In other words: A discussion of The Bush Administration
Pentagon's intelligence service reported no reliable evidence of Iraqi weapons last September
WASHINGTON – The Pentagon's intelligence service reported last September that it had no reliable evidence that Iraq had chemical agents in weaponized form, officials said Friday.
The time frame is notable because it coincided with Bush administration efforts to mount a public case for the urgency of disarming Iraq, by force if necessary. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others argued that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical, biological and other weapons and was hiding them.
- rob 4:32 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Does anyone bother to really look at a Newsweek and US News and World Report cover?
The Russians Do.
These photos from two major US magazines supposedly show US troops being greeted by Iraqis on the same day in two different cities separated by hundreds of kilometers
- rob 3:09 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Remember the Tea Pot Dome Scandal?
I don't either actually, but in the end it was a scandal about the government being for sale. The govenment was just an arm of wealthy corporations who didn't mind greasing some palms. Well I doubt that ever ended, but it certainly is getting pretty obvious again. We already know that Majority Leader Frist considers a Senator a "Good Man" when he helps out his big donors. Well now we see that corporations are given a list of Republicans to donate to, and the amounts, if they want a "seat at the table." Ahh... what swell folks, definitely working in the interest of their consitituents.
Utility's Papers Outline Donations to GOP
WASHINGTON - When a utility executive questioned why he was contributing to Republican congressional candidates he had never heard of, the answer came back loud and clear: The donations were requested by GOP leaders who were helping the company win an exemption potentially worth billions of dollars.
Financially strapped Westar Energy was seeking "a seat at the table" of a House-Senate conference committee on the Bush administration's energy plan last year, according to internal company records spelling out the planned campaign donations.
Key Republicans, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, denied on Thursday there was any connection between the exemption and donations which amounted to tens of thousands of dollars from the Topeka, Kan., conglomerate and its executives.
Oh God, well I'm glad "I'm the Federal Government" DeLay cleared that up.
Maybe he could clear up this email:
Executives of a Kansas-based energy company believed that $56,500 in donations to political groups linked to four key Republican lawmakers last year would prompt Congress to exempt their firm from a problematic federal regulation, according to documents disclosed as part of a federal investigation of the company.
One executive of Westar Energy Inc. told colleagues in an e-mail that "we have a plan for participation to get a seat at the table" of a House-Senate conference committee on the Bush administration's energy plan. The cost, he wrote, would be $56,500 to campaign committees, including some associated with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Tex.), Rep. Joe Barton (Tex.), Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (La.) and Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.).
The above two paragraphs are from: Firm Saw Link in Favor, Donations. For more on the e-mail, let's go back to the first article:
In a May 20, 2002, e-mail, a Westar executive asked why he was writing checks to Republican congressional candidates whose names he didn't recognize in amounts far in excess of what he had earlier understood he would have to spend.
"Happy to give but earlier ... memo had me giving I think $300-400 per candidate. I am confused," the executive wrote.
A quick reply came back.
"You probably didn't get a copy of the memo sent internal mail on Friday about the current legislative issue in Washington," a Westar executive wrote. "Right now, we have $11,500 in immediate needs for a group of candidates associated with Tom DeLay, Billy Tauzin, Joe Barton and Senator Richard Shelby."
Oh, and as you are "happy to give" don't forget the check made out to "This Century Sucks," thats S U C K S as in the whole government these days.
- rob 1:37 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
You know if Ashcroft gets his expanded powers, maybe he can go out and arrest guys like Krugman. Krugman is always negative about our "chosen by God" President, that ain't right.
Duped and Betrayed
According to The New Republic, Senator Zell Miller — one of a dwindling band of Democrats who still think they can make deals with the Bush administration and its allies — got shafted in the recent tax bill. He supported the bill in part because it contained his personal contribution: a measure requiring chief executives to take personal responsibility for corporate tax declarations. But when the bill emerged from conference, his measure had been stripped out.
Will "moderates" — the people formerly known as "conservatives" — ever learn? Today's "conservatives" — the people formerly known as the "radical right" — don't think of a deal as a deal; they think of it as an opportunity to pull yet another bait and switch.
...
Grover Norquist, the right-wing ideologue who has become one of the most powerful men in Washington, once declared: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Mr. Bush has made a pretty good start on that plan.
Which brings us back to Senator Miller, and all those politicians and pundits who still imagine that there is room for compromise, that they can find some bipartisan middle ground. Mr. Norquist was recently quoted in The Denver Post with the answer to that: "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape."
- rob 1:33 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Ashcroft seeks expanded anti-terror powers
He tells House panel that, despite progress, weaknesses remain in Patriot Act
For instance, did you know that he can't just arrest any non-Christian? What's with that? The law's got potential, but really, it's missing a lot.
He also said the current anti-terror law, which critics say is cramping citizens' legitimate rights, needs to be expanded to let prosecutors bring charges against anyone who helps or works with suspected terrorist groups as "material supporters."
That is important like in the days before the war when lots of right wing pundits and congressman were calling the peace protestors "material supporters" of Iraq. If there was no discussion life might be a lot less confusing, but, as an American, I like the confusion. Let us talk, protest, complain. It's how freedom works. I don't think Ashcroft gets that. But what do you expect from a man who lost an election to a dead guy.
- rob 1:29 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Hmmm.... you mean our Orange Alert T-shirts don't give Tom Ridge great street cred?
Ridge Concerned About Terror Alert Scheme Credibility
After raising the terror alert to its second-highest level three times over the past four months because of fears of potential terror attacks, Ridge said the system needs refining.
"We worry about the credibility of the system," he told a small group of reporters. "We want to continue to refine it because we realize it has caused some anxiety."
Some anxiety? It is a failure! If people are going to let us limit (eliminate) their freedom (see above posting) we'll need Much Anxiety!
- rob 1:21 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Keeping tabs on this President's Job creating tax cuts:
U.S. Unemployment Rate Climbs in May
The rate was up one-tenth of a percentage point from April, peaking at a level not seen since the country was emerging from the last recession, the Labor Department reported Friday.
- rob 1:13 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Let's check on this daily (we won't of course). How's the search going?
87 WMD SITES ARE CLEARED
TROOPS hunting for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction have searched 87 "prime" sites in Iraq - and have found nothing.
Nineteen were "highest-priority" zones identified by US Central Command, military sources revealed yesterday.
But instead of chemical or biological weapons, searchers uncovered a training facility for Iraq's Olympic swimming and diving teams, a drinks distillery and a factory making car licence plates.
That well huh?
Is it that it is growing more and more obvious that there aren't any, or at least any in the scale described by Bush, Rummy, and Powell, that we are getting more people questioning what is going on? Well one guy has been questioning all of this from the beginning. Senator Robert Byrd:
Senate Remarks: "The Perception of Deception: Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction"
With each passing day, the questions surrounding Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction take on added urgency. Where are the massive stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other nerve agents that we were told Iraq was hoarding? Where are the thousands of liters of botulinim toxin? Wasn't it the looming threat to America posed by these weapons that propelled the United States into war with Iraq? Isn't this the reason American military personnel were called upon to risk their lives in combat?
On March 17, in his final speech to the American people before ordering the invasion of Iraq, President Bush took one last opportunity to bolster his case for war. The centerpiece of his argument was the same message he brought to the United Nations months before, and the same message he hammered home at every opportunity in the intervening months, namely that Saddam Hussein had failed to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and thus presented an imminent danger to the American people. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," the President said.
Now, nearly two months after the fall of Baghdad, the United States has yet to find any physical evidence of those lethal weapons. Could they be buried underground or are they somehow camouflaged in plain sight? Were they destroyed before the war? Have they been shipped out of the country? Do they actually exist? The questions are mounting. What started weeks ago as a restless murmur throughout Iraq has intensified into a worldwide cacophony of confusion.
- rob 1:10 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Where is Raed? is publishing pretty frequently these days. Don't forget to check in on him now and then.- Thursday, June 05, 2003 -
He's a blogger who lives in Baghdad.
- rob 1:02 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Caption Contest!
So far we've got:
"Yep, she swallowed every single lie -- no wait, I see one hanging from her epiglottis." or
"should I eat the cheek first, or go straight for the thorax?" or
"no french kissing!" or
"I WILL NOW ACCEPT YOUR TONGUE." or
"Whatever you do, DON'T GO TO SLEEP!" or
Her: "My mind pictures Bill Clinton... my mind pictures Bill Clinton... my mind pictures Bill Clinton."
Add more in the comments section if you wish.
- rob 1:21 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Lots more items availalbe at the This Century Sucks.com Store.
Check out the Toddler hooded Sweatshirt with "My Parents Love Me" on the front, and "They won't vote for Bush in 2004" on the back. Only $13.50. I may buy one (or maybe not).
We also have a nice new nightshirt:
Here's a close up of the graphics. Actually the graphs are already out of date, the jobless number is larger, and the deficit is larger, but that okay, the shirt might keep you awake with those statistics.
- rob 1:12 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Hilarious... and unfortunately truthful... cartoon:
Goofus and Gallant
- rob 1:01 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Please please please.... I know this "non-starter" could be an "ender." Please let this be the end of the reign of lies. There has to be a consequence for misleading American in a War.
End the deception
Americans face an important question in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion: Does it matter that our government fudged facts to justify war? Should politicians face consequences when they mislead us, especially about the need for military force?
While British Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing increasing pressure because of his role in this debacle, the Bush administration is betting the American public will tire of the debate. Officials apparently think that if they constantly repeat the mantra — "We know for certain Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction" — and the news media faithfully relay that message, they will get away with their deception.
The problem isn't simply that no evidence of banned weapons programs has been found, but a broader pattern of deception:
• Allegations before the war that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger were based on crude forgeries that officials had been warned about, while claims about biological and chemical stockpiles were based on dubious methods and unsupported by the arms-control community.
• Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed concerns in private to his British counterpart, Jack Straw, that the claims might explode in their faces because they weren't backed by hard evidence.
• Professionals in the intelligence community are livid about how the administration politicized the analysis of information.
- rob 12:58 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
CORRECTION- Wednesday, June 04, 2003 -
Well it looks like Wolfowitz didn't go on a sudden honesty rampage. He was miss-quoted. Now I'm not sure if the Guardian (which now doesn't feature the article anymore, interestingly enough) manipulated the quote, or, since they took the quote from a German paper, if some mistakes occured. But according to the Department of Defense (which yes, does lie, but I don't think so this time) this is what he said:
Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It’s is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals.
Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.
- rob 12:35 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
More fun with Quotes from the Bush Cartel:
First -- and this is really the overarching principle -- the United States seeks to liberate Iraq, not occupy Iraq . . . If the President should decide to use force, let me assure you again that the United States would be committed to liberating the people of Iraq, not becoming an occupation force. - Paul Wolfowitz / Speech to Iraqi-American Community / February 23, 2003
The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government . . . - George W. Bush / Speech to the American Enterprise Institute / February 26, 2003
We will help the Iraqi people to find the benefits and assume the duties of self-government. The form of those institutions will arise from Iraq's own culture and its own choices. - George W. Bush / Speech at MacDill AFB / March 26, 2003
and then times change (not that anyone should be surprised):
If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen. - Donald Rumsfield / Interview with Associated Press / April 24, 2003
As freedom takes hold in Iraq, the Iraqi people will choose their own leaders and their own government. America has no intention of imposing our form of government or our culture. Yet, we will ensure that all Iraqis have a voice in the new government . . . - George W. Bush / Speech in Dearborne, Michigan / April 28, 2003
When Iraqi officials are in a position to shoulder their country's responsibilities, when they have in place the necessary political and other structures to provide food, security and the other necessities, the coalition will have a strong interest in seeing them run their own affairs. - Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Testimony Before the House International Relations Committee /May 15, 2003
As Thomas Jefferson put it, "we are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed." It took time and patience, but eventually our Founders got it right -- and we hope so will the people of Iraq -- over time. - Donald Rumsfeld / Wall Street Journal op-ed / May 27, 2003
While our goal is to put functional and political authority in the hands of Iraqis as soon as possible, the Coalition Provisional Authority has the responsibility to fill the vacuum of power . . . by asserting temporary authority over the country. The coalition will do so. It will not tolerate self-appointed "leaders." - Donald Rumsfeld / Speech to the Council on Foreign Relations / May 27, 2003
It will be difficult for a free political life in Iraq to flourish until the conditions are set, but it is a project that we're working on. - Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense / Foreign Press Briefing / May 28, 2003
- rob 5:48 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Really folks, there are some cool new things at the store, like this toddler outfit:
- rob 5:25 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Wow! I should stop complaining about the Bush administration's penchent for lies and secrecy, Wolfowitz is just letting it all out these days.
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.
...
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
- rob 5:15 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Weapons of Mass Destruction? Bah, we don't even care.
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- More than a decade of suspicions about Iraq's missile industry and its capabilities for delivering weapons of mass destruction could be investigated quickly now that American forces control the country.
But no U.S. weapons hunters or intelligence officials have visited the heart of Iraq's missile programs -- the state-owned al-Fatah company in Baghdad, which designed all the rockets Saddam Hussein's troops fired in 1991 and again this year. Not only that, it's not even on their agenda.
"We have the most sensitive documents here," said Marouf al-Chalabi, director-general of al-Fatah. "We were sure the Americans would target us but they haven't even dropped by."
From: U.S. Hasn't Probed Secret Iraqi Documents
- rob 5:08 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Ahhh yes... right wings pundits, say things like:
- The United States "is being taken over by the freaks, the cripples, the perverts and the mental defectives"
- Gays and lesbians are "perverts" and that "the gay and lesbian mafia wants our children"
- "America is a "'she-ocracy' where a minority of feminist zealots rule the culture...together, they have both feminized and homosexualized much of America to point where the nation has become passive, receptive and masochistic"
[The above all being said by Michael Savage]. But if someone says something against you, you sue.
Like all Bullies, deep down Michael Savage is a sad little wimpy man who starts suing anyone who says anything bad about him. And you can't play in the sand box either, he was there first.
- rob 5:05 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Some new things are in the store, such as this bumper sticker.- Tuesday, June 03, 2003 -
- rob 10:10 AM - [PermaLink] -
----
Well I was wondering what could cause people to notice Bush is an out of control liar... I guess making up a reason to go to war would. Now Michael Moore seemed down right sane didn't he.
Failure to Find Weapons of Mass Destruction Revives Asia's War Debate
TOKYO, June 3 -- The first question to the Pentagon's second-ranking official, Paul Wolfowitz, at a press conference in Tokyo today had none of the famous Japanese indirectness.
"How do you justify the Iraqi war," a Japanese reporter asked, "when you have found no weapons of mass destruction?"
The leaders of Washington's allies in East Asia, who signed up in loyal support of the American-led Iraqi war, are finding themselves nettled by that question in the aftermath of the fighting.
And from a War supporter
U.S. has gained little if Bush lied about reason for war
I trusted Bush, and unless something big develops on the weapons front in Iraq soon, it appears as though I was fooled by him. Perhaps he himself was taken in by his intelligence and military advisers. If so, he ought to be angry as hell, because ultimately he bears the responsibility.
It suggests a strain of zealotry in this White House that regards the question of war as just another political debate. It isn't. More than 100 fine Americans were killed in this conflict, dozens of British soldiers, and many thousands of Iraqis. Nobody gets killed or maimed in Capitol Hill maneuvers over spending plans, or battles over federal court appointments. War is a special case. It is the most serious step a nation can take, and it deserves the highest measure of seriousness and integrity.
When a president lies or exaggerates in making an argument for war, when he spins the facts to sell his case, he betrays his public trust, and he diminishes the credibility of his office and our country. We are at war. What we lost in this may yet end up being far more important than what we gained.
- rob 11:24 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Hey, what'd you do last night?
Oh... created new things for the This Century Sucks store?
Cool! Me too!
- rob 11:18 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Support of Democracy is one of the most important roles an elected official fills, don't you think?
In April, when the Republicans on the New York City Board of Elections killed a plan to repair voting machines that had underrecorded votes in the 2000 election (with most of the unlucky voters being Democrats), Republican Commissioner Stephen Weiner denied that his party's disinterest in properly functioning machines showed bias against Democrats: "There are some people who don't want (their vote) register(ed), but who report to the polls for civic reasons." [Newsday, 4-16-03](google cache)
- rob 2:20 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Fast for George W.
"mommy, can I have food?"
"no our President needs us to fast for his holiness"
I don't mean to make fun. If it does help Bush become a better Christian and Blessed by God, then I say "Go For It"
Christian's don't start unjust wars... right?
- rob 1:42 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Today's Krugman: Standard Operating Procedure
It's long past time for this administration to be held accountable. Over the last two years we've become accustomed to the pattern. Each time the administration comes up with another whopper, partisan supporters — a group that includes a large segment of the news media — obediently insist that black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the "liberal" media report only that some people say that black is black and up is up. And some Democratic politicians offer the administration invaluable cover by making excuses and playing down the extent of the lies.
If this same lack of accountability extends to matters of war and peace, we're in very deep trouble. The British seem to understand this: Max Hastings, the veteran war correspondent — who supported Britain's participation in the war — writes that "the prime minister committed British troops and sacrificed British lives on the basis of a deceit, and it stinks."
It's no answer to say that Saddam was a murderous tyrant. I could point out that many of the neoconservatives who fomented this war were nonchalant, or worse, about mass murders by Central American death squads in the 1980's. But the important point is that this isn't about Saddam: it's about us. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history — worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.
But here's the thought that should make those commentators really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings calls a "khaki election" next year. In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted.
- rob 1:30 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Everything I'm planning to post (sometime) today we'll just get you mad. So why not post something that will make you smile.... And get mad:- Monday, June 02, 2003 -
This week's: Top Ten Conservative Idiots
- rob 1:25 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
For some reason this morning, a bit of dialog from The Simpsons entered my head, "Oh Great, Christians". Folks, I don't mean to be picking on Christians, but let's face it: A nut is a nut, no matter what religion. Do you really think that if America was a poor ravaged nation with decades of internal strife that people like Falwell and Robertson wouldn't be advocating violence? Heck, they almost are now. Anyway here's some nice Christians:
Sympathy for Bombing Suspect May Cloud Search for Evidence
PEACHTREE, N.C., June 1 — Betty Howard made many people happy today, and it was not for her daily special. Around noon, Mrs. Howard walked outside, glanced up at the sign in front of her diner and decided to change the lettering on the marquee from "Roast Turkey Baked Ham" to "Pray for Eric Rudolph."
"Bless his heart," Mrs. Howard said. "Eric needs our help."
Mrs. Howard said she was going to start an Eric Rudolph legal defense fund. Many customers have already said they would chip in.
I guess the bombing of abortion clinics gets you up there in the whole "loved by simple minded Christians" gategory. Obviously the whole irony of killing for the sake of "though shall not kill" seems to be lost. But folks he's also accused of the Olympic Games bomb. Which means we've got our own home grown religiously motivated international terrorist. Awww shuck, I guess I'll thrown in a buck too naext time I'm at the diner, after all, he's read the bible.
See the point is we are now judging character based on a label, but do you think the actions might be a better guage of things. Like Ashcroft, he's a very good Christain, that is why he's making sure to protect oil companies that employ rapists and murderers:
Ashcroft's Justice, Burma's Crimes, and Bork's Revenge
Given the chance to protect corporate interests, the Bush administration is predictably happy to take it. Ditto for the prospect of undermining international justice.
But it's not every day that the opportunity arises to accomplish both objectives at once. It takes a case like John Doe I v. Unocal Corp., a civil damages action currently pending in U.S. federal court.
In a brief recently filed in the Unocal case, the administration - in the person of Attorney General John Ashcroft - sets out to defend an oil company, reaffirm the president's untrammeled power over foreign policy, and eviscerate a law that has provided a modicum of justice to victims of rights abuses from around the world.
...
The plaintiffs in the Unocal case are Burmese villagers who claim that they were subjected to forced labor, murder, rape, and torture during the construction of a gas pipeline through their country. Soldiers allegedly committed these abuses while providing security and other services for the pipeline project.
Jane Doe I, one of the plaintiffs in the case, testified that when her husband tried to escape the forced labor program, he was shot at by soldiers, and that, in retaliation for his attempted escape, she and her baby were thrown into a fire. Her child died and she was badly injured.
Other villagers described the summary execution of people who refused to work, or who became too weak to work effectively.
There is little doubt that such crimes occurred. They have been exhaustively documented by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and a host of other groups. In 1995, when pipeline construction was beginning, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution urging Burma (also known as Myanmar) to put a stop to its practices of torture, forced labor and summary executions. Even the Justice Department, whose "friend of the court" brief was filed this past May 8, was willing to acknowledge the "blatant human rights abuses" committed by Burma's military government.
...
The court found that the evidence presented by the villagers supported the conclusion "that Unocal gave practical assistance to the Myanmar Military in subjecting Plaintiffs to forced labor."
As the court described it, this practical assistance "took the form of hiring the Myanmar Military to provide security and build infrastructure along the pipeline route in exchange for money or food." The assistance "also took the form of using photos, surveys, and maps in daily meetings to show the Myanmar Military where to provide security and build infrastructure."
Moreover, the court found, the evidence supported the conclusion "that Unocal gave 'encouragement' to the Myanmar Military in subjecting Plaintiffs to forced labor."
But Unocal pumps oil, and you all remember the bible verse that say: "Thou shalt not rape or kill, nor should though protect those that do, save for if there is oil in the equation then heck rape, kill, and protect away. Jesus drives a hummer too you know."
Seriously folks, I have, on more then one occasion have someone defend Ashcroft in a conversation with the statement, "I have faith he's doing the right thing, he is a good Christian." Folks, I'm not an authority on this, but from what I understand of the new testament, Ashcroft is NOT a good Christian. Saying you are does not give you the right to do serious evil, whether you are Attorney General, Eric Rudolph (if he is guilty), or a Catholic priest. Sorry. In the end you are who you are, not what you believe. Because I've always believed I was Superman, and either every woman in the world is wearing lead clothes, or I'm definitely not Superman.
- rob 1:46 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Ahh... Texas. This is just silly.
Search in hospital reported
Gov. Rick Perry personally instructed state troopers to visit a neonatal intensive care unit in Galveston in their search for Rep. Craig Eiland during last month's Democratic walkout from the Texas House, a legislator said Sunday.
...
Speaker Tom Craddick had enlisted the DPS' help in tracking down the missing lawmakers after he had put a call on the House, demanding their return. DPS officers visited the Democrats in Ardmore but lacked the authority across state lines to compel their return.
Bailey said Crais told him, in an interview last week, that Perry had a letter that Eiland had previously written to Craddick, informing him that attention to his hospitalized infants could cause him to miss some House sessions.
"Perry gave him (Crais) the letter and said, `This is the hospital, send the Texas Rangers there and see if Eiland's there,' " Bailey said.
- rob 1:24 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
WMD. It used to mean Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now it means What Media Diversity?- Sunday, June 01, 2003 -
Oh well. Anyway back to WMD, the original definition. Though I've been infomed it is a "non-starter" (See the comment to the banner at the very bottom of the page from a nice war hawk visitor) I still think this whole bit about the govenment lying to its people to justify war is something worthy of discussion.
Where are Iraq’s WMDs?
The evidence sometimes cited to support Saddam’s nuclear program was shaky, however. On the morning after Bush’s State of the Union address in January, Greg Thielmann, who had recently resigned from the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)—whose duties included tracking Iraq’s WMD program—read the text in the newspaper. Bush had cited British intelligence reports that Saddam was trying to purchase “significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Thielmann was floored. “When I saw that, it really blew me away,” Thielmann told NEWSWEEK. Thielmann knew about the source of the allegation. The CIA had come up with some documents purporting to show Saddam had attempted to buy up to 500 tons of uranium oxide from the African country of Niger. INR had concluded that the purchases were implausible—and made that point clear to Powell’s office. As Thielmann read that the president had relied on these documents to report to the nation, he thought, “Not that stupid piece of garbage. My thought was, how did that get into the speech?” It later turned out that the documents were a forgery, and a crude one at that, peddled to the Italians by an entrepreneurial African diplomat. The Niger minister of Foreign Affairs whose name was on the letterhead had been out of office for more than 10 years. The most cursory checks would have exposed the fraud.
What is awful here is that the most cursory checks were done and the white house was notified that the information was a fraud. They knew this. But they went a head and mentioned it in the State of The Union, a consitutionaly mandated duty. Bah... its a non-starter, I know.
Here's more on the non-starter:
A lack of intelligence
Wow, that headline sums up a lot doesn't it.
'Intelligence" was how the Americans described the material accumulating on Iraq from their super-sophisticated spy systems. But to analysts at the Office of National Assessments in Canberra, a decent chunk of the growing pile looked like rubbish. In their offices on the top floor of the drab ASIO building, ONA experts found much of the US material worthy only of the delete button or the classified waste chute to the truck-sized shredder in the basement.
Australian spooks aren't much like the spies in the James Bond movies. Not many drink vodka martinis. But most are smart - certainly smart enough to understand how US intelligence on Iraq was badly skewed by political pressure, worst-case analysis and a stream of garbage-grade intelligence concocted by Iraqis desperate for US intervention in Iraq.
It wasn't just the Australians who were mystified by the accumulating US trash. The French, Germans and Russians had long before refused to be persuaded by Washington's line. British intelligence agencies were still inclined to take a more conservative position. And the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, even went so far as to say during a late April interview that "much of the intelligence on which the capitals built their case seemed to have been shaky".
And here's more of the non-starter. Is it me? Or is there chance of this being a starter? You know like the start of the end of this particular lying regime.
Truth and consequences
On the evening of February 1, two dozen American officials gathered in a spacious conference room at the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va. The time had come to make the public case for war against Iraq. For six hours that Saturday, the men and women of the Bush administration argued about what Secretary of State Colin Powell should--and should not--say at the United Nations Security Council four days later. Not all the secret intelligence about Saddam Hussein's misdeeds, they found, stood up to close scrutiny. At one point during the rehearsal, Powell tossed several pages in the air. "I'm not reading this," he declared. "This is bulls- - -."
Further proving the Powell is both intelligent and for some reason selling his soul.
Most of the above was found either from This Modern World or Buzzflash or somewhere.
- rob 1:19 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Thomas Friedman wants to know why the rest of the world hates us. This is what I wrote him:
Guilt was the cause of a disagreement, I suppose you could call it, between me and a friend of more than 30 years, that almost ended in a fistfight right before the start of the last Iraq war. I was born and raised a Jew. Guilt is not unknown to me. It is the source of many problems. But guilt isn't always a bad thing; in fact a little of it can go a long way toward preserving lives, of people whose only crime is being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet it's complicated. I think my friend had a point, I'm just trying to understand it. Here's the background: He is Jewish and half his family lives in Israel, he frequently visits them and has dual citizenship. Politically he is right-leaning, and when it comes to Arabs, his eyes cloud over with hate and he begins making his point in a highly agitated manner (not unlike me arguing). Now, this was before we officially invaded Iraq, so I was asking him how he felt about starting an unprovoked war against an Arab country, since I felt that Israel and its existence was implicitly involved in the outcome. Not only did his eyes light up at the prospect of killing, he began to vehemently justify the invasion using all the official administration arguments -- in other words, he swallowed them all hook line and sinker. Everyone's entitled to their viewpoint, especially in my house. So I pointed out that perhaps these arguments were specious, since they ran counter to intelligence reports about Iraq and how much of a threat Hussein was to the U.S. (don't forget, we knew it at the time -- there was some question about WMD, but nothing solid, and zippo evidence or proof positive, but this can be argued). Moreover, I suggested that perhaps the preemptive invasion was a cynical ploy on the part of a White House administration that would stop at nothing -- not even mass murder -- to get their man reelected, using lies and a spirit of national pride and revenge to do it. That someone, somewhere in Arabia, was going to get it, even if they had absolutely nothing to do with the actual perpetrators of 9/11. And how cool were you with that? That noncombatant civilians -- i.e., families -- living in Iraq were going to die in mass numbers for a phony reason, and it hasn't happened yet, and when it does -- as it certainly will (it did) -- won't their blood be on all of us? Especially if we're gung ho? How can you support that action? Don't you remember Vietnam, the pointless killing for the sake of a handful of egos? And that at this point in America, Arab lives have zero value? Well, at that point he thought (maybe rightly) that I was calling him a murderer, and he got in my face, and I thought he was going to start swinging. Luckily it didn't come to blows. We have been arguing for 30 years, this is no different. It was never a question of the friendship.
But here is my question: It is now known that Bush lied about the war and the threat Iraq posed, and he's lying again about another Arab country, Iran, in order to launch another invasion. Thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands or more will certainly die. In my view, we are awash in this blood, which I regard as innocent, and this has been true about America for hundreds of years, but in my lifetime it started with Vietnam and civil rights and then broadened to much elsewhere, places we are never even told about. We are guilty of being murderers, right? And that's immoral, isn't it? This isn't about hawks and doves, it's about killing people who have done absolutely nothing to me. Why did my friend get in my face? My only point to him was that if we admit our guilt and complicity, maybe it won't happen the next time, maybe some people will be spared the useless cruelty and death. Or am I dreaming? His original justifications are proven false, yet he persists in his views. It's all about killing Arabs, isn't it? I hate to put it in those terms, but I can't see it otherwise. Why else is everyone getting so patriotic about organized slaughter and meaningless deaths?
Why can't old friends have a blunt discussion about mass murder without going at each other's throats? It seems we as a country do what we do without calling it
by its name, and when somebody does, they get attacked for it. I was wondering if indeed I was calling it by its name, or if I had somehow got it
wrong -- that we really should go and kill all those people, for some reason that was never quite explained to me truthfully. I'll take the
honest explanation and live with it. But if I'm wrong about my view, I need to know why. I asked another version of this question long ago, about why exactly we were going to invade Iraq, and I got a mixed bag of answers from my friends. A lot of people who didn't do anything to me are dead since that discussion, and it hangs over me, over
all of us. Is this the price of having my American life? I think it is. I just want to hear somebody say so. To stand up for once and say, yeah, that's exactly
what it is. Instead of lies. But I'm trying to have an open mind. A lot of places in the world are a whole lot more terrifying and meaner than we are,
we just happen to be the baddest asses on the block right now. What happens when we aren't, though? Look at history:
power never stays in one place, and the way things look to me right now, we are totally isolated, geopolitically. Why is this a good thing? NEED AN EXPLANATION.
- Michael 4:49 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
TCS Now offers a News Reader Feed
Subscribe to the TCS Feed
Having trouble with some of the poor English
on this site?
Imagine what it looks like when translated by a machine:
Archive
What is this?
This is a "team" blog. We are a bunch of
Americans, whose rising distress
in our leader's decisions brought us together to make this site.
As Bush said, he's a "uniter." Many of us have never even met.
That's the internet for you.
Buy our cool stuff.
And tell everyone what you feel.
We have a little Store
you can visit.
Our store's selection of items is constantly growing. Come
see what we have.
We're also Amazon Associates, so if you want to buy something from Amazon, please search for it below, and we will get a few bucks from the sale.
Sites we often like:
Tin Foil Caps
The Free Speech Zone
The office of the independent blogger
Buzzflash
Tom The Dancing Bug
VerifiedVoting.org
Get Your War
On
This Modern World
Eschaton / Atrios
Daily Kos
Contribute to America's Future
It is now more important then ever.
Donate to the Democractic Congressional Campaign Committee
Donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Some More Site Mottos
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American people."
- Teddy Roosevelt
"Government has a final responsibility for the well-being of
its citizenship. If private cooperative endeavor fails to provide work
for willing hands and relief for the unfortunate, those suffering
hardship from no fault of their own have a right to call upon the
Government for aid; and a government worthy of its name must make
fitting response."
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions, but laws must and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain
degree."
- James Madison
"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves."
- John F. Kennedy
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
More Sites we often
like:
more coming...
