-tied American in Royall Tyler’s 1797 novel “The Algerine Captive.” The American, a luckless New Englander named Updike Underhill, had been sold into slavery among Muslims after Barbary pirates captured the ship on which he served as a surgeon. At the hands of his captors, he had been whipped, beaten, and bastinadoed—the soles of his feet caned to pulp—and he had borne it all. The terms of his terrible bondage: he will be freed only if he converts to Islam. Stoic, and secure in his Calvinism, Underhill agrees to a debate.

Tyler, a Vermont lawyer, found inspiration for “The Algerine Captive” in an American foreign-policy quagmire. In 1783, when the Peace of Paris ended the Revolutionary War, American seamen lost the protection of Britain’s treaties with the so-called Barbary States: Algiers, Tripoli, Morocco, and Tunisia. Over the next decade, more than seven hundred American sailors were captured and held as slaves in North Africa. When Congress was slow to respond, the public rallied, raising money to pay for the captives’ ransom, and giving con men the idea for a new ruse known, in the trade, as the Algerian Prisoner Fraud. In 1794, the American novelist, playwright, and actress Susanna Rowson starred in a benefit performance in Philadelphia of her play “Slaves in Algiers.” American emissaries finally secured the release of the prisoners in 1796. “The Algerine Captive,” published the following year, wasn’t a fund-raiser; it was a polemic about religious freedom. Royall Tyler had something to say about the liberty of conscience: Faith answers to reason.

Underhill’s debate with the mullah lasts five days. “Our religion was disseminated in peace; yours was promulgated by the sword,” Underhill insists. This the mullah contradicts: “The history of the Christian church is a detail of bloody massacre.” But Christianity must be the one true religion, Underhill counters, else how had so much of the world been so persuaded by the teachings of a few fishermen, so quickly? “If you argue from the astonishing spread of your faith,” the mullah answers, remember that “Mahomet was an illiterate camel driver,” born nearly six centuries after Christ, and yet his faith had spread through Arabia, Asia, and Africa and a great part of Europe: “In a word, view the world.”

Above all, the mullah, himself a convert, asserts that Underhill, who had inherited his faith, had never examined it. “Born in New England, my friend, you are a christian purified by Calvin,” he observes. “Born in the Campania of Rome, you had been a papist. Nursed by the Hindoos, you would have entered the pagoda with reverence, and worshipped the soul of your ancestor in a duck. Educated on the bank of the Wolga, the Delai Lama had been your god. In China, you would have worshipped Tien, and perfumed Confucius, as you bowed in adoration . . . of your ancestors.”

You won’t read about this debate in a crop of new books on religious liberty and the founding of America, an omission that can’t be charged to Royall Tyler’s obscurity. He wasn’t always obscure. He was a prolific and talented satirist, and “The Algerine Captive” was popular enough that it was reprinted in England, becoming only the second American novel to achieve that distinction. It’s overlooked for lots of reasons, not least among them that Royall Tyler, however distinguished, wasn’t a Founding Father, but also because novels don’t make law.

On the subject of religious liberty in America, there are four indispensable, foundational texts: Jefferson’s 1786 statute (“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry”); Madison’s 1785 “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” (“The Religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man”); Article VI of the Constitution (“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”); and the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”). These are at once statements of political philosophy and legal documents; philosophers argue about them within a specific intellectual tradition, and legal scholars read them to trace precedent. Martha Nussbaum takes both of these approaches in “Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America’s Tradition of Religious Equality” (Basic; $28.95). But because these documents long ago rose to the status of American scripture, another way to read them is to conduct an exegesis, which is more or less what Garry Wills does in “Head and Heart: American Christianities” (Penguin; $29.95). Politicians tend to use them genealogically, naming their authors as forebears or, as the case may be, glaringly omitting them. (“My faith is the faith of my fathers,” Mitt Romney declared in a speech last December, skipping over Jefferson and Madison in favor of Brigham Young, John and Samuel Adams, and the seventeenth-century Puritan dissenter Roger Williams.) The legal, the exegetical, the genealogical—each centers on the Founding Fathers: What did they intend? What did they mean? What would they make of us?

“History is after all only a pack of tricks we play on the dead,” Voltaire once quipped. The Founding Fathers had their own pack of tricks: they turned their backs on the past. If they had meekly inherited the faith of their fathers, they would have written a constitution establishing Christianity as the national religion. They did not. Nearly every American colony was settled with an established religion; Connecticut’s 1639 founding document explained that the whole purpose of government was “to mayntayne and presearve the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus.” In the century and a half between that charter and the 1787 meeting of the Constitutional Convention lies an entire revolution, not just a political revolution but also a religious revolution, as Frank Lambert, a historian at Purdue, argued in his 2003 study, “The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America.” Far from establishing a religion, the Constitution doesn’t even mention God. At a time when all but two states required religious tests for office, the Constitution prohibited them. At a time when most states still had an official religion, the Bill of Rights forbade the federal government from establishing one.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were controversial when they were written and they’ve been controversial ever since, but Article VI and what is known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment have been controversial in the last half century because of the Supreme Court’s 1947 decision in Everson v. Board of Education, which reaffirmed the Fourteenth Amendment’s extension (or “incorporation”) of the Establishment Clause to the states and, citing both Jefferson’s Virginia Statute and Madison’s Remonstrance, interpreted the Establishment Clause to mean that the Framers intended there to be a “wall of separation” between church and state: “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion to another.”

The debate that ensued has not been confined to the courts, as Lambert illustrates in his new book, “Religion in American Politics: A Short History” (Princeton; $24.95). Any serious challenge to Everson requires an alternative explanation of those four foundational texts, an explanation usually supported by other writings of Jefferson and Madison, the records of the Constitutional Convention and the papers of its delegates, and the records of the state ratifying conventions and of the first Congress. Opponents of Everson have argued that the Founders were Christians. “Any diligent student of American history finds that our great nation was founded by godly men upon godly principles to be a Christian nation,” Jerry Falwell insisted in 1980. The Founders never meant to drive religion from “the public square,” some insist. Mitt Romney used his reading of history to accuse modern-day secularists, “at odds with the nation’s founders,” of having taken the doctrine of separation of church and state “well beyond its original meaning” by seeking “to remove from the public domain any acknowledgement of God.” Against this argument stand scholars like Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, whose 1996 “The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State” was republished in 2005, with an added chapter on George W. Bush’s first Presidential term. Whether the mail should be sorted on Sundays, whether “In God We Trust” belongs on our coins, whether the Pledge of Allegiance should include “under God,” whether our children should pray at school, whether we can have crèches on town commons at Christmas, everyone wants to know: What would the Founders do?

It’s a question Thomas Jefferson found ridiculous. In 1816, when he was seventy-three and many of his revolutionary generation had already died, he offered this answer: “This they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. . . . Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.” The Founders believed that to defer without examination to what your forefathers believed was to become a slave to the tyranny of the past. Jefferson put it this way: “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human.”

Treating the Founders like saints has made for some pretty wacky books, none more so than the 1987 “Faith of Our Founding Fathers,” by Tim LaHaye, an Evangelical minister who went on to co-write a series of bestselling apocalyptic novels. LaHaye attempted to chronicle the “Rape of History” by “history revisionists” who had erased from American school text-books the “evangelical Protestants who founded this nation.” Documenting this claim is no mean feat, not least because even those members of the Constitutional Convention who called themselves Christian lived in a decidedly irreligious and anti-clerical age, the most secular age in American history, both before and since, as Garry Wills observes in “Head and Heart” (a book that is both a close reading of founding texts and a sprawling history of Christianity in the United States). Most of the Founding Fathers were deists, although not all of them were as skeptical as Jefferson, who crafted a custom copy of the Bible by cutting out everything but the words of Jesus. LaHaye, to support his argument, took out his own pair of scissors, deciding, for instance, that Jefferson doesn’t count as a Founding Father, because he “had nothing to do with the founding of our nation,” and basing his claims about Franklin not on evidence (because, as he writes, “there is no evidence that Franklin ever became a Christian”) but on the bald, raising-the-Founders-from-the-dead assertion “Many modern secularizers try to claim Franklin as one of their own. I am confident, however, that Franklin would not identify with them were he alive today.”

Wills and Nussbaum counter these claims. Wills argues that the history of religion in America is the history of a productive tension between the head and the heart, between enlightenment (which he counts as a religion) and Evangelicalism, a balance kept in check by the separation of church and state. Nussbaum, in a careful, nuanced, and compelling analysis, identifies religious equality as the crucial American tradition. Two more new books by members of the “religious left” adopt a more strictly biographical approach. “So Help Me God: The Founding Fathers and the First Great Battle Over Church and State” (Harcourt; $28), by Forrest Church, the minister of All Souls Church in Manhattan, considers the first five Presidents: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. “Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America” (Random House; $26), by Steven Waldman, the editor of the Web site Beliefnet, chronicles the “spiritual journeys” of the first four Presidents and one more Founder, lopping off Monroe in favor of Franklin.

It’s probably impossible to discover precisely what the Founders believed about God, Jesus, sin, the Bible, churches, and Hell. They changed their minds and gave different accounts to different people: Franklin said one thing to his sister Jane, and another thing to David Hume; Washington was a vestryman at his church, but, as he lay slowly dying, he never called for a clergyman. This can make them look like hypocrites, but that’s unfair. They approached religion in more or less the same way they approached everything else that interested them: Franklin invented his own; Washington proved diplomatic; Adams grumbled about it; Jefferson could not stop tinkering with it; and Madison defended, as a natural right, the free exercise of it.

Waldman, Church, Nussbaum, and Wills have written very different books—Wills and Nussbaum range both farther and deeper—but each, striving for evenhandedness, wants to save us from the errors of partisans and zealots. “The culture wars have so warped our sense of history that we typically have a very limited understanding of how we came to have religious liberty,” Waldman writes. They also generally agree about the source of the myths that plague us: “the cherry-picking of Founding Father quotes to prove almost anything,” as Waldman puts it. “Champions on both sides,” Church writes, “will claim the words and actions of the founders as proof texts for the righteousness of their moral, political, and religious agendas.”

The four books achieve a kind of consensus in four related lines of argument. First, the United States was founded neither as a Christian nation nor as a secular one. Second, by the standards of Evangelicals of both their day and ours, Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were not Christians; they wrestled, often profoundly, with religious questions, but, as Church points out, “they all doubted the divinity of Christ.” Third, the disestablishment of religion is itself responsible for Americans’ unusual religiosity, which (these writers all believe) is something to celebrate. Fourth, notwithstanding the Founders’ own remarkable secularism, the liberation of religion from government as much as the reverse was their aim. “The separation of church and state has greatly benefited religion, as Madison and Jefferson predicted that it would,” Wills writes. Nussbaum argues that because “the separation of church and state is, fundamentally, about equality, about the idea that no religion will be set up as the religion of our nation,” in the end “separation is also about protecting religion.” Waldman writes, “Madison, I suspect, would . . . be delighted by surveys showing that, compared with most developed nations, Americans believe in God more, pray more, and attend worship services more frequently.”

Because this debate is an argument about how the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, people who enter it begin their investigation with the Founders; quite often, they end it there, too. Somewhere along the way, they almost always fall to wondering what James Madison would make of the latest Gallup polls or whether Benjamin Franklin would get along with Christopher Hitchens. That’s how this debate works; that’s the pack of tricks this history plays on the past. The problem is that constitutional jurisprudence, however essential it is to the rule of law, will always tend to produce a history in which the entire eighteenth century is reduced to the intellectual lives of a handful of men. And, because our tradition of constitutional jurisprudence is so important, that history can be all the history most Americans get. Needless to say, it’s a history that leaves out a lot—not least, every other American who ever spread, advanced, or challenged the idea of religious liberty: people like printers turning out newspapers, mothers rearing children, pastors preaching to small towns, and, even, now obscure novelists. Maybe it’s time for another pack of tricks.

Royall Tyler was not a Founding Father. He was a prodigal son. But he spoke and wrote about religious liberty all his life—from the pulpit, from the bench, and from his desk. Some scholars argue that the idea of a “wall of separation” between church and state wasn’t built until the eighteen-thirties and forties; Tyler was dead by then, but he seems to have thought that wall had been built at the Constitutional Convention. Nor was Tyler’s life a battle between reason and faith, head and heart. Early and easily, he reconciled his Enlightenment rationalism with his Episcopal faith, although his convictions about both may have been tried during a dissipated youth plagued with disappointments. (His reputation as a rake was not without foundation.) In 1782, when Tyler was twenty-five, he courted John Adams’s daughter. Abigail was charmed. “I am not acquainted with any young Gentleman whose attainments in literature are equal to his,” she wrote to her husband. “I am not looking out for a Poet,” Adams wrote back. The courtship was quietly ended.

Tyler made more of himself than Adams predicted. In 1787, his comedy “The Contrast” was performed in New York while delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia. Overnight, Tyler became a literary celebrity. But in an age when no one wanted a poet for a son-in-law he had to earn his keep as a lawyer. He set up practice in Vermont: “If writing for the public is attended with no more profit, I had rather file legal process in my attorney’s office, and endeavor to explain unintelligible law to Green Mountain jurors.”

Tyler often wished he had chosen the ministry instead of the law, but he was sure that his sinfulness would have been a blot upon the church. (What he meant by his sinfulness is suggested by his 1793 “The Origin of Evil,” a shockingly blasphemous poem about the Garden of Eden.) In Vermont, where ministers were few and far between, he often served as a lay preacher. (After recovering from the Adams fiasco, Tyler married, happily; he and his wife had eleven children, and four of their seven surviving sons became clergymen.) In a sermon that he delivered on Christmas Day, 1793, he offered this prayer: “It is our Blessed Saviour who has caused His day spring of religious liberty from on high to visit us and that we may now worship every man according to the dictates of his own conscience.”

Apparently, Tyler agreed with Madison that to establish a Christian religion would be “to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.” In “The Algerine Captive,” Updike Underhill’s faith, far from being weakened, is strengthened by his trials. He refuses to convert, even at the cost of his freedom. Nevertheless, one reviewer complained that “in the dialogue with the Mollah, the author too feebly defends that religion which he professes to revere.” Tyler was blindsided by this charge. Invoking Islam to argue for religious liberty was an eighteenth-century commonplace, practiced by writers as different as Johnson, Montesquieu, and Voltaire. “The Author was prepared to meet severe criticism on his style,” Tyler later wrote, “but certainly he never imagined it was objectionable on the score of infidelity, or even skepticism. The part objected to, as far as the Author recollects, was written with a view to do away with the vulgar prejudices against Islamism.” Tyler used Islam as an object lesson in the importance of religious tolerance and the dangers of theocracy. Underhill is both fascinated by and sympathetic to Islam. Even before travelling to Mecca and Medina, he concludes, “I cannot help noticing it as extraordinary, that the Mahometan should abominate the christian on account of his faith, and the christian detest the Mussulman for his creed; when the koran of the former acknowledges the divinity of the christian Messias, and the bible of the latter commands us to love our enemies.” Above all, Tyler used Islam to argue that faith, all faith, must answer to reason. In his view, this was Islam’s great failing: that every Muslim is “tenaciously attached to his own creed, makes his faith a principle in life, and never suffers doubt to disturb, or reason to overthrow it.”

Yet Tyler made his mullah both generous and broad-minded. After weeping for Underhill, a man he can see only as an infidel, the mullah becomes his fast friend and, eventually, helps him escape. The actual end of Algerine captivity was more complicated, but it, too, depended on eighteenth-century ideas about religious tolerance. In June of 1797, just three months before Tyler’s novel was published, the American captives in North Africa were freed by the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams. The treaty’s Article 11, an assurance that the United States would not engage in a vengeful holy war, read, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

In 1801, Tyler was elected to Vermont’s supreme court. (He subsequently served as chief justice.) In a case brought before his bench the following year, he rejected as legally invalid an out-of-state bill of sale for a slave. (In 1791, Vermont had been the first state to adopt a constitution prohibiting slavery.) “Would your honor be pleased to tell us what would be sufficient evidence of my client’s ownership of this man?” the lawyer asked the judge. “Oh certainly,” Tyler answered wryly. A bill of sale “from the Almighty.”

In 1817, galled by the debate in Connecticut, a state still clinging to an established religion, Tyler prepared for publication a treatise titled “The Touchstone; or a Humble Modest Inquiry Into the Nature of Religious Intolerance.” Here, again, he argued, “A State Religion always has, and ever will be intolerant.”

Toward the end of his life, Tyler began an autobiography. He addressed it to a reader two centuries in the future, in the year 2025: “I cannot but fancy that some profound antiquary of your superexcellent age, while groping among the rubbish of time, may from some kennel of oblivion fish up my poor book.” We would make of it, he was certain, at once too much and too little. It would be as if only his left shoe had made it down to the twenty-first century, “to be gathered as an invaluable treasure into the museum of the Antiquarian.” Some historians, “after vainly essaying to fit it to the right foot, would gravely declare that the anatomy of their ancestors’ pedestals differed from those of their day.” But just because we’ve only found the one shoe doesn’t mean eighteenth-century Americans had two left feet. Having fished up his book, what should we, in our superexcellent age, make of it? Tyler conjured a future reader who smiles at




The sprawling letters, yellow text,

The formal phrase, the bald stiff style . . .

And in the margin gravely notes

A thousand meanings never meant. ♦

2dumb4words said...

Once a cut and paste troll, always a cut and paste troll...

Anonymous said...

The owner of this blog has been thoroughly pasted and cut from his own territory.

reich waves the white flag said...

In Iraq, a quiet philosophical retreat for U.S. military
template_bas
template_bas
The idealistic goal of democracy is giving way to a practical emphasis on security, officers suggest.
By Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 13, 2008
WASHINGTON -- For President Bush, creating a peaceful democracy remains the overarching U.S. goal in Iraq. Last week, he again described his vision for a "stable democracy" that can "promote our common interests in the Middle East."

But in two days of exhaustive testimony before the House and Senate, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said conspicuously little about democracy in that nation.

That's because, without saying so publicly, U.S. war planners have moved further from those idealistic goals.

They are now pursuing a strategy aimed at a more modest outcome, one that emphasizes keeping the peace over democratic reforms.

In fact, as military officials acknowledge, some of the newer tactics may make democracy more unlikely than ever.

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus has always championed Bush's Iraq strategy and has never clashed publicly with the president. But the last week made clear the growing divergence between political rhetoric and the reality of the war.

When it comes to defining victory, Petraeus told lawmakers last week, he and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker consider themselves minimalists.

"We're not after the Holy Grail on Iraq," Petraeus said. "We're not after Jeffersonian democracy."

Meeting with reporters two days later, Petraeus said that it was important to foster democratic practices but that U.S. aspirations had been "tempered by experience."

"There's not a desire for what people might see as perfection," Petraeus said. "Adequate is good enough, if you will."

Over the last 15 months, a shift to more modest expectations has been built into U.S. military operations and planning in Iraq, current and former officers said.

"We are more focused on security and stability than we are on other lofty democratic goals," said a senior officer who has served in Iraq but who spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing military planning. "The longer we are there, the more pragmatic we become."

As last year's troop buildup was being planned, the Joint Chiefs of Staff began pushing for a more pragmatic -- and modest -- approach that de-emphasized democracy, according to military officers.

A Joint Campaign Plan for Iraq developed by Petraeus and Crocker also adopted a more realistic approach. That document, setting out U.S. military and diplomatic strategies, emphasizes security over good government, said John R. Martin, a retired colonel who worked on it.

"I hate to say it was pushed off, because democracy is such an important thing. But, in effect, that was what happened," Martin said. "We said we have got to get security first, and then some of the political progress can occur. So in that sense, it was pushed to a lower priority."

The troop buildup has been credited with reducing violence across Iraq. But many current and former military officers said that even more important were a series of decisions to reach cease-fire agreements with former insurgents, allow them to organize into armed groups, and put them on the U.S. payroll.

U.S. support for these "concerned local citizens" or "Sons of Iraq," armed groups headed by tribal sheiks, has dramatically reduced violence. But it also has empowered the sheiks at the expense of local government authority.

And the existence of newly armed groups that are not under the control of Iraq's central government has done little to enhance the power of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.

"The Iraqi security forces do not have a monopoly on violence; it's been outsourced to these groups," said the military officer who has served in Iraq. "It's not Maliki's government controlling security."

Martin said the Iraq command had worked hard to ensure that the Sons of Iraq did not undermine the Maliki government.

"We tried very hard to reinforce the government's monopoly on force," Martin said. "It was not an attempt to establish militias."

But Martin acknowledged that the Maliki government had resisted U.S. requests that it bring the Sons of Iraq groups into the Iraq security force.

The Shiite government is reluctant to share power with the Sunni minority, which dominated Saddam Hussein's regime.

That reluctance has been the largest stumbling block to meaningful democratic reforms.

Besides the difficulty of trying to strengthen democratic institutions, reforms could actually threaten security gains.

Stephen D. Biddle, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations who has advised the U.S. command in Iraq, said there could be a "real tension" between the competing goals of forging cease-fires with local militants and supporting the democratically elected central government.

Biddle reasoned that an emphasis on democracy could lead the U.S. to support Maliki in his attempts to dismantle the militias of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr.

But such a move by the central government, Biddle said, would unravel local cease-fire agreements with other militia groups that have tamped down violence.

"If that's what democracy requires," Biddle said, "we might be better off settling for stability with less democracy, rather than risking chaos in pursuit of the ideal in Iraq."

Mark Moyar, a military historian and professor at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College in Quantico, Va., said many officers who served in Iraq had come to realize that Iraqi history and culture made it difficult to impose a Western-style democracy.

"There is a recognition: If there is to be political change, it is going to be gradual, and we really have to get the security down first," Moyar said.

"There is a recognition that we did not understand the extent to which their culture made it difficult to move from an authoritarian government to liberal democracy."

julian.barnes@latimes.com

Times staff writer Peter Spiegel contributed to this report.

Anonymous said...

I find it hilarious that the posters whose hero has absconded ridicule the articles that appear here. They are far more interesting and informative than anything that Evan Sayet has ever posted. The fact that Sayet merely recycles his cliched tripe over and over again is the same as cutting and pasting his narrow, antiquated, bigoted, ignorant, single-note opinion repetitiously--it is cutting and pasting at its worst.

Anonymous said...

Oh yes, I left out dishonest. Please add dishonest to the host of adjectives above.

Anonymous said...

This is painful, but, I think, necessary. You might as well all cool it for a while. Evan has three more months to serve and will not be allowed to blog until then as those services are not available where he is incarcerated. He thought you should know.That's all that can be said for now.

Anonymous said...

Oh, boo hoo. His obese ass was such a fabulous target to lampoon. But wait! All he does is regurgitate the same puke-worthy stuff. Here is one of his more disgusting, though there are so many to choose from, articles. And, it is one that, like many others, have no comments. So, to review:

Wednesday, September 21, 2005
America -- Arrogant Hypocrites
Two of a Democrats' favorite words of disparagement (other than "Hitler" and "fascist") are "hypocrite" and "arrogant." I have no problem with either.

By "hypocrite" the Democrat means folks who recognize and espouse higher ideals and then, through human frailty, fall short of perfection. I much prefer this to the Democrat who espouses -- does not believe in -- higher ideals and never seeks them.

By "arrogant" the Democrat means believing in things. Unless one is willing to cope to the Democrats' notion -- perfectly espoused by Barbara Walters who, in eulogizing the Canadian-born socialist Peter Jennings said "what made Peter great is that he knew there is no such thing as the truth" -- that there is nothing to believe in one is "arrogant."

This is why the Democrats constantly attack America itself as both "hypocritical" and "arrogant." America is "hypocritical" because we espouse the highest values and, as a collection of 280 million human beings sometimes fall short (four of us put underwear on terrorists' heads at Abu Gharaib) and "arrogant" because we will not turn over our sovereignty to vicious, anti-Semitic, rapists, liars and killers at the United Nations believing (how dare we) that democracy is better than, say, corrupt terrorist dictatorships!!!


Of course, many will recognize this as a variation on the "democrats are hypocrites because 'we'[meaning republicans, or really neokkkons since the parties have gone through so many transformations that there is no way that Evan et al. is the party of Lincoln] have higher values and fail to live up to them" meme.


Higher values, Yeahrightsure:
Republican Sexual Deviants

Richard A. Delgaudio, Republican fundraiser and Bush pioneer, was found guilty of child porn charges.

Nicholas Elizondo, Director of the Young Republican Federation molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.

Larry Dale Floyd, Republican Constable in Denton County, Texas Precinct Two. Arrested for allegedly crossing state lines to have sex with an 8-year old child and was charged with 7 related offenses.

Jon Grunseth, Republican businessman and candidate for Minnesota governor, withdrew his candidacy after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter, and tried to grope one. "I've made some mistakes" he said.

Neal Horsley has called for the arrest of all homosexuals. Admitted on the Fox News Radio's The Alan Colmes Show, that he's had sex with mules.

Paul Ingram, Republican Party leader of Thurston County, Washington, pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.

Jeffrey Patti, Republican Committee Chairman, was arrested for distributing what experts call "some of the most offensive material in the child pornography world" - a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

John Scmitz, right-wing republican congressman, who had had his committee chairship taken away from him in the California State Senate after issuing a press release attacking Jews, feminists and gays. Forced out of office in 1982 for having an adulterous affair and fathering two children out of wedlock with one of his students. He was caught because his baby was admitted to hospital for having hair tied so tightly around his penis that it was almost severed. His daughter, Mary Kay LeTourneau, was convicted of having an adulterous affair with one of her students, and giving birth to two of his children.

What explains this Republican proclivity to abuse children? I don't know. But if a political ideology is this closely tied to the endangerment of children, it should come as no surprise that these people can't take care of adults.

Americans need to learn: if someone tells you how to act sexually, hide your children and vote for the other party.
Republican Sexual Deviants
Re: Republican Sexual Deviants
Amen!
by americanforliberty

Republican Hypocrisy Revealed

Not Every Republican is a Pedophile but Every pedophile IS A REPUBLICAN.

1. Serial killer/rapist Ted Bundy campaigned for the Republican Party

2. Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

3. Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

4. Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

5. Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.

6. Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

7. Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges.

8. Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

9. Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child and was arrested again five years later on the same charge.

10. Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a minor working as a congressional page.

11. Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.

12. Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

13. Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with a juvenile and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

14. Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks, an advisor to a California assemblyman, was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.

15. Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

16. Republican preacher Stephen White was arrested after allegedly offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

17. Republican talk show host Jon Matthews of Houston was indicted for indecency with a child, including exposing his genitals to a girl under the age of 17. The star of Houston's 24/7 Right-wing line up on Christian owned KSEV, this Law & Order advocate was recently sentenced to 3 years in prison for breaking his probation from a 2004 conviction of exposing himself to an 11 year old girl.

18. Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling confessed to molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

19. Republican Party leader Paul Ingram of Thurston County, Washington, pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.

20. Republican St. Louis Election Board official Kevin Coan was arrested and charged with trying to buy sex from a 14-year-old girl whom he met on the Internet.

21. Republican politician Andrew Buhr, former committeeman for Hadley Township Missouri, was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.

22. Republican politician Keith Westmoreland, a Tennessee state representative, was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to minors under 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).

23. Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15 year old girl.

24. Republican legislator, Richard Gardner, a Nevada state representative, admitted to molesting his two daughters.

25. Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

26. Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

27. Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.

28. Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

29. Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

30. Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

31. Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

32. Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

33. Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.

34. Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

35. Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

36. Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey

was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

37. Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.

38. Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

39. Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.

40. Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.

41. Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.

42. Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having

sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

43. Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in
the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.

44. Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six
years in prison.

45. Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of
young women.

46.Clifton Bennett, 18, the son of Arizona Senate Republican President Ken Bennett, and his co-defendant, Kyle Wheeler, 19, were charged in January with 18 counts of aggravated assault and 18 counts of kidnapping for the incidents, which happened at a youth camp last June. The younger Bennett confessed to police that he and Wheeler sodomized the 11- to 14-year-old boys with broomsticks and flashlights in at least 40 incidents, court documents show. Yavapai County prosecutors now say they'll drop all but one assault charge and likely recommend little or no jail time if Bennett agrees to plead guilty. Wheeler has been offered a similar deal but faces an additional assault charge for choking three boys until they passed out. The plea agreements were presented in court last week and could be finalized Monday.

47. Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was charged with molesting his 9-year old step-daughter after including her in an anti-Gore television commercial and convicted of pedophilia and found guilty of "aggravated sexual assault of a child, two counts of indecency with a child by contact and one count of indecency with a child by exposure."
.

48. Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.

49. Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography.

50. Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.

51. Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.

52. Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.

53. Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls and convicted.

54. Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.

55. Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.

56. Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.

57. Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly had sex with a 16 year old girl when he was 28.

58. Thomas Adams, longtime Green Oaks, Illinois, mayor and former chairman of the Lake County Republican Central Committee, was charged Monday with possession and distribution of child pornography. Adams, 67, faces 11 counts of disseminating child pornography and two counts of possession. Lake County Judge Victoria Rossetti set his bond at $100,000. 7/26

59. The head of the Christian Coalition of Oregon, Lou Beres, "readily admitted sexually touching" the plaintiff in the lawsuit when she was 13 or 14 years old, according to the report. He also acknowledged sexually touching a 16 or 17-year-old friend of his daughter in 1976 or 1977. Beres denied allegations of sexual molestation when they first came to light in The Oregonian last October. Gresham police last fall investigated allegations Beres had molested underage family members, but Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Shrunk said the allegations occurred so long ago that Beres couldn't face charges under the statute of limitations. In March, Beres, 70, was sued in Multnomah County Circuit Court for $2.1 million by a relative who said he molested her repeatedly between 1963 and 1966.

60. On September 28, 2006, ABC News reported that in 2005 Foley had sent email messages, from his personal AOL account, to a then-16-year-old former Congressional page, asking the page to send a photo of himself to Foley, among other things. Foley submitted a letter of resignation from Congress on September 29, 2006 in the wake of news reports about the communications. Foley issued a statement, saying "I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent."

61. Metropolitan Police today charged the director of human resources at The Washington Times with one count of attempting to entice a minor on the Internet. Randall Casseday, 53, was arrested at 9:45 p.m. yesterday in the 1300 block of Brentwood Road NE, where police said he had arranged to meet who he thought was a 13-year-old girl. He had actually exchanged Internet messages and photographs with a male police officer posing as a girl.

62. Jeffrey Ray Nielsen, a Christian fundamentalist activist lawyer who was a legislative aide for California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and a close associate of Orange County GOP chairman Scott Baugh, has been charged by Orange County, California police with repeatedly engaging in sex with a 14-year old Westminster, California high school freshman male in 2003 and amassing a large amount of child pornography in his Ladera Ranch condo.

63. Republican County Board Candidate Brent Schepp was charged withsexually assaulting young girls (26 counts).

64. William Irey, 49, of Orlando, president and CEO of Frank Irey Construction Inc., a major Walt Disney World building contractor, is accused of traveling overseas earlier this year to meet children and coerce them "to engage in sexually explicit conduct," according to an indictment approved Dec. 13 by a grand jury in Orlando.

65. A grand jury in Cleveland returned a 17-count indictment Wednesday against 32-year-old Michael Flory, including charges of rape, kidnapping and aggravated burglary. Flory is chairman of the Michigan Federation of Young Republicans, an organization for members of the party between 18 and 40.

66. Ted Klaudt, 49 year old former South Dakota republican state representative was charged with eight counts of rape, two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of witness tampering, sexual contact with a person under 16, and stalking. Court documents mention five possible victims. Three were foster children between the ages of 15 and 19 who lived with Klaudt's family. One is a cousin of one of those girls, and the fifth is a friend of Klaudt's daughter. In the most disturbing accusation, the girls say Klaudt had them convinced they could earn up to $20,000 by donating their eggs to a fertility clinic. And even though he has no medical training, the girls say Klaudt did all the supposed "exams" and "procedures" himself.

67. Republican campaign worker, police officer and self-proclaimed reverend Steve Aiken was convicted of having sex with two underage girls.

68. Republican County Commissioner Patrick Lee McGuire surrendered to police after allegedly molesting girls between the ages of 8 and 13.

69. Republican city councilman Joseph Monteleone Jr. was found guilty of fondling underage girls.

70. Republican County Chairman Armando Tebano pleaded guilty to fondling a 14-year-old girl.

71. Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

72. John Scmitz, right-wing republican congressman, who had had his committee chairship taken away from him in the California State Senate after issuing a press release attacking Jews, feminists and gays. Forced out of office in 1982 for having an adulterous affair and fathering two children out of wedlock with one of his students. He was caught because his baby was admitted to hospital for having hair tied so tightly around his penis that it was almost severed. His daughter, Mary Kay LeTourneau, was convicted of having an adulterous affair with one of her students, and giving birth to two of his children.

GOP = GRAND OLD PEDOPHILES.
Oh Yeah, these guys represent Moral integrity and `Christian values'

Not pedophiles but good repug hypocrites just they same...

Republican activist Matthew Glavin, who preached family values, was caught masturbating in public and fondling an undercover park ranger

Republican anti-abortion activist Neal Horsley admitted to having sex with a mule

Republican Congressman Edward Schrock resigned from Congress after he was caught searching for sex on a gay telephone service. Listen to his telephone calls by clicking these files: File 1, File 2, File 3

Republican Mayor Jim West championed an anti-gay agenda, but was later found to be gay himself

Republican preacher Jimmy Swaggart preached fidelity, but cheated on his wife with a prostitute

Republican Congressman Bob Livingston was about to vote for impeaching President Clinton for sexual improprieties until it was disclosed he was an adulterer

Republican Congressman Henry Hyde denounced President Clinton's extramarital affair, but was later found to be an adulterer himself

Republican Senator Bob Packwood resigned from Congress after 29 women accused him of sexual harrassment

Several newspapers are now reporting that Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is dating and basically living with Callista Bisek, a "willowy blond Congressional aide 23 years his junior." Biske, 33, has been spending nights at Gingrich's apartment near the Capitol and has her own key. In an amazing act of hypocrisy, Gingrich was apparently dating Bisek all during Clinton-Lewinsky adultery scandal, even as he proclaimed family values and bitterly criticized the President for his adultery.

Reporters and other Washington insiders have known about this relationship since 1994, even before Gingrich became Speaker of the House, but did not have any solid proof to report. In 1995, Vanity Fair magazine described Bisek as Gingrich's "frequent breakfast companion." Gingrich was married to Marianne Gingrich during all of that time, and just filed for divorce in August 1999.

Newt pressed his first wife to sign divorce papers while she was still in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. He also graciously said "She isn't young enough or pretty enough to be the President's wife." But his second marriage hasn't been that smooth either. Newt and Marianne have been separated - "frankly", she told the Washington Post in June 1989, "it's been on and off for some time."

The hospital visit wasn't the end of it, either. Jackie had to take Newt to court to get him to contribute for bills, as utilities were about to be cut off.

John McCain has acknowledged engaging in extramarital affairs upon returning from Vietnam. While he was in Vietnam, his wife Carol had been severely injured in a car accident. Upon returning home in 1973, McCain found his wife to be very different from when he had married her. He soon began engaging in extramarital affairs and in 1979, he met Cindy Hensley. A year later, McCain sought a divorce from Carol and a month after that, he married Cindy.

Rudy Giuliani had a high profile divorce from Donna Hanover , which he announced on public TV even before informing her. On May 10, 2000 Mr. Giuliani announced at a press conference that he was seeking a separation from his wife, Donna Hanover -- without first informing her of his decision. The reason? Judith Stish Nathan Giuliani, he began dating her before his divorce from Donna Hanover, his second wife, was final.

Defense contractor, Mitchell Wade, admitted that he paid California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (republican) more than $1 million in bribes in exchange for millions more in government contracts.

Jessica Cutler, the former Senate aide who posted details of her sex life on the Internet. The case brought by REPUBLICAN Sen. Mike DeWine's former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Robert Steinbuch, alleges that Cutler engaged in an invasion of his privacy in 2004 by publishing sexually explicit facts about a relationship with Steinbuch.

Harvey Pitt, SEC Chief under George W. Bush until he was forced to resign in 2002. Worked for New Frontier Media, a firm which distributed teen sex videos

Rep. Jon Hinson (R-Miss.)
On Aug. 8, 1980, during his first reelection bid, Hinson stunned everyone by announcing that in 1976 he had been accused of committing an obscene act at a gay haunt in Virginia. Hinson, married and a strong conservative, added that in 1977 he had survived a fire in a gay D.C. movie theater. He was making the disclosure, he said, because he needed to clear his conscience. But he denied he was a homosexual and refused GOP demands that he resign. Hinson won reelection in a three-way race, with 39 percent of the vote. But three months later, he was arrested on charges of attempted oral sodomy in the restroom of a House office building. He resigned his seat on April 13, 1981.

Rep. Ernie Konnyu (R-Calif.)
In August 1987, two former Konnyu aides complained to the San Jose Mercury News that the freshman Republican had sexually harassed them.

A pastor who worked with young adults at New Life Church has admitted sexual misconduct and resigned just weeks after former church leader Ted Haggard stepped down over sexual immorality. Christopher Beard, who headed the ''twentyfourseven'' ministry that taught leadership skills to young adults, resigned Friday, said Rob Brendle, an associate pastor at the 14,000-member church.

On November 3, 2006, he resigned his leadership of the National Association of Evangelicals and stepped aside as pastor of his church after allegations of homosexual sex and drug abuse were made by a former male prostitute and masseur Mike Jones. Mr Jones alleged to the press that Haggard engaged in sex with him for three years and used crystal methamphetamine.

Republican Party Chairman Sam Walls, who is married, was urged to drop his candidacy for Congress when it was found he likes to dress up in women's clothing.

Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency.

A South Carolina lawmaker pleaded no contest Thursday to threatening to beat and sexually assault a man dating his estranged wife. He was fined $500. State Rep. Thad Viers (R), 29, left court immediately and declined to comment. The misdemeanor unlawful communication charge carried a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail. Of course, then we have Evan who has woefully failed to live up to his "high values," whatever the fuck those "values" are.

Anonymous said...

Bush 'Divorced From Reality'

Former Senator blasts US occupation during lively television debate on Iraq

By Chris Gelken

13/04/08 "Oh My News" --- - Analysts and media op-ed writers have spent the past couple of days dissecting and digesting the Iraq War Report Card presented by the US military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and his State Department sidekick Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

Perhaps the two most significant points that those who watched the testimony will remember are (1) no plans for a troop withdrawal for the time being, and (2) Iran is to blame for everything that has gone wrong.

The testimony also contrasted sharply with earlier statements by President George W. Bush and General Petraeus about how "astonishingly normal things have become in Baghdad." One of course has to speculate on what benchmark of normalcy Washington is working to.

At the time of writing, a correspondent colleague of mine had just described by MSN a mad dash out of the Sadr City district of Baghdad after a firefight exploded not 10 feet from where she and other journalists were standing. The word "normalcy" did not feature in her description of events.

Coming as it does against this dramatic increase in violence in Baghdad and elsewhere, the Petraeus-Crocker testimony paints a very odd picture of normalcy -- one that in their words is "fragile and reversible."

In fact, with the exception of rhetoric-filled speeches from Bush himself, the one word we rarely, if ever hear, is that the road to peace, democracy and stability in Iraq is "irreversible."

Appearing on PressTV's political discussion program, "Middle East Today,"
former Senator Mike Gravel said what struck him the most was the repeated reference to "fragile and reversible."

"Obviously the tactic of bribing the Sunni warlords will fail the minute we stop bribing them. And then of course the cowardly act of blaming Iraqi President Nuri al-Maliki for the failure in Basra, of saying it was all his initiative when we were totally complicit."

Gravel said the forces loyal to anti-occupation cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had proven to be much stronger than anticipated and blamed a lack of intelligence for the failure.

Astonishingly, Gravel said, there have been cases where professional Arabic and Farsi linguists have been discharged from the military because they were gay and as a consequence "our intelligence is nonexistent."

Sabrina Schaeffer, a Washington-based political analyst said there are possibly two things that could be taken away from the report.

"The first is that we are making a lot of progress both politically and militarily on the ground. And second that a premature withdrawal would be a disaster, and would overturn what they described as a fragile and reversible situation on the ground," she said.

Sabah Jawad, secretary of the London-based Iraqi Democrats Against War, dismissed reports of progress.

"While there may have been some changes in the months immediately after the surge in US troop levels, in the past few days we have seen some 17 American soldiers killed since Sunday."

He said the United States is still in a quagmire in Iraq and is trying to solve its problems by flexing its muscles and urging the al-Maliki government to take stronger action, especially in the south of Iraq.

Senator Gravel also took issue with Schaeffer's upbeat assessment.

"I really don't understand how Sabrina can come and say there's progress," he said. "But what is worse is the outright lies presented to the American people that Iran is responsible for what is going on."

Gravel said Washington is trying to develop a concept of a proxy war being waged between Iran and Iraq.

"There is no evidence, none at all," he said, "And if you go in deeper into the American military, you have army officers, captains, majors, colonels, who will tell you there is no evidence at all about anything coming over the Iranian border into Iraq. But then you get Petraeus and other generals making these statements."

Gravel wondered how they could make statements that the mortars used on the heavily fortified Green Zone, for example, are coming from Iran. "These are outright lies," he said.

Gravel said he could see the same policy being employed now that was used by the US to widen the war in South East Asia some 40 years ago.

"This is what happened in Vietnam. We went in and attacked Cambodia and Laos. They had nothing to do with what was going on in Vietnam. All it did was expand a murderous part of the South East Asian War."

Gravel said Iran is a natural ally of the United States, "Iran has been helping us stabilize the situation in Iraq until we can come to our senses and get out. Our guest here Sabrina says she sees progress, but even Petraeus admitted he sees no light at the end of the tunnel."

Schaeffer took the floor to clarify what she says are some of the successes.

"I think Petraeus did an excellent job of explaining this incident in Basra, but overall we have seen a reduction in both ethnic and sectarian violence, terrorist attacks are down, the Iraqis are controlling half of their 18 provinces, and we are seeing that al-Qaida in Iraq has significantly diminished," she said, "And I think we can give credit to the troop surge and Petraeus' experience in counterinsurgency intelligence. So I don't think we can underestimate the improvements that are taking place on the ground."

The recent surge in violence, especially in Sadr City that continued over the weekend would not immediately support these views, with correspondents on the scene saying that for the first time they are quite openly seeing snipers on the roofs of buildings and more disturbances on the streets.

Gravel dismissed suggestions that the surge or Petraeus' expertise was responsible for the pre-Basra reduction in the insurgency across Iraq. Gravel said the reduction had been bought with US taxpayer money and that the relative calm would end as quickly as the money did.

"Do you know how much money Petraeus has been handing out to Sunni warlords?" he asked. "To suppress the violence. Do you really have any idea?"

Schaeffer said she acknowledged there is an impulse to want to put a price tag on the cost of the war, but that doing so, or putting a timeline on how long the war would take, "is just irresponsible."

Jawad, taking much the same line as Gravel, was deaf to any claims of progress.

"I will tell you of the successes in Iraq," he said, "One million killed by the US occupation, five million dispersed people internally and externally. More than a million widows, five million orphans, 150,000 people arrested in centers run by the United States in Iraq, and there is a catalogue of catastrophes inflicted on the people of Iraq by this war. And the sooner they withdraw," he added, "the better for all of us."

Schaeffer argued that the picture being painted that the US forces were universally unwelcome was misleading and pointed out that the Iraqi government has vocalized and demonstrated its long-term commitment to cooperation to achieve final and lasting peace and democracy in Iraq.

Gravel, citing independent opinion polls, begged to differ.

"This is an army of occupation, and if you look at the polls the people of Iraq overwhelmingly want us to leave," he said, "and we should honor that."

Gravel said the United States invaded Iraq on the back of fraud and lies by the Bush administration: "This is criminal of the order that should go to the world criminal court."

The former Senator from Alaska said the only way to achieve stability would be for the United States to admit error, and then go to Iraq's neighbors, including Iran, and ask for their help in bringing stability to Iraq.

"Here you have President Ahmadinejad of Iran, who I don't have any particular truck with by the way, but he goes to Iraq and he is more popular than any American official."

The American leader, Gravel said, goes to Iraq and he has to sneak around in the dark of night with total security. "Ahmadinejad goes in there and he is treated as a friend, does that not communicate something to anyone?"

Continuing the war under the illusion that progress is being made, Gravel said, is indicative of how out of touch Bush really is.

"George Bush is not on this planet, truthfully," Gravel said, "He really has no sense of reality of what is going on. Last week he told the American people we are not in a recession, while Alan Greenspan a day later said we were, and this is something the American people know. Bush is divorced from reality whether it's about Iraq, Iran or the economy. He is not plugged into reality."

Gravel said Washington's apparent policy to attack Iran could possibly trigger a nuclear exchange.

Gravel's concerns were shared by Schaeffer, "I think the point that attacking Iran might trigger a nuclear war is what's concerning the Bush administration. We have to take the actions and rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad very seriously. It would be irresponsible not to do so. And I think we have to remember this is a man who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, a man who has denied the Holocaust."

She said here is a man who has vowed to knock down global powers, and we have to assume that he's pointing his finger at the United States.

Schaeffer's comment regarding "wiping Israel off the map" is an oft-quoted mistranslation, but one frequently used to attack Iran's president and his policies.

"Actually he did not say he would wipe Israel off the map," Jawad explained. "This statement has been corrected but it is still repeated by US officials. He did not say this, but I am not surprised to hear this repeated all the time."

The actual statement made by Ahmadinejad called for the "removal of the Zionist regime in Jerusalem from the pages of history." Many experts say that you can "assume" or "infer" Ahmadinejad's real intentions are to wipe Israel off the map, but the simple fact remains, he did not say it. They point out that Washington's aim in invading Iraq was to wipe the Baathist regime in Baghdad from the pages of history, but not to wipe Iraq off the map.

One of the cornerstones of the Petraeus-Crocker report was what they described as the "malign Iranian involvement in Iraq" and Tehran's support for special groups that target American troops and other coalition interests in the country.

President Bush later told a select group at a press conference that America would do what was necessary to prevent Iranian interference in Iraq, a thinly veiled threat of military action.

But Gravel said to his knowledge, there is still no substantiated evidence that Iran is playing a military role in the insurgency.

"It is being fabricated by the White House and being bought into by some of these senior military leaders. This is all part of the neocon plan to gain hegemony, economic hegemony in the Middle East, and that is American imperialism that we have to reverse."

Schaeffer acknowledges that the engagement and cooperation of Iraq's neighbors is an important factor in the eventual stabilization of Iraq and its efforts to achieve peace and democracy.

"But I think, for instance, when Senator Obama talks about opening up diplomatic channels with President Ahmadinejad, I think just helps to legitimize a leader that unfortunately has been irresponsible in his rhetoric."

But as Senator Gravel pointed out earlier in the discussion, being irresponsible in his rhetoric is a description that could just as easily be applied to Bush.

Anonymous said...

Le Monde Staff to Stop Presses Rolling
By Gwladys Fouché
The Guardian UK

Friday 11 April 2008

Staff at Le Monde, France's newspaper of record, will go on strike on Monday to protest against savage job cutting plans, threatening publication of the paper for only the second time in its 64-year history.

Le Monde's management announced last week that 130 jobs would have to go, two-thirds of which will be in the newsroom. The newsroom cuts represent one in four journalists or about 87 staff.

These cuts, which even Le Monde's new management accept are drastic, are part of plans to turn around the loss-making paper.

The 24-hour strike on Monday, April 14, over job cuts could mean that Le Monde's Tuesday edition does not reach newsstands. Le Monde is an evening newspaper, published every day except Sunday, from about lunchtime, and the edition that comes out on Monday will be dated Tuesday, April 15.

"We're going on a 24-hour strike as it is the only answer we have against the extraordinarily violent plan we are faced with," staff representative Christiane Chombeau told MediaGuardian.co.uk.

Chombeau said the proposed cuts also broke with Le Monde's tradition "of not having compulsory redundancies".

Publisher La Vie-Le Monde will also sell several assets, including cult cinema magazine Les Cahiers du Cinema, a monthly magazine on dancing, a religious literature bookshop chain and a publishing house.

Le Monde journalists hoped Monday's strike would stop "the compulsory redundancies and lead management to talk with us," said Chombeau.

"We feel we are being made to pay for the lack of responsibility taken by previous leaders of the paper," Chombeau added.

Le Monde staff are also concerned at how they will function with a reduced editorial staff.

"Already, we don't have an investigative desk and the politics, society and Europe desks have been merged into one 'domestic news' desk," said Chombeau. "We are concerned at how we can run the paper with a quarter less journalists."

Le Monde's management insist the job cuts are necessary. "[They] are imperative," the assistant managing editor, Laurent Greilsamer, told MediaGuardian.co.uk.

"It's a violent plan, which reflects the degree of the wait-and-see policy these past few years. Difficult decisions that had to be taken were not."

Greilsamer is part of a managerial team that recently took over the paper. "The newsroom is in shock. We are going through some very difficult times," he admitted.

Le Monde has been in crisis for several years. The paper had a daily circulation of about 358,000 copies in 2007, down from 398,000 in 2003.

It lost €15m (£12m) in 2007, has not made a profit in seven years, and has accumulated losses of €150m (£120m).

Le Monde's difficult situation reflects that of the French press in general, with overall circulation and profits in decline.

If Le Monde does not come out on Monday, it will be the second time in its history that it has not been on newsstands. In 1976, staff downed tools for a day in solidarity with their colleagues at the France Soir newspaper, which had been sold from one proprietor to another, neither of which was related to Le Monde.

cutandpaste4evil said...

The Left's brave new world...

State police are helping Williamsburg, Blair County, authorities find whomever spiked a pregnant teenage girl’s drink with a drug used to abort pregnancies in cows, a drug they think was stolen from a Williamsburg farm, according to a release.

The pregnant girl’s beverage was tainted with Prostamate sometime between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. March 31 at Williamsburg High School, police said. Troopers are considering the act an aggravated assault upon the girl and her unborn baby, police said.

State police think whoever was responsible was trying to abort the girl’s unborn child, the release indicates.

The drug and a syringe also were reported stolen from a farm in Huston Township, Blair County, police said.

The investigation is continuing.


...coming soon, a man's right to choose

Beamish said...

Evan,

Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton are both stuck on Alinsky's rule #3.

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

Obama doesn't know how to be a victim of mysogyny. Clinton doesn't know how to be a victim of racism.

And since both are leftists, both don't realize they are victims of Alinsky.

wimpwhacker said...

Beamish? Sounds like the kind of fat little GOP gleep I used to stomp on the playground for tattling to the teacher.

Anonymous said...

NEW BUMPER STICKERS FOR '08:
1. Bush: End of an Error
2. That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
3. Let's Fix Democracy in this Country First
4. If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
5. Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
6. If You Can Read This, You're Not Our President
7. Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant!
8. Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
9. George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
10. Impeachment: It's Not Just for Blow Jobs Anymore
11. America: One Nation, Under Surveillance
12. They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It
14. Jail to the Chief
15. No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?
16. We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language
17. We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
18. Is It Vietnam Yet?
20. Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?
21. You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
22. When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
23. Pray For Impeachment
24. The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
25. What Part of "Bush Lied" Don't You Understand?
26. One Nation Under Clod
27. 2004: Embarrassed. 2005: Horrified. 2006: Terrified
28. Bush Never Exhaled
29. At Least Nixon Resigned

Rush Limbaugh's Ghost said...

This 12-year-old kid that the Democrats used in the Saturday radio address to whine and moan and cry to President Bush about the SCHIP children's health program, it turns out that the family of this kid sends its kids to "one of Baltimore's expensive private schools." This family owns a house in a neighborhood of homes valued in the $400,000 to $500,000 range. This family bought commercial property in 1999 for $160,000.

This is Graeme Frost, the 12-year-old, and Frost's father is self-employed. He owns the building in which he works. His father makes about $45,000 a year while his mother is employed at an unspecified salary by a medical publishing house that doesn't provide health insurance coverage. Bottom line. This is from Mark Tapscott, who as an editorial page editor at the Washington Examiner, has been tracking all this on the blogs. "Two points. First, people make choices and it's clear the Frosts have made a choice to invest in property and a business, but not in private health insurance. The Maryland-administered version of the federal SCHIP program, by the way, does not impose an asset test on applicants." It's one of the states where you have no asset test, so anybody can be part of the program! What the Democrats did: "President Bush used his regular Saturday radio address yesterday to explain and defend his veto of the massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) approved last week by Congress. ... An hour later on national radio, the Democrats' response to Bush was delivered by Baltimore private middle school student Graeme Frost, who, along with his sister, was seriously injured in an auto accident three years ago.

"His response to Bush was actually recorded earlier in the week and Matthew Hay Brown, a reporter from The Baltimore Sun, interviewed the young man after he did his recording. Frost said his parents work hard to provide for him and his sister, but one thing they can't afford is private health insurance, so they have to depend upon the government program, Brown reported for The Sun. Perfect illustration of why the SCHIP program should be expanded, right? Actually, no, because the Sun only reported the Democratic version of the story and we can't depend upon a mainstream media outlet like the Sun to get the rest of the story." Well, the rest of the story is: "It turns out the Frost family sends its kids to one of Baltimore's expensive private schools, owns a house in a neighborhood of homes valued in the $400,000-500,000 range and bought commercial property in 1999 for $160,000." What's the upshot of all this? This is nothing new. The Democrats lie! They have to in order to make their case. What was seductive to them was that this young man and his sister were severely injured in an auto accident, and they didn't have private insurance. "That's all we needed. That's all. Just smear the president. That's all we needed. We don't need any other details, because we know that our buddies in the mainstream media are not going to uncover the details, and, if they do uncover 'em, they're not going to report 'em -- and when they do get uncovered a couple weeks later, a day later, the story is already ours. We already own it."

So the bottom line for me is: They can't rely on truth to make their case for their cause. They have to lie. Be it about me, be it about their own voters (such as the Frosts) be it about President Bush, they must lie -- and anybody who stands in the way of their succeeding with that lie becomes an enemy, becomes a target. That's where I and my buddies in talk radio come in. We are a thorn in their side because we represent the truth they are trying to hide, the truth that they are lying about, and they have to do something about it -- and they have to do that by lying. The truth will not help 'em. The truth is inconvenient to today's Democrat Party and today's left. "Fiction" is their byword. Make it up. Make sure people cry about it. Have a lot of emotion attached to the fiction, and have no guilt about it. "Once you get past the lying, the rest is easy," is their philosophy. The kid, Graeme Frost, in one of his radio addresses, asked the question: "Why doesn't President Bush want children to have health care?" They send the kid out to lie. They filled this kid's head with lies just as they have some of these soldiers about me. Put lies in the kid's head or put it on the script that he's reading. He goes out and reads it. He's 12-years-old! They will use anybody! They'll corrupt anybody, to get where they're headed. That's who they are, folks.

eric swift hubble looked into the evil darkness and said...

wooow...pooor losers...the child swiftboating has been debunked ages ago...and these poor morons are still using it!!!! Hey, bro, have you heard of the defenestration of Prague? Maybe you can work that in. One hilarious site...if you like a morbid freak show...have any of you read Beckett's End Game? This is a living...well, dying example.

Anonymous said...

Yet another change in the ever-changing mission:

Iran - The New Motivation for US War in Iraq


CRAWFORD - The US rationale for war in Iraq has morphed from ousting strongman Saddam Hussein, to countering Al-Qaeda militants to its latest incarnation — facing down what officials in President George W. Bush’s administration call the Iranian “threat”.

“Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century: Al-Qaeda and Iran,” Bush said last week, renewing accusations that the Islamic republic is backing Iraqi militias hostile to US forces and covertly seeking nuclear weapons.

“If we succeed in Iraq after all that Al-Qaeda and Iran have invested there, it would be a historic blow to the global terrorist movement and a severe setback for Iran,” he said.

With Saddam dead and Al-Qaeda weakened — according to Bush — Iranian-financed extremists, which top US commander in Iraq David Petraeus has called “special groups,” have emerged as a key reason for maintaining US troop levels in Iraq.

“Unchecked, the ’special groups’ pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq,” Petraeus said last week as he told US lawmakers of military strategy in Iraq for the coming months.

However, exactly what steps the United States may take to counter this “threat” remain unclear, and depend largely on Bush’s decisions in his remaining nine months in the White House.

Bush told ABC News that he had no intention of attacking Iran, but vowed to protect US interests and refused to rule out the use of force altogether.

“The message to the Iranians is: we will bring you to justice if you continue to try to infiltrate, send your agents or send surrogates to bring harm to our troops and/or the Iraqi citizens,” Bush said.

Asked to elaborate on this “justice,” Bush replied: “It means capture or kill, is what that means.”

Bush repeated that “all options need to be on the table, but my first effort is to solve this issue diplomatically,” and added that he was amused by unfounded rumors of an impending attack.

“I’m chuckling, because, you know, from my perch, my perspective, these rumors happen all the time … I wouldn’t say they’re amusing. It’s part of the job, I guess.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday confirmed US concern with Iranian actions but said the chances of the United States “stumbling” into a confrontation with Iran through skirmishes in Iraq “are very low.”

“We are concerned about their activities in the south. We are concerned about the weapons that they are sending in — that they continue to send in to Iraq,” Gates told CBS.

The defense secretary noted that a recent government offensive against Shiite militias in the southern Iraqi city of Basra had revealed “the level of Iranian malign influence in the south and on their economic heart line through Basra.”

In London, The Independent newspaper reported Monday that the United States and Iran have been conducting secret back-channel discussions on Tehran’s nuclear program and frozen relations between the two countries.

The paper quoted former US under secretary of state Thomas Pickering as saying that a group of former US diplomats and foreign policy experts had been meeting with Iranian academics and policy advisers “in a lot of different places, although not in the US or Iran” for the past five years.

Still, speculation has been rife over a potential US conflict with Iran, which is pressing on with its nuclear activities despite three sets of UN sanctions over Iran’s failure to heed repeated ultimatums to suspend uranium enrichment.

US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker has framed Iranian activities in Iraq as a “proxy war” with the Americans, even as administration officials have hailed the retreat of Al-Qaeda due to increasing involvement by Sunni tribal chiefs.

Crocker on Friday foresaw a similar reaction in Iraq, saying that Iran’s support for militias fighting the Iraqi government may cause a Shiite “backlash.”

Yet the Bush administration has launched “an inter-agency assessment of what is known about Iranian activities and intentions, how to combat them and how to capitalize on them,” the Washington Post reported Saturday.

Brookings Institution expert Suzanne Maloney said that “disastrous Bush policies fostered a sectarian Iraq that has helped empower Iranian hardliners.

“Rather than serving as an anchor for a new era of stability and American pre-eminence in the Persian Gulf, the new Iraq represents a strategic black hole, bleeding Washington of military resources and political influence while extending Iran’s primacy among its neighbors.”

© 2008 Agence France Presse

The first Bush-Gore debate (Oct 3 2000):

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about, as president, deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it’s in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are — our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today’s military is too low. We’re having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we’re overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It’s to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.

FROM THINKPROGRESS:

The Ever Changing Definition of ‘Mission’ In Iraq
In June 2005, ThinkProgress noted the Bush was constantly revisingthe definition of our “mission” in Iraq.

Reporting on his escalation strategy this week, President Bush claimed “satisfactory” [whatever the hell he meant by that] progress in many areas of the
“new mission”

in Iraq. Bush has changed the definition of our “mission” in Iraq so many times, he has made it impossible for the American public, U.S. forces, and the Iraqi population to have any confidence that the mission will be ever completed.

THE PRE-WAR MISSION WAS TO RID IRAQ OF WMD

Bush: “Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.” [3/6/03]

AFTER THE WAR BEGAN, THE MISSION EXPANDED

Bush: “Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” [3/22/03]

Bush: “Our forces have been given a clear mission: to end a regime that threatened its neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction and to free a people that had suffered far too long.” [4/14/03]

THEN THE MISSION WAS COMPLETE

Bush: “On Thursday, I visited the USS Abraham Lincoln, now headed home after the longest carrier deployment in recent history. I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: Their mission is complete, and major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” [5/3/03]

BUT THEN IT CONTINUED AGAIN

Bush: “The United States and our allies will complete our mission in Iraq.” [7/30/03]

THEN THE MISSION WAS TO DEVELOP A FREE IRAQ

Bush: “That has been our mission all along, to develop the conditions such that a free Iraq will emerge, run by the Iraqi citizens.” [11/4/03]

Bush: “We will see that Iraq is free and self-governing and democratic. We will accomplish our mission.” [5/4/04]

AND TO TRAIN THE IRAQI TROOPS

Bush: “And our mission is clear there, as well, and that is to train the Iraqis so they can do the fighting; make sure they can stand up to defend their freedoms, which they want to do.” [6/2/05]

Bush: “We’re making progress toward the goal, which is, on the one hand, a political process moving forward in Iraq, and on the other hand, the Iraqis capable of defending themselves. And we will — we will complete this mission for the sake of world peace.” [6/20/05]

THEN IT SHIFTED TO ADVANCING DEMOCRACY

Bush: “We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission. … Advancing the ideal of democracy and self-government is the mission that created our nation — and now it is the calling of a new generation of Americans.” [11/30/05]

AND PROTECTING AMERICA FROM TERRORISTS

Bush: “In the coming days, there will be considerable reflection on the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and our remaining mission in Iraq…By helping the Iraqi people build a free and representative government, we will deny the terrorists a safe haven to plan attacks against America.”
[3/11/06]

Bush: “We will finish the mission. By defeating the terrorists in Iraq, we will bring greater security to our own country. And when victory is achieved, our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.”
[3/18/06]


THEN THE MISSION WAS PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE IRAQI POPULATION

Bush: “In fact, we have a new strategy with a new mission: helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad. Our plan puts Iraqis in the lead.”

[1/13/07]

Bush: “[I]t’s the combination of providing security in neighborhoods through these joint security stations, and training that is the current mission we’re going through, with a heavy emphasis on security in Baghdad.”

[4/10/07]

AND NOW?

Bush: “It’s a new mission. And David Petraeus is in Iraq carrying it out. Its goal is to help the Iraqis make progress toward reconciliation — to build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and is an ally against the extremists in this war.”

[6/28/07]

7:10 PM

Anonymous said...

Financial Collapse will End the Occupation:

And it won't be "A time of our choosing"

By Mike Whitney

“Come and see our overflowing morgues and find our little ones for us...
You may find them in this corner or the other, a little hand poking out, pointing out at you...
Come and search for them in the rubble of your "surgical" air raids, you may find a little leg or a little head...pleading for your attention.
Come and see them amassed in the garbage dumps, scavenging morsels of food...
Come and see, come..." "Flying Kites” Layla Anwar


14/04/08 "ICH " -- - The US Military has won every battle it has fought in Iraq, but it has lost the war. Wars are won politically, not militarily. Bush doesn't understand this. He still clings to the belief that a political settlement can be imposed through force. But he is mistaken. The use of overwhelming force has only spread the violence and added to the political instability. Now Iraq is ungovernable. Was that the objective? Miles of concrete blast-walls snake through Baghdad to separate the warring parties; the country is fragmented into a hundred smaller pieces each ruled by local militia commanders. These are the signs of failure not success. That's why the American people no longer support the occupation. They're just being practical; they know Bush's plan won't work. As Nir Rosen says, “Iraq has become Somalia”.

The administration still supports Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki, but al-Maliki is a meaningless figurehead who will have no effect on the country's future. He has no popular base of support and controls nothing beyond the walls of the Green Zone. The al-Maliki government is merely an Arab facade designed to convince the American people that political progress is being made, but there is no progress. Its a sham. The future is in the hands of the men with guns; they're the ones who have divided Iraq into locally-controlled fiefdoms and they are the one's who will ultimately decide who will rule the state. At present, the fighting between the factions is being described as “sectarian warfare”, but the term is intentionally misleading. The fighting is political in nature; the various militias are competing with each other to see who will fill the vacuum left by the removal of Saddam. It's a power struggle. The media likes to portray the conflict as a clash between half-crazed Arabs--"dead-enders and terrorists"---who relish the idea killing their countrymen, but that's just a way of demonizing the enemy. In truth, the violence is entirely rational; it is the inevitable reaction to the dissolution of the state and the occupation by foreign troops. Many military experts predicted that there would be outbreaks of fighting after the initial invasion, but their warnings were shrugged off by clueless politicians and the cheerleading media. Now the violence has flared up again in Basra and Baghdad, and there is no end in sight. Only one thing seems certain, Iraq's future will not be decided at the ballot box. Bush has made sure of that.

The US military does not rule Iraq nor does it have the power to control events on the ground. It's just one of many militias vieing for power in a state that is ruled by warlords. After the army conducts combat operations, it is forced to retreat to its camps and bases. This point needs to be emphasized in order to understand that there is no real future for the occupation. The US simply does not have the manpower to hold territory or to establish security. In fact, the presence of American troops incites violence because they are seen as forces of occupation, not liberators. Survey's show that the vast majority of the Iraqi people want US troops to leave. The military has destroyed too much of the country and slaughtered too many people to expect that these attitudes will change anytime soon. Iraqi poet and blogger Layla Anwar sums up the feelings of many of the war's victims in a recent post on her web site "An Arab Women's Blues":

"At the gates of Babylon the Great, you are still struggling, fighting away, chasing this or the other, detaining, bombing from above, filling up morgues, hospitals, graveyards and embassies and borders with quesesfor exit-visas.

Not one Iraqi wishes your presence. Not one Iraqi accepts your occupation.

Got news for you Motherfuckers, you will never control Iraq, not in six years, not in ten years, not in 20 years....You have brought upon yourself the hate and the curse of all Iraqis, Arabs and the rest of the world...now face your agony." (Layla Anwar; "An Arab Women's Blues: Reflections in a sealed bottle"

Is Bush hoping to change the mind of Layla or the millions of other Iraqis who have lost loved ones or been forced into exile or seen their country and culture crushed beneath the bootheel of foreign occupation? The hearts and minds campaign is lost. The US will never be welcome in Iraq.

According to a survey in the British Medical Journal "Lancet" more than a million Iraqis have been killed in the war. Another four million have been either internally-displaced or have fled the country. But the figures tell us nothing about the magnitude of the disaster that Bush has caused by attacking Iraq. The invasion is the greatest human catastrophe in the Middle East since the Nakba in 1948. Living standards have declined precipitously in every area---infant mortality, clean water, food-security, medical supplies, education, electrical power, employment etc. Even oil production is still below pre-war levels. The invasion is the most comprehensive policy failure since Vietnam; everything has gone wrong. The heart of the Arab world has descended into chaos. The suffering is incalculable.

The main problem is the occupation; it is the primary catalyst for violence and an obstacle to political settlement. As long as the occupation persists, so will the fighting. The claims that the so-called surge has changed the political landscape are greatly exaggerated. Retired Lt. General William Odom commented on this point in an interview on the Jim Lerher News Hour:

"The surge has sustained military instability and achieved nothing in political consolidation....Things are much worse now. And I don't see them getting any better. This was foreseeable a year and a half ago. And to continue to put the cozy veneer of comfortable half-truths on this is to deceive the American public and to make them think it is not the charade it is.....When you say that the Lebanization of Iraq is taking place, yes, but not because of Iran, but because the U.S. went in and made this kind of fragmentation possible. And it has occurred over the last five years....The al-Maliki government is worse off now...The notion that there;'s some kind of progress is absurd. The al-Maliki government uses its Ministry of Interior like a death squad militia. So to call Sadr an extremist and Maliki a good guy just overlooks the reality that there are no good guys." (Jim Lerher News Hour)

The war in Iraq was lost before the first shot was fired. The conflict never had the support of the American people and Iraq never posed a threat to US national security. The whole pretext for the war was based on lies; it was a coup orchestrated by elites and the media to carry out a far-right agenda. Now the mission has failed, but no one wants to admit their mistakes by withdrawing; so the butchery continues without pause.

How Will It End?

The Bush administration has decided to pursue a strategy that is unprecedented in US history. It has decided to continue to prosecute a war that has already been lost morally, strategically, and militarily. But fighting a losing war has its costs. America is much weaker now than it was when Bush first took office in 2000; politically, economically and militarily. US power and prestige around the world will continue to deteriorate until the troops are withdrawn from Iraq. But that's unlikely to happen until all other options have been exhausted. Deteriorating economic conditions in the financial markets are putting enormous downward pressure on the dollar. The corporate bond and equities markets are in disarray; the banking system is collapsing, consumer spending is down, tax revenues are falling, and the country is headed into a painful and protracted recession. The US will leave Iraq sooner than many pundits believe, but it will not be at a time of our choosing. Rather, the conflict will end when the United States no longer has the capacity to wage war. That time is not far off.

The Iraq War signals the end of US interventionism for at least a generation; maybe longer. The ideological foundation for the war (preemption/regime change) has been exposed as a baseless justification for unprovoked aggression. Someone will have to be held accountable. There will have to be international tribunals to determine who is responsible in the deaths of over one million Iraqis.

Anonymous said...

Uri Avnery congratulates Carter for decision to meet with Hamas leaders

Tel-Aviv, April 13, 2008

To
Mr. Jimmy Carter
Former President of the United States

Dear Mr. President

I am writing to you on behalf of Gush Shalom, The Israeli Peace Bloc, to congratulate you on your wise and courageous decision to meet in Damascus with Hamas leaders and talk with them on the ways to promote peace in our region. I believe this is an act whose time had come - or rather, is already long overdue - and I would have liked the Government of Israel to avail itself of your position, your prestige and your tireless energy, in order to help end the suffering and bloodshed among both peoples.

As an increasing number of people are coming to realize, the policy of boycotting Hamas, starting on the day that the movement won the democratic elections held among the Palestinians, has failed utterly and caused terrible suffering and bloodshed to both peoples. The Government of Israel, with the support of the present US Administration, has undertaken large and small military operations; constantly sought to foment civil war among Palestinians; and imposed an inhuman economic boycott of the Gaza Strip, which exactly today reaches a cruel new peak with the denial of fuel to a million and half people. Not only did all these acts fail to break Hamas' power; on the contrary, they resulted in increasing its popular support and severely weakening Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen) who is more and more perceived as a collaborator, unable to bring his people any real achievement.

The time has come to turn a new page, based on recognition of reality: Hamas is a significant force among Palestinians, and will continue to be such, for better or worse, in the foreseeable future. It is impossible to reach an Israeli-Palestinian Agreement - and actually implement it - without Hamas being a party to that agreement.

Your visit to our region, Mr. President, has the potential of imparting an enormous momentum to removing the obstacles presently hindering serious negotiations aimed at ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands conquered in 1967. To the mind of myself the my fellow activists, what is most urgently needed at present includes:

* A full ceasefire, between all Israelis and all Palestinians, which will proved a safe daily life to the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip as to those of the Israeli communities near to it;

* Removal of the shameful economic siege, which is a terrible collective punishment for Gaza inhabitants of Gaza;

* Achieving at last an exchange of prisoners which would restore to their homes and families the captured Israeli soldier Gil’ead Shalit as well as a significant number of Palestinian prisoners

* Encouraging the creation of a Palestinian National Unity Government, representing all important factions and able to negotiate on behalf of the entire Palestinian people - instead of the complete veto which the governments of Israel and the US at present impose on the creation of such a government among Palestinians.

It would have been best for all of us, Mr. President, were you able to go to Damascus with a full mandate from the Government of Israel and from you successor in the White House, to promote to the best of your ability the solution to the conflict in our region and the end to both peoples' suffering. But even in the absence of an official government mandate, know that you are going to Damascus with the warm regards and full support of the peace seekers in Israel.

Most Sincerely Yours

Uri Avnery
Former Member of the Knesset
On behalf of Gush Shalom
(The Israeli Peace Bloc)

Anonymous said...

War in Iraq wrong for 62% of Americans



Many adults in the United States regret their government’s decision to launch the coalition effort, according to a poll by CBS News and the New York Times. 62 per cent of respondents think the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq.


The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein’s regime was launched in March 2003. At least 4,031 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and 29,600 troops have been wounded in action.

In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May 2006, Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as prime minister.

In September 2007, commander of the Multi-National Force - Iraq David Petraeus and U.S. ambassador in Iraq Ryan Crocker provided a comprehensive assessment of the situation in Iraq to the U.S. Congress. In addition, U.S. president George W. Bush said U.S. forces in Iraq would be reduced by 5,700 troops in December. After July 2008, all troop withdrawals from Iraq will be suspended.

On Apr. 8, Arizona senator John McCain—the presumptive presidential nominee for the Republican Party in this year’s United States election—discussed his views on Iraq, saying, ""I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for president that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility.""

Anonymous said...

Fourth-largest US bank resorts to emergency fundraising

America's fourth-largest bank, Wachovia, is raising $7bn (£3.52bn) through emergency fundraising as the subprime mortgage crisis in the US continues to reverberate through the banking sector.

Wachovia is raising the funds through public offerings of common and convertible preference stock after incurring a surprise $350m loss in the first quarter of 2008 compared with $2.3bn in profit a year earlier.

The news came today as two of the biggest names in Wall Street - Citigroup and Merrill Lynch - were poised to report huge write-downs because of the continuing credit crisis. Analysts are bracing themselves for total write-downs of $17bn when the two banks report their quarterly results later this week.

At North Carolina-based Wachovia, the loss was caused by a rise in provisions against loans which had turned sour, particularly mortgages hit in the housing downturn. These option adjustable rate mortgages begin with a low interest rate, which is then replaced by a heftier charge.

Wachovia's chief executive, Ken Thompson, blamed the "precipitous decline in housing market conditions and unprecedented changes in consumer behaviour" for the figures. The group bought Golden West Financial Corp, a specialist in these adjustable rate mortgages, just before the home loan market plunged. It has set aside $2.8bn for credit related losses compared with $177m in the same quarter last year before the home loan crisis began.

To conserve $2bn of funds, Wachovia is cutting its quarterly dividend by 41% to 37.5 cents per share.

Other US banks have taken action to raise new funds and have tended to approach investors with deep pockets such as sovereign wealth funds.

Wachovia's decision to raise capital and cut its dividend comes at a time when speculation is mounting that banks in the UK will have to take action to bolster their balance sheets.

Mortgage lender Bradford & Bingley has denied reports that it is planning to tap its shareholders for new funds through a rights issue while analysts believe Alliance & Leicester and Royal Bank of Scotland may also be candidates for fundraising exercises.

Shares in B&B fell by 7% in early trading to 155.5p, although they recovered to close down 1.75p, or 1%, at 165.50p.
Printable version Send to a friend Share Clip Contact us larger | smaller ShareClose Digg reddit Google Bookmarks Yahoo! My Web del.icio.us StumbleUpon Newsvine livejournal Facebook BlinkList EmailClose Recipient's email address Your name Add a note (optional)

Contact usClose Contact the Business editor
business.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk Report errors or inaccuracies: userhelp@guardian.co.uk
Letters for publication should be sent to: letters@guardian.co.uk
If you need help using the site: userhelp@guardian.co.uk
Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard:
+44 (0)20 7278 2332

Advertising guide
License/buy our content
Business
US housing and sub-prime crisis · Credit crunch · US economy · Bradford & Bingley · Merrill Lynch · Citigroup
World newsPrintable version Send to a friend Share Clip Contact us
Article history About this articleClose This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Monday April 14 2008. It was last updated at 17:53 on April 14 2008.
ShareClose Digg reddit Google Bookmarks Yahoo! My Web del.icio.us StumbleUpon Newsvine livejournal Facebook BlinkList EmailClose Recipient's email address Your name Add a note (optional)

Contact usClose Contact the Business editor
business.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk Report errors or inaccuracies: userhelp@guardian.co.uk
Letters for publication should be sent to: letters@guardian.co.uk
If you need help using the site: userhelp@guardian.co.uk
Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard:
+44 (0)20 7278 2332

Advertising guide
License/buy our content

Latest news on guardian.co.uk
Last updated less than one minute ago

News
House prices fall at fastest rate since 1978
Sport
Heskey leaves Blues' hopes in tatters
Business
Fourth-largest US bank resorts to emergency fundraisingSponsored features


Partner Marketing & Communications
the sg group. can you demonstrate some truly exceptional partner…. £400 - £550 per day.

Financial Controller (Band 8A)
allen lane financial recruitment. this is a newly created position tasked with suppo…. £42,000 - £46,000.

Business Growth Manager - Top international invest…
huntress search ltd. business growth manager - top international invest…. Negotiable salary + Excellent benefits.

Browse senior executive jobs
License/buy our content | Privacy policy | Terms & conditions | Advertising guide | Accessibility | A-Z index | About guardian.co.uk | Join our dating site today
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

Anonymous said...

Men Explain Things to Me: Facts Didn't Get in Their Way
By Rebecca Solnit

I still don't know why Sallie and I bothered to go to that party in the forest slope above Aspen. The people were all older than us and dull in a distinguished way, old enough that we, at forty-ish, passed as the occasion's young ladies. The house was great - if you like Ralph Lauren-style chalets - a rugged luxury cabin at 9,000 feet complete with elk antlers, lots of kilims, and a wood-burning stove. We were preparing to leave, when our host said, "No, stay a little longer so I can talk to you." He was an imposing man who'd made a lot of money.

He kept us waiting while the other guests drifted out into the summer night, and then sat us down at his authentically grainy wood table and said to me, "So? I hear you've written a couple of books."

I replied, "Several, actually."

He said, in the way you encourage your friend's seven-year-old to describe flute practice, "And what are they about?"

They were actually about quite a few different things, the six or seven out by then, but I began to speak only of the most recent on that summer day in 2003, River of Shadows: Eadweard Muybridge and the Technological Wild West, my book on the annihilation of time and space and the industrialization of everyday life.

He cut me off soon after I mentioned Muybridge. "And have you heard about the very important Muybridge book that came out this year?"

So caught up was I in my assigned role as ingénue that I was perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that another book on the same subject had come out simultaneously and I'd somehow missed it. He was already telling me about the very important book - with that smug look I know so well in a man holding forth, eyes fixed on the fuzzy far horizon of his own authority.

Here, let me just say that my life is well-sprinkled with lovely men, with a long succession of editors who have, since I was young, listened and encouraged and published me, with my infinitely generous younger brother, with splendid friends of whom it could be said - like the Clerk in The Canterbury Tales I still remember from Mr. Pelen's class on Chaucer - "gladly would he learn and gladly teach." Still, there are these other men, too. So, Mr. Very Important was going on smugly about this book I should have known when Sallie interrupted him to say, "That's her book." Or tried to interrupt him anyway.

But he just continued on his way. She had to say, "That's her book" three or four times before he finally took it in. And then, as if in a nineteenth-century novel, he went ashen. That I was indeed the author of the very important book it turned out he hadn't read, just read about in the New York Times Book Review a few months earlier, so confused the neat categories into which his world was sorted that he was stunned speechless - for a moment, before he began holding forth again. Being women, we were politely out of earshot before we started laughing, and we've never really stopped.

I like incidents of that sort, when forces that are usually so sneaky and hard to point out slither out of the grass and are as obvious as, say, an anaconda that's eaten a cow or an elephant turd on the carpet.

When River of Shadows came out, some pedant wrote a snarky letter to the New York Times explaining that, though Muybridge had made improvements in camera technology, he had not made any breakthroughs in photographic chemistry. The guy had no idea what he was talking about. Both Philip Prodger, in his wonderful book on Muybridge, and I had actually researched the subject and made it clear that Muybridge had done something obscure but powerful to the wet-plate technology of the time to speed it up amazingly, but letters to the editor don't get fact-checked. And perhaps because the book was about the virile subjects of cinema and technology, the Men Who Knew came out of the woodwork.

A British academic wrote in to the London Review of Books with all kinds of nitpicking corrections and complaints, all of them from outer space. He carped, for example, that to aggrandize Muybridge's standing I left out technological predecessors like Henry R. Heyl. He'd apparently not read the book all the way to page 202 or checked the index, since Heyl was there (though his contribution was just not very significant). Surely one of these men has died of embarrassment, but not nearly publicly enough.

The Slippery Slope of Silencings

Yes, guys like this pick on other men's books too, and people of both genders pop up at events to hold forth on irrelevant things and conspiracy theories, but the out-and-out confrontational confidence of the totally ignorant is, in my experience, gendered. Men explain things to me, and other women, whether or not they know what they're talking about. Some men.

Every woman knows what I'm talking about. It's the presumption that makes it hard, at times, for any woman in any field; that keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men's unsupported overconfidence.

I wouldn't be surprised if part of the trajectory of American politics since 2001 was shaped by, say, the inability to hear Coleen Rowley, the FBI woman who issued those early warnings about al-Qaeda, and it was certainly shaped by a Bush administration to which you couldn't tell anything, including that Iraq had no links to al-Qaeda and no WMDs, or that the war was not going to be a "cakewalk." (Even male experts couldn't penetrate the fortress of their smugness.)

Arrogance might have had something to do with the war, but this syndrome is a war that nearly every woman faces every day, a war within herself too, a belief in her superfluity, an invitation to silence, one from which a fairly nice career as a writer (with a lot of research and facts correctly deployed) has not entirely freed me. After all, there was a moment there when I was willing to let Mr. Important and his overweening confidence bowl over my more shaky certainty.

Don't forget that I've had a lot more confirmation of my right to think and speak than most women, and I've learned that a certain amount of self-doubt is a good tool for correcting, understanding, listening, and progressing - though too much is paralyzing and total self-confidence produces arrogant idiots, like the ones who have governed us since 2001. There's a happy medium between these poles to which the genders have been pushed, a warm equatorial belt of give and take where we should all meet.

More extreme versions of our situation exist in, for example, those Middle Eastern countries where women's testimony has no legal standing; so that a woman can't testify that she was raped without a male witness to counter the male rapist. Which there rarely is.

Credibility is a basic survival tool. When I was very young and just beginning to get what feminism was about and why it was necessary, I had a boyfriend whose uncle was a nuclear physicist. One Christmas, he was telling - as though it were a light and amusing subject - how a neighbor's wife in his suburban bomb-making community had come running out of her house naked in the middle of the night screaming that her husband was trying to kill her. How, I asked, did you know that he wasn't trying to kill her? He explained, patiently, that they were respectable middle-class people. Therefore, her-husband-trying-to-kill-her was simply not a credible explanation for her fleeing the house yelling that her husband was trying to kill her. That she was crazy, on the other hand....

Even getting a restraining order - a fairly new legal tool - requires acquiring the credibility to convince the courts that some guy is a menace and then getting the cops to enforce it. Restraining orders often don't work anyway. Violence is one way to silence people, to deny their voice and their credibility, to assert your right to control over their right to exist. About three women a day are murdered by spouses or ex-spouses in this country. It's one of the main causes of death in pregnant women in the U.S. At the heart of the struggle of feminism to give rape, date rape, marital rape, domestic violence, and workplace sexual harassment legal standing as crimes has been the necessity of making women credible and audible.

I tend to believe that women acquired the status of human beings when these kinds of acts started to be taken seriously, when the big things that stop us and kill us were addressed legally from the mid-1970s on; well after, that is, my birth. And for anyone about to argue that workplace sexual intimidation isn't a life or death issue, remember that Marine Lance Corporal Maria Lauterbach, age 20, was apparently killed by her higher-ranking colleague last winter while she was waiting to testify that he raped her. The burned remains of her pregnant body were found in the fire pit in his backyard in December.

Being told that, categorically, he knows what he's talking about and she doesn't, however minor a part of any given conversation, perpetuates the ugliness of this world and holds back its light. After my book Wanderlust came out in 2000, I found myself better able to resist being bullied out of my own perceptions and interpretations. On two occasions around that time, I objected to the behavior of a man, only to be told that the incidents hadn't happened at all as I said, that I was subjective, delusional, overwrought, dishonest - in a nutshell, female.

Most of my life, I would have doubted myself and backed down. Having public standing as a writer of history helped me stand my ground, but few women get that boost, and billions of women must be out there on this six-billion-person planet being told that they are not reliable witnesses to their own lives, that the truth is not their property, now or ever. This goes way beyond Men Explaining Things, but it's part of the same archipelago of arrogance.

Men explain things to me, still. And no man has ever apologized for explaining, wrongly, things that I know and they don't. Not yet, but according to the actuarial tables, I may have another forty-something years to live, more or less, so it could happen. Though I'm not holding my breath.

Women Fighting on Two Fronts

A few years after the idiot in Aspen, I was in Berlin giving a talk when the Marxist writer Tariq Ali invited me out to a dinner that included a male writer and translator and three women a little younger than me who would remain deferential and mostly silent throughout the dinner. Tariq was great. Perhaps the translator was peeved that I insisted on playing a modest role in the conversation, but when I said something about how Women Strike for Peace, the extraordinary, little-known antinuclear and antiwar group founded in 1961, helped bring down the communist-hunting House Committee on Un-American Activities, HUAC, Mr. Very Important II sneered at me. HUAC, he insisted, didn't exist by the early 1960s and, anyway, no women's group played such a role in HUAC's downfall. His scorn was so withering, his confidence so aggressive, that arguing with him seemed a scary exercise in futility and an invitation to more insult.

I think I was at nine books at that point, including one that drew from primary documents and interviews about Women Strike for Peace. But explaining men still assume I am, in some sort of obscene impregnation metaphor, an empty vessel to be filled with their wisdom and knowledge. A Freudian would claim to know what they have and I lack, but intelligence is not situated in the crotch - even if you can write one of Virginia Woolf's long mellifluous musical sentences about the subtle subjugation of women in the snow with your willie. Back in my hotel room, I Googled a bit and found that Eric Bentley in his definitive history of the House Committee on Un-American Activities credits Women Strike for Peace with "striking the crucial blow in the fall of HUAC's Bastille." In the early 1960s.

So I opened an essay for the Nation with this interchange, in part as a shout-out to one of the more unpleasant men who have explained things to me: Dude, if you're reading this, you're a carbuncle on the face of humanity and an obstacle to civilization. Feel the shame.

The battle with Men Who Explain Things has trampled down many women - of my generation, of the up-and-coming generation we need so badly, here and in Pakistan and Bolivia and Java, not to speak of the countless women who came before me and were not allowed into the laboratory, or the library, or the conversation, or the revolution, or even the category called human.

After all, Women Strike for Peace was founded by women who were tired of making the coffee and doing the typing and not having any voice or decision-making role in the antinuclear movement of the 1950s. Most women fight wars on two fronts, one for whatever the putative topic is and one simply for the right to speak, to have ideas, to be acknowledged to be in possession of facts and truths, to have value, to be a human being. Things have certainly gotten better, but this war won't end in my lifetime. I'm still fighting it, for myself certainly, but also for all those younger women who have something to say, in the hope that they will get to say it.

--------

So many men, so little time; Rebecca Solnit left out hundreds more anecdotes of her own and her friends' experiences of being hectored to craft this tirade, which should in no way be taken as an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. She is on chapter eighteen of her next book.

Anonymous said...

Bush (ha, ha, ha) legacy:

By Kenneth T. Walsh

Posted April 11, 2008



President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can't be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush's presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success. Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the historians rated Bush's presidency in last place. Among the reasons given for his low ratings: invading Iraq, "tax breaks for the rich," and alienating many nations around the world. Bush supporters counter that professional historians today tend to be liberal and that it's too early to assess how his policies will turn out.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/04/11/the-first-draft-of-history-looks-a-bit-rough-on-bush.html

Evan is a boil on the ass of society said...

Looks like Sayet finally realized he had nothing worthwhile to say about anything, so he gave up. Good for him for coming to that reasonable conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Texas' Iraq
By JEFF CARLTON
Associated Press
DALLAS — More than 800 employees at Texas' 13 large facilities for the mentally and developmentally disabled have been suspended or fired for abusing patients since fiscal year 2004, state officials said today.

In response to an open records request from The Associated Press, the Department of Aging and Disability Services said that 239 employees were fired in fiscal year 2007 for the abuse, neglect or exploitation of residents.

There were 200 such disciplinary actions in 2006, 203 in 2005 and 180 in 2004, according to state records. The 13 state schools and centers combined have about 12,000 full-time employees.

The revelations come a month after Gov. Rick Perry's office confirmed that the civil rights department at the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating allegations of abuse and neglect at the Denton State School, the state's largest with about 650 residents. It's at least the second such investigation into state facilities, including one at the Lubbock State School in 2006 that revealed widespread abuse.

An advocate for the mentally retarded called the number of employees disciplined "stunning."

"It indicates to me that there is clearly a culture of abuse or neglect in these facilities," said Jeff Garrison-Tate, president of San Antonio-based Community Now.

Texas has 13 large institutions, called state schools or centers, in which nearly 5,000 mentally retarded or mentally ill residents live full-time with round-the-clock care. That's about five times the national average. By comparison, New York and California combined have about 4,600 residents living in 17 institutions, according to data compiled by United Cerebral Palsy.

State records show more than 450 incidents of verified abuse or neglect in fiscal year 2007, a year in which the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services investigated nearly 3,500 allegations at state schools. About 51 percent of the confirmed incidents involved neglect of residents, 31 percent involved physical abuse and 16 percent involved emotional or verbal abuse.

State officials also acknowledge at least three state school residents have died since 2002 in which abuse or neglect by caretakers was a factor.

Laura Albrecht, a spokeswoman for the Aging and Disability Services office, said the firings and suspensions reflect the state's "strict policy" on abuse and neglect.

"We have gotten even tougher," Albrecht said. "Our employees go through training to recognize abuse and neglect and to report any incidents."

The Denton facility, where a notorious abuse case occurred in 2002, underwent its most recent comprehensive inspection last April. The school was cited 25 times for failing to meet federal standards.

Citations included:

— Failure to "ensure clients' rights were protected, including the right to be free from abuse, neglect and mistreatment."

— Failure to "have or to use policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect or abuse of clients."

— Failure to "have evidence to show that all allegations of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment were thoroughly investigated.

A more recent inspection in January found that the Denton State School "failed to educate direct care staff on basic first aid, health, and emergency needs."

Perry was notified in March that the Justice Department was investigating the Denton school, said Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle. The notification letter, obtained by The AP, said the investigation "will focus on protection of residents from harm; medical and nursing care; habilitation and treatment; and the failure to place residents in the most integrated setting as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act ... ."

"We certainly welcome their findings and the governor wants to ensure all residents of state schools receive the highest quality care," Castle said.

State Rep. John Zerwas, a member of a legislative committee studying state schools, said lawmakers need to look into allegations of abuse coming from the institutions.

"If the state is going to assume some of the responsibility for the ongoing care for these individuals then we have to make sure they be provided the highest quality and the greatest safety," said Zerwas, R-Richmond.

Garrison-Tate said he has personally witnessed incidents of abuse and suspects only the most egregious cases result in firings and suspensions.

"The bottom line is people are getting really injured, and they are not safe," he said.

Anonymous said...

April 16, 2008

Bush Defense Secretary Admits 9/11 Was Blowback

By Don Williams


You won’t find the above headline anywhere else. Believe me, I've tried. Still, it's true. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 10, 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the following jaw-dropping statement:
“We were attacked from Afghanistan in 2001, and we are at war in Afghanistan today, in no small measure because of mistakes this government made--mistakes I among others made in the end game of the anti-Soviet war there some 20 years ago.”

That’s an astonishing confession, even if mine was the only jaw that dropped. Gates is the first high official in the Bush administration to acknowledge what war critics have been lambasted for even suggesting. OK, he didn’t use the word “blowback,” but by definition, that’s what he’s talking about. A certain radio commentator once all but called me a traitor for suggesting what Gates openly admits. Many others, including the Rev. Jeremiah Wright most recently, have been denounced all over this country for suggesting 9/11 was caused by failed U.S. policy. Yes, Wright said much else as well. Nevertheless he took a hit for stating the same notion.

So why is Big Media silent about Gates? You tell me. Eventually, this story might show up on Page 5 in your local daily, especially if this column gets around, but it will never be top of Page One, where it counts, just as you never saw the following headlines there when they might’ve made a difference:

US Looks the Other Way as Pakistan Perfects Nuclear Bombs and Delivery System.

Counting Florida Over-votes Would Put Gore in Whitehouse.

Saudi Oil Profits Linked to Spread of Wahabism.

War Will Cost 100 Times More Than Bush Team Predicts (Oil Will Not Pay For It).

Bush Suppresses Evidence of Global Warming.

No Weapons of Mass Destruction Found in Iraq.

No Aerial Drones. No New Anthrax. No Yellowcake. No New Centrifuges.

No Significant Links Found Between Al-Qaeda and Saddam.

Case for Invading Iraq Included Ravings from a Tortured Man and Lies from a Criminal with Ties to Iran.

Secret Memos Reveal US Told England We’d 'Fix the Evidence' to Support Joint Iraq Attack.

Bush Building Permanent Military Bases in Iraq.

Bush Hands Control of Iraq to Natural Allies of Iran.

Prominent Bush Supporters Believe He’s Preparing Way for the Rapture.

Military Sources Say US Let Many in Taliban and al-Qaida Slip the Noose at Tora Bora.

Decision to Torture Originated in White House.

U. S. Soldiers Committing Suicide At Record Levels.

Cost of One Cruise Missile Could Build 80 Secular Schools in Afghan Villages.

No, you seldom saw headlines like these leading the page when they might’ve made a difference, though columnists were writing about them in the back pages, carefully citing our evidence. One by one, all the things we were pilloried for saying out loud are being confirmed, and I can prove the truth of each of the above headlines to the satisfaction of any reasonable reader. In fact, because all except the headline at the top of this page have long since been proven true—the whole lousy shooting match--let’s talk about that one.

Despite denials from Bush and other hawks, the rise of the Taliban and al-Qaida was a direct result of our policy of funding and arming Muslim Jihadists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as Gates knows all too well. Gates' precise role in their rise is unclear. After all, his career consisted of operating from the shadows, including 26 years in the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, and under President George H.W. Bush as Director of Central Intelligence. Still, it's easily provable that he at least cheered on arming and training fundamentalist Muslims who later resurfaced as al-Qaida, the Taliban, and members of the first post-Soviet Afghani government the Taliban overthrew with our tacit approval. All you have to do is click on Amazon.com and ask for Gates’ book “From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War” to discover Gates’ support for the “end game” in Afghanistan. Turns out this was the opening gambit for Islamic Jihadists and we're now in the middle of an unending "game" which most Americans neither asked for nor desired.

In his book, Gates outlines how America began infiltrating Afghanistan with secret forces in a self-conscious effort to lure the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan and “give the Soviets their Vietnam.” The process started under President Carter but reached flood tide under Presidents Reagan and Bush 41, when American operatives trained, armed, funded and otherwise empowered radical fundamentalist Muslims who later set their sights on us.

As I documented in a column at the time of Gates’ confirmation, he also had a role in the Iran/Contra affair as well as in our policy of providing aerial maps showing Saddam where to bomb Iran while, at the same time, selling Iran anti-aircraft weaponry during the Iran/Iraq War. How cynical was that?

How many innocent people have died as a result of Gates’ and others’ manipulations? Millions in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan? Tens of thousands in Central America? Thousands more in Kuwait? Let’s not forget nearly 3,000 on 9/11.

Gates deserves credit for admitting out loud what many have been slammed for pointing out. The difference between Gates and critics like me however—besides the obvious ones of power and influence—is that Gates sees 9/11 as blowback from a narrow failure to fine-tune the end game in Afghanistan. Thus his straight-faced statement in the Senate hearing that, “If we get the end-game wrong in Iraq, I predict the consequences will be far worse.”

What Gates won't acknowledge is that chess is a game of destiny, in which end-games are often predestined by opening gambits. The philosophy of having an American shadow government arming secret armies and then using American military might or dark machinations to wreck other countries and change regimes is always going to be a gamble, more often than not leading to disaster, because violence begets violence and the Law of Unintended Consequences is not revoked. Just look at the Unintended Consequences of such meddling in Iraq. Ethnic cleansing, torture, loss of rights and privacy here, a trillion dollars squandered, and counting. End game be damned. The consequences already have proven horrendous.

Gates can’t bring himself to admit that empowering the leaders of Islamic jihad was a horrible mistake that ruined millions of lives and now endangers world civilization. What puzzles me is why no one else within the reach of his voice dares trumpet this admission that 9/11 represents a failed and cynical policy of violence and manipulation from the shadows. And why none in the major media dare point out that for once, a Bush official has acknowledged blowback.Even if he won't say the word.





Authors Website: http://www.mach2.com/williams/

Authors Bio: Don Williams is a prize-winning columnist for the Knoxville News-Sentinel and the founding editor and publisher of New Millennium Writings, an annual anthology of literary writing. His awards include a National Endowment for the Humanities Michigan Journalism Fellowship, a Golden Presscard Award and the Malcolm Law Journalism Prize. He is finishing a novel, RED STATE BLUES, set in his native Tennessee and Iraq. His book of selected journalism, ?Heroes, Sheroes and Zeroes, the Best Writings About People? by Don Williams, is now available for ordering. For more information, email him at donwilliams7@charter.net. Or visit the NMW website at www.mach2.com/williams/.

Anonymous said...

April 16, 2008

UN Human Rights Official Wants Investigation Into US Government Role In 9/11

By The Last Movement



John Bolton: "This is exactly why we voted against the new human rights council."

An official in the newly formed UN Human Rights Council has called for a fresh investigation into the events of 9/11 in order to examine the possible role that neoconservatives may have played in the attacks.

The New York Sun picked up the story today, explaining that Richard Falk, a professor of international law emeritus at Princeton University, and an expert on human rights was assigned to a new position within the council on March 26.

His role is to report on human rights in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

Two days prior to the announcement, Falk appeared on former University of Wisconsin lecturer Kevin Barrett's radio show and spoke of how he is keen to see a fresh investigation into 9/11 in order to address inconsistencies in the official account of what happened.

Mr. Falk told Barrett, "It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don't think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess."

death2traitors said...

Sabotaging Bush (12/06)...

Hamas officials have smuggled more than $66 million into Gaza and have met with U.S. Democrats at a secret location, it was reported Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the Bethlehem-based Maan News Agency reported Hamas representatives recently had secret talks with U.S. Democratic Party officials in anticipation of the party regaining congressional power in Washington.

The Palestinian news agency also said Hamas had secret talks with European government officials, including with Britain and France.

sold out said...

I'm outraged. Today, Bush joined the warming hysterics and left the rest of us hanging in the wind.

death of the right said...

Dearly Beloved, we are gathered here ...

Byrdeye said...

So, we have a White-house negro sponsored by Goldman Sachs on the one hand and a lying cunt on the other.

Go Dems! Go USA!