Pro-Lynching Senators

Know what i think of the pro-lynching senators?

They should be hanged.

HEY DICK..Really I mean Dick as in Karens man.

Dick, I am leaving something below for you to further our delightful exchange of ideas on the subject of 911.

9/11: Ten Smoking Guns

Prison Planet | June 14 2005
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/140605tenquestions.htm

1) Why didn't NORAD fulfil its standard operating procedure and intercept the planes? Were NORAD intentionally confused by the wargames taking place on the morning of 9/11 or were they ordered to stand down?

Flight 77 was known by NORAD to have been hijacked by 8:50am. Yet it is a full 48 minutes until any fighters are scrambled, as two leave Langley AFB just two minutes before Flight 77 hits the Pentagon at 9:40am.

2) What is the meaning behind the following quote attributed to Dick Cheney which came to light during the 9/11 Commission hearings. The passage is taken from testimony given by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

As the plane was not shot down are we to take it that the orders were to let the plane find its target?

3) What was the cause of the collapse of WTC Building 7? The plane wasn't hit by a building and yet it collapsed in the same manner as the twin towers. Why hasn't Larry Silverstein offered a public explanation as to the meaning behind his comments on a September 2002 PBC documentary, America Rebuilds, where he admits the decision was made to "pull" the building. Pulling a building is the industry term for controlled demolition. The official FEMA report listed fire damage as the reason for the building's collapse, even though photos taken before the collapse indicate minimal fires.

How can the collapse of the building and also the twin towers be justified in light of numerous examples of high story buildings which burned for hours and even days without collapsing, such as the recent Windsor Building fire in Madrid?

4) How did Rudolph Giuliani know that the south tower was about to collapse? Giuliani told ABC's Peter Jennings, "We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse."

The World Trade Center was the first steel building to collapse from fire damage in history.

Who told Giuliani the building was going to collapse and how did they know?

5) In the days following September 11th, the FBI released a list of the 19 hijackers.

At least four of these hijackers are still alive. Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri ) was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

Other so called 'suicide hijackers' who have come forward to protest their innocence (being alive is a good enough alibi) are Abdulaziz Al Omari , Saeed Alghamdi and Khalid Al Midhar.

How can we take claims of paper passports that miraculously escaped the impact of the plane and the gigantic fireballs and fluttered mostly unscathed down to the ground seriously? At least a third of the victims were never identified and yet a paper passport survives. Was this an attempt to frame the very individuals the FBI would later blame for the attack?

6) Who told a number of public officials not to fly into New York on the morning of 9/11 and why didn't the people on the targeted planes get the same warnings?

Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown was set to fly into New York on the morning of September 11. However, he got a call from what he described as his 'airport security' late September 10th advising against flying due to a security threat.

Newsweek twice reported that top Pentagon officials had got a warning of the impending attack on September 10th, and cancelled their flights for the next day. This confirms that these officials knew both the locations of the imminent attack and the method of using jetliners as bombs.

7) From July 4th-14th 2001, Osama bin Laden was being treated for kidney infection at the American Hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. There, on multiple occasions, he met with CIA station Chief Larry Mitchell. Bin Laden gave Mitchell 'precise information' regarding 'an imminent attack' on the US. Bin Laden also met with numerous members of his family, who left the US by
chartered flights after September 11th with the full blessings of the US government.

A 2000 Clinton presidential executive order was still in effect and mandated that bin Laden should have been killed on the spot. Bin Laden was allowed to leave of his own free will.

8) A record number of 'put' options, speculation that the stock of a company will fall, were placed on American and United Airlines in the days preceding September 11th. This despite a September 10th Reuters report stating 'airline stocks set to fly.'

9) Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls.

The investigation as to which criminals benefited from advance knowledge of the terrorist attack led straight to Alex Brown/Deutsche Bank - chaired up until 1997 by executive director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard.

Why wasn't Krongard taken in for questioning by the FBI and who else was involved in this insider trading?

10) Pakistan ISI Director General Mahmud Ahmad instructed Ahmad Umar Sheikh to hotwire $100,000 to the 9/11 lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta.

On September 11th, Ahmad was a guest of former clandestine CIA officer and CFR member Rep. Porter Goss and Skull and Bones/CFR member Senator Bob Graham. Since September 4th, he had met with top brass at the CIA, the Pentagon and the White House, including Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, Joseph Biden and George Tenet.

Condoleezza Rice lied in a May 16th 2002 press conference when she claimed ignorance of Ahmad's visit and the $100,000 transfer. Ahmad had
already resigned from the ISI and the FBI had confirmed the circumstances behind this. Rice stated "I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me."

What was the money man behind the terrorists doing in the halls of the US government before, during and after 9/11?

Well, Neocons once again are busily working to accomplish the wholly irrelevant:

War in Iraq? Nope. Not interested.
American job losses? Nope. Don't care.
Health care? No thanks.
America's slide in the global community? Yawn.

What ARE Neocons working on?

Passing a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050615/ts_usatoday/voteonflagdesecrationmaybecliffhanger

I'm sure that will bring comfort to the millions of Americans who are unemployed, without health insurance, facing rising gas prices, unable to send their kids to college, trying to raise a family on minimum wage........

Neocon. A new kind of con.

Coverage of Al Franken's event in Minneapolis... I think it's very possible he'll run against Norm 'empty suit' Coleman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/arts/15frank.html?oref=login

Sadly, it is situations like this one that are somewhat to blame for the "redneck" variety of sterotyping that continues to plague us and blind us in our ability to view one another as our human brethren.

Posted by Casey Morris at June 15, 2005 11:30 AM

Couldn't have said it better, Casey. The South is being represented by the wrong kinds of people, putting on wrong kinds of priorities and manipulating people into thinking that it is more important to ban gay marriages than to make sure you have food to put on your table.

What happened to Southern hospitality? I'm sure it's still there...

OT, but I thought it is worth noting that the coronor examining Terri Schiavo found no evidence of abuse, that her brain was half of normal size, and there was no chance for recovery. I am waiting for the family and their supporters to acknowledge the truth. Silly me. I am also waiting for Bushco propaganda to publicze this as well. Oops I forgot, that wont happen either.

And just to brighten your day...

"Schwarzenegger Jeered at Graduation Speech"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050615/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger_commencement

"SCHAIVO CASE BACKS HUSBAND" autopsy reveals NO case of abuse!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637

It's a busy day for democracy everyone:

In less than a day, we've blown past our goal--more than 300,000 of us have signed the petition to save NPR and PBS from losing public funding. This is huge, but we need your help.

Tomorrow, the House Appropriations Committee will decide whether to approve these severe cuts to NPR and PBS. We can stop the cuts--and save public TV and radio--with a strong show of public outrage. We'll report to the committee members on our petition before they vote.

Can you help us reach 400,000 signers by the end of the day?

http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/?id=5665-5730142-bdS12kntE0xAPHOn.bZoQA&t=1

Posted by: Karen at June 15, 2005 01:13 PM

Thank you Karen! I just signed, expressing disgust not only at the very idea of eliminating funding for PBS/NPR, but also the partisan meddling that CEO Tomlinson is engaged in.

Talking points for members of congress:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/talkingpoints.pdf

!!

Karen, was just told by Tommye, whom we met at Conyers other event in January, that C-Span 3 is covering DSM live tomorrow at 1:30 est.

I am trying to get a press pass for us--maybe maybe!

Culture of Corruption = cronyism revolving door at WH:

remember the WH official who was once a Big Oil lobbyist, who was recently caught changing government reports on global warming, to benefit Big Oil....well...
He quit the WH job....Now he's been rewarded with a position with...surprise...ExxonMobil!

Former White House official takes Exxon job

Cooney caused controversy by editing climate reports
Wednesday, June 15, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A former White House official and one-time oil industry lobbyist whose editing of government reports on climate change prompted criticism from environmentalists will join Exxon Mobil Corp., the oil company said Tuesday.

The White House announced over the weekend that Philip Cooney, chief of staff of its Council on Environmental Quality, had resigned, calling it a long-planned departure. He had been head of the climate program at the American Petroleum Institute, the trade group for large oil companies.

Cooney will join Exxon Mobil in the fall, company spokesman Russ Roberts told The Associated Press by telephone from the company's headquarters in Irving, Texas. He declined to described Cooney's job.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/15/cooney.exxon.ap/index.html

K-Better than Brenda Starr!

Everyone..... spell CORRUPTION,then say CORRUPTION!! Let's get these birds on values!!

Karen,

Go for it, Scoop!

Maybe it's elsewhere here, but the Downing Street events will be streamed on www.C-span.org also

My 5 minutes today were signing the MoveOn petition to save NPR and also emailed c-span and politely requested that they cover the meeting.

Am working on a couple of other things, too, but they're still top secret.

BBWWWAAAAHHAAAAAHAAAHAAAA

Graduation crowd boos Schwarzenegger
Rowdy reception for governor at alma mater

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

SANTA MONICA, California (AP) -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to his alma mater turned into an exercise in perseverance when virtually his every word was accompanied by catcalls, howls and piercing whistles from the crowd.

Schwarzenegger's face appeared to redden during his 15-minute commencement address Tuesday to 600 graduates at Santa Monica College, but he ignored the shouting as he recalled his days as a student and, later, his work as a bodybuilder and actor.

"Always go all out and overcome your fears," he told the graduates. "Work, work, work. Study, study, study."

Inside the stadium, the drone from hundreds of rowdy protesters threatened to drown out the governor's voice at times. Many in the crowd erupted in boos when a police officer pulled down a banner criticizing the estimated $45 million cost of the November 8 special election that Schwarzenegger proposed Monday.

The governor is backing three ballot initiatives that call for imposing a cap on state spending, stripping lawmakers of the power to draw their own districts and increasing the time it takes teachers to gain tenure.

Read more... http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/15/schwarzenegger.booed.ap/index.html

Going back to the original topic of this post, you can take a gut-wrenching look at the behavior these cowardly Senators refused to condemn at this web site: http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/.
The site brings together photos of lynchings, and even more disturbing, postcards featuring photos of lynchings. You can see the huge mobs of white people who turned out for some of these killings, whole town squares filled with people clearly in a festive mood. Perhaps sending a few of these images to the pro-lynching Senators might at least get a few of their staff to quit in disgust.

Can you help us reach 400,000 signers by the end of the day?

http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/?id=5665-5730142-bdS12kntE0xAPHOn.bZoQA&t=1

Posted by: Karen at June 15, 2005 01:13 PM

I signed and then got a friend to sign as well! After that, he wrote the congressmen. He has never done anything of this sort before and said it was "empowering." Of course it is, and hopefully we can always count on him to act now!

Yes, I was very ashamed that BOTH of my senators are on that list. I wrote them yesterday. This is unconscionable. My dad teaches US history, focusing on the Civil War and reconstruction. He told his summer students about this today and says they are angry and will call our senators and demand an "explanation." ...But there really is no excuse.

Is it my imagination, or are all the Senators listed Republican? Let's talk about "values" shall we?

I am sickened by ANYONE in political life who would turn their back on the chance to publically speak out against lynching. Sickened that anyone who claims memebership in the 'culture of life' would turn their backs on people. The people who refuse to co-sponsor this bill have proven that their 'white Christian' base is indeed very important, and that a certain branch of that base needs to be pandered to in their bigotry. If they do even one thing that smacks of being pro-African American it might cost them some white votes.

I keep waiting for the light to go on for people. The far right wing of the GOP doesn't care about Joe and Jane Average. You're little people, and little people don't matter. Little poor people, little black people, little sick people, little old people, little gay people, the operative word here is LITTLE. Why do these little people vote, (if they vote) for things that condemn them to even more 'littleness?' Would it have anything to do with the fact that the far right agenda takes the little people and pits them against each? Announces that one's group interest threatens some other groups little piece of the pie? Keep the little people stirred up about each other, and they won't notice that us BIG people are taking everything we can possibly take from them, all the while blaming some little people group for it. Promote division. It works.

What we need to adopt as a message, is that being a little person is our common bond. We have to encourage people to stop fearing that the other little guy is after him somehow. Come out of your small world and into the bigger world that is full of your neighbors. Stop accepting that something bad might, could, possibly, probably happen to you by linking all of our needs together.

When will the little people wake up and realize that it's not the other little people who have the power to hurt them? What more will the little people accept from the big people 'for their own good' that is in fact the worst that can ever be done to them?

You can't come out against lynching in 2005? If that isn't a beacon on the far right, for all the little people, I don't know what is.

Yes, I was very ashamed that BOTH of my senators are on that list. I wrote them yesterday. This is unconscionable. My dad teaches US history, focusing on the Civil War and reconstruction. He told his summer students about this today and says they are angry and will call our senators and demand an "explanation." ...But there really is no excuse.

Posted by: NativeTexan4Kerry at June 15, 2005 03:33 PM

I think if we haven't learned the lesson from Trent Lott in '01, then we need to recall it.

Let's get on the phone and fax to the NAACP, ACLU and Rainbow Coalition. Let's start the hammer, and do it NOW!!

This is more than outrageous. We have caught these guys with their masks off. Behind the mask, they have been revealed as lazy, racist cowards.

Flood 'em.

Casey:

Sent major body of your thread text to the NAACP Washington Bureau as an ACTION ALERT.

My five minutes done.

PBS "updates" Editorial Standards...

http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/news/20050614_editorialstandards_ombudsman.html

What is most appalling about this article that they claim the changes were made "in the face of criticism that PBS programming has given short shrift to conservative views."

This is a LIE. They are changing the policy because the network has been taken over by a radicul wingnut Neocon, and everybody knows it.

Know what i think of the pro-lynching senators?

They should be hanged.

HEY DICK..Really I mean Dick as in Karens man.

Posted by: Christy at June 15, 2005 11:46 AM

LOL Christy....

Saw a small segment of CNN cable news on my lunch hour, and Michael Schiavo is further vindicated. As Oncall stated, her brain was atrophied past rehabilitation, and no amount of therapy would ever have changed that. She was also totally blind. It was stated today that she was brain DEAD before the removal of the feeding tube. Our own Spinnaker gave us a thorough explanation of her condition back then, and she was right on.

Also, a new siting of Osama bin Laden with reports he is "healthy and travels around quite a it". (aren't you shocked?) And 2 more terrra stories, and a promotion for a new program CNN is doing on "Security" every Sunday night coming up. (further surprised?) The U.S. Mint is now one of CNN's proud sponsors. I think they should consider making it formal, and changing their network title to State Propaganda.

The reason I turned on State Propaganda Channel in the first place was to see if there was any mention of Rep. Conyers treatment from the Capitol. Of course there was none, and no mention of the Downing Street Memo. (further surprised?)

Well, both my Minnesota Senators signed on as co-sponsors to the Resolution, even Norm Coleman. Norm, who's by no means the brightest bulb in the box, actually grasped that he'd be dead meat here if he didn't sign.

And to whoever it is upthread that noted that all the Senators that didn't sign are Neocons...

That would be correct. And here's what none of them will have the guts to say:

That they can't co-sponsor an anti-lynching resolution because it will cost them votes in their districts back home.

And that's the terrible underlying and unspoken truth that still infects this country. After all these years, there are still parts of America where supporting this resolution will cost you votes.

And that's truly sad.

Victoria Ellen,

That is the case--and they cannot even cop to it.

On a more hopeful note:

Rep. Conyers' office just called and we are IN for the briefing tomorrow! I will report live directly to Casey from the ROOM. Photos to follow...

VE-Coleman was an early co-sponsor of this legislation.

Here's what I posted over at AmericaBlog, who has been doing a great job as the lead on this story, as well as other big stories, too. The gang over there is truly amazing. Here's my post in repsonse to Senator Shelby's staff lying to its constituents by telling them that you can't co-sponsor a bill after it has been passed.

I called both Reid's and Frist's offices yesterday and got the exact same response that you did John. Of COURSE you can sign on as a co-sponser.

Also, when I spoke with Landrieu's office yesterday, they confirmed this for me as well, and they had also called the Senate floor to confirm it.

Further more, any Senate office that says they didn't have a chance or so and so was out of town, or anything to that effect is lying.

This resolution was introduced Feb.8. Since then, Landrieu's staffers have gone door-to-door in the senate, called and spoken to each office chief of staff and the press person on at lest two occasions. Additionally, Landrieu herself took the resolution with her to the Dem caucus meeting to get co-sponsors, and Allen took it with him to the Rep. caucus meeting to get co-sponsors.

As if that weren't enough, the resolution was put up on the WALL of the Senate cloak room for two days. Every senator would have to walk by it any number of times and would have surely seen it.

The bottom line is accept no excuses.

Further, on Senator Alexander's baloney version of, "I gave at the office", meaning he proposed a piece of legislation, I would like to point out that his piece of legislation, proposed for black history month, SR. 44, acknowledges the history lynching in America, but does not make any apology for it whatsoever.

In addition, I find it odd that Alexander's office is giving this out as an excuse--I can't sign on to Landrieu's bill because I have my own out there? Really? Because in case you didn't notice it, SenatorAlexander, Mary Landrieu signed on to your resolution as a co-sponser, one of the first in the Senate to do so, on Feb 10, 2005..

The amount of hypocrisy going on in these phony excuses is breathtaking.

If you know runaway brides, celebrity trial verdicts, the size of Terri Schiavo's brain, the last nasty thing Howie said, and agree that freedom and democracy are on the march, you are well informed and a good person.

If you keep following Coingate, Gitmo, DSM, the Bolton nomination, ethics violations, the Iraq quagmire, the SS non-crisis, ANWR, health-care concerns, etc. etc. it's because you are an obstructionist, you hate America and you don't support the troops and you are a bad person.

People are sucking up the mindless, meaningless, ridiculous things beamed out of their idiot boxes as their antidote to dealing with anything that might turn out to be a real problem. Denial is good. Suck up the unreal reality being dished and done to overdoneness.

We get surprised about the lack of OUTRAGE, but if all the outrage is getting used up to wreak revenge on that dastardly run away bride, really, can you expect there to be any outrage left for Bolton, or anything else?

This is the damn twilight zone, you know.

Promote division. It works.

Posted by: tutterfly at June 15, 2005 03:39 PM

It sure does, Tutt. It also keeps the poor who work and accept minimum wage working harder than ever for the pittance they are paid. After all, they are not like the "lazy poor". They will work three minimum wage jobs with no benefits to be able to say they are people with a strong work ethic. And the powers that be know this. Thus Dubya's remark to the lady at the Pushing the New Privatization Social Security Scam
meeting: "You work three jobs? Well, isn't that fantastic!"

Posted by: Karen at June 15, 2005 04:39 PM

AWESOME KAREN!

Posted by: Casey Morris at June 15, 2005 04:45 PM

CASEY, please check your email. I have a question about the feather campaign. Thanks.

Here is a letter I faxed to all the Senators listed above:

Dear Senator,

I am surprised and saddened that you have allowed yourself to be identified as a racist. For the life of me I cannot understand why you have not signed on as a cosponsor to SeRes 39. I am sure you are aware that the resolution apologizes for the Senate’s failure to outlaw lynching. What “values” allow you to neglect the responsibility of recognizing that the Senate, by virtue of its silence, was essentially condoning murder?

Are there any African-Americans on your staff? Have you sought out their opinions on this issue? If you haven’t asked them, why not? If you see this question as a right for Senators to filibuster, are you prepared to let your political opponents filibuster against radical judges? Don’t worry, I know the answer to that one. The hypocrisy is as overwhelming as a skunk in a garbage dump. You wonder why Americans hold Congress in such low esteem? Look in the mirror and you will see your answer.

Sincerely,

i think yall are missing the point of WHY they cant bring themselves to apologize

it is the EXACT same reason they cant apologize for slavery or genocide against the indians.

They CANT apologize because it would open them up to being sanctioned under our own law. There is no statue of limitations on murder.

And some of those very same senators may just be one of those ghost white faces smiling for a creepy postcard pic.

Its not really about rascisim its about losing everything you stole from people you let be murdered.

If they had been hanging italians or cajuns it would be no different.

Way to go, Karen!

Regarding the question a few threads back, I do the 5 minutes a day most days, and also pass it around "as is" to my email list. I copy and paste, I don't send a link. I find that I myself seldom follow links from others due to time constraints. So I like the info and action links to be in the email. Some days the 5 minutes is the only thing I have time for online, so I make it a priority.

I get newsletters/action alerts from almost everyone, so sometimes I've already accomplished the requested task, but not always.

Im not saying they are not rascist..

im saying apology is a whole nuther thing that literally threatens thier fortunes.

Case --

Coleman may have been early or late. But he did it because he knew it's what his constituents wanted, and sadly, that doesn't apply to some other Senators. Some of them know exactly the opposite.

On an equally strange note, I'm watching Governor Tim Pawlenty try to explain in his press conference why there will be a partial government shutdown on June 30th.

Pawlenty has pledged that he won't raise taxes (although we're literally lousy with new 'fees'), and so there is not sufficient revenue to continue government services...

Wasn't it Virginia where they just rejected the "no tax increase" brigade, and elected some moderates to get things done?

Pawlenty's had a rough week here... Over the weekend, the state Republican party nuked Pawlenty's buddy, who is party chair, and picked a new guy. Pawlenty had personally lobbied delegates to keep him.

Things not looking so good for Mr. Plenty, despite being a favorite of our fearless leader.

They CANT apologize because it would open them up to being sanctioned under our own law. There is no statue of limitations on murder.
Posted by: Christy at June 15, 2005 05:05 PM

You've got that right. There are still people out there, people with money and power and influence, who took part in lynchings. And their representatives are afraid of them.

Karen --

You da one, baby!!

From POLITICAL WAVES:

Downing Street Hearing Moved to Capitol
http://dailydissention.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_dailydissention_archive.html#111885348217150603

On Thursday June 16, 2005, from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in Room HC-9 of the U.S. Capitol, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and other Congress Members will hold a hearing on the Downing Street Minutes and related evidence of efforts to cook the books on pre-war intelligence.

There will be a live audio stream of the hearings over at Pacifica Radio.

http://www.pacifica.org/programs/20050616_Downing_Street_Memo_Hearings_Special_John_Conyers.html

For more information, go to AfterDowningStreet.org. ++

C-SPAN TO COVER THE CONYER'S HEARING TOMORROW RE THE DOWNING ST. MEMO. COVERAGE BEGINS AT 2:30 P.M. EASTERN. I just got off the phone with them.

Fe,

I'm doin' the Happy Dance!!

About the non-sponsors. My fax said this......

I know that this is going to be hard for you to understand, but ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. ALL, as in everyone, as in people of color, as in they are the same as you, as good as you, and worthwhile as you, as important as you. Yep, they are just the same as you. Now, I know that if you were to speak up for that, it would get you in hot water with the people who really really like being better than their fellow man, and since knowing who 'your betters' are makes for votes and campaign money, you're just going to finally have to come out and admit what we have suspected all along. YOU think you are better than minorities. Funny thing about you, hypocrites that you are, next election you're going to ask those same minorities to vote for you by telling them how 'culture of life' moral you are. Could you please just take a moment to explain to me again how that culture works? I must not get it, because where I come from lynching is immoral. Then, again, everything you people have been doing for the last five years is immoral, so I can't say that this is a surprise either. You at least are predictable.

Truth:

Let's celebrate with a good read:

Bush is not above the law
Scholars missed the point of the essay I wrote with Ralph Nader about the case for impeachment.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Kevin Zeese

June 15, 2005 | The fundamental question is whether Congress and the American people were misled into an unnecessary, illegal war that has turned into a quagmire. Are the indications of false statements and misrepresentations sufficient to justify a pursuit of the truth?

The evidence includes a series of exaggerated and false claims by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and officials in their administration over many months as the drumbeat for war grew louder. Statements were made in contradiction to the evidence included in intelligence documents from a wide range of U.S. and international agencies. As weapons inspectors were unable to find weapons of mass destruction, President Bush's rhetoric increased to the point of warning of a potential mushroom cloud over the United States generated by a nuclear attack by Saddam Hussein.

And, most recently, explaining these inaccurate statements, is the Downing Street memo, which summarizes a meeting at which the head of British intelligence reported that the Bush government was "fixing the intelligence" to support its plan to invade and occupy Iraq. On June 13, Raw Story printed five additional leaked British memos showing that the commitment to go to war occurred well before the issue was brought to the attention of Congress. If true, this changes the consistently inaccurate statements into intentionally false statements.

Unfortunately, there is no court of law in which to pursue these claims. No one has standing to sue the president for false statements leading to war. This can only be pursued by Congress in an impeachment inquiry. Should the president be held accountable for his actions? Is the president above the law or subject to the law?

A "Resolution of Inquiry" is the first step to determining whether the president and vice president have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." If they have, impeachment is surely appropriate.

A secondary question is the likelihood of success. All of the law professors Salon asked about impeachment opposed it because Congress is controlled by Republicans and therefore it is not possible. However, if you were a Southern sheriff in 1932 and you knew that members of the local Ku Klux Klan had lynched an African-American, but also knew that the all-white jury of their peers was not likely to convict, would you prosecute the case? Shouldn't the opposition party be raising the issue of impeachment because of false statements that led to an unnecessary war -- no matter how it turns out -- to ensure that the truth is uncovered?

Of course, it is difficult to predict the likelihood of success before the evidence is even gathered. Gathering the evidence is what the impeachment inquiry is for. But already we can see some breaks in support for the president from members of his own party. Most notably, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C. -- infamous for changing the name of the congressional cafeteria's French fries to "freedom fries" in protest of France's position on the war -- now recognizes he was misled into supporting the Iraq war and wants U.S. troops to be brought home.

What will happen if more evidence comes out? If members of the intelligence community, current and former, are subpoenaed to testify under oath and they testify about how intelligence was manipulated, will there be more defections from the president's base of support?

And, facing reelection next year and with their popularity already at a very low 33 percent, will members of the House risk their political careers to cover up for a lame-duck president who lied to get the United States into war and whose popularity is also dropping in the polls?

One of Salon's commentators, Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago, took a particularly bizarre position. He opined that we should expect dishonesty from our president -- so what's the problem? Said Cass, "In any four-year period, the nation's leader is highly likely to deceive the public on a serious matter at least once -- sometimes inadvertently, sometimes for legitimate reasons, sometimes for illegitimate ones. Of course presidents should not exaggerate evidence, and it's perfectly proper to ask whether Bush got us into war under false pretenses. But there isn't anything close to a sufficient basis for impeachment."

For shame. Let us hope we have not gotten so cynical about the honesty of the president of the United States that we would allow him to lie to send American troops to their death! Surely this type of dishonesty is, as Mark Tushnet of Georgetown University Law Center noted in his Salon commentary, "exactly what the impeachment provision is all about." He went on to properly describe impeachment as a "mechanism for removing from office a person who had demonstrated the kind of political irresponsibility that seriously threatened the nation's political institutions."

Other Salon commentators say impeachment is inappropriate because the president was reelected to a second term. Yet, in 2004 Sen. John Kerry also supported the war and said he would have supported invading Iraq even without evidence of WMD. So there was really no debate on this topic. And if reelection cleanses the record of a president, then Richard Nixon should not have been threatened with impeachment. The Watergate break-in was reported in the Washington Post during the 1972 campaign. The public knew about it and Nixon won in a landslide victory. Should that have ended the investigation of Watergate? Of course not.

It is time once again for Congress to take up its constitutional responsibility as a coequal branch of government and provide a check and balance on a president who seems to have broken the law by manipulating intelligence and sending the nation to war.

Newsview: Bush's Problems Has GOP Worried By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer
2 hours, 38 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - As funny as this may sound, President Bush misses John Kerry. In the 2004 campaign, Bush sought to make the election a referendum on the Democratic senator's character and leadership skills rather than his own record as president. Now that he has nobody to run against, every day is a referendum on Bush. And it's taking a toll.

Bush's approval ratings are among the lowest of his presidency. Voters are growing increasingly uneasy over the war in Iraq and the economy. His signature domestic issue, Social Security reform, was received coolly by Congress and the public. Some Republicans are raising the prospect that Bush could cost them control of Congress.

What happened in seven months? One explanation is that he lost his punching bag — a political rival who, once pummeled, helped make Bush look good by comparison.

On Election Day, a majority of voters were concerned about the war in Iraq and the economy. But the president and his bare-knuckles political team — with some help from Kerry — convinced enough voters that the Democrat was an indecisive, flip-flopper who might do more harm than good. Voters might not agree with his policies, Bush said, but at least they knew where he stood.

Now, with nobody else to blame, Bush stands alone. He can't deflect voter concerns about the economy and other pressing domestic matters. With the death toll in Iraq pushed above 1,700, more than double the number of a year ago, it's no longer a choice between Bush and Kerry.

It's Bush's war. Period.

"There's just a general angst right now," said Rep. Tom Cole (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla. "He's paying for his Iraq policy more now than he was before the election. People know we have to win, but they're not very happy about it. So he has a lot of problems and, frankly, nobody to blame them on.

"And the Democrats are in the unique position of not having to propose anything," Cole said.

Bush, like other second-term presidents trying to delay lame-duck status, is up against his own record, in a sense, and that's seldom a welcome situation.

"In a vacuum, all the dissatisfaction is put on the White House," said GOP consultant Charles Black, who argued that Bush should steer more attention to upbeat economic numbers.

"When you're in a campaign, people have to make a choice. It's either A or B. Easy enough," said Ken Khachigian, who served as a strategist for President Reagan. "It gets more complicated after the campaign." Khachigian said Bush could seize the initiative by delivering a speech to Congress on Iraq.

Black and Khachigian said Bush may have an easier time as the 2006 congressional elections approach, because he can contrast his record with Democrats in Congress.

Bush seems to be warming to the idea of finding a new punching bag.

Addressing GOP donors on Tuesday night, the president said of Democratic lawmakers: "On issue after issue, they stand for nothing except obstruction, and this is not leadership. It is the philosophy of the stop sign, the agenda of the roadblock, and our country and our children deserve better."

Some Republicans say they fear that Bush and his advisers are ignoring the signs of voter discontent, moving too slowly to adjust their strategies. They also blame GOP congressional leaders for focusing on legislation that seems to help a select few while making no progress on issues that matter to many.

These Republicans include lawmakers and consultants who are allies of the White House. Most spoke only privately, fearing reprisal from the administration.

"They might not realize what a challenge we face here," said Joe Gaylord, a Republican consultant close to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "The challenge is they're in campaign mode. Americans can be patient for a while, but when they see nothing going on, they get to wondering, 'What's going on here?'"

Khachigian said Bush is being worn down by stiff Democratic opposition and by his bullish agenda. "In a campaign, you're less likely to put up provocative ideas, you use much more global messaging and fewer specifics," he said. "What he's paying the price for now is being specific and provocative, especially on Social Security."

Cole compared Bush to President Truman.

"He was pretty farseeing. What you liked about Truman is what in the short term makes it politically challenging, and I'd say the same thing about Bush," Cole said. "He likes to make tough decisions."

Cole's analogy may not be comforting to Republicans. For all his tough stands and history's opinion, Truman left office with low poll ratings after the 1952 elections. And his Democrats lost control of Congress and the White House.

Email from the ksdp (kansas democratic party):

Fight to save PBS!! (We're not crying "Wolf")

You know that email petition that keeps circulating about how Congress is slashing funding for NPR and PBS? Well, now it's actually true. (Really. Check the footnotes if you don't believe it.)

A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and PBS, starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other commercial-free children's shows. If approved, this would be the most severe cut in the history of public broadcasting, threatening to pull the plug on Big Bird, Cookie Monster and Oscar the Grouch. Tomorrow (June 16), the House Appropriations Committee will decide whether to approve these severe cuts to NPR and PBS. We can stop the cuts—and save public TV and radio—with a strong show of public outrage. Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS: http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/?id=5663-2904711-CY._RJKxzxLkFocrsGSbNg&t=3

The cuts would slash 25% of the federal funding this year—$100 million—and end funding altogether within two years.1 In particular, the loss could kill beloved children's shows like "Sesame Street," "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Arthur" and "Postcards from Buster." Rural stations and those serving low-income communities might not survive. Other stations would have to increase corporate sponsorships.

The lawmakers who proposed the cuts aren't just trying to save money in the budget—they're trying to decimate any news outlets who question those in power. This is an ideological attack on our free press.

Call your representatives!!!

Senator Brownback Sen. Pat Roberts Congressman Jim Ryun
Phone: (202) 224-6521 Phone: (202) 224-4774 DC Phone: 202-225-6601
_________________________________________________

1. "Public Broadcasting Targeted By House," Washington Post, June 10, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=745

2. "CPB's 'Secrets and Lies': Why the CPB Board Hid its Polls Revealing Broad Public Support for PBS and NPR," Center for Digital Democracy, April 27, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=746

[Thanks to the MANY folks who forwarded this information. Clearly, Dems LOVE PBS!]

Report from ABC News' "world News Tonight":

Memo: Pentagon Concerned About Legality of Interrogation Techniques
Document Shows Top Pentagon Officials Warned About Guantanamo Bay Interrogation Tactics
Jun. 15, 2005 - The interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in 2002 triggered concerns among senior Pentagon officials that they could face criminal prosecution under U.S. anti-torture laws, ABC News has learned.

Notes from a series of meetings at the Pentagon in early 2003 -- obtained by ABC News -- show that Alberto Mora, General Counsel of the Navy, warned his superiors that they might be breaking the law.

During a January 2003 meeting involving top Pentagon lawyer William Haynes and other officials, the memo shows that Mora warned that "use of coercive techniques ... has military, legal, and political implication ... has international implication ... and exposes us to liability and criminal prosecution."

Mora's deep concerns about interrogations at Guantanamo have been known, but not his warning that top officials could go to prison.

In another meeting held March 8, 2003, the group of top Pentagon lawyers concluded -- according to the memo -- "we need a presidential letter approving the use of the controversial interrogation to cover those who may be called upon to use them."

No such letter was issued.

MORE:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=852458&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Hey, Doc, Fe and anyone else who may be around--could you come to the IRC, ASAP, PLEASE!!

We are working on an action to save PBS and we could use a little bit of extra help getting together a phoning and e-mail list.

Truth and I are in there right now, so if you can help out, that would be great. Thanks!

Hello All from Chuck back home (sort of - in Houston) from Baku:

Been too busy relocating myself and my family back stateside to contribue anything much lately. Too busy to think about anything else. This lynching thing is an important, symbolic issue. America is still infected with racist thinking, based on my very subjective experinces since I've been back, and, as with confronting any disfunctional, and even borderline psychotic, behavior, recognizing that there is an issue is the first (of twelve?) steps. In that sense, this issue and how various senaors committed on record to it is very important. I wonder, however, and to my dismay, how many of the 21 senators that did not endorse this measure will find that sin of omission a plus, rather than a minus, come election day. I'm still trying to find my feet here in this new America, or, as BattleBob would say, OODA....

Best Wishes to All,

Chuck in Houston

PS: I wish Linda Enterkin was on now.

Hello All again from Chuck back home (sort of - in Houston) from Baku:

For the sake of clarity, I just wanted to qualify my hasty post script above. Back in the Kerry Blog days, Linda, who is (was?) in panhandle FL, and I had a few very useful (to me, at any rate) exchanges with respect to the issue of how the Civil Rights Act effected the demographics of presidential and other elections in the US. I always find her comments on such issues enlightening and positive.

GOTV 2006!

Chuck in Houston

HMM did she ever openly lie about you?

just curious

Before Congressman Conyers' forum on DowningStreet memo tomorrow, read this article now on Yahoo news page, via LATimes:

New Memos Detail Early Plans for Invading Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050615/ts_latimes/newmemosdetailearlyplansforinvadingiraq

Christy:

If that was directed to my post, no, absolutely not, and I don't want to characterize anyone else's views. The gist, to my mind, was that the migration of Dixiecrats to hard-line GOP supporters (through Wallace) in the 1970's seems to me to be an open or in some cases subliminal reaction to civil rights, while others see a more complex dynamic at work. I still think that a large part of our politics today is driven by primitive and ignorant notions of race, but that we as a people refuse to discuss it. Others think that is a less important issue than other issues such as regional loyalties and the "guns, gays and bibles" stuff.

Chuck in Houston

Thanks for doing all this while I'm at work, guys!

I did also hear on the radio on the way home some Congressman from Alabama frothing at the mouth about how a bunch of the detainees in Gitmo needed to be executed.

& I heard about a good website by someone I really admire:

http://www.robertreich.org

Bob Evans, interesting that ABC obtained the memos. Are they doing some actual journalistic work now? Still, I wonder how much of the MSMs online stuff makes it to TV. Anyone know?

DiAnne:

Execute in haste and repent at leisure comes to mind. Then again, dead men tell no tales....

Chuck in Houston

This is not about regional loyalties it is about a nation i trouble and a region that no one has the faintest idea how to deal with and yes they did beccome hardliners as a response against civil rights but see heres the problem with that, when people hate you so much they become even more bullying and hateful you DO NOT JUST BACK DOWN, you stand your ground and fight.. this one region by the way is the very heart of the nation and no im not including the pennisula state i mean Alabama Missipippi and Louisiana, take them and it all projects outward

Texas is a whole other problem.

And the ONLY thing that can break the god guns gays mentality is you guessed it CIVIL RIGHTS

Chuck Again for DiAnne/Amy/Bob Evans:

Come to think of it, your common theme resonates with the lynching topic. What is the point to detaining or even torturing or executing these people without applying the sort of standards of governmental behavior that we all (presumabely) ascribe to through the vehicle of our Constitution?

Chuck in Houston

Chuck for Christy:

Right on and here's to us giving them a bit of the sulphurous. And I am sure, despite my unwillingness to characterize others' views, that Linda would agree that we have to fight this whenever and wherever it unambiguously rears its very ugly head.

Chuck in Houston

Hey guys--thanks for all of the help putting this together for the Save Big Bird and Elmo.

Here's the letter I sent out to my family and friends via e-mail just minutes ago.

Dear Friends, and friends of friends, and familytypes,

As some of you may be aware, tomorrow Congressional Republicans are planning to killing Big Bird and Elmo.

In last week's subcommittee hearing, the members voted to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children's educational programs as "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster."

Tomorrow, the full House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to vote on this matter. Pretty fast, huh? They are trying to kill Public Television before anyone notices, during what is summer vacation for many teachers and parents, so none of the school organization can register any protest.

Their goal as stated, is to completely withdraw funding from Corporation for Public Broadcasting within two years.

We must work to stop them now. They will be voting tomorrow.

Here's how you can help:

1. Call the members of the Appropriations Committee. Don't worry about calling all of them. Do the best you can and that will be great! Look to see if your member is there, and then start calling!

2. Send this message to everyone you know and ask them to help us by calling and faxing the people on the phone list below.

3. Sign the online petition at moveon.org if you haven't done so already and then forward it to your friends and family to sign: http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/

Thanks everyone,

Casey

Here's the phone list link:

http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=691

I dont need her to agree with me. I live here.

I know my home.

Chuck- good evening to you. I am reading. I've had a discussion today with Christy that has, once again, ended in a huge uproar, so I've decided not to respond for awhile. I do remember our discussion of Dixicrats and the influence of Civil Rights legislation on the South of the 50's and 60's though, and always enjoy your posts. And I do agree with you that the failure of these particular Senators to sign on to the apology will not affect their re-election prospects in the states which they serve. I'm not sure I would agree with you on the reason for that, however.
I think that many Americans feel that apologies for the decades old sins of our government against it's citizens serve no useful purpose, since the Senators who are making the apologies are not the same Senators who were responsible for the wrongs. I think a lot of people simply look on that as common sense- that humans are born with clean slates, that they are not responsible for the sins of their fathers, and that apologizing for the wrongs of others could be looked on as an effort in political pandering. I'm not giving my opinion on this issue, because I've evidently stepped on enough toes today, but I will say that I could understand that particular viewpoint. It is what my husband expressed to me tonight when he heard of the resolution, and many people in the states who these Senators serve will probably have the same reaction. Sorry. Just wanted to let you know I'm here.

Chuck for Linda/Christy:

Thanks for all that. I am sorry if anything I have posted is a misrepresentation on anyone else's views. As I noted above I have not been following any blogs of late and was only sort of checking in. Bless all your hearts and those of your nearest and deaest and remember that we are all after the same thing: we all want to live in a country where merit is rewarded while at the same time we look after our relatives and friends and neighbors as they would look after us, and where past injustices are stopped while the ground work is laid for avoiding future injustices.

Chuck.

Linda E

I can turn that logic on its head too.
I used to tell my parents I am not patriotic because I didn't ask to be born here (or born) and I am not religious (their religion) because if they'd lived somewhere else I would be some other religion.

If we are not part of something because it happened before we are born, that doesn't mean we don't continue to enjoy privilege because of it.

I was talking to one of the other "liberals" at work and we were talking about how apologies would be more meaningful (for slavery, for lynchings, for crimes against native Americans etc) if they were backed up by meaningful ways to make life better - which they are not. Instead, quality of life is going down due to program cuts and selfish philosophies.

As a woman, I don't value apologies or being put on a pedestal unless it's backed up with equal rights. That's one way to think about it. It's nice but symbolic and tokenism.

I don't understand why disagreements cause uproars on here. I think people take their positions far too personally sometimes.

Not My Prez...

You go Momma!

WELL said.

Others think that is a less important issue than other issues such as regional loyalties and the "guns, gays and bibles" stuff.

And that is basically what I have said all along, Chuck. What I have said is that racism abounds throughout the country- not just here in this area. But the loss of the South and the Midwest has less to do with racism than it does with the perception of the Democratic party as the party that is anti-gun, pro-gay, anti-God, and, since we've certainly had our disagrements with the White House since 9-11, even anti-American. Those are the perceptions that we have to figure out how to deal with in the Red States. We cannot just sit around and say we lost the election because Red Staters are ignorant racists- that's not going to work for us, because there are plenty of racists in New York State too, but they voted Democrat. And I think that part of our discussion over the move to the Republican party in the early 70's in the South had to do with the Vietnam war and the overwhelming support it had in this part of the country, if I remember our discussion correctly. What I am saying is that nothing is one issue in the South- we actually can chew gum and walk at the same time down here, and we can use both halves of our brains. And, I suspect, though I've never been there, that so can people in the Midwest. If this party is to survive, we have to begin to see the nuances of thought of the people in those Red States, or we're doomed.

Chuck in Houston for Linda:

The worst racists I've ever met were from Russia. The worst American racists I've ever met were from greater Boston. European racists are right up there too. And that is God's truth.

Chuck in Houston. We have to beat these folks. Failure is not an option. Success is not a given.

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT is having a blurb on the Downing Street Memo right now. CNN.

Not my prez- I'm not sure that is turning logic on it's head at all. I would, in fact, not be a Baptist had my parents not been Baptists, and I would not be a Southerner had my parents not resided in this part of the country when I was born. That's really not upside down logic. As far as the patriotism thing goes, I'm not sure that patriotism is the the most important virtue in life anyway- we are all only Americans because we were born here, and it's only a shallow view of the world that makes us think we are better than anyone who was born in any other country of the world. I'm with John Lennon on that particular issue. I truly wish there were no boundaries, and they are definitely not visible from the Space Shuttle. I don't think God created this country with any particular vision in his mind- anymore than he created China or Mexico with any particular vision in mind. All nations are the product of men- God never drew a boundary line on his planet to divide it's people. Boundaries are totally human creations as is the concept of patriotism. It isn't on the same plane as love or hate or lust or pride or any of those emotions, because it's an emotion which, absent our childhood educations, would not exist at all. So, I don't really think that's tossing logic on it's head. As far as apologizing for lynching, I'd have voted for the resolution because it was certainly more right to than not, once proposed. But I wouldn't have actually believed it would make a snowball in hell's difference in how African Americans would feel about what happened in the early 20th century. Those that are still filled with anger and resentment won't care about the resolution, and those who have moved on with their lives would have still moved on with their lives. That's just my opinion anyway.

EVERYONE,

Send emails to everyone about calling Congress tomorrow--if you care about publicly funded media.

See Casey's post above at 10:25 pm

And call the media about covering John Conyers' briefing and the White House rally tomorrow--CSPAN 3 is good, but it's not NBC...

And get some rest--tomorrow we ALL work!

I never said we lost the election because the redstates are rasist.

WHAT I DID SAY, was that they were RIGGING LOUISIANA and they were AS ALWAYS doing it by srewwing BLACK PEOPLE.

ALEXANDER TURNOATED AT THAT MOMENT FOR A REASON, oh but thats right you only ome here for the TOURIST ATTRATIONS so you would not know what happened.

And why do blacks bear the brunt of eletion manipulation...?????

ITS NOT BECAUSE THEY ASKED FOR IT...

By the way my black nieghbor was just here and you should hear what HE said about that flag, i would repeat it to throw it in your face but it is simply to goddamned heartbreaking for SOOO many i love, and you would just say buzz words like heiritage.

As soon as he gets his comp squared away he will be here to tell you personaly what he thought of your arguments.

God bless Rep. Conyers, and God bless Lou Dobbs. The spot on Lou Dobbs broadcast tonight definitely gave details of how Bush may have misled Congress, and told of Rep. Conyers intent to present his petition with 500,000 American citizen's signatures, and 109 Congressmen's. There was a short interview with Rep. Conyers, as well, and he explained fully the logic of why the Downing Street Memo may very well show deceit. It was said that this issue is "heating up". Nothing was mentioned about tomorrow's meeting, however. More likely than not there is a transcript available for viewing at CNN.com.

Turning in, too, although my time is earlier than yours on the East coast.

Chuck- and I'm sorry I got so long winded on the whole patriotism and John Lennon world view thing. That's the Sosh major in me coming out. In the final analysis, I tend to think there probably aren't any 100% correct answers to the questions on the exam. I have yet to find any, anyway.

On topic-
Bush may sign the Lynching Apology Resolution, but today, the day after the res. passed, he still strives to deny due process of law on an arbitrary basis... and "perpetuity" is a long time:

Republican senators called on Wednesday for the rights of foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay prison to be legally defined even as the Bush administration said the inmates could be jailed there "in perpetuity."

snip

At a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Republican Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said Congress should help to define the legal rights of the inmates at the prison, which the panel's top Democrat called "an international embarrassment."

Delaware Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden asked Deputy Associate Attorney General J. Michael Wiggins whether the Justice Department had "defined when there is the end of conflict."

"No, sir," Wiggins responded.

"If there is no definition as to when the conflict ends, that means forever, forever, forever these folks get held at Guantanamo Bay," Biden said.

"It's our position that, legally, they can be held in perpetuity," Wiggins said.

Earlier, the committee's top Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said the United States may face terrorism "as long as you and I live." He asked Brig. Gen. Thomas Hemingway, who oversees military trials of Guantanamo prisoners, if that means America can hold prisoners that long without charges.

"I think that we can hold them as long as the conflict endures," Hemingway responded.

"Guantanamo Bay is an international embarrassment to our nation, to our ideals, and it remains a festering threat to our security," Leahy said.
...&more
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guantanamo inmates can be held 'in perpetuity'- US
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-06-15T232807Z_01_N15302086_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-USA-DETAINEES-DC.XML

Chuck for Everyone and Signing Off:

I am sory if I stirred anythig up. That was not my intention. By arguing nuances when we agree on principles, we are only shooting ourselves in the foot. We must not get infatuated with arguing or negotiating with or between ourselves. Anyhow, I'll take Karen's sage advice and ponder this as I go to bed here in Houston, where you'd better not fight, where you'd better not gamble, where you'd better do right, else the sherrif he'll find you, and the boys will bring you down, and the next thing you know, you're penitentiary bound .... Let the midnight special, shine a light on me ....

Chuck in Houston signing off (and missing my CCR disk)

Whos Stirred?

Im so mellow its groovy

I wonder if the anti-lynching resolution passed by the congress and being signed by Bush is just a ruse to show to the American people that Bush is truly a compassionate conservative, even while he's agreeing to torture of inmates at Guantanimo. Why worry about the signature of a hypocrite on a document like that? The Republican Senators that DID sign the lynching document are still supporting Bush in running a concentration camp in Gitmo. GWB does not believe in the Geneva Convention- he certainly doesn't truly give a damn about lynchings in 1940. It's all a smokescreen, and we're worried far too much about it. Just one more CNN headline to cover up what's really going on in the world. Under the radar, we're running a concentration camp. That's what this is about, and we're busily discussing it. And that's just what they want us to do.

Chuck you stirred nothing up that wasn't already porridge anyway. And I'm mellow too. G'night to all from the Southland.

she only said mellow cause i did.

The woman just wants to be me.

Its creepy.

Dream On. Good night again.

US House votes to curb Patriot Act, defies Bush
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-06-15T234423Z_01_N15278630_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-USA-SECURITY-CONGRESS-DC.XML

BUT, the article doesn't mention anything truely defiamnt- the changes look more like Pugs making a symbolic gesture:

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday defied President Bush by approving a measure making it harder for federal agents to secretly gather information on people's library reading habits and bookstore purchases.

snip

Last year the House defeated a similar proposal offered by Sanders. This year's version deleted references to material read on the Internet and would also maintain federal agents' ability to more easily scrutinize business records that could point to suspicious activities.
____________

It's an important change, but it's also the one that's gotten the most publicity. I haven't looked into the details-- Hope there's more to it than the old 'lipstick on a pig' treatment.

Aimzz was that todays vote? It passed?

Wow atleast thats something..

I quit watching the senate early today after the weed vote, i was pretty sure they would not pass the restrictions.

I think it may just be a sign. A profound one.

Unless it is the lipstik treatment...

Hmmm

Linda
I actually wasn't turning the logic on its head, I guess, but using the same logic to say that I inherited something (a tradition) without having any say - just a different one. Racism is a negative tradition and patriotism and religion are supposedly positive traditions, but I don't particularly care for patriotism (too close to nationalism) or religion (organized), both of which I think have been more divisive than inclusive. & in either case, I didn't really get to choose but was born into the tradition. Even if it turned out to be a good tradition that I would want to follow, I still did not really get to truly choose. That was my point.

As far as apologising for "sins" of ones' ancestors or one's country .. when not personally responsible - When I have travelled, I have been constantly confronted about things our government has done or is doing - that aren't good and that I don't support. I defend my country of origin as objectively as I can and only when deserved, never blindly out of supreme allegiance. That way, I feel neither personally guilty, personally responsible or personally apologetic. I don't have to defend the wrongs in the name of patriotism but I also do not care to take alot of blame just because I live in said country.

My husband has "innocently" asked Australians about treatment of Aborigines or Germans about the concentration camps and definitely got some defensiveness about it having been done by ancestors rather than this generation. I can see the argument but I think it can be made without defensiveness and I do think that a person born into the most privileged group should acknowledge that there is some privilege, but it's not a choice and not something to feel personally guilty about.

Guilt and guilt tripping are not cool, and being defensive is not cool - so I think it's a matter of balance.

Christy
I do believe you about the rigged elections and I we know that mostly minorities had to stand in long long lines in Ohio for the 2004 election. I also resent how the Bush administration is trying to "buy" minority support through appealing to social conservatism, "ownership" etc etc. It's so damn phony.

Chuck
Good to hear from you!

haha this makes my day

In a slap at President Bush, lawmakers voted Wednesday to block the Justice Department and the FBI from using the Patriot Act to peek at library records and bookstore sales slips.

http://www.guardian.co.uk

Did you guys here about this?

Senator Durbin made comments about the crimes commited at Guantanamo. When he compared them to Soviet gulags or communist slaughter in South East Asia, the right freaked out and demanded that he apologize. They even went so far as to say that he didn't support our troops which is ridiculous... if anyone wants his long record on bills to help veterans and current servicemen etc., I can post it.

Anyway, Durbin refused to apologize, saying that the GOVERNMENT should apologize for what it has forced our should-be-admired troops to do.

Good for Durbin! He supports our troops and knows they should be admired and looked up to around the world-- not hated. And they shouldn't have to be ashamed of the things they have done. The repugs just hate to hear the truth, even when it's the only way to effectively solve the problem, as in this case.

Anyway, this reminded me of John Kerry's 1971 testimony, in which he described war crimes for the similar reason of trying to get people to realize that this needed to stop in order to bring honor back to our troops.

Once of the best things he says, is that the worst thing for veterans is to come back with all these terrible things they have done wieghing on their conscience and find an apathetic country; a country that doesn't care.
(http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/Kerry_1971_Testimony.pdf)

Posted by: NativeTexan4Kerry at June 16, 2005 01:15 AM

sorry, correct link: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/Kerry_1971_Testimony.pdf

and here's the story about Durbin:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061502627.html

Not my prez,

That was the most eloquent argument ive heard yet about not apologizing. Now in those terms it is an acceptable argument. that was beautiful.

I do not feel guilty about slavery, i feel guilty that in my own life time the scars of it can not be healed. I do not know one black person who believed freedom ould exist as long as the right to a vote was denied. I feel empathy for them because it is truely a national disgrace BUT CERTAIN SOUTHENERS will pretend rascisim itself is simply a MYTH.

Let me repeat that, but certain southernors believe that racisim itself, is a MYTH.

And they pretend the elephant did not shit in the room but that does not make the smell go away.

And they pretend the elephant did not shit in the room but that does not make the smell go away.

Posted by: Christy at June 16, 2005 01:20 AM

lol, I like that!

Hi to Dick! This is for you (see the link!)...

More Debates About Building Nuclear Plants Needed
16 June 2005

In the midst of the Energy Bill battle in the Senate, there is some consideration for building more nuclear plants. The news has been particularly silent on this issue and it appears it is not getting much discussion in the Senate either.

However some people do have concerns, I am one of them. I have posted about Bush’s plans to build more Nukes since he first mentioned it in late April. The Boston Globe has a good Editorial, that points out many of the issues surrounding building more nuclear plants.

Nuclear reconsidered

THE BUSH administration still denies that manmade greenhouse gases are changing the planet's climate. But one sign of how serious environmentalists consider the threat of global warming is that some are calling for a new look at nuclear power, which emits no carbon dioxide in generating electricity.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=1089

GO CONYERS! HOLD BUSH ACCOUNTABLE!

5 U.S. Marines, American sailor killed in Iraq
Roadside bomb near Ramadi targets U.S. convoy, officials say

The Associated Press
Updated: 7:26 a.m. ET June 16, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A roadside bomb attack killed five U.S. Marines and gunfire killed an American sailor in a western Iraqi town, the U.S. military and Iraqi officials said Thursday, as an upsurge in rebel violence battered American forces.

The Marines died Wednesday after their vehicle was attacked near Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad, the military said. Officials in Ramadi had reported a roadside bomb blast in the pre-dawn hours.

A sailor attached to the Marines’ unit, the 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, was also killed Wednesday in Ramadi by gunfire, the military said.

The six U.S. deaths raised Wednesday’s toll from insurgent attacks to 58 killed, making it the deadliest day of violence in more than a month.

At least 1,714 U.S. military members have died since the war began in 2003, according to an AP count.

Conyer's is on c-span NOW!

Patti--what is he saying?
Please report here...

No Southerner that I know has ever pretended that racism is a myth. They have only stated, with absolute logic, that it has no homeland. It exists worldwide, and the accident of being born in an area of the country that committed atrocities against another race 150 years ago does not predispose a person to be more prejudiced than anyone else. And it is no more illogical to be proud to be a Southerner (from an area that did commit those atrocities) than it is illogical to be proud to be an American. America comitted atrocities all throughout it's history- genocide, in fact- yet most Americans are still proud to be Americans. So to deny that I have a right to pride in my birthplace is also to deny that any American has a right to being proud to be an American. And that's absolute logic.

notmyprez- and I agree with you on "patriotism." I don't care for it much either. It's far too close to nationalism, you are correct in that. It's existance has led to 1700 American lives being lost in the last 2 years for no real reason. But there is a natural human compulsion to defend what we are, and where we come from. That compulsion grows as we grow, as we become attached to those who are around us who we love. It has nothing to do with their politics, or with what their great-grandparents may have done 150 years ago. And the compulsion to defend our place of birth grows with our love for the land that surrounds us- for the lakes and rivers and , in my case, the beaches- that we tend to grow up believing must be the most beautiful in the world. And when those people and those places come under attack for something they had nothing to do with, such as the slavery of the 1800's, or (in the case of America) the genocide against the Native Americans in the 1800's, it causes people to become defensive. It's that natural compulsion to defend the things we love that is born of our childhood memories. Stereotyping is wrong, and amazingly enough, it may be the stereotyping in the Democratic party of the "Red States" that caused them to ignore those states in the last election and to lose the election because of it. We're a party that takes pride in not stereotyping, but there's an awful lot of it that goes on, even on this so called liberal blog. I really can't figure out why I keep coming on here and trying to explain that- that we as a party need to get real and stop painting everything in shades of black and white. Except that, unless we do, there's really no hope for the future of this country. Abortion isn't always a good option, and we need to say that. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. Gun control isn't always good- sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. And there are, quite frankly, times that the gay community should quit being so damned pushy. Yes, they should have the same legal rights as straight people do- they should have inheritance rights and rights to health insurance. If they're committed to their partners as I am to mine, it should be their absolute legal right. But parading downtown to advertise your sexuality is simply looked on as a bit tacky to be honest with you.At least it is in the Red States. I don't advertise to the world how I have sex with my husband- please don't advertise to me how you have sex with your partner. It really is none of my business. And it's not a matter of pride, one way or the other. It's just sex, for God's sake. And when the Democratic party makes an issue of showing off our politicians at parades that are held to flaunt a particular sexual lifestyle, it turns Red Staters off. (Now I know I'm going to get jumped on, but that's how Red Staters feel, and we need to come to understand it. Whether we agree with it or not, we have to be practical. We have to win if we're ever going to govern. ) At any rate, I think our party has got to get real and make some changes, or we're simply going to go down the tubes. And that's going to be the death of this Country, which I do love, and which I am proud of, in spite of all the logic that that statement defies. That's why I keep harping on here, but it really doesn't do any good. I'll be back in a couple of weeks to try and talk you guys into getting real again, because someone has to do it. But for now, I'm gonna go travel around a little in my RV.

The worst racists I've ever met were from Russia. The worst American racists I've ever met were from greater Boston. European racists are right up there too. And that is God's truth.

Posted by: Chuck at June 15, 2005 11:01 PM

Thank you. I have similar stories to tell. The worst racists I met were in the Surinamese community in the Netherlands. The worst racists I know of here in SoCal are in Koreatown, Los Angeles. Racism has many faces - not just white, Christian, and Southern.

Posted by: Linda Enterkin at June 16, 2005 10:42 AM

Unfortunately straights advertise their sexuality all the time, every time a straight couple embraces and/or kisses in public. Even here in "gay-friendly" California it's hard for a gay couple to get away with the same, unless it's in the Castro District in San Francisco.

I'm not asking straights to stop advertising their sexuality. I am just asking that gays be allowed to do the same in a safe setting, even if the only existing safe setting is a parade.

Not me- Tonguing away in public, whether between two straight teenagers or two gay people is really not all that attractive to me or to most Red Staters. That's what I'm trying to get across. If we could only understand that a little discretion can go a long way in acceptance by society of a lot of different things, I think we'd be more accepted as a party in a lot of parts of the country that we're trying to influence. I don't mind seeing a gay couple holding hands in the street any more than I mind seeing a straight couple holding hands in the street. What you might find strange, but I'm sure you already know about Pensacola, is that it's the number one destination on Memorial Day for Gays from throughout the country. It's a great boost to our local economy, and the businessmen, even in this Reddest of areas, don't seem to mind at all. But a couple, no matter who they are, who stand on the steet corner making out while waiting for a light to change, are just flaunting it, and it's simply bad manners. It's not necessary. It creeps other people out, unnecessarily. And it makes a lot of people, like my hubby, whisper under his breath-" take that to your house." You're right though, it seems to be accepted in today's society. What I'm saying is that we need to at least try and see that there may be viewpoints of Red Staters towards gays that aren't necessarily based on outright homophobia. Some of it may just be based on having seen bad manners flaunted. How sex is practiced between two loving people should be neither a matter of public pride nor of shame. (Enjoyment, but not pride or shame.) It's a physical act, after all. Not really much more than that.
I'm not trying to impose my views on anyone on this blog, but I do think there needs to be some thinking about others views before we assume the worst of people. There are homophobes out there, and there are racists out there. But to assume that everyone who votes Republican is one or the other is to assume that 51% of the Americans who voted in 2004 are very sick people. And I just don't believe they are. Some of them have problems, but so do some of us. And we need to address those problems to have success in the future.

I'm only reflecting on one small portion of what’s been written after trying to catch up on what's been posted on the blog while I've been offline for the last day and a half or so.

One thing that I have learned about the people who come to DCP is that we have an extremely diverse group of people who frequent our community. Some are lurkers and rarely if ever post, others are regular posters and more confident/willing to express their ideas.

I do not think that one can presume to put us all in one particular group on any given issue because in fact, our life experiences are all so individual that it's very evident that though some may agree on some things, we certainly don't agree on all points. There's definitely different conclusions by different individuals on different issues and that's okay.

Diverse viewpoints are always welcome. Posting on this blog does not require that one agree with every post. And that's a good thing.

Good persuasive writing is always welcome. With written communication where no verbal or non-verbal body language, inflection or tone is evident, extra care must be taken when using the words, “you”, “you are”, “you said”, “you must think”, etc. whether referring to an individual or a group. It may be the better part of wisdom to address a specific item in the third person and leave it up to each reader/poster to decide whether or not they include themselves in the identified group.

What is important is that we identify ways in which people can take effective actions on issues that concern them and provide education and encouragement to others who choose to act on specific issues.

What’s important is that we speak from the heart, each about their own individual experiences and how each one chooses to make a difference.

Posted by: Linda Enterkin at June 16, 2005 12:48 PM

I do agree with you on one thing - I believe that gay pride parades should be more about spurring gays and their supporters into action, much like what DCP does for the progressive movement. I don't need to see bodybuilders in leather thongs either.

And not only am I lesbian, but I am single as well - and proud of it. Public displays of affection do turn me off because it kind of reinforces our social view that one must have a mate to be happy. I am perfectly fine being single. And speaking of gay and single issues, I think they are one and the same when it comes to the political arena, as both are seen as threats to the straight married couples - and are accordingly punished with higher taxes to start.

And all the gays partying away in Pensacola, Palm Springs (another red area here in California), and other "red" places remind me - there are plenty of gay Republicans. Virtually all of them are - or once were - men, so I suspect the male privilege thing. (I may fall into the "formerly men" category myself but I just don't get how SOME men think...) They are so "patriotic" and "loyal" to the conservative cause that they are willingly voting against their self-interests to further Bush's causes, which is sickening because not-so-conservative innocents like me will get screwed in the process. I am at the same time thankful that there are plenty of conscientious straights, like the vast majority of DCPers, who are more concerned about gay issues than these gays will ever be, out of civil rights concerns.

And we must indeed remember that the half of the country that went for Bush did not do it out of pure malice. Many did. But not all. It's about the misinformation spread by the Media, the "Swift Boat Veterans," and our churches, and we must organize to spread the Truth if we want power back again.

I also will add that we need to rethink about our political correctness toward certain immigrant groups as well as Log Cabin Republicans; they are backstabbing us and we must fight back.

Ally- I think we agree on more than we disagree on. I have no problem at all with protests in the streets for equal rights, but the bodybuilders in thongs really CAN go :-) Now I'll go and take off for a few days in peace- knowing that I've explained myself in some coherant manner to someone. Thanks, back in awhile.