Bolton Appointed

All the President had to do provide the requested documentation, and the President would have had his vote.

Mr. President, by refusing to turn over the documents that the Senate requested, are you suggesting that Mr. Bolton has things to hide?

And while I'm at it, where does a President who launched an illegal war, who repeatedly attempted to mislead the nation about a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, and whose Administration is among the most incompetent in U.S. Military history, get the idea that its his job to reform the United Nations?

I mean, Mr. President, Abu Gharib didn't happen on the UN's watch, did it? The UN weapons inspectors were actually getting the intelligence right, unlike our CIA?

Ever hear the one about people living in glass houses not throwing bricks?

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support -- to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective, to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak, and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

...

United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

John Kennedy, Inaugural Address.

W makes another another in your face, thumb in their eye, appointment that says I don't give a flip about the US Senate. Had Clinton pulled this stunt when his own party opposed an appontment like this, the right would be screaming for his head.

Let's hope now that Bolton is a target of Fitzgerald and he gets indicted along with Rove and Libby. Wouldn't that be sweet justice.

Unimaginable things must be hidden in unreleased files of Bolton, Roberts and others. Bush's first Executive Orders were about sealing records. After 9/11, I remember dignitaries saying there would be alot of secrecy and that we needed to prepare to give up civil liberties for security. I think it started long before that though.

New bumper stickers:
Keep Portland Wierd
Bush Cheated
He's Not My President
I'm From a Blue State

I place them over some of last years, as life moves on.

Bolton thinks he will stomp into the U.N. and make changes?

I think not!

What he and Bush don't seem to get is he didn't get CHOSEN therefore his words are absolutely meaningless to the world in which he will be working.

Good luck to Mr. Bolton; I hope he learns diplomacy while there because a recess appointment makes him bottom man on the totem-pole. (The perfect place for a bottom dweller like him!)

Ira--Did you see the look on his face into the camera when he made the announcement. It came at the end of the first sentence in his speech announcing Bolton. It was only a split-second, but there was this "Eff You" look, or rather glint in his eye. A real cowboy bully frat-boy look.

Disgusting.

Tomorrow is the special election in Ohio congressional district 2. Paul Hackett needs last minute donations. I just sent in another contribution. If you would like to help

http://www.swingstateproject.com/

Sorry! I didn't notice the thread had changed. This is a repost....

Madame has it right: the will of the people does not matter to this regime. Period. It's all about the egomaniacal power of the cabal in the WH (and PNAC aims as stated on their web site seem to be uppermost in their minds) with pResNitwit as its mouthpiece, and everyone else be damned. They're all acting like spoiled brats.... They need a swift smack on the butt to get their attention....

http://www.senate.gov/

If you don't already have your senators' web sites marked in your favorites file, you can get to it through this web site, and write to him/her directly.

pResNitwit must have been up at the crack of dawn to make that appointment. He has no inkling that the "reforms" in the UN that he and his cabal want are not in the best interests of the US. I think he sent Bolton in because of Bolton's unpleasant personality and ability to use strong-arm tactics... right in keeping with the Gonzilla redefinitions of torture that the WH has backed. The whole gang of schoolyard bullies are installing their people where they can do the most harm to the US (and that's what they will try to do re: the SCOTUS nomination, too).

I particularly like what Kennedy had to say:

But Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., sharply criticized the move. “The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues,” Kennedy said. “It’s bad enough that the administration stonewalled the Senate by refusing to disclose documents highly relevant to the Bolton nomination. It’s even worse for the administration to abuse the recess appointment power by making the appointment while Congress is in this five-week recess.”

Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, a senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said that “the president has done a real disservice to our nation by appointing an individual who lacks the credibility to further U.S. interests at the United Nations. I will be monitoring his performance closely to ensure that he does not abuse his authority as he has in the past.”

Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio also said he was disappointed in the appointment. “I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton’s baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations,” Voinovich said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8758621/

Was it Fahd or Abdullah with whom pResNitwit was pictured holding hands like a schoolgirl (or gay couple)??? Or do I have the mideast countries mixed up???

Maybe it's the good news that the bottle of White-Out is almost empty, Casey.
Spinnaker, I haven't had the courage to watch that man do anything on tv. It turns my stomach to see him at all, but I know the look you are talking about.
I did accidentally catch a glimpse of him strutting in to talk to the boy scouts. He looked as if all he had forgotten was the Mission Accomplished banner.
I think I need to order one of those Bush countdown watches so I can tell exactly how many days of misery are left.That is of course unless, we take back the congress next year and impeachment follows shortly.

(Oops...posted this on previous thread by mistake...)

Posted by: Marjorie G at August 1, 2005 12:08 PM

Marjorie knows...

We will NOT be distracted. We will NOT give up. We WILL take back our country and restore our democracy!

Posted by: madame defarge at August 1, 2005 12:12 PM

OK, FIMO* time. Voice your opinion to your senators/representatives http://www.congress.org and the friggin' WH comment line just for the hell of it (202-456-1111).

And then move on. We've got other battles to fight. kay's suggestion is a good one. Every dollar helps. http://www.swingstateproject.com/

Even though Congress is in recess, we have to keep our eye on the balls and be ready to take action.

(*F It, Move On)

Posted by: madame defarge at August 1, 2005 12:32 PM

After a brief period of mourning, Shurb will be strutting around, talking about the need for democracy in Saudi Arabia, blind to his own tyranny

BTW- any relation between change in Saudi ambassador & the death of King Fahd (after the long, long illness)?

Neither Bolton or Bush looks too happy
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4780178&sourceCode=RSS

Will people even notice what shrub did? He didn't just slide Bolton in during a recess-- he picked the time when lots of folks are vacationing

Was it Fahd or Abdullah with whom pResNitwit was pictured holding hands like a schoolgirl (or gay couple)???

Posted by: NonnyO at August 1, 2005 12:19 PM
--------------------

You mean "the mandate?"

If only Sen. Voinovich had stopped Bolton's nomination when it was in committee.
Not My President, If I saw your car passing by, it would make my day. My spirits are lifted every time I see any progressive bumper stickers or even left on K/E ones. I am drowning in a sea of W ovals. I have considered getting one of the WWIII ones though. My area is so red, the people would probably think I was advocating our Commander in Chief's stance!

Paul Hackett is on Al Franken right now!!!

Go to AirAmerica now to listen... http://www.airamericaradio.com/

Thanks , Madame Defarge!
Ira, This one's for you. Is there Noe end to the mess in Ohio? Check out Raw Story!

http://rawstory.com/

Thanks Kay for your's and everyone else's contributions to the Hackett campaign.
Spinaker I can't stomach watching W or Bolton's smirk. Let's see their smirk when there is a frog march of Rove in September.

Hackett is great candidate who we can hopefully call Congressman tomorrow night.

The Heat is On...

As I said before, there is no honor among thieves (liars or traitors either)

Squirm Novak...squirm...

Ex-CIA official's remark is wrong

August 1, 2005

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

A statement attributed to the former CIA spokesman indicating that I deliberately disregarded what he told me in writing my 2003 column about Joseph Wilson's wife is just plain wrong.

Though frustrated, I have followed the advice of my attorneys and written almost nothing about the CIA leak over two years because of a criminal investigation by a federal special prosecutor. The lawyers also urged me not to write this. But the allegation against me is so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist that I feel constrained to reply.

In the course of a front-page story in last Wednesday's Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei quoted ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow describing his testimony to the grand jury. In response to my question about Valerie Plame Wilson's role in former ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger, Harlow told me she "had not authorized the mission." Harlow was quoted as later saying to me "the story Novak had related to him was wrong."

This gave the impression I ignored an official's statement that I had the facts wrong but wrote it anyway for the sake of publishing the story. That would be inexcusable for any journalist and particularly a veteran of 48 years in Washington. The truth is otherwise, and that is why I feel compelled to write this column.

My column of July 14, 2003, asked why the CIA in 2002 sent Wilson, a critic of President Bush, to Niger to investigate an Italian intelligence report of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases. All the subsequent furor was caused by three sentences in the sixth paragraph:

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA [Harlow] says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."

------------snip----------------

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak01.html

Actually on the Today Show this morning it was reported that numerous Republican Senators had abandoned Bolton recently. Hopefully the memos that Biden and Dodd asked for regarding Bolton will still be demanded.
Bush said that Bolton's nomination had been supported by a majority of the Senate but that "because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators, John was unfairly denied the up-or-down vote that he deserves."

Tutter we need to find photos of Bolton and Santorum together. Maybe some Santorum/Noe photos as well. Any way to see if Santorum's campaign has received any funds from Noe, tutter?

Hey Ira,

Who's in charge of the official election in Ohio tomorrow?

Ira

Agreed - I'm waiting for the frog march too.
I did catch a bit of television in a motel in Portland. Fox had a very long segment with a pro-Bush "expert on terror" - instilling fear.
No news anywhere.

Carol:

Hackett's campaign says they have hired teams of lawyers and sheriffs to monitor tomorrow's election. The imagery of a challenged election will hopefully motivate our Ohio voters tomorrow.

Just caught Hackett on Air America.

But the allegation against me is so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist that I feel constrained to reply.

- Robert Novak
============================

His integrity as a journalist?????????

What a joke.

You mean "the mandate?"
Posted by: KerryOn62 at August 1, 2005 12:34 PM

;-) Yes, I sure do!!! :-)

carol,
I'm not sure what you are asking Ira about who is in charge of the official election in Ohio, but I'll tell you what little I know. Ken Blackwell is the sec. of state and his office is responsible for elections in the state. Each county (there are 7 in Ohio district 2) has a board of elections with equal membership from the 2 parties so that theoretically they are nonpartisan. The election will be held with punch card ballots counted electronically. My husband says that most of these machines are maintaimed by EDS ( the unDiebold , other Republican election machine manufacturers). Hope this helps.

kay: I can't believe you are still using punchcards after Florida 2000.

Last November groups of lawyer like myself volunteered as poll watchers throughout the country with official garb and authorization within polling places to monitor provisional ballots. Most of us volunteered through moveon.
Let us know if there will be these types of workers tomorrow and whether those casting provisional ballots must cast them in the correct precinct;that was a hotly disputed issue in November. But each state had different rules for provisional ballots under HAVA.

War on Terror, Rest in Peace
By George Lakoff, AlterNet. Posted August 1, 2005.

Though politically useful for Bush and his minions, the 'war frame' never fit the reality of terrorism. It was successful at consolidating power -- but counterproductive in dealing with the real threat.

The "War on Terror" is no more. It has been replaced by the "global struggle against violent extremism."

The phrase "War on Terror" was chosen with care. "War" is a crucial term. It evokes a war frame, and with it, the idea that the nation is under military attack -- an attack that can only be defended militarily, by use of armies, planes, bombs, and so on. The war frame includes special war powers for the president, who becomes commander in chief. It evokes unquestioned patriotism, and the idea that lack of support for the war effort is treasonous. It forces Congress to give unlimited powers to the President, lest detractors be called unpatriotic. And the war frame includes an end to the war -- winning the war, mission accomplished!

The war frame is all-consuming. It takes focus away from other problems, from everyday troubles, from jobs, education, health care, a failing economy. It justifies the spending of huge sums, and sending raw recruits into battle with inadequate equipment. It justifies the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It justifies torture, military tribunals, and no due process. It justifies scaring people, with yellow, orange, and red alerts. But, while it was politically useful, the war frame never fit the reality of terrorism. It was successful at consolidating power, but counterproductive in dealing with the real threat.

Colin Powell had suggested "crime" as the frame to use. It justifies an international hunt for the criminals, allows "police actions" when the military is absolutely required, and places the focus and the funding on where it should go: intelligence, diplomacy, politics, economics, religion, banking, and so on. And it would have kept us militarily strong and in a better position to deal with cases like North Korea and Darfur.

But the crime frame comes with no additional power for the president, and no way to hide domestic troubles. It comes with trials at the international court, giving that court's sovereignty over purely American institutions. It couldn't win in the administration as constituted.

The abstract noun, "terror," names not a nation or even people, but an emotion and the acts that create it. A "war on terror" can only be metaphorical. Terror cannot be destroyed by weapons or signing a peace treaty. A war on terror has no end. The president's war powers have no end. The need for a Patriot Act has no end.

It is important to note the date on which the phrase "war on terror" died and was replaced by "global struggle against violent extremism." It was right after the London bombing. Using the War frame to think and talk about terrorism was becoming more difficult. The Iraq War was declared won and over, but it became clear that it was far from over and not at all won and that it created many new terrorists for every one it destroyed. The last justification - fighting the war on terror in Iraq so it wouldn't have to be fought at home -- died in the London bombing.

And so the term "War on Terror" had to go. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head man in waging war, said he had objected to the term, "because, if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as the solution" Instead, the solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military."

That's what was said by those in the anti-war movement.

Donald Rumsfeld's spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, said that the change in language was "not a shift in thinking," like Nixon saying "I am not a crook." But when the war frame is crucial and evoked by the word "war," then dropping the "war" while addressing the public will result in a shift in thinking in the public mind: If the war frame is not evoked in the public mind, the failure of the president's war policy will be less visible.

The new phrase is less comprehensible, long, complicated. You almost have to memorize it: "global struggle against ...what was that exact wording again? Oh yeah, "violent extremism." It doesn't sound like poetry, but it a perverse way it is. It says the administration's policy is like the words for it: hard to comprehend, long, complicated. The new phrase is not memorable, and that's the point.

"Struggle" does not evoke a war frame. "Struggle" is more realistic in that it does not imply an end; it may not have a victory, the "mission" is vague, it is hard to say when it is accomplished, and it is difficult. Dropping war takes the blame for failure away from the war policy, takes the focus away from $200 billion and thousands of lives spent so far, with more to come. It also justifies bringing troops home next year. If there is no war, there is no war to lose.

"Global" takes it out of any particular location, and justifies going into any country anytime. It is diffuse, but confers a broader scope over which to exert power.

"Violent" is important. If they're violent, it justifies using violence against them. It's not just diplomatic, economic and political -- expect the US to use violence.

"Extremists" was chosen very carefully. It applies both abroad and at home. The Bush administration was using the designation "terrorist" for progressive activists and setting the FBI and the IRS on them: activists like, for instance, members of PETA who release minks raised in horrifying conditions. And the radical right has been using the word "extremist" for environmentalists. The term is set up for the suppression of opposition at home.

What is most important is what is not being said. The Bush administration is implicitly, through the use of language, admitting that war won't stop terrorism and that the war in Iraq had no justification. Important questions arise and must be asked: If this is not a "war," does the president still have the war powers given him by Congress? If there is no "war" anymore, how can there be "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo, whose imprisonment without due process is being justified by "war." If there is no "war," will we still need to call up the reserves and the National Guard? And is the new framing retroactive? Was there ever a "war" on terror? Was it just mistake to think so?

Language matters, because of the frames evoked -- and, just as importantly, the frames not evoked. "War on Terror" evoked a frame that embodied a policy claim, that war was the appropriate means to stop terrorists, and that the Iraq War was justified as a response to 9/11. "War on Terror" was a way to get the public to accept that frame and the policy it was mean to justify.

That policy is now being disowned, and so the words must be dropped. The hope is, in the absence of the old words and the presence of the new, a new frame will take hold and the old policy will be forgotten. The goal is that the public will no longer associate the Iraq War with terrorism and see the failure in Iraq as a failure to curb terrorism. That way most of the troops can be brought home before the midterm elections without the implication that the administration is giving up on stopping terrorism.

What should progressives do? Remind the public that there is still a war going on, that it was the wrong policy from the beginning, that the administration now agrees with the anti-war activists, and that you can't end a war just by stopping the use of the word. And remind the public of what Karl Rove said just weeks ago: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war." The conservatives were wrong; had they been right, they'd still be talking proudly about the "war."

George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate' (Chelsea Green). He is Professor of Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute.

Ira,
This is the last election for punch cards. We will have touch screen voting after this year. I'm in Northern Ohio , so I can't speak to how provisional ballots will be handled in the Cincy area. Blackwell was the cause of all the stink about the provisional ballots in the Nov. election. Now he wants to run for governor. I'll be working against him as hard as you will be working against Santorum!

What I have always found fascinating about this administration is that they accuse their enemies of the very things they so blatantly do, it's a psychological shell game at all times.

So when I hear them reframe the "war on terror" into this "global struggle against violent extremism", I believe them... because quite frankly, in the eyes of the world (remember that global test?) we've become nothing more than an dangerous superpower that has been taken over by violent fundamentalist Christian extremists, and at some point, the world is gonna lose it's patience.

I am starting to take this administration at their word.

It IS a global struggle against violent extremism... (guess which side you're on?)

E&D 1:32

Posted on Alternet that Lakoff's use of Colin misses that John Kerry's had and said the same ideas. Mentioning an almost Dem and freeze of addressing it during the campaign, other than the GOP negative ad...his book, BCCI, NYT Magazine piece.

kay if my volunteer work with tutter doesn't pan out I would be happy even disregarding our Texas election to help you for a month or two against Blackwell. You are exactly right Santorum and Blackwell need to be at the head of our '06 campaigns. Defeating scumbag Blackwell will be crucial to carrying Ohio in the '08 Presidential election. Is there a favorite Dem. opponent for Blackwell, I truly hope it won't be Springer?

Did someone say, "BCCI"?

Wiki, wiki, wik...

Bank of Credit and Commerce International
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a major international bank founded in Pakistan in 1972. At its peak, it operated in 78 countries, had over 400 branches, and claimed assets of $25 billion.

BCCI became the focus in 1991 of the world's worst financial scandal and what was called a "$20-billion-plus heist" (Beaty 1993). It was found by regulators in the United States and United Kingdom to be involved in money laundering, bribery, support of terrorism, arms trafficking, the sale of nuclear technologies, the commission and facilitation of tax evasion, smuggling, illegal immigration, and the illicit purchases of banks and real estate. The bank was found to be worthless, with at least $13 billion unaccounted for.

Investigators in the U.S. and UK revealed that BCCI had been organised to avoid centralized regulatory review and to commit fraud on a massive scale. The bank was found to have its own intelligence network, diplomatic corps, and shipping and commodities trading companies.

The liquidators of BCCI, Deloitte & Touche, filed a lawsuit against Price Waterhouse and Ernst & Young, the bank's auditors, which was settled for $175 million in 1998. A further lawsuit against the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, a major shareholder, was launched in 1999 for around $400 million. BCCI creditors also instituted a $1 billion suit against the Bank of England as a regulatory body. After a nine-year struggle due to the Bank's statutory immunity, the case went to trial in January 2004.

>>>MORE>>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Credit_and_Commerce_International

Atrios has updated info on fundraising for Hackett

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_07_31_atrios_archive.html#112291397372071913

Hackett Update

I don't have exact numbers, but it looks like Hackett's raised at least $28000 including $7000 or so through the Eschaton community site, since the call went out...

-Atrios 12:32 PM

This is not an endorsement for Hackett, but instead an endorsement for our democracy. What better way to show how we support our troops and our country than to elect a Marine who has been to Iraq (to fight the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism) into Congress?

BCCI? It rings a cracked bell, liberty.

W: King F'rahd

who is the Eschaton Community? Sounds like everything is going great.

who is the Eschaton Community? Sounds like everything is going great.

Posted by: Ira at August 1, 2005 02:23 PM

Eschaton is the home site for Atrios, aka Duncan Black.

Posted by: Ira at August 1, 2005 02:23 PM

I presume it's those bloggers who frequent Atrios and have made donations via his site. If you scroll down the site a bit, you'll see the call donate. Seems like they're doing good work to help on a national level for a local election.
http://atrios.blogspot.com/

Ira,
At this time there are two good candidates for the Dems , Michael Coleman( mayor of Columbus and African American like Blackwell) and Ted Strickland (congressman from southern Ohio). Either would be excellent and both are leading Republicans in early polling. Other Republicans considering running are Betty Montgomery,state treasurer, Petro,current attorney general, and Congressman John Kasic(sp.). At this time Strickland would defeat all of them and Coleman , all but Kasic, in early polling.
Coleman seems to be more organized , even getting support from Hillary. I'm leaning toward Strickland. He's the congressman who travelled with Kerry in Ohio and went on the hunting trip with JK in Southern Ohio. Ironically he is from my original home county of Scioto, which was a
little too democratic. It was split in Republican gerrymandering (shades of DeLay in Texas)so that now half is in Strickland's district and half will be proud to call Paul Hackett their congressman tomorrow.
I believe that most of Ohio is sick of the republican culture of corruption. I'm not so sure that Blackwell will even get the nomination.Maybe Tom Noe was good for something after all. The Toledo Blade keeps covering coingate and connecting it to more and more state officials.
Tomorrow should give us some indication if Ohio cares. If Hackett wins in his 70% repub. district then I have high hopes for 06. I saw one post on the swingstateproject from a woman who canvassed Scioto county Saturday. She said she talked to 648 people and 517 were for Hackett,99 undecided and 32 for Schmidt. But like I said Scioto county was a little democratic and had to be divided so this might not say much for the other six counties in his district. A lot will hinge on turnout. The only other issue in Scioto county is a MRDD levy. I don't know about issues in the other counties, probably school levies and not much else. But the Dems are highly motivated and GOTV volunteers have come in from all over the country. It feels good to have hope again!

The American's Creed is the official creed of the United States of America. It was written in 1917 by William Tyler Page as an entry into a patriotic contest. It was adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives the next year.

The text of the American's Creed is:

"I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the People, by the People, for the People; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; A democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many Sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of Freedom, Equality, Justice, and Humanity for which American Patriots sacrificed their Lives and Fortunes."

"I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to Love it; to Support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to Respect its Flag; and to defend it against all enemies."

Well, there you have it folks...a little know cry for loyalty to our Nation.

I wonder if this would be admissible in court?

(kidding)

Would be worth sending to Congress would it not?

Got Patriotism?

This Day In History:

August 1: Civic Holiday in Canada (2005), Emancipation Day in Trinidad and Tobago, National Day in Switzerland

1774 - Joseph Priestley discovered oxygen, corroborating the prior discovery of this chemical element by Carl Wilhelm Scheele.

1798 - French Revolutionary Wars: The Battle of the Nile started between French and British fleets.

1927 - People's Liberation Army was established in China.

1944 - The Warsaw Uprising against Nazi occupation began in Poland.

1981 - MTV debuted with the song Video Killed the Radio Star by The Buggles.

MACHO MAN

- The Village People

(Ha ha ha this cracked me up. Try hard not to envision Dubya falling off his bike.) :)

Hey! Hey! Hey, hey, hey!
Macho, macho man (macho man)
I´ve got to be, a macho man
Macho, macho man
I´ve got to be a macho! Ow!

Macho, macho man
I´ve got to be, a macho man
Macho, macho man (yeah, yeah)
I´ve got to be a macho!

You can tell a macho, he has a funky walk
his western shirts and leather, always look so boss
Funky with his body, he´s a king
call him Mister Eagle, dig his chains
You can best believe that, he´s a macho man
likes to be the leader, he never dresses grand

Hey! Hey! Hey, hey, hey!
Macho, macho man
I´ve got to be, a macho man
Macho, macho man
I´ve got to be a macho! All Right!

Every man ought to be a macho macho man,
To live a life of freedom, machos make a stand,
Have their own life style and ideals,
Possess the strength and confidence, life´s a steal,
You can best believe that he´s a macho man
He´s a special person in anybody´s land.

Hey! Hey! Hey, hey, hey!
Macho, macho man (macho man)
I´ve got to be, a macho man
Macho, macho man
I´ve got to be a macho! (dig the hair on my chest)

Macho, macho man (dig my muscles!)
I´ve got to be, a macho man
Macho, macho man
I´ve got to be a macho!

Macho, macho man
I´ve got to be, a macho man
Macho, macho man
I´ve got to be a macho! HEY!

Marjorie Cohn | Bush Defies Military, Congress on Torture
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080105I.shtml
A group led by Democratic Senator Carl Levin seeks an amendment calling for an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration's interrogation policies and mistreatment of prisoners, writes TO's Marjorie Cohn.
Excerpt:
Bush persists in ignoring the warnings of our top military leaders, who believe American security is endangered by the harsh interrogation policies. And he threatens to defy Congress as well by opposing amendments that would hold him and his administration accountable for torture and inhuman treatment.

A group led by Democratic Senator Carl Levin seeks an amendment calling for an independent commission, like the 9/11 Commission, to investigate the Bush administration's interrogation policies and mistreatment of prisoners.

This amendment is probably the most threatening to Bush and his deputies. A truly independent investigation would likely uncover criminal liability all the way up the chain of command to the White House.

Ira

Agreed - I'm waiting for the frog march too.
I did catch a bit of television in a motel in Portland. Fox had a very long segment with a pro-Bush "expert on terror" - instilling fear.
No news anywhere.

Posted by: DiAnne at August 1, 2005 01:05 PM

Caught a few minutes of CNN Headline News this morning. DiAnne, they were doing the SAME EXACT THING Faux was - instilling fear with a Bush "expert on terror", and they addressed "terrorists" communicating with each other and sharing instructions and techniques over the internet.

I think it's too late. I think the people are "pi**ed". This administration has sung it's last notes of Glory. What's NEXT?

The Bolton nomination is just very scarey to me.

Got ramrod another war?

I would think someone from Columbus like their mayor would be a good idea. Keep us posted, Kay.

I am starting to take this administration at their word.

It IS a global struggle against violent extremism... (guess which side you're on?)

Posted by: monkey at August 1, 2005 01:47 PM

These guys are NUTS! I seriously wonder if we are being led by a bunch of power mad psychotics who have the ability to push the buttons to get us ALL blown up, and are crazy enough to start something that would do it. People, these guys are crazy!

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said, "The president did the right thing by sending Mr. Bolton to the U. N. He is a smart, principled and straightforward candidate, and will represent the president and America well on the world stage."

Interesting commentary on at The Washington Note on the Bolton appointment...There are some positive aspects of this stupid appointment. Read what Charles Brown has to say about "Winners, losers, lessons" here ===> http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

BTW, every silly online poll I've seen is 65 - 70% against this recess appointment... Go vote for the hell of it...it's good practice for '06.

CNN - http://www.cnn.com/
MSNBC - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8758621/ (see voting click in middle of page)
AOL - http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050731155609990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001

So what's the deal with Frist coming up with the "I am now going to be an advocate of stem cell research"? A ploy to manipulate the populace toward voting Republican in '06 while shielding and deflecting the spotlight on Dubya? Dubya couldn't say he is against federal funding for stem cell research that would utilize more stem cell lines, that would be flip-flopping. Let Billy do it. Keep 'em guessing. The veto won't be overturned by the House anyway.

Carter: Guantanamo Detentions Disgraceful

By CASSANDRA VINOGRAD
The Associated Press
Saturday, July 30, 2005; 5:32 PM

BIRMINGHAM, England -- Former President Carter said Saturday the detention of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval base was an embarrassment and had given extremists an excuse to attack the United States.

Carter also criticized the U.S.-led war in Iraq as "unnecessary and unjust."

"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," he told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."

Carter said, however, that terrorist acts could not be justified, and that while Guantanamo "may be an aggravating factor ... it's not the basis of terrorism."

Critics of President Bush's administration have long accused the U.S. government of unjustly detaining terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base on the southeastern tip of Cuba. Hundreds of men have been held indefinitely at the prison, without charge or access to lawyers.

"What has happened at Guantanamo Bay ... does not represent the will of the American people," Carter said Saturday. "I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people."

Earlier this month, Carter called for the Guantanamo prison to be shut down, saying reports of abuses there were an embarassment to the United States. He also said that the United States needs to make sure no detainees are held incommunicado and that all are told the charges against them.

Carter, who won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, has been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war.

"I thought then, and I think now, that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and unjust. And I think the premises on which it was launched were false," he said Saturday.

The Baptist World Alliance, comprising more than 200 Baptist unions around the world, was formed in London in 1905. The headquarters of the alliance, which meets in a different location every five years, moved to the United States in 1947.

An estimated 12,700 delegates gathered in the city of Birmingham in central England for the conference. Carter, a Sunday school teacher in his hometown of Plains, Ga., was due to lead a Bible study lesson during the conference.

He praised British police and intelligence services for the swift arrests in connection with the July 21 failed bombing attempts on London's transit system.

"I'm very proud to be in a nation that stands so stalwart against terrorism with us," he said. "The people of my country have united our hearts and sympathy for the tragedy that you have suffered from terrorism."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/30/AR2005073000594_pf.html

Other reactions to the appointment...

___

"The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues. ... It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N." _ Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

___

"I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton's baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations. That said, the president has made this decision, and I will do everything in my power to support Mr. Bolton as he takes this new position." _ Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio

___

"John Bolton has placed his faith in a unilateral, go-it-alone foreign policy that has stretched our military thin, and I believe his inability to be an effective and constructive ambassador could produce dire consequences for American foreign policy." _Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
"Making this recess appointment is certainly the president's right, but it is not right for America. Appointing John Bolton to the United Nations sends a terrible message to our intelligence professionals. It is the wrong signal for our intelligence reform efforts." _ Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.

___

"John Bolton is the wrong person for the job and the decision to appoint him today will not serve American foreign policy well at all. ... His history of inflammatory statements about the U.N. will also make it difficult for him to effectively advance U.S. security interests in New York and bring about necessary reforms to that institution." _ Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

___

"The president has the right to make this recess appointment, but it's the wrong decision. It only diminishes John Bolton's validity and leverage to secure America's goals at the U.N. John Bolton has been rejected twice by the Senate to serve as our Ambassador to the United Nations. This is not the way to fill our most important diplomatic jobs." _ Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

___

"He is exactly the wrong person to send to the United Nations at a time when we are trying to rebuild our credibility around the world. ... I now fear that we have lost an important opportunity to help re-establish the United States' global role as a moral and responsible leader." _ Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

___

"It's sad that even while the president preaches democracy around the world, he bends the rules and circumvents the will of Congress in appointing our representative to the United Nations." _ Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080100663_pf.html

(OK, I admit it...I picked only the ones I liked...)

Hey...Its a Theory...

Yeehaw Lyndon you ole' nut-job...Dr. Strangelove.

LaRouche Warns:
Cheney's `Guns of August'
Threaten the World
July 27, 2005 (EIRNS)—This statement was issued today by the LaRouche Political Action Committee.

Lyndon LaRouche, on this Wednesday afternoon, issued an international alert, covering the period of August 2005, which is the likely timeframe for Vice President Dick Cheney, with the full collusion of the circles of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to unleash the recently exposed plans to stage a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against Iran. The danger of such a mad, Hitler-in-the-bunker action from the Cheney circles would be even further heightened, were the United States Congress to stick with its present schedule, and go into recess on July 30 until September 4. With Congress out of Washington, the Cheney-led White House would almost certainly unleash a "Guns of August" attack on Iran.

LaRouche based this assessment on a series of factors, reported to him over the recent days, beginning with the qualified report, from a former U.S. intelligence official, published in the American Conservative magazine, that Dick Cheney ordered the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to prepare contingency plans for a conventional and tactical nuclear strike against hundreds of targets in Iran, in the event of a "new 9/11-style attack" on the United States. As EIR reported several months ago, the Bush Administration, under CONPLAN 8022, had already placed the relevant "mini-nukes" under the control of theater military commanders, as part of a new Global Strike doctrine, a doctrine originally conceived when Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

The recent bombings in London have provided Tony Blair with his own "Reichstag fire" incident, and the full resources of the British "liberal imperial" faction can now be expected to weigh in behind the brutish Cheney circles in Washington.

The most compelling evidence of this "Guns of August" plan, LaRouche emphasized in discussions with colleagues, is the pattern of eyewitness reports of Dick Cheney's state of mind. Cheney is living out an American version of "Hitler in the bunker," lashing out at Republican Senators who have dared to resist his mad tirades, accusing anyone who fails to follow his orders—including senior members of the United States Senate—of being "traitors" and worse.

And finally, LaRouche identified a series of reports from highly qualified Congressional, military, and intelligence community sources, who have confirmed the essential features of the original American Conservative account of Cheney's Strangelove schemes for a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. These sources have emphasized that these Iran plans are not merely military contingency studies, but represent the policy intentions of Cheney.

http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2005/lar_pac/050727guns_august.html

Ira, This one's for you. Is there Noe end to the mess in Ohio? Check out Raw Story!

http://rawstory.com/

Posted by: kay at August 1, 2005 12:44 PM

Kay, Ira, everyone--follow the story:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Ms._Noes_Own_Scandal_Wife_of_Ohio_GOP_fundraiser_does_some_election_reform_of_her_ow_0801.html

Rep. John Conyers (D–MI) is expected to ask the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel today.

"The facts that have come out indicate a culture of corruption in the Ohio Republican Party," Conyers in a statement to RAW STORY. "An investigation such as this, which is rife with conflicts of interest, begs for the appointment of an independent prosecutor who would be immune from the partisan gamesmanship we have seen so far."

Conyers letter:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Conyers_to_call_for_special_prosecutor_to_investigate_Noe__0801.html

THE HIGHTOWER REPORT

BY JIM HIGHTOWER

THE ARMY GETS PERSONAL

Hey, youngsters – Uncle Sam not only wants you, he's got your number!
Not yet sure what you want to do in life? Why not get paid and see an exotic part of the world while you're getting it all together? Yes, you could summer in sunny Iraq ... and be a part of our exciting occupation forces there, where there's never a dull moment!

If you are 16 to 25 years old, chances are you'll soon be receiving such a sales pitch from the Army. How will recruiters find you? Easy – thanks to a new database secretly built by the Pentagon, they know where you live. They also know your phone number, your social security number, your e-mail address, your height and weight, your grades in school, your ethnicity ... and so much more.

The Pentagon's "Joint Advertising Market Research Studies Division" (Did you know they had one of those?) brags that this superdandy database is "arguably the largest repository of 16-to-25-year-old youth data in the country, containing roughly 30 million records." It includes the names and personal info of 3.1 million graduating high school seniors and 4.7 million college students, possibly including you or someone you know. All this is to be used to target, reach, and recruit young folks to fill the troop quotas for George W.'s war in Iraq.

There are, however, two little glitches with the Pentagon's sweeping new database. First, it was illegally compiled. Officials began building it three years ago without giving public notice or allowing public comment, a flagrant violation of the Federal Privacy Act. Second, (and more alarming to mothers and fathers) the private data allows military recruiters to intrude surreptitiously into people's homes and put a sales job on their children. As one appalled mom says: "It's a direct shot to someone's child without consent from a parent."

To help shut down this illegal, intrusive database, call the Electronic Privacy Information Center: 202/483-1140.

This story was on NPR-- Military Prosecutors believe the trials in Guantanamo were stacked against the prisoners. Since I don't have WSJ subscription, I googled & the only reference I got was from China.(Pasted below) Ironic~

_____________

Military Prosecutors Questioned Detainee Trials
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4780888

All Things Considered, August 1, 2005 · Two U.S. Air Force prosecutors complained that Guantanamo detainee trials were rigged, in reports emerging from the Pentagon. The pair stopped handling war crimes trials in 2004. The Defense Department says their allegations were investigated. Michele Norris talks with Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal.

____________________________

US trial system against Guantanamo detainees unfair
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-08/01/content_3297196.htm

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 (Xinhuanet) -- War crime trials arranged by the Pentagon against detainees at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was faulty and unfair, as disclosed by secret messages written by two US military prosecutors last year.

In one of the email messages revealed by the New York Times on Monday, Capt. John Carr, an Air Force prosecutor, told his superiors in March 2004 that the Pentagon-appointed military courts had "handpicked" four Guantanamo detainees to ensure all of them would be convicted.

The emails were written at a time when the Bush administration and the Pentagon were eager to start war crime trials against terrorist suspects, the first of this kind since the aftermath of the World War Two.

Carr also said that he had been told that any exculpatory evidence-- information that could help detainees to defend themselves in such trials-- would probably be withheld by the military.

Another prosecutor, Maj. Robert Preston, said that he could not bring himself to write a legal motion saying the trials would be "full and fair", as he knew they would not be so.

However, in a recent interview with the newspaper, Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Hemingway, a senior advisor for setting up the war crimetrials, dismissed these allegations.

He said there is no evidence supporting the argument of the two prosecutors.

The Bush administration and the Pentagon have been facing persistent criticisms about the legitimacy of the war crime trial system, which they have been pushing forward since 2002.

The military commission, the new body created to carry out such trials, has overwhelming power in convicting the defendants, who will be deprived of the protection of civil or military laws.

The trials, which began last August against four detainees at Guantanamo, were suspended in November when a federal judge ruled the trials violated both US and international laws.

But a three-member higher court panel, including John G. Roberts, US President George W. Bush's pick for a Supreme Court seat, reversed that ruling on July 15.

The Pentagon said they expected to resume the trials in a few weeks and eight more detainees will be charged with war crimes soon. Enditem

I'm getting angry again. If the story in the 05:27 PM post came out last year, it would have been in the middle of the Abu Ghraib revelations & before the elections. In addition to exposing the truth about the current regime's human rights record, it could have made the difference last Nov.

oop -- found more--

Hicks hearing 'set up' for conviction
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,16123075,00.html

DAVID Hicks's legal team yesterday demanded the Howard Government investigate claims by two former US military prosecutors that the Australian terror suspect would face military commission hearings that were "rigged" against a fair trial.

Leaked emails, written by former prosecutors John Carr and Robert Preston in March last year, claimed the military tribunals were "flawed", "half-assed" and set up to convict suspected enemy combatants.
Adelaide-born Hicks, 29, has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempted murder, aiding the enemy and conspiracy.

He has been held in captivity in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for almost three years and, in a matter of weeks, will be the first "enemy combatant" to face a jury that will allegedly be "stacked".

"I find a half-hearted and disorganised effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged," Captain Carr says of the military commission process, in an email obtained by the ABC.

Another email, written by Major Preston, says: "I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even fraud on the American people.

"Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-assed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."

Both Major Preston and Captain Carr have since been transferred from the Pentagon's prosecution division.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said their claims were found to have "lacked veracity" after they were dealt with by US Defence Department officials.

"The Americans have assured me that they have a substantial case against Mr Hicks (and) that it needs to be dealt with before a tribunal that can protect security-related information," Mr Ruddock said in Adelaide.

"In that context, while they (military commissions) are not precisely the same as our civilian courts dealing with criminal matters, they are an appropriate medium for doing so."

Hicks's Adelaide lawyer, David McLeod, said the emails confirmed the process was flawed and demanded that Mr Ruddock pursue the truth.

"How much evidence do we need to provide to convince those in control of this farce, that it is a farce?" Mr McLeod said.

"The prosecutors obviously had the integrity to complain about the process."

Hicks's US-appointed military lawyer, Michael Mori, called for a fair trial.

"I feel I have an obligation to try and raise these issues (emails) with the commission, but I do feel like the outcome is pre-ordained," Major Mori said. "The system is designed to only reach convictions."

Law Council of Australia president John North said the criticism from within was a "damning endorsement of the entire military commission system".

"When a prosecutor says he can no longer morally, ethically or professionally continue to be part of this process, it has to sound alarm bells for anyone concerned with maintaining the law," Mr North said.

The council submitted an independent report to the Government on July 21, claiming the US military tribunal system was "unfair and unworkable".

Combined with evidence from the leaked emails, Mr North said, the Government needed to "sit up" and "take notice".

Prosecutors allege Guantanamo military commissions rigged

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1427592.htm
KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program. Both the US and Australian governments have given repeated assurances that justice will be served for the hundreds of terrorist suspects held without trial at Guantanamo Bay, including Australian David Hicks. But startling admissions have surfaced from two of the military prosecutors who were assigned to the first cases. In emails obtained by the ABC, they've described the process as a "fraud" which is "rigged" to ensure convictions. While the Pentagon says an investigation found the prosecutors' allegations to be baseless, they still constitute some of the most alarming criticisms yet of the military justice process at Guantanamo Bay. This report from ABC North America correspondent, Leigh Sales.

LEIGH SALES: The 500 detainees here at Guantanamo Bay will get fair and open trials. That's the promise being given to the American people and the world.

DONALD RUMSFELD, US SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The US has no desire to hold enemy combatants any longer than is absolutely necessary. Each detainee will have an opportunity to present information on his behalf.

GEORGE BUSH, US PRESIDENT: If I determine that it's in the national security interests of our great land to try by military commission those who make war on America, then we will do so.

US MILITARY SPOKESMAN: Those able to amongst themselves and each other. They do communicate. You can probably hear that in the background.

LEIGH SALES: Last year, before the first military commission started, the world's media was taken through Guantanamo where a brand new hearing room was proudly displayed. But behind the public assurances, the military prosecution team pulling the first cases together, was in disarray. Some of the officers were telling their superiors in the strongest of terms that the system was a travesty of justice.

GENE FIDELL, INSTITUTE OF MILITARY JUSTICE: The very fact that junior officers would take it upon themselves to memorialise the kinds of concerns and the kinds of harsh language they've used here is the type of thing that would be very disquieting and tends to lend credence to their assertions because officers don't do this casually.

LEIGH SALES: These emails obtained by the ABC show for the first time that severe concerns about the military commissions go right to the heart of the process. As you'll see, two prosecutors walked away from the system because they found it so Morley, ethically and professionally intolerable. The Guantanamo commissions have had many critics. Among them the British Government, the American Bar Association and the military defence lawyers assigned to the cases. But we now know the criticism also came from within. Prosecutors who'd seen all the evidence against detainees and were intimately involved in the process were rebelling. Major Rob Preston wrote to his commanding officer in March last year, just three months before Australian David Hicks was charged.

MAJOR ROBERT PRESTON (GRAPHICS ON SCREEN): "I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal, even if properly prepared, to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system, and even a fraud on the American people - surely they don't expect that this fairly half-assed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."

LEIGH SALES: His colleague, Captain John Carr, wrote a similar email a few days later.

CAPTAIN JOHN CARR (GRAPHICS ON SCREEN): "I expected there would be at least a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused. Instead, I find a half-hearted and disorganised effort to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."

GENE FIDELL: Yes, I think the documents do suggest that the cases may have been puffed for consumption of the public.

LEIGH SALES: Former military lawyer Gene Fidell has reviewed the chain of emails.

GENE FIDELL: The documents suggest a variety of shortcomings, including whether the management of the Defence Department was given the straight story as to the preparations that were going on, whether evidence was being destroyed. That's an assertion. Whether evidence was being turned over to the Defence that should have been turned over to Defence under American constitutional law. There are a number of other assertions.

LEIGH SALES: One of the most serious assertions is that the jury panel chosen to hear the cases are stacked. Captain Carr writes to his boss: "You've repeatedly said to the office that the review panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees."

LEIGH SALES: Major Preston wrote of his ethical dilemma.

MAJOR PRESTON (GRAPHICS ON SCREEN): "I lie awake worrying about this every night, writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don't really believe it is kind of hard."

LEIGH SALES: In their emails, both prosecutors say they can't continue with their Guantanamo cases. A month later, transfers were granted and both are still serving as lawyers in the US military. They declined to be interviewed by the ABC, but the Pentagon maintains an internal investigation dismissed the allegations as based on misunderstandings, miscommunications and personality clashes. Defence official Brigadier Thomas Hemingway agreed to a radio interview only.

BRIGADIER GENERAL THOMAS HEMINGWAY: I think what we did was work on some restructuring in the office. There were some changes in the way cases were processed, but we found no evidence of any criminal misconduct. We found no evidence of any ethical violations.

LEIGH SALES: Is it correct that prosecutors were told that the military commission panel would be hand-picked and would not acquit the detainees?

BRIGADIER GENERAL THOMAS HEMINGWAY: Ah, I wasn't privy to any such allegation or statement. I can tell you that any such assertion is clearly incorrect.

LEIGH SALES: David Hicks' military lawyer says he's shocked by the content of the prosecutor's emails and hopes the Australian Government will ask the US for an explanation.

MAJOR MICHAEL MORI, DAVID HICKS' LAWYER: When you look at the system and how it is operating and you learn - look at the information that's just come out, I would hope that they would say, "Enough is enough."

PHILIP RUDDOCK, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have received assurances from them that they believe they have a substantial case.

LEIGH SALES: But you haven't actually seen it?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: I've talked to them about aspects of it, but I don't seek to bring my judgment to bear about whether or not it is substantial and nor do I ask my officials to do that.

LEIGH SALES: Today, back in Australia, Philip Ruddock is saying he wants more information.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: A military commission process was seen as appropriate to deal with unlawful combatants where intelligence issues need to be protected. If there are serious questions raised, I would want to explore them fully.

NICOLA ROXON, OPPOSITION ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He's been assuring the public that this is going to be a fail trial. Either he's been misleading the public or the US has been misleading him and we'd like to know which one it is.

LEIGH SALES: Melbourne barrister Lex Lasry , who was the Australian Law Council's official attorney at Guantanamo Bay, says the emails vindicate concerns he previously raised about the fairness of the military commissions.

LEX LASRY QC, LAW COUNCIL OBSERVER: I am concerned that people in senior prosecutorial positions at the military commissions have felt the need to express these kinds of criticisms of the process. That means there's some fundamental problem, which may well still exist.

LEIGH SALES: David Hicks' military commission is due to reconvene some time in September. His defence team has a case currently before a US civil court and hopes it may bar his military trial from proceeding. Observers say these new revelations warrant an external inquiry.

GENE FIDELL: Public confidence in the administration of justice in the military commissions will not be served unless there's a proper investigation.

LEIGH SALES: The Pentagon considers this matter investigated and closed. Meaning that come September, we're likely to see David Hicks and others tried by tribunals that even some of the US military's own lawyers argue is fundamentally flawed.

KERRY O'BRIEN: And David Hicks is now coming up for four years behind the razor wire.

Chaos Theory: Bush & The Bolton Diversion

As expected, President Bush Monday morning made a recess appointment of John Bolton to the post of UN ambassador for the United States. This, despite Bolton's inability to get Senate approval, his lie regarding his testimony in the Plame affair, and the possibility of his own involvement in a White House orchestrated smear campaign against the Wilsons. Bush's move, though, may be less about his famed loyalty or legendary intransigence, and more a diversion aimed at creating chaos.

At this point, the Bolton recess appointment is a slap in the face of the American people and sends a dangerous signal to the world. The American people and the United Nations are about to receive a man who could not muster the support of 60 senators for a vote. His shockingly undiplomatic statements, his mistreatment of subordinates (especially those not reporting to him), and the White House's refusal to make key NSA intercepts available to the Senate left his confirmation rightly dead in the water.

The timing of Bolton's elevation is bitterly ironic. On the very day of his ascension to the UN post, Tehran has announced it will resume the Iranian nuclear program and is awaiting a proposal from the EU Three, to whom the U.S. has outsourced its policymaking. Meanwhile, the Six Party Talks with North Korea are finally showing progress, in large part because of face-to-face meetings with the North Koreans, which the President and the UN-bashing Bolton steadfastly opposed. At the most critical juncture in talks about a denuclearized Korean peninsula, the man who singlehandedly scuttled negotiations back in 2003 with his "tyrannical dictator" and "hellish nightmare" comments is the chief American presence at the UN.

This appointment, then, is about much more than "UN reform" or George W. Bush's fabled "conviction" or "loyalty." coming at a time of growing scandal in the White House, the Bolton move with its certain political firestorm is about diversion. In a nutshell, the President is intent on creating media chaos to take attention away from the mushrooming CIA outing scandal and the implosion of his second term agenda. Like the adroitly timed Roberts Supreme Court nomination, President Bush is deflecting political focus from his scandal-plagued administration and towards the usual vitriolic right-left conflict that will be played out in the press.

Call it chaos theory or simply a smoke-screen. By whatever name, the President is banking we'll be discussing John Bolton and not Karl Rove. And there's nothing we can do about, not at least, til the mid-term elections of 2006.

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000229.htm

***MEDIA ADVISORY***

WEDNESDAY AUGUST 3, 10:00 AM

CORPORATE CAMPAIGN EXPOSES EXXON’S BENEFITS FROM DIRTY ENERGY BILL

WHAT: As President Bush prepares to sign the polluting energy bill passed by Congress last week, the ExxposeExxon.com campaign will hold a news event to highlight the special interest benefits that ExxonMobil and other oil giants will receive from the bill.

With two 20’ high mock oil rigs and the White House as the backdrop, the groups will release a new report on the provisions of the energy bill that ExxonMobil stands to benefit from. Congress cut proposals to invest in renewable energy resources from the final bill, instead giving $4 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to companies like ExxonMobil, which just announced second quarter profits of $8 billion last week.

WHERE: The Ellipse, Washington, DC (southwest quadrant; enter at Constitution Ave and 16th Street side)

WHEN: Wednesday, August 3, 10:00AM

WHO: Speakers from: Representatives of the Exxpose Exxon campaign, which includes U.S. PIRG, Sierra Club, Alaska Wilderness League, Friends of the Earth, Defenders of Wildlife, Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists, NRDC.

Exxpose Exxon is an unprecedented campaign to educate and activate the public, to increase awareness of the many and repeated ways that Exxon Mobil has put its own profits ahead of consumers, the environment, and the overall interest of Americans. The joint effort by thirteen national environmental and public interest groups reaches out to Americans across the country, asking them to join the campaign by refusing to work for the company, refusing to invest in the company, and refusing to buy the company’s products.

VISUALS: Two twenty foot high mock oil rigs, placards and t-shirts with “ExxposeExxon” campaign logo

Iran nuclear process 'under way'
Iran insists it wants nuclear power, not weapons
Iran has begun preparations for the resumption of uranium processing at a nuclear plant, a top official has said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4733557.stm

The threat of resumption sparked strong objections from the UN, the EU and the US, which repeated its threat to refer Tehran to the UN Security Council.

A BBC correspondent says Iran seems to have lost patience with negotiations.

Frances Harrison, in the Iranian capital, says Tehran has long engaged in brinkmanship over the nuclear issue, but this time appears to be serious about resuming its nuclear programme. . .

Well of course Kerry was correct!
And Bu$h was wrong, wrong, wrong,
but that didn't stop Bu$hCheneyRove from mocking every truth Kerry said. And the MSM aided & abetted Bu$h's sleazy campaign tactics:

Bush Backs Off Of Talk of War, Echoing Kerry

BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
August 1, 2005

WASHINGTON - Is the Bush administration's decision to de-emphasize use of the phrase "war on terror" an unheralded concession to last year's unsuccessful Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts?

The White House says no, but some of Mr. Kerry's backers contend the recent move to recalibrate the rhetoric of top administration officials away from the "global war on terror" and toward a "global struggle against violent extremism" amounts to a quiet vindication of the four-term Democratic senator.

"I think John Kerry had it right and the president had it wrong," a former senator of Nebraska, Robert Kerrey, said in an interview. "It's largely a recognition of what most people who have followed this have concluded long ago, which is that terrorism is a tactic that is used by certain extreme groups," Mr. Kerrey, who is president of the New School University, said.
snip~

During the hard-fought presidential race, President Bush and Vice President Cheney hammered Mr. Kerry for allegedly being reluctant to use the phrase "war on terror" to describe the conflict facing America in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks.
snip~
In a brief interview with The New York Sun last week, Mr. Kerry said the timing of the move to less militaristic talk struck him as odd." They said, 'You can't win the war on terror,'" the former Democratic nominee said, referring to Mr. Bush's quickly retracted statement last August that complete victory over terrorism was not possible. "Now, they're saying, 'There is no war on terror.' And all the while there are additional bombings in London and Egypt, and Osama bin Laden is at large, and homeland security is underfunded," Mr. Kerry said. "My concern is not with what to call it, they can wrestle with that, my concern is that they deal with the problem of extreme - terrorist extremism, whatever you want to call it, that they deal with it more effectively and tell the truth to the American people about it."

Asked if the administration was coming around to his view, the senator said, "That's for others to judge. I don't want to spend my time on that."

continue~
http://www.nysun.com/article/17848

Posted by: aimzzz at August 1, 2005 06:06 PM

Another reason why Bush appointed Bolton?
Bush needs Bolton at the U.N. to provide cover (arm-twisting, rhetoric, sanctions) for Bush's plan to attack Iran.

Perhaps we should reread this article by Seymour Hersh...

THE COMING WARS
What the Pentagon can now do in secret.

George W. Bush’s reëlection was not his only victory last fall. The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term. The C.I.A. will continue to be downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as “facilitators” of policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. This process is well under way.
--snip--
“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

Read the rest ==> http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

Posted by: madame defarge at August 1, 2005 06:28 PM

Right on, sistah. This is all about future
war. Whether we want it or not, whether we
like it or not.

We had better take to the street protesting war, period - any "pre-emptive war", period. How incredibly stupid do they think people are? We don't invade China (or Taiwan) do we? Or North Korea? But Iran, oh yes, and Pakistan is looking suspect. And I had a fundie preacher woman write to me last week and tell me how much she loved our president and that he has done so much good for us and for the world, and he is "fighting to spread freedom and democracy across the world."
Some of you were privy to my response, most were not. I told her to lick a different finger and put it in the wind, she might get a different reading. I have had it. We don't have TIME to be silent, and we don't have time to put it to them slowly and nicely. I am telling it like it is, and they don't have to listen, they don't have to like it, or me for that matter. But, I can say it, and say it I will. To do less is to go against everything I believe in.

We don't have TIME to be silent, and we don't have time to put it to them slowly and nicely. I am telling it like it is, and they don't have to listen, they don't have to like it, or me for that matter. But, I can say it, and say it I will. To do less is to go against everything I believe in.

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at August 1, 2005 07:56 PM

Oh yes, preach it! Every day I think about how to get into the streets--only not alone. We need several million of our friends...

PLEASE think about coming to DC in September. (24-26, to be exact). We will try to help people find housing...