« This is CNN?? | Main | A Call To Action On Alito »
Paul Bremer, President of Pants-On-Fire Club
I just don't understand and maybe someone can help me.
Say, for example, I am the leader of the reconstruction effort in Iraq for 18 months, and during those 18 months, I repeatedly lie about any number of things, including the state of the reconstruction, the state of the war there, the cost of the reconstruction. And not only do I lie, I lie about it on camera, repeatedly, and often, during many, many interviews with journalists covering the war.
Fast forward to a year later. I have now left the job and written a book about it. And almost everything I have to say in the book is in direct opposition to what I claimed was the truth only a year ago when I made statements to the reporters in Iraq.
Moving along, I begin to go on my book promotion tour and, lo and behold, a journalist has some minimum wage staffer pull up the video tape of me lying on camera and shows it to me during our interview and asks the inevitable questions about the discrepencies.
Here's the question, why am I shocked at this? If you had behaved that way, would you be shocked?
So why was former Ambassador-cum-Reconstruction Czar in Iraq, shocked and maybe a teeny bit irritated when Wolf Blitzer did just that? From CNN transcripts:
The transcript from CNN, with my thoughts as I watched it, in italics:
BLITZER: Welcome back.
He spent a year as the top American official in Baghdad and was arguably the most powerful person in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein. It was a period marked by controversy, and now the former U.S. civilian administrator, Ambassador Paul Bremer, is out with a surprisingly frank book about the war and the efforts to build a new Iraq. It's called "My Year in Iraq."
Ambassador Paul Bremer is joining us now live from New York.
Congratulations, Ambassador, on the new book, which I read and I found very informative, even though I was surprised, because I didn't necessarily think it was going to be as honest and as blunt as you were. But thank you for writing it.
I want to go through some of the specifics, though.
One of the reasons I was surprised, because there were several instances where you right in the book things that you didn't say earlier. In fact, there were several inconsistencies, and I want to give you a chance to respond to those.
For example, on page 106 in the book, you write on October -- on July 14, 2003, you write this: "In my view, I told her" -- referring to Condoleezza Rice -- "the coalition's got about half the number of soldiers we need here and we run a real risk of having this thing go south on us."
Around the same time, the following month, you were interviewed by me, and this is what you said. This is the exchange we had. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Do you need more U.S. troops, more boots on the ground, as they say at the Pentagon, in order to get the situation to stabilize?
PAUL BREMER, FMR. U.S. CIVILIAN ADMINISTRATOR IN IRAQ: I don't think so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: You said you had enough. You had -- you didn't need more troops. Explain the inconsistencies.
BREMER: Well, Wolf, a couple of things. Basically, three points.
First of all, I have been in government now for about 40 years. And I have tried to be guided by two principles the entire time.
One of them is that, if you're working in the executive branch, you owe the president and the people who work with the president your honest views.
Secondly, you should keep those views within the government. And if you come to a point where you basically can't support a policy that you're responsible for, you have only one choice, which is to resign. You don't go out and talk to the press about policies you can't support.
so...at what point did he resign because he couldn't support the policies that were getting people killed and then lying about it? oh, right, he didn't...on to the book deal...
Now in the case of the troop strength, it's more complicated than simply the number of troops on the ground.
What I was particularly concerned about during my time there was sustaining combat capability, of which the number of American troops is only one of three elements. You also had to look at the number and quality of coalition forces.
We had at the time of those interviews I think about 33 countries on the ground with us. And you have to look at the quality and quantity of the Iraqi security forces. And my main concern which is laid out in the book was with the overestimation, I felt, of the quality of the Iraqi forces, because there was a real tendency, I think, to believe that those forces were more quickly going to be able to replace American forces.
BLITZER: And I want to get that to that in a moment. But if you read your book, which I have, you told the president, you told the secretary of defense, you told the national security adviser repeatedly -- it jumps out at all of us -- you thought maybe 500,000 troops were needed in Iraq, which is the number that the U.S. used to liberate Kuwait in 1991.
Yet, when you were asked repeatedly in public about more troops, you repeatedly said there were enough troops there.
BREMER: Well, look, the half-million figure, by the way, was not something I came up with. It was -- it was put to me in a draft report of the Rand Foundation, a bipartisan, nonpartisan foundation that had studied previous occupations.
The military commanders all along said that they thought they had enough troops. I believed otherwise.
They believed that having more troops would actually make the situation worse, that for some reason, if we had more troops on the ground, it would create more difficulties for the occupation. I had a different view.
My view was that we had a fundamental responsibility for law and order in Iraq above all other responsibilities, and that we needed to be able to retain the combat capability to put that forth.
BLITZER: But why couldn't you tell -- why couldn't you tell the American public that if you believed that sincerely? And you know what was at stake, the lives of a lot of American soldiers.
BREMER: Wolf, look, you have been in Washington not as long as I have, but that's not the way the government works. The way the government works is -- and I tried to make that clear in the book -- there are disagreement in government on important matters. That's not surprising. That's the way it should be.
yeah, that's not the way government works, Wolf, especially this one...here's how it works, Wolf, and you know it...you interview me, I tell lies, and you don't challenge the fact that the reality doesn't match what I am saying...or at least you don't challenege me until I am plugging my book, when it doesn't matter a damn bit...
But those disagreements belong inside the government, they don't belong in the public domain. And as I said, if I was at a point where I thought I could not support the policy, I would have resigned.
BLITZER: All right.
Let's talk about another issue that jumps out in the book, Chapter One, entitled "Chaos." And let me read a couple examples of what you write. This is when you first arrived there, shortly after Saddam Hussein was overthrown.
"The targets of looting were widespread. Looters had ransacked power plants and substations. Essential services, including trash disposal and firefighting, were spotty. We were also getting many reports of sexual assault."
Listen to exchange, though, you and I had shortly thereafter on June 25, 2003.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Let's get right to the key question at hand. Was the U.S. prepared for what seems to be an incredibly chaotic situation unfolding on the ground inside Iraq?
BREMER: I think we were. And I don't think it's incredibly chaotic, Wolf.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Well, it was pretty chaotic, wasn't it?
BREMER: Well, you're talking about -- you said June 25, if I heard you correctly.
BLITZER: June 25, 2003.
BREMER: Right. That's six weeks after I arrived, by which time the situation had, in fact, calmed down.
You can play this "gotcha" game if you want, Wolf, but let me tell you, I spent 14 months on the ground there, and I had to deal with the situation as I found it.
what's "gotcha" about asking someone to explain about lying for the administration?
And what I found when I got there was that the looting was going unchecked. And as I said in the book, I think that was a mistake not to stop that looting, because not only did it do economic damage, which was billions of dollars, but it basically set the tone that we weren't prepared to deal with law and order, which was our fundamental responsibility and which was a theme throughout my 14 months.
BLITZER: This is not a "gotcha" kind of game. I'm just trying to understand what you were saying then as opposed to what you're writing now. And I think that it's just a matter of trying to clarify what was -- which part of that was true.
wolf is such a suck up, even when he is talking to someone who lied to his face...
BREMER: Well, what I wrote in the book is the accurate reflection of what I tried to do in Iraq.
BLITZER: Here's another thing you write in the book on page 209: "We have too many people looking for WMD" -- weapons of mass destruction -- "and not enough looking for terrorists. I've been pushing, as has Abizaid" -- General John Abizaid, the Central commander -- "to get this rebalanced, and the process is finally under way."
Here's an excerpt of what you told me on June 25, 2003 in another interview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BREMER: As Secretary Rumsfeld said, I'm confident, as he is, that we will find evidence of the programs or the weapons themselves as we -- as we exploit the information we have.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: You believed, as almost everyone else did, that the Iraqis had chemical, biological weapons, may have been working on a nuclear weapon. And that was the major justification for going to war. If in fact they had that, wasn't it important to find it, the chemical, the biological stockpiles, to make sure they couldn't be used?
BREMER: Of course it was important. And, in fact, what you just quoted is what we found.
We did find that he had the programs. The final report of the inspectors by Charles Duelfer about a year ago said the one thing that was clear was that Saddam Hussein retained the programs, the intention, the equipment, and the personnel to resume his programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted. And as Duelfer pointed out, the sanctions were clearly eroding in the early part of 2003.
In fact, several of the countries, Russia and France, were actively trying to get them lifted. Of course it was important that we try to find them.
still a shill...amazing. when attacked, the animal reverts to his training in spouting the party line...
I didn't suggest that we not -- that we not look for them. What I suggested -- you used the word in the book -- was that we rebalance, that we increase the number of people who were looking for the insurgents.
And, in fact, as that excerpt points out from the book, by the fall of 2003, we had done that. We had basically rebalanced our intelligence assets so that we were both looking for WMD and trying to find out more about the insurgency.
BLITZER: The other -- another important discrepancy, at least that jumped out at me, was the whole issue of inflating Iraqi military and police capabilities. You write this -- a conversation you had with Secretary Rumsfeld.
"'Secretary Rumsfeld, I have to be frank,' I said. 'You're seeing inflated numbers on police rosters. We shouldn't kid ourselves thinking that the Iraqis are better prepared than they are.'"
Yet, on November 2, 2003, we had this exchange. Listen to this.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: How many troops, Iraqi troops in this new Iraqi army or security force, whatever specific phrase you want to use to call them, are there right now? How many have been re-deployed to help you, and how many do you project having over the next year?
BREMER: Well, the total number of Iraqis involved in one way or the other in their security we think we'll reach about 220,000 by September, which is a very substantial -- a very substantial number.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
220,000...it's two years later and we STILL don't have anywhere near that number, or even half that number...
BLITZER: Now, here's what jumped out at me -- and correct me if I'm wrong. While you were warning or suggesting to Rumsfeld, let's not use these inflated numbers, because a lot of these guys are simply going to disappear, they're not going to show up when the going gets tough, you, in effect, were trying to sell the same inflated numbers to the American public.
BREMER: I was using the numbers that our military, who, after all, are responsible for the military strategy, not me. Those are the numbers that they were using.
translation: hey, THEY lied, I just swore to it. that's not the same thing at all.
I had my doubts about the quality of those people, not the numbers themselves. What I said to Secretary Rumsfeld, to John Abizaid and others was, it is a mistake to think that an Iraqi, an 18-year-old Iraqi who's been swept off the streets, given an AK-47 and told he's a policeman, (so much for volunteering to be a cop in Iraq)it's a mistake to think that he can replace an American soldier one for one in the spring of 2004, which was the direction of the military thinking. And I was very frank about my concerns about that.
And by the way, Wolf, those concerns turned out to be true, because when we had the major crisis in April, the Iraqi forces basically collapsed, all of them, the police, the army, the national guard, as it was then called, the civil defense force. And we were -- we were really faced with a major crisis at that point.
do you remember being told that all of the iraqi forces had collapsed and there was a major crisis there? i don't. i do, however, remember a lot of happy talk...
BLITZER: Let me read to you another quote from the book on page 358, near the end of the book, a conversation you had with Condoleezza Rice.
"The message to most Iraqis is that the coalition can't provide them the most basic government service: security. We've become the worst of all things -- an ineffective occupier."
What does that mean?
BREMER: Well, it means exactly what it says. I said right from the beginning of the book, I said right from the beginning of my time in Iraq, it's very clear that I felt our most fundamental role as the government in Iraq, which is what we were until we gave back sovereignty, was to provide law and order and security.
And as the insurgency rose in the fall of 2003, and Iraqis were getting killed, many more than Americans, the Iraqis began to be much less favorably disposed towards the occupation. We saw it in the polling we were doing.
polling? what polling? i thought this administration doesn't do polling? follow up question about polling, please?
So we were not very popular as occupiers, but at least if you're going to be an occupier, you ought to be able to provide law and order. That's what I meant.
this is still the central question-why can't the US provide security in iraq? and if they can't provide security there, and the rule of law, what can they accomplish? on the other hand, maybe what bremer doesn't understand is that the bush administration doesn't actually believe in the rule of law.
BLITZER: The book is entitled "My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope."
Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, appreciate you joining us. And I appreciate risking your life, spending those -- that year-plus in Iraq. You had an incredibly difficult assignment, and as I said earlier, I learned a lot reading your book.
Thank you very much for helping us better understand what was going on.
BREMER: Nice to be with you again.
BLITZER: Paul Bremer joining us in New York.
So there you have it. L. Paul Bremer, admitting that just about everything he ever said in just about every interview he did from Iraq about the state of things in Iraq was a lie.
Of course we knew that already, didn't we?
But the bigger questions that Wolf should have asked were these: Ambassador Bremer, clearly you were not telling the truth on a number of occasions we spoke during your tenure in Iraq. What I would like to know now is, did you give me this misinformation at the direction of anyone in the White house or the Pentagon? And who else knew the truth about Iraq and were continuing to spread misinformation to the media? And, in light of the discrepencies we have noted today, why should the public believe anything that comes out of the administration or the Pentagon?
Unfortunately, there is a missing white woman story out there to be covered instead.
*sigh*
Off topic as usual.
I am watching the White House Press Conferance, I have to tell you all McClelland looks like someone gave him a shot of happy medicine, It appears the newly released tape of Bin Laden has taken the fire out of wiretapping and Abramoff scandle. Is anyone surprised? It wouldn't surprise me at all if we were to learn that this tape was actually released by Bin Laden earlier and held till now. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Posted by: April at January 19, 2006 12:56 PM
I haven't seen it, but as far as I'm concerned the newly released tape should only highlight their incompetence.
However, it does take it off the main Republican corruption. Bush isn't running again, so what does he care if he looks incompetent.
Posted by: sparrow at January 19, 2006 12:58 PM
Maybe I have become too skeptical about the timing of some of these things, they over did the terror alerts so they cant do one of those right now while the heat is on, so voila Osama tape pops out the timing of this thing is a little coincidental for me. It also is worth mentioning that this came out the same morning Cheney was giving a terrorism speech sometimes there are coincidences but this White House seems to have a lot of fortuitous ones it just seems anytime something comes out that is damaging their credibility that something of this nature (one that reminds Americans of how scared they are supposed to be) appears.
I don't know why release of tapes helps them in any way but distraction - certainly can't think of any way this administration is helpful in preventing violence of various type or making any sane person feel more safe.
Posted by: nmp at January 19, 2006 02:04 PM
When it comes to this administration the press has a short memory they get off the scandal stories it will take a major event to get them back on. For instance Hardball was supposed to talk about the illegal wire tapping last night yet all Christ Matthews could talk about was what Hilary Clinton said on monday. The wiretapping story ended up never appearing. Do you think a tape of Bin Laden won't be the major distraction they want at this time? Also who said the people who support this administration are sane?
April...
Why wouldn't one be skeptical anymore?
How many times have these wolves cried boy?
How many times have these wolves cried boy?
Posted by: monkey at January 19, 2006 02:15 PM
Oh I love that can I borrow it sometime? Well put.
How many times have these wolves cried boy?
Posted by: monkey at January 19, 2006 02:15 PM
Oh I love that can I borrow it sometime? Well put.
I am putting on my cheerleader hat for this next part.
But the bigger questions that Wolf should have asked were these: Ambassador Bremer, clearly you were not telling the truth on a number of occasions we spoke during your tenure in Iraq. What I would like to know now is, did you give me this misinformation at the direction of anyone in the White house or the Pentagon? And who else knew the truth about Iraq and were continuing to spread misinformation to the media? And, in light of the discrepencies we have noted today, why should the public believe anything that comes out of the administration or the Pentagon?
Unfortunately, there is a missing white woman story out there to be covered instead.
Amen Amen Amen!!!
grrr I can not believe I did that I had all these cute little answers to Casey's togue in cheek questions and messed the heck up. :(
Casey I remember in April when the Iraq police force fell apart that is when the real numbers of trained Iraqi's came out. The administration had egg on its face for all of a day, then reporters decided that there was nothing really to see and moved on to bigger news (maybe the Jackson trial or the like)
And of course they do polling they just pretend like they ignore it and polling done by outside agencies and really they must, If they listened the President might see where the people of this country are coming from. But he doesnt care nor does anyone else in this administration.
The Bush administration has made the rule of law a joke and sadly every system put into place to do the checks and balances has fallen apart, down to and including the "Free" press.
April,
I agree...there is something more than coincidence going on.
But I also think they feel things getting out of control so they have to make people FEAR again. Fear is such a huge thing to keep people docile.
I swear, they not only own the media and the voting machines, the pharmacueticals, the banks, and the credit companys...they own stock in some huge psychiatric facility where they learn how to systemactically abuse people without drawing attention to the abuse.
Is anyone Surprised..?
This invasion was created in the mind of paranoid foriegn policy funded by Lords of war. The Bin Laden Tape references the billions made by the defense companies...and he is correct.
Bin Laden and President Bush need each other to promote self interests. They feed each others policies with blood money.
Iraq was concieved within lies, fraud and deception. Nobody involved in the invasion will be able to stand and tell the truth..how can they, the truth would impeach the President of the United States.
This just in, feel free to share:
http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/local.cfm?ArticleID=3682
KERRY & LEWIS: An unhappy new year for seniors on Medicare
by Teresa Heinz Kerry and Jeffrey Lewis
January 19, 2006
The New Year should bring hope and joy to everyone, but unfortunately, 2006 is proving to be unhappy for many African American seniors who hoped to receive the prescription-drug benefits of the new Medicare Part D law on Jan. 1.
Part D, supported by President George W. Bush and forced through Congress by the former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Texas) in 2003, required that all interested seniors sign up in advance and choose from a multitude of prescription drug plans. For those without other prescription drug coverage, this might have seemed like a great option. For those with a low-income, the new benefit simply replaces the prescription drug coverage that they had previously under Medicaid, so there is no net change in care.
At least, that is how it was supposed to work. However, Medicare Part D, which was sold to the public as a way for the elderly and the disabled to save money, in fact increases costs in many cases. It is more expensive than necessary, cuts health care, and gives most of the savings to private businesses. The sad-but-true result of this so-called reform is that - instead of Part D benefiting the people in real need - it is insurance companies and other businesses that are getting the real benefit.
The Bush administration claims that its new benefit is a good deal for moderate-income beneficiaries with high drug costs - i.e. people who are not eligible for Medicaid. Yet these seniors, now enrolled in the new plan, pay not only a monthly premium, but also a $250 deductible and 25 percent of the next $2,000 in covered costs.
In addition, the new Medicare Part D requires each senior to cover 100 percent of the costs over $2,000, until catastrophic coverage kicks in at the $5,100 mark. This creates a huge $3,100 "doughnut hole" in the coverage that seniors now have to pay out of their own pockets. For many elder Americans living on fixed incomes, it might as well be called the "bankruptcy hole."
The hole presents two major problems. First, low- and middle-income seniors who are already struggling to eat and keep a roof over their heads don't have an extra $3,100 for medication. Second, married couples are doubly penalized under this plan: each spouse must pay these out-of-pocket costs separately - leaving not a $3,100, but a $6,200 doughnut hole in their household.
Some of us anticipated and crowed about the problems with Medicare Part D prior to the law taking effect, but we were often dismissed as naysayers. Now, many financially crunched states are forced to step in to fill the hole because of the federal government's inadequate preparation. Despite having months to get prepared, the federal government's computer database system is failing local pharmacies all over the country, potentially putting the health of low-income seniors in jeopardy.
Outsourcing bureaucracy to the private sector doesn't magically make prescription drug benefits cheaper or the system more efficient. In fact, funneling benefits through dozens of private companies makes Medicare Part D needlessly confusing. And, since private companies are profit-driven, not service-driven, they have no real incentive to provide seniors with the coverage they deserve.
The President Bush should mark this New Year by calling on the bureaucratic grinches at HHS to fix the problems swiftly so Medicare Part D recipients can receive the prescription drug medications they need.
Teresa Heinz Kerry is chairman of the Heinz Family Philanthropies and the wife of U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). Jeffrey R. Lewis is president of the Heinz Family Philanthropies.
Posted by: karen at January 19, 2006 03:34 PM
I am shocked just shocked the Bush administration and the Republican controled everything looking out for big business who would have thunk it!!
I guess those bribes and kick backs bought our Senoirs a heck of a bill. But hey Osama is talking again move along folks nothing here to see.
Congressman Peter King uses the Patriot Act card in press conference within minutes of release of Ben Laden tape. How disgusting. Can't they do better in a blue blue state like New York then to continually re elect him? Can't we find a candidate in New York to expose this shameful behavior by a US Congressman?
Congressman Peter King uses the Patriot Act card in press conference within minutes of release of Ben Laden tape. How disgusting. Can't they do better in a blue blue state like New York then to continually re elect him? Can't we find a candidate in New York to expose this shameful behavior by a US Congressman?
Can't we find someone to run against Congressman Peter King in a blue blue state like New York?
Can't we find someone to run against Congressman Peter King in a blue blue state like New York?
sorry moderators, I kept getting an error message saying I could not post, when I tried to post above, don't understand why, so I ended up with multiple post, sorry.thought I might be saying something inappropriate.
bin Laden tape surfaces.
Gee, just like the video of bin Laden surfaced the weekend before the '04 elections, when Kerry had "Mo" going on.
Wolves hollering boy.
Boy! BOY BOY BOY!!! BOY BOY BOY BOY BOY!!!
I still can't think that alot of this is conditioning for pre-planned altercations with other nations.
Gotta keep us scared and wanting the war in Iraq to continue.
These guys are bottom feeders of the worse kind.
April, sparrow, NMP -
YES, the Osama Been Forgotten tapes are a distraction! They tie straight in to the Pakistani bombing that killed innocent people, but I noticed on the noon news that the big hoopla was not that innocent women and children were killed, but that some of the al Qaida people were killed.
How did they figure that one out so fast? I thought it took more time than that to do DNA tests? Or is it another lie to distract from the first film footage of a Pakistani who talked about the innocent people who were killed??? Or did they torture someone into a false "confession" that couldn't possibly hold up in court to say al Qaida people were killed - confessions obtained through torture and coercion are thrown out of court - under normal circumstances. [My gut feeling is that it's just an outright lie, but the propaganda machine needed to say something to justify killing innocent people.]
And, anyway, something had to happen soon because people are rumbling about the illegal wiretapping and the Abramoff bribes, and sticking a little more fear about the "war on terr-r' into the minds of the sheeple kool-aiders will make The Cretin's illegal wiretapping somehow "justified" (in his mind, at least). It's breaking the law for the good of the people in his paranoid brain, I'm sure. And, besides which, to break the law to make the sheeple feel safer will also keep their minds conveniently off of the Abramoff scandal....
~~~~~
Bin Laden and President Bush need each other to promote self interests. They feed each others policies with blood money.
Posted by: Toolmaker at January 19, 2006 03:17 PM
YES, exactly, Toolmaker. You have that exactly correct!!! The Cretin needs Osama Been Forgotten to conveniently come out of the woodwork on occasion to put a little "terr-r" into the sheeples so The Cretin can break the law for their own good (we're at 'war on terr-r,' y'know, and he always wanted to be a 'war president') and promote how "safe" he's making the kool-aiders feel on one hand while taking away the rights of citizens with the other.... and OBL needs his #1 poster boy to recruit more terrorists.
It's all absolutely circular, and the two "men" feed off of each other in perfect symbiosis. OBL will never be caught as long as GWB is pResident because more than anything, GWB needs OBL on the loose to justify his "war on terr-r" and all the lies and abuses of power he's engaged in! Besides which, the financial interests of the House of Saud and the House of Bu$h are intertwined, and it's mutually beneficial if OBL stays free so GWB can have his war and his corporate cronies who bought or rigged election machines to put him in office can benefit, too!!!
Gee, I wonder what would happen if there were a slow news day and the administration's slime and propaganda machine forgot to feed Lamestream Media their version of Nooze with it's Top Ten List of Distractions to take up air time on the evening Nooze....?
Ira, sometimes our posts will give us an error message just because of a fluke. It gets a little sensitive sometimes.
Might open and new window and come in to the blog, and see if it has already posted. It almost always has in spite of the error message.
~woops~ open a new window not open and window
Oh, and I almost forgot in all the distractions, it also takes sheeples' minds off of the Alito vote coming up in the Senate... and Alito believes in the supreme power of the imperial pResidency, so to have him confirmed is of vital importance to what's going on behind closed doors in all those secret meetings with all those secret executive orders.....
Oy, so many balls in the air to juggle....
Casey,
What concerns me about the lies is that we keep calling them on it, but it's rolls right off peoples' backs. The word has lost its meaning.
Perhaps that was the meaning of what they did to Clinton. Sure they impeached him, but they also desensitized people to the word Lie or Liar.
I heard on the news right after the bombing in Pakistan that everything was so destroyed there was no DNA evidence obtainable.
NonnyO,
We bombed 'em, but we got Osama's number 2 man (again). We didn't get Osama's number 2 man, but we think we got another bin Laden tie, the man who teaches the chemistry to make explosives. We're not sure we got him either. But we think we did. Not. Did. Not. Did. Al Qaeda. Boy. BOO!
Well, we wanted to, so it's okay if we bombed people in Pakistan. Okay? Okay!
P.S. We have to stay in Iraq because there are lots and lots of terr'ists there now.
Gee, I wonder where they want to go next to create a slice of terrorist heaven.
Posted by: sparrow at January 19, 2006 04:56 PM
It's not sexual, so people care less.
I still say how did Gannon get security clearance to enter the White House??? Hmmm?
In the words of Elmer Fudd,
Be afwaid. Be vewy vewy afwaid.
Truth I was in the Denver Kerry state campaign office getting ready to organize our last minute get out the vote effort the weekend before the election when the ben laden tape started playing in our office. my heart sunk and I started telling folks it over when i saw it.everyone said it was no big deal, i felt otherwise. zogby had us up by 1-2% points before the tape. they all thought i was just being a downer but to this day i belive that tape cost us 2-3% of the vote and the whitehouse. it was just enough to push millions of undecided voters over to Bush. I'm sticking with my story.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at January 19, 2006 05:00 PM
I heard the same about the DNA not able to be had right after the bombing, but there was a time gap in my listening to nooze, so I didn't know if they'd changed their tune or not. I also remember that no one had any idea who was in those houses at first, and with the administration's penchant for LYING, I am doubting the truth of just who (besides innocent people) was killed in Pakistan. I'll have to try to listen to the snooze more carefully, but I don't recall hearing the source(s) for the info as to just who was killed.... Sources and how they obtained the info matter....
Yeah, ain't their "justification" for their illegal, unjust, immoral, and unethical actions just the strangest you've ever heard? They never cease to amaze me in their circular "reasoning" and "justification" for their wrong actions....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_go_co/congress_ethics_19
Democrats Counter GOP on Congress Ethics
WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats urged a ban on all gifts and travel paid for by lobbyists Wednesday, aiming to seize an issue for the fall elections and taking a shot at Republicans they say have sullied Congress' reputation.
{{{Democrats who have consistently voted in favor of neoCon bills in Congress might want to tread across the broken glass rather daintily when they try to "reform" the ethics rules. They have their own betrayals and sins to answer for with their constituents back home for ever voting to give The Cretin war powers and voting in favor of anything to do with The Cretin's war in Iraq or his FAKE war on terror. Some may lose their seats in the next election cycle because of their voting records that show them to be Republican Lite, not Democrats....}}}
Report Cites Breach of Law in Bush Spying
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011906I.shtml
The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm that was released yesterday.
Excerpt:
Also yesterday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center said it would file a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit today demanding information about the NSA spying. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed separate lawsuits Tuesday asserting that Bush exceeded his authority and violated Fourth Amendment guarantees in authorizing the NSA surveillance.
{{{I'm betting the OBL tape and more "war on terr-r" stuff will make up the entire 'evening nooze', and the third law suit and the fact that Congress was not fully informed, as directed, will not even be mentioned....}}}
Bush prepares to call warrentless wiretaps legal.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Justice_Department_to_declare_warrantless_wiretaps_0119.html
Republican Rep. Lewis and the Hedge Fund
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011906M.shtml
One day after a New York investment group raised $110,000 for Republican Rep. Jerry Lewis, the House passed a defense spending bill that preserved $160 million for a Navy project critical to the firm. The man who protected the Navy money? Lewis.
{{{VERY interesting...!!! Former VP Quayle is mentioned, and at the end there is a timeline re: Lewis, Cerberus....}}}
US Poised for Radical Change in Foreign Aid
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011906L.shtml
The Bush administration wants its multibillion-dollar aid programs to serve its foreign policy goals better. Critics are worried that by in effect merging USAID into the State Department, the agency will lose some of its independence, and development will become purely politicized.
{{{Can you spell b-l-a-c-k-m-a-i-l???}}}
Democrats Poised Against Alito
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011906Y.shtml
Most Democrats seem set to oppose Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court. "I'm not a fan of Alito," the chamber's Democratic leader, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, said Wednesday. He deflected a follow-up question on the possibility of a filibuster: "No decision has been made on that."
Posted by: NonnyO at January 19, 2006 05:55 PM
Smart...I think. Why show your hand early?
Posted by: sparrow at January 19, 2006 05:36 PM
You know, he can call it legal all he wants, but that doesn't make it so... In fact, just about everything he says turns out to be the exact opposite. The more I hear/read lately about this regime, the more it's obvious to me how much things are unraveling before our very eyes...
RE: the new tape from Bin Laden. It seems to me that his requests are reasonable: they want us out of Iraq & Afghanistan. I learned a couple of weeks ago at our "Moving Forward on Iraq" town hall forum that at least 80% of the Iraqis want us out of their country.
But watch how this administration is going to spin this out of control and scare the bejeebers out of everyone again...
Remember the wise words of FDR: We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/19/binladen.tape/index.html
Get a load of this:
From the Wa Po
Feds Seek Google Records in Porn Probe
The Associated Press
Thursday, January 19, 2006; 5:41 PM
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- The Bush administration, seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, has subpoenaed Google Inc. for details on what its users have been looking for through its popular search engine.
Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department said in papers filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose.
Google Inc. rebuffs the Bush administration's request, in a porn probe, for a broad range of information from the search engine leader's massive databases.
also Re: Privacy
An entire industry has mushroomed during the past decade because of the ability of companies to gather and make sense of public records, criminal histories and other electronic details. What are they doing with it?
Border-Crossing Cards May Be Official ID
Federal Grants Bring Surveillance Cameras to Small Towns
Calling Records Sales Face New Scrutiny
http://tinyurl.com/dlynh
Posted by: sparrow at January 19, 2006 05:58 PM
Somehow, that crowd always does show its hand early. They know - in advance - precisely who will be voting which way, and they maneuver and bribe legislators' votes to the other side if something The Cretin wants passed doesn't go his way. It's always his way or no way....
Just once I'd like to see something unexpected happen in Congress. Like maybe Lamestream Media's predictions will go up in smoke and "the right thing" (voting against Alito) will actually happen when the vote regarding his nomination comes up on the Senate floor next week.... Or something in the future like voting against legislation particularly favorable to a corporation The Cretin thinks needs tax money....
Dem senators (and neoCons) are coming up for re-election this fall, and they need to start minding the business of the citizens who elected them if they want to be elected again.... Some of their constituents have long memories and don't forget their wrongheaded votes in the past....
Of course, that's a daydream on my part and nothing that surprising will ever happen!
Posted by: madame defarge at January 19, 2006 06:13 PM
We have lots to fear thanks to Bush.
I remember seeing Cindy Sheehan in Chicago and I remember her statement, "In 2000, though I disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision, I figured 'how much damage can he do in 4 years?'"
Well, now we have 3 more years to go. And there's a heck of a lot more destruction for him to do.
Fear...I feel it in my bones. I fear for my kids and what will be left for them. I fear for my country. And I fear for the world.
Thanks George.
Posted by: madame defarge at January 19, 2006 06:13 PM
Madame knows.... I hope your knitting needles haven't set the yarn on fire...! ;-)
Leaked Memo Fuels 'Rendition' Debate
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011906A.shtml
The government is secretly trying to stifle attempts by MPs to find out what it knows about CIA "torture flights" and privately admits that people captured by British forces could have been sent illegally to interrogation centers, the Guardian reports.
As Election Season Nears, Efforts to Upgrade Voting Machines Bog Down
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011906F.shtml
Five years after Florida's "chadgate" experience in the 2000 presidential election, roughly half the states are not in compliance with the federal law that was designed to restore faith in voting.
Rightwing Group Offers Students $100 to Spy on Professors
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011906G.shtml
For full notes, a tape recording and a copy of all teaching materials, students at the University of California Los Angeles are being offered $100 - the tape recorder is provided free of charge - by an alumni group. The initiative has prompted concerns that the group, the brainchild of a former leader of the college's Republicans, is a witch-hunt.
Posted by: NonnyO at January 19, 2006 06:17 PM
NonnyO,
Though I don't agree with Harry Reid on everything 100%, I certainly gained respect for him when they actually shut down the Senate.
I think we and they have the potential to do better and maybe this is part of their strategy.
(Ok..yes, I admit it, I also believe in the man on the moon too...and the tooth fairy...and Santi Clauz)
"Ben Nelson, who is seeking re-election this fall in his Republican state, said in his statement that he has "supported more than 215 of President Bush's nominations to the federal bench, including Chief Justice John Roberts." and intends to vote for Sam Alito.
Then why does he bother being a Democrat at all? I would urge a petition drive to say thanks but no thanks Senator, you are no longer welcome here since it is obvious you share none of our values .
He stands to be the lone Democratic Senator to be supporting Alito. What an insult to the Democratic party and how much more effective would it be to have said ALL Dems oppose Alito, rather than all Dems except our friend from Nebraska oppose. I would have no problem asking him to change parties even if it makes our journey to retake the Senate more dfficult. We should not expect political purity, but on issues as important as the makeup of the US Supreme Ct for the next 40 years that is th least that we should ask.I would even go so far as to urge those Dems living in Nebraska to vote for his Republican opponent in Nov. I certainly would not lose any sleep doing so.
Ira,
I remember Teresa Heinz Kerry said last year during the '04 campaign that nothing they did would surprise her. She said she wouldn't be surprised to see them produce Osama bin Laden before the election.
So, here he is again.
(War, war, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin'.)
I appreciate that Teresa Heinz Kerry is speaking out and speaking up for the seniors of this country who are getting meager pennies taken from them to further fatten the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Good for her. They are not above wringing the poor dry for every last dime, even if it means taking it from a widow.
The bible has quite a bit to say about stealing a widow's mite.
Maybe Pat Robertson should preach about that on national t.v., instead of telling how God is punishing everyone else. How about people who steal a widow's mite, Mr. Robertson?
Do you think God punishes everyone but the elite in this country?
I wonder if this dissing comment will make the evening snooze...?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_go_pr_wh/laura_bush_nigeria
First Lady Assails Sen. Clinton for Remark
ABUJA, Nigeria - Laura Bush criticized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday for suggesting that the Republican-controlled House is run like a plantation where dissenting voices are ignored.
"It think it's ridiculous — it's a ridiculous comment," Mrs. Bush told reporters when asked about the remark during a return flight to Washington following her four-day swing through West Africa.
Posted by: Ira at January 19, 2006 06:26 PM
I would urge Nebraskaans to call him and ask him to explain his view points on executive power and warrentless wiretaps. If he can not answer that question and have an equally adequate response from Alito, then they should be calling for his resignation.
Rightwing Group Offers Students $100 to Spy on Professors
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011906G.shtml
For full notes, a tape recording and a copy of all teaching materials, students at the University of California Los Angeles are being offered $100 - the tape recorder is provided free of charge - by an alumni group. The initiative has prompted concerns that the group, the brainchild of a former leader of the college's Republicans, is a witch-hunt.
Posted by: NonnyO at January 19, 2006 06:20 PM
WHAT??????????????????
Posted by: NonnyO at January 19, 2006 06:30 PM
As if she knows! She's too busy holding Georgie's hand and preventing a panic attack.
Posted by: NonnyO at January 19, 2006 06:30 PM
Of course it will. But what will not make the evening news is the support Hillary got from Al Sharpton, who was there at the event with her. Nor will they mention that Barack Obama stands behind Hillary's statement. No, we won't hear about that. Instead, we'll hear lame quotes from the Stepford wife...
And the fact that this regime has to resort to hitting on Hillary again just proves my point as to how much they are unraveling and trying to distract everyone from the messes they made.
(Damn, and I'm breaking my resolution not to be so cynical again...)
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at January 19, 2006 06:32 PM
They like to go for the hidden tapes and the warrantless spying. Clearly it starts young. And they definitely learned their lesson about taping private conversations from a private conversation about Clinton.
Thanks Linda Tripp.
Posted by: madame defarge at January 19, 2006 06:13 PM
Here's my spin on so-called Osama's so-called truce offer:
It gives the adminstration yet another pretext to "stay the course". Because since we don't "negotiate with terrorists" or "give in to their demands", we couldn't possibly leave the country...if that is what the terrorists want.
Goodbye troop drawdowns.
Posted by: Veritas at January 19, 2006 06:41 PM
Yep, I was thinking that too when I heard the news on NPR. It's victory at any cost, to this administration...even if that means more lives lost and attacks on US soil. Wonder how much support they'll get if that happens... As I said, mostly OBL just wants us out of Iraq & Afghanistan... That's the message more people need to hear.
Truth I was in the Denver Kerry state campaign office getting ready to organize our last minute get out the vote effort the weekend before the election when the ben laden tape started playing in our office. my heart sunk and I started telling folks it over when i saw it.everyone said it was no big deal, i felt otherwise. zogby had us up by 1-2% points before the tape. they all thought i was just being a downer but to this day i belive that tape cost us 2-3% of the vote and the whitehouse. it was just enough to push millions of undecided voters over to Bush. I'm sticking with my story.
Posted by: ira at January 19, 2006 05:07 PM
Ira
I remember the same thing. & still don't trust the electronic machines in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico.
There was also a big "terror alert" right exactly on Super Tuesday, when we were trying to celebrate our victory.
Posted by: Veritas at January 19, 2006 06:41 PM
Just think of the pressure that is coming at them over the Iraq War. There must be more pressure than we realize. I mean, Osama surfaces and tells us to leave Iraq, another journalist is kidnapped by insurgent "terrorists", we hear more and more about the "terrorists" getting bombed and by golly, we took out the number 2 guy (oh no we didn't, but...)
I wonder what the scoop is? Why are they resorting to desperate measures to keep us in Iraq? What are they covering up? What is coming down the pike????
Methinks they want to make sure they keep us in there until they find a "reason" to strike another country.
what is bothersome about Nelson's support of Alito is that it makes it harder, if not impossible for Senate dems to now filibuster as he was one of those swing Seators to craft the so called compromise agreement. Nelson may be singularly responsible for one of the most dramatic changes in the makeup of the US Supreme Ct.and that is unforgiveable.
Posted by: Ira at January 19, 2006 06:54 PM
Ira,
Then why isn't Reid leaning on him? Why aren't we? Is he truly representing the ideology of his state?
Oh, BTW, Linda E...
I really like Hillary's plantation comment. I've also heard her "fiefdom" one too.
I think she definitely has a crisp and forceful way with words. I'd like to see her on the t.v. more often dealing with the zombies.
Maybe even wake up a few...
Offtopic, but I'm bummed tonite...
‘Wicked’ Wilson Pickett dies at age 64
NEW YORK - Wilson Pickett, the soul pioneer best known for the fiery hits “Mustang Sally” and “In The Midnight Hour,” died of a heart attack Thursday in a Reston, Va., hospital, according to his management company. He was 64.
Chris Tuthill of the management company Talent Source said Pickett had been suffering from health problems for the past year.
“He did his part. It was a great ride, a great trip, I loved him and I’m sure he was well-loved, and I just hope that he’s given his props,” Michael Wilson Pickett, the singer’s son, told WRC-TV in Washington after his death.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10929971/
Amen, Brutha Marc.
major props to pickett,
Otter
No wonder they vote Rethuglican, when/if they vote at all: http://tinyurl.com/cdkvv
their fathers' hell will slowly go by,
Otter
Posted by: Otter at January 19, 2006 07:52 PM
Dumbfounded.
Methinks they want to make sure they keep us in there until they find a "reason" to strike another country.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at January 19, 2006 06:50 PM
Hmmm....our troops in Iraq on one side, our troops in Afghanistan on the other.... what country in the middle might they have in mind?
Iran, perhaps?
We've got 'em surrounded, boss.
"Then why isn't Reid leaning on him? Why aren't we? Is he truly representing the ideology of his state?"
I am sure he is(leaning on him) but Nelson is a typical politician of the worst sort. He is up for re election in Nov. and he is obviously more intrested in his own re-election then doing what is best for the country. His views probably mirror the very conservatve state of Nebraska but he makes even Lieberman look like a progressive.
We should lean on Nelson but personally I am sure that he doesn't give a flip about our opinions or our calls. I suggest we lean on Dean and tell him we don't want any DCCC monies going to him. I made that clear in my last contribution. Money talks, hopefully there is a political price to be paid.
Anyone who gets Rolling Stone magazine should read the article in this month's edition about the effects of Bush's tax cuts on the poor. It's a devastating article, pointing out exactly how cruel these people are. I'm tired of hearing people say the Republicans mean well but are just operating from a different philosophy from us- no, that's not so. The article pointed out that the net result of the deficit reduction act of 2005 will cause a person on Medicaid to have to pay a $100 copayment to visit a clinic to get an inhalant for their asthma. It also pointed out that student loans will no longer be low interest, but will be at a much higher fixed interest rate than before, and that colleges now charge 40% more tuition than when Bush took office.
It's a very interesting read. Ok- just found the link. Here it is- it's called "the Deficit Lie."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/9138154
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin says no to Alito
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=3827088
That's my senator and I'm damn proud of him.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at January 19, 2006 08:30 PM
Linda,
That's exactly what they say. And how can you argue that? Yes, it is a different opinion. Because they say those people are just lazy and don't want to make a better life. Then they find the one person who embezzled or sat at home milking the system and they use that one person as an example of why the whole process is bad.
I've spoken to my Republican brother in law who essentially wanted to dismantle ALL FDR's great programs--all thanks to the few people who abused the system. I thought I had him convinced that dismantling wasn't necessary but oversight and enforcement was.
Nonetheless, at one time the Dems were crazy money spenders who did anything to help the poor...and the Republicans were tight fisted tight-wads who did anything to hurt the poor. Now the only thing that's changed is the Republcians aren't so tight-fisted anymore. They still don't help the poor, but instead they pass out the dole to the rich.
Posted by: Carol at January 19, 2006 07:59 PM
Yes Carol. That's the story on the inside also.
Yup, surrounded.
And those soldiers actually leave for the ship February 15th. Imagine that.
we are all proud of Durbin defarge. Let his office know we all appreciate his (Durbin's) voice but he now needs to lean on Nelson and Feinstein and support a filibuster. W/O a filibuster their no votes are nothing more than political posturing, which is meaningless.
Posted by: Ira at January 19, 2006 08:46 PM
The moderate Republicans have to be leaned on too!
Carol, Veritas, and TSP,
LOOK at the map.
http://almashriq.hiof.no/general/900/910/912/maps/middle.east.gif
Even though they 'got them surrounded' they would involve the WHOLE middle east and the Asian continent if they did that.
They can't even handle one little area.
I certainly hope you're wrong. Because look at the map...it'd be an explosive situation leading to WWIII.
Posted by: sparrow at January 19, 2006 09:06 PM
I seriously hope so too. I have never been told where they are going on the ship - maybe it is back to Iraq and I'd like to think so, but word was as far back as a year and a half ago that Iran could very well be next. I didn't hear the word Iran from any military service personnel, that was a civilian's speculation. All I know about the February sailing date is that ground troops are going to be "out there" in case they are needed to go aground. That could mean anything, but with the speculation about Iran 18 months ago, the info about the departation in Feb., and the news stories about Iran it has me very concerned.
I of course don't know anything for certain, I am just piecing things together in speculation as well.
Israel Preparing Possible Attack on Iran
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011906Q.shtml
IAF pilots have completed their mission training and fighter jets have been prepared for an Israeli attack on Iran, the British Sunday Times reported. The article reported that "the elite 69 strategic F-15 I squadron" had been equipped with weapons that will be tested in combat for the first time, and that two missile submarines were on standby: one in the Persian Gulf and the second in Haifa Bay.
Why is Chirac suddenly acting like a cowboy? Speaking with bravado about using nukes, upsetting peace activists in his own country?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1690809,00.html
sparrow,
I put nothing past them. These are the folks who thought shock and awe was all it would take.
They believe they are right about everything. They've got good (torturous) friends in Uzbekistan - the country with the largest military in central asia according to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan
We don't have troops there now, but we did as recently as November.
We're partners with Israel. They've got nukes. It is an absolutely scary potential situation, and we have no business being over there.
All the more reason for us to get out now!
Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) is holding a hearing/briefing on the illegal domestic spying program authorized by Bush tomorrow at 11 EST.
It will be carried on C-span and Pacifica Radio.
He posted a notice on Daily Kos here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/19/181642/900
He notes in the message section that the GOP REFUSED to give him access to/use of a Congressional hearing room, so they are holding it in the basement of another building. The public is welcome!!
I love that man!
Spread the word.
My question for Bremer:
What happened to all our tax payer money???
You know, the rather large quantity of cash ($80 million, I believe) that remains unaccountable- all "lost" under YOUR leadership of CPA?
My question for Bremer:
What happened to all our tax payer money???
You know, the rather large quantity of cash ($80 million, I believe) that remains unaccountable- all "lost" under YOUR leadership of CPA?
We're partners with Israel. They've got nukes. It is an absolutely scary potential situation, and we have no business being over there.
All the more reason for us to get out now!
Posted by: Carol at January 19, 2006 11:39 PM
My stress and anxiety level rose today for the first time in months, due to the news of the bin Laden tape, and the Iran situation. Maybe it's easy to start feeling safe when people are speaking up - a feeling of enpowerment takes hold and we don't feel so helpless. I am very anxious tonight.
At least we know we are not alone, but the thought that all this corruption is masquerading out there in the guise of "freedom and safety - patriotic red white and blue", and is being broadcast as such over every major media television network in the U.S. just kind of freaks me out.
What are we going to do?
Thanks Wild Salmon!
(Great to see you!)
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at January 20, 2006 12:29 AM
Great to see you too.
It is a worrisome situation, the mess that Bushco has gotten us into.
I don't think they ever intend to leave the middle east, as long as there is oil. They are still busy building their pipeline from the oil fields of Afganistan right through Iraq to the Gulf.
It really is about the oil. The ideology is just their ploy to get the American Sheeple to go along with it.
From what I heard tonight, the OBL tape is not new, recent but probably from sometime in November. Since it is only audio- it is somewhat speculative that it is really him. Could be, could be someone else posing as him.
I am cyncical of the timing- Bush is in deep trouble over his illegal spying, and Abu Gonzalez releases a 42 page manifesto on how George is basically above all law.
My biggest concern these past weeks has been Alito and his likely confirmation. With his strong belief in the Unitary Executive Theory- we will be stuck with a King, not a pResident- accountable to no one.
Now that's scary.
If the Dems don't fillibuster Alito- I have a feeling its all down hill from there.
So much hangs in the balance, and never more than it does right now.
Don't let it stress you out too much, though.
Life does go on- in spite of the insanity- one day at a time.
Posted by: wild salmon at January 20, 2006 01:04 AM
The Alito confirmation has me very concerned, too.
Yes, it is all about the oil.
I think what bothers me the most is the deception.
The whole thing is so surreal, so Orwelian.
Thanks for visiting us, W.S. Come by more often!
Israel Preparing Possible Attack on Iran
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011906Q.shtml
IAF pilots have completed their mission training and fighter jets have been prepared for an Israeli attack on Iran, the British Sunday Times reported. The article reported that "the elite 69 strategic F-15 I squadron" had been equipped with weapons that will be tested in combat for the first time, and that two missile submarines were on standby: one in the Persian Gulf and the second in Haifa Bay.
Excerpt:
Only if the Americans decide to do it, then that option is possible," Pedatzur said last week. Pedatzur added that the day Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Israel will have no choice but to abandon its policy of nuclear ambiguity.
{{{Naturally, my first question is WHY?!? "Only if the Americans decide to do it..." seems to be the key phrase. With The Cretin and Vice Cretin calling the dictatorial shots, there is no answer to the 'why' question because there just is no one there with any wisdom willing to stop indulging the spoiled warmongering brat in *our* White House; they're playing a stupid game called "My little thingy is bigger than your little thingy."}}}
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060120/ap_on_go_ot/us_al_qaida_tape
Bin Laden Tape Won't Raise Security Level
{{{Gee, I wonder why not? One could speculate that the first thing The Cretin and Vice Cretin would believe is that it is mandatory to keep the sheeples scared witless and spitless....}}}
Feds After Google Data
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011906R.shtml
In court papers filed in US District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for records, which include a request for one million random web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Go Google!!! :-)
Looking for porn, my big fat arse! They're looking to do more illegal spying on average Americans for their FAKE 'war on terror' so they can keep the kool-aid drinking comatose sheeples scared witless and spitless....
There are plenty of very legal ways to get search warrants to track internet activities of pornographers and pedophiles, and anyone with an IQ higher than a rock already knows that.
Group Sues to Block Electronic Voting Machine
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011906S.shtml
Critics of electronic voting machines have sued Secretary of State Pedro Cortes, seeking to block county purchase of the new machines by the May primary and a redo of machine certification. The Coalition for Voting Integrity, a statewide group with origins in Bucks County, says Cortes, as head of the Pennsylvania Department of State, has not applied uniform standards in certifying nearly two dozen new electronic machines.
Excerpt:
Department of State spokeswoman Allison Hrestak said she could not comment on the lawsuit. But she did say state election law has 17 requirements that must be met to approve new electronic voting machines.
Among them are requirements that the machines: preserve voter secrecy; allow only one vote per office; are "safely and efficiently usable"; correctly record and tabulate every valid vote; and provide "acceptable ballot security procedures ... to prevent tampering with or substitution of any ballots."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Even the statement is full of loopholes! The story mentions - who else? - Diebold machines. WHY not simply opt for the very simple paper ballots with an electronic reader in each precinct... with the paper ballots there as backup to be able to be manually counted, if necessary. Too simple...???
Why don't these people think of the SIMPLEST solutions FIRST?!?
(I know, I know. Rhetorical question... it wouldn't put profits in Diebold's hands, and the "complicated" and expensive way of doing it enables neoCons to hack into the voting machines and fix elections....)
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
Abstract: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire.
By Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.
A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm
U.S. Obtains Internet Users' Search Records
SAN FRANCISCO-Yahoo and others reveal queries from millions of people; Google refuses. Identities aren't included, but the datatrove stirs privacy fears. By Joseph Menn and Chris Gaither.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google20jan20,0,6995079.story?track=tottext,0,3080421.story
http://simurl.com/dokcah
Domestic Spying Gets a Boost
WASHINGTON-The Justice Department jumps to the defense of President Bush's program with a legal analysis that calls such surveillance an established power. By Richard B. Schmitt.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-spy20jan20,0,2000868.story?track=tottext,0,2799510.story
http://simurl.com/cc-ss-ff
Excerpt:
Some legal experts have questioned that rationale and the justification for ignoring the requirements of the law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The law includes a specific provision that addresses the power of the president during wartime, giving him 15 days to conduct surveillance without court approval.
"When you have a statute that seems to be pretty clear and pretty specific about what ought to happen, and then that is just ignored, that is probably the weakest point in their analysis," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.
"The history is interesting, but irrelevant," said David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington. "If he needed broad authority, he should have come back to Congress and asked for it."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2006/01/20/notes012006.DTL&nl=fix
Sam Alito On Brokeback Mountain
What do the bitter neocon nominee and the amazing Oscar-bound film have in common?
Cheney: Spy program key to terror war
Gonzales tries to show public 'another side to this debate'
Friday, January 20, 2006; Posted: 2:10 a.m.
NEW YORK (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney defended the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program Thursday, calling it an essential tool in monitoring al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
But Cheney stressed the program was limited in scope and had been conducted in a way that safeguarded civil liberties.
"A spirit of debate is now under way, and our message to the American people is clear and straightforward: These actions are within the president's authority and responsibility under the Constitution and laws, and these actions are vital to our security," Cheney said in a luncheon speech at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.
Cheney said the surveillance program had addressed a concern of the 9/11 Commission that the government had difficulty linking the activities of domestic and international terrorists.
"It's hard to think of any category of information that could be more important to the safety of the United States than international communication, one end of which we have reason to believe is related to al Qaeda," Cheney said.
President Bush has acknowledged that beginning in October 2001 he authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails of people within the United States without seeking warrants from the courts.
The program has come under heavy criticism by congressional Democrats and civil libertarians and is now the focus of at least two federal lawsuits.
Cheney told the audience Bush had reauthorized the program more than 30 times since 2001 and would continue to do so.
Also Thursday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sent congressional leaders a 42-page legal defense of warrantless eavesdropping, expanding on arguments that he and other administration officials have been making since the program was first disclosed last month.
The memo argues that Bush has authority to order the warrantless wiretapping under the Constitution and the post-September 11 congressional resolution granting him broad power to fight al Qaeda.
Gonzales said the analysis was needed to counter critics of the program and show the public that "there's another side to this debate."
Cheney did not directly address an audio tape aired Thursday by Al-Jazeera in which a voice, determined by the CIA to be that of Osama bin Laden, said al Qaeda planned further attacks on the United States.
But Cheney said it was "more than obvious" the nation faced continued terrorist threats.
"The enemy that struck on 9/11 is weakened, fractured, but still lethal and still determined to hit us again," he said. "Either we are serious about fighting this war on terror or we are not."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/19/cheney.spying.ap/index.html
But Cheney said it was "more than obvious" the nation faced continued terrorist threats.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/19/cheney.spying.ap/index.html
Posted by: monkey at January 20, 2006 06:18 AM
Excuse me for not being paranoid about terrorists. I feel completely safe from them.
About the administration in *our* White House... I feel totally paranoid, and know they will do their best to harm the people of this country and Iraq and wherever else in the world if and when they can.
Because of The Cretin and his administration, I keep my tin foil hat handy at all times.... I may even make a new one and insulate it....
International section of today's New York Times has the World Can't Wait ad--print version. Looks impressive.
It says BUSH STEP DOWN.
I just had a wild thought...What if this regime manufactured that tape with OBL??? What if it's a complete fake? Has its validity been verified by anyone outside this regime?
I wouldn't put it past them to pull a trick like this to divert attention & news...
Harvey Wasserman | Are You Ready to Be Bugged and Tortured By George W. Bush?
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0119-22.htm
Eric Boehlert | How the Press Played Dumb About the K Street Project
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0119-27.htm
Posted by: karen at January 20, 2006 07:57 AM
Sounds wonderful!!! I bet it looks pretty, too! :-)
~~~~~~~~
I wouldn't put it past them to pull a trick like this to divert attention & news...
Posted by: madame defarge at January 20, 2006 08:01 AM
Sounds exactly like something they would do!!! We've heard so MANY LIES from this administration, I don't believe anything they say any longer. Nothing. If they said the sky is blue, I wouldn't believe them unless I verified it with six independent sources who had no connection to the administration.
And, after reading about the Iranian Bourse, I'm just wondering if Lamestream Media will ever pick up the story....? I think Lamestream Media will go with the f