Lieberman Takes Out Some Primary Insurance

DailyKos will be rocking with this today!

Karen is at the rally in DC with Cindy Sheehan, the Raging Grannies, Dick Gregory, Medea Benjamin. I'm typing as best as I can. It's loud and I can hear the crowd roaring in the background.

Right now, the raging grannys are singing at Dupont Circle, and they are making the point that being arrested and being put in jail doesn't bother them a bit. It only increases their determination and focus. They were great.

Medea Benjamin spoke next speaking about the purpose here...to keep on sending the message that we are in solidarity and we will settle for nothing short of the end of the war.

Dick Gregory spoke next. He spoke eloquently about why people fast. (Why?) "We don't fast to stop anything. We're bringing a connection to the postive and enlightened forces around the world that we know are there. It's about unity with a positive not negative."

Daniel Eslsberg is talking about being in the same cell as Dick Gregory during the Gulf War protest. They're sending the message to to do everything you can do to end this war.

He says, "We have the government that the founding father's warned us against. We hope for here and what we want to return to is a government of the people for the people and not the government of the empire."

Daniel Ellsberg quoted Dick Gregory by saying, "It's an action you can do anywhere no matter where you are. It defines the issue on moral grounds. It makes the issue one of morality and an act of conscience It is an act of conscience to fast. We must stop killing people in Iraq. We must not decide who will live or will die."

They're on their way to the Gandhi statue. Karen will send more updates.

Karen Bradley is a hero. I was just thinking that when I was writing about Yoko Ono and John Lennon at the end of the last thread. Nice to come to this one & read what's going on.

I was saying there needs to be a Vision in the first place.
"People may say that I'm crazy..but I'm not the only one.."

It has to be implemented, but there has to be a vision.
The right seems to implement, but without a real vision.

Just hear this on the radio the other day (http://www.kexp.org)

Let Them Eat War Lyrics

Bad Religion

Theres a prophet on a mountain and he's making up dinner
With long division and riding crop
Anybody can feel like a winner
When it's served up piping hot

But the people aren't looking for a handout
They're America's working corps
Can this be what they voted for?

Let them eat war
Let them eat war
That's how to ration the poor
Let them eat war
Let them eat war

There's an urgent need to feed
Declining pride

From the force to the union shops
The war economy is making new jobs
But the people who benefit most
Are breaking bread with their benevolent hosts

You never stole from the rich to give to the poor
All he ever gave to them was a war
And a foreign enemy to deplore

Let them eat war
Let them eat war
That's how to ration the poor
Let them eat war
Let them eat war

There's an urgent need to feed
Declining pride

We've got to kill 'em and eat em'
Before they reach for their checks
Squeeze some blue collars
make them bleed from their necks
Seize a few dollars from the people who sweat
Cause it's freedom or death and they won't question it
At a job site the boss is god like
Conditioned workhorses park at a stoplight
Seasoned vets with their feet in nets
A stones throw away from a rock fight
But not tonight, feed 'em death

Here comes another ration (feed them death)
Cause they're the finest in the nation (feed them death)
But there's nothing left to feed them
When it's freedom or it's death

Let them eat war
Let them eat war
That's how to ration the poor
Let them eat war
Let them eat war

There's an urgent need to feed

I was impressed by the name of Bad Religion's 2004 LP:

The Empire Strikes First

Also love the name for Radiohead's

Hail to the Thief

Quote of the day
by kos
Joe Lieberman:
I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party.

http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20060703/jumpinjoe

Jumpin'Joe!

Here's a video of Joe, a bit testy, now isn't he. ~spk

Well, as everyone has probably heard by now, Joe Lieberman has said that he's still in the Democratic primary, but if he loses, he'll run as an independent "petitioning Democrat". What that means is he'll run as an independent, but if he wins he'll join the Democratic caucus.

Whatever. What I'm interested in is not Joe's jump, which isn't a huge surprise, but how Schumer in particular, and other Democratic leaders like Reid, Rahm, Dean and Pelosi are going to react to this.

The primary system was opened up to the public, as Stirling notes, after a great long fight. If the Democratic establishment chooses to support Lieberman over Lamont then they would be giving a big finger to the primary system - saying they'll work with it when they feel like it, but if it threatens their cozy insiders club, they'll work against it.

Dean won't support Lieberman as an independent. Having his brother raise money for Lamont was a clear message. Rahm, being on the House side, can shrug out of this, as can Pelosi. Neither should - both should take this opportunity to show that they believe in democracy and in the Democratic party - both by endorsing Lamont, and by fundraising for him. Doing so on Rahm's part would do a lot to help bury some of the animosity he has earned over the last few months, and on Pelosi's part would continue her movement towards to the party's base and the netroots.

Who's next?

John McCain?

Hillary Clinton?

In my opinion, Leiberman gave Democrats the finger when he introduced the Republican viewpoint against the Iraq resolutions two weeks ago.

There should be no tears for Joe after witnessing that act against the party.

Search: All News & Blogs Yahoo! News Only News Photos Video/Audio Advanced

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

War on terror ruling worries GOP lawmakers By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jul 2, 5:33 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Two Republican senators said Sunday that Congress must rein in the Supreme Court ruling that international law applies to the Bush administration's conduct in the war on terror.

Thursday's Supreme Court decision embracing Article 3 of the Geneva Accords in the military commission case of Osama bin Laden's former driver strikes at the heart of the White House's legal position in the war on al-Qaida.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060702/ap_on_go_co/bush_powers

Wow, the 'liberal' NYT's is at it again. (not!)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davidbikman/8

NY Times Calls Bush Torture Strategy "Bold and Novel"
Posted by davidbikman in National Security
Sun Jul 02nd 2006, 09:58 PM
Judith Miller may have moved on, but her collaborationist spirit is alive and well at the New York Times. In an article on the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision that reads like an obituary for the lost days of unlimited presidential power, Adam Liptak faithfully serves up the administration's talking points as transmitted through Berkeley professor John Yoo. John Yoo, you will remember, was the Justice Department lawyer who crafted this administration's torture policy, the memos which argued that are no legal barriers to president's ability to authorize the use of torture, memos that Liptak, in a mind-boggling display of Orwellian doublespeak, characterizes as "bold and novel."

Crooks and liars has the Leiberman cut and run up..

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/03/cut-and-run-joe-lieberman/

3rd, 2006
Bush told Cheney to go after Joseph Wilson
By: John Amato @ 12:37 PM - PDT
In a new article by Murray Waas , Bush told the special prosecutor in his testimony that he wanted Cheney to personally lead the charge against Joseph Wilson to discredit him because Wilson had publicly attacked Saddam’s WMD capability and the threat he posed which would undermine Bush’s credibility to go to war with Iraq. He also gave Cheney instructions as the Leaker in Chief to disclose highly classified information to do it.

President Bush told the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case that he directed Vice President Cheney to personally lead an effort to counter allegations made by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson that his administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq, according to people familiar with the president’s statement.

Bush also told federal prosecutors during his June 24, 2004 interview in the Oval Office that he had directed Cheney, as part of that broader effort, to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration, but also discredit Wilson, the sources said.

The article also outlines that Bush threw Cheney under the bus in his interview about the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name.

Bush had previously feigned knowledge about any person in his administration leaking information about Valerie Plame and at first vowed to fire anyone involved in leaking her name. This is the exchange from June 10th, 2004

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/03/bush-told-cheney-to-go-after-joseph-wilson/#more-8692

I need to send money to Ned Lamont.

Also may Lieberman comment on this. The struggle in & around Israel is very symbolic to people in the middle east. What is his stand on peacemaking in this region?

Gideon Levy: A Black Flag
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070306X.shtml
Gideon Levy writes, "A black flag hangs over the "rolling" operation in Gaza. The more the operation "rolls," the darker the flag becomes. The "summer rains" we are showering on Gaza are not only pointless, but are first and foremost blatantly illegitimate. It is not legitimate to cut off 750,000 people from electricity. It is not legitimate to call on 20,000 people to run from their homes and turn their towns into ghost towns. It is not legitimate to penetrate Syria's airspace. It is not legitimate to kidnap half a government and a quarter of a parliament."

Christian film's PG rating troubles Congress

Monday, July 3, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Christian-themed movie about a football coach's faith in God is finding an audience in Congress -- not so much for its inspirational message, but for the PG rating it received.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt and other lawmakers are demanding explanations after hearing complaints that the movie "Facing the Giants" was rated PG instead of G due to religious content.

A PG rating means parental guidance is suggested because the MPAA believes some material may not be suitable for children. A G rating means the MPAA has found the movie acceptable for all audiences.

The Motion Picture Association of America claims the controversy arose from a miscommunication with the filmmakers. It says religion was not the reason for the rating.

"This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous for children than exposure to gratuitous sex and violence," Blunt said in a letter to MPAA Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Dan Glickman.

After meeting with MPAA officials, Blunt and a handful of other House members said they remain concerned about the subjective nature of the ratings process.

"I'm not satisfied," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who attended the meeting with Blunt. "We probably will want to revisit this ratings process to have some commonality in the standards that exist for movies, videos and video games."

Blackburn said she wants the House Energy and Commerce Committee to hold hearings on the issue later this year.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/03/christian.movie.rating.ap/index.html

Assimilate earthlings... resistance is futile.

This just in... (not even the headline on any major news site btw)

N. Korea threatens U.S. with 'nuclear war'

Monday, July 3, 2006

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea would respond to a pre-emptive U.S. military attack with an "annihilating strike and a nuclear war," the state-run media said Monday, heightening anti-U.S. rhetoric amid close scrutiny of its missile program.

The Korean Central News Agency, citing an unidentified Rodong Sinmun newspaper "analyst," accused the United States of increasing military pressure on the isolated communist state and basing new spy planes on the Korean Peninsula.

The North Korean threat of retaliation, which is often voiced by its state-controlled media, comes amid U.S. official reports that Pyongyang has shown signs of preparing for a test of a long-range missile. North Korea claims it has the right to such a launch.

On Friday, Pyongyang accused the United States of driving the situation on the Korean Peninsula "to the brink of war," and said it is fully prepared to counter any U.S. aggression.

Monday's report accused Washington of escalating military pressure on the country with war exercises, a massive arms buildup and aerial espionage by basing new spy planes in South Korea.

"This is a grave military provocation and blackmail to the DPRK, being an indication that the U.S. is rapidly pushing ahead in various fields with the extremely dangerous war moves," the dispatch said.

"The army and people of the DPRK are now in full preparedness to answer a pre-emptive attack with a relentless annihilating strike and a nuclear war with a mighty nuclear deterrent," the report said.

DPRK stands for the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

White House spokesman Tony Snow refused to respond to what he called "a hypothetical situation."

"It is a statement about what may happen if something that hasn't happened happened, if you follow my drift," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/03/north.korea.ap/index.html

Update from Karen:

They were at the Gandhi statue now they're marching up Connecticutt Ave near the White House. There's around 1000 or so people there sweating it out in the humid heat.

The crowd is smaller due to the holiday but they're extremely vocal!

Dick got there with the camera so they'll have pictures for us soon.

Monkey
The N Korea thing was on Comcast mainpage a couple of hours ago. It was next to an Iran thing - both creepy. One guy's hair was standing straight up, the others slicked down - but they both looked very offended.

I want the Lieberman campaign to fall apart in great big chunks.

GO NETROOTS!!!!

Have you ever experienced this?

CITY OF YOUR CHOICE - Jubilation was replaced by anger and disbelief among followers of (liberal candidate). But violence seemed unlikely, especially with (liberal candidate) telling supporters to stay calm.

Last night, supporters were chanting "We are going to win!" (clip)
It's easy to make light of such adoration in a political campaign. But it's not easy to jest about the expressions on the faces of so many who spent hours in the main plaza under an intermittent rain, waiting for the man they see as more than just a candidate.

By Monday, however, their hopes seemed dashed and the campaign for (liberal candidate) seemed to have assumed a forlorn air. A top adviser arrived at headquarters, only to find the door locked, and the building empty.

Sitting at the WH after a wonderful little meal, on the ground. Lots of media--finally. Let us know if you see any of it!

I am not a hero, but am thinking very hard about why I am doing this. I am inspired.

More to come...

Posted by: monkey at July 3, 2006 03:58 PM

Haven't had time to even watch Tony Snow once to see his M.O. with the press.

But.....I get the drift, alright.

Posted by: sparrow at July 3, 2006 03:47 PM

To that I say Bush-it!!

I know, it's my two cents, but...it's the old Executive Priviledge thing again....

They just aren't gonna let Rovie boy hang. (I know you all knew that, but, I'm mad enough to spit!)

Karen
The reason you are a hero is because you get out there & do it, rather than just talk about it. Even if you live in DC where the action is, you by no means just sit behind a computer, or at least you take your computer (& camera) someplace where something is happening & make a statement (visually & literally).

Keep everyone posted on what may be happening in September!

Tony Snow sounds a bit like Rumsfeld or the old Iraqi foreign minister - he doesn't make alot of sense. He sounds like someone out of Alice in Wonderland. McClellan was a parrot, Fleischer a slightly smarter one.

Listening to CNN radio while waiting for my daughter. This is how they framed Leibermans desrtion, "independent Democrat & due to his support of the 'war on terror.'"

It's all fine and well that the netroots have managed to frighten Joe Lieberman enough that he's gathering signatures for a run as an indy. What's NOT fine and well is that in his state, only a plurality is necessary to send a candidate to the Senate. Assuming an extremely right wing Republican runs against Lamont as the Democrat and Lieberman as the Indy, Old Joe would again screw the Democratic party royally by taking enough moderate votes away from Lamont to throw the election over to the Repugs. Then, we lose a seat in the Senate, we may very well lose the possibility of a Democratic majority, and the possibility of gaining the chairmanship of every key committee in the US Senate.
Sorry, but this isn't happy news.
Just thought I'd drop in from my occasional lurking to mention that.

AND BTW- Lieberman is going to be on the "Situation Room" on CNN in just a couple of minutes to explain his signature drive. It might be worth watching.

Lieberman is basically blackmailing the voters of Connecticut by threatening to split the vote and throw the election over to the Republican if he loses in the primary. He's not saying that, but that's EXACTLY what he's up to. He's the same Bush kissing scum he's been for years now. Oh well.

Posted by: monkey at July 3, 2006 03:58 PM

It's Ally posting from one of DiAnne's computers.

We are discussing if North Korea has the ability to hit Seattle. I think they will hit Los Angeles instead, if they have the capability, due to its anticommunist Korean-American population.

It is scary just thinking about the very possibility.

Yes we are having a summit meeting here - we also have Henry from Bangkok via Portland. We are headed to the most authentic Chinese restaurant I have been to in years & my mouth is watering. We also have a rabid Air America listener (Ken) & a recent political science graduate (Gabe) so I think we will have an animated discussion over dinner!

If anyone's interested on the machinations of the Kerry campaign and how things went wrong with messaging read Joe Klines book:POLICTS LOST.
Joe takes on the messaging of many campaigns.. lost and won. He has a real grasp of issues and we need to read this to gear up for this election and 08'. Have a nice 4th. NO flag raising going on at this house this year! Thanks Karen/Dick and the DCP'ers for ALL your great work.

Posted by: Linda Enterkin at July 3, 2006 07:36 PM

Linda...did you get my email?

Linda,

He also could split the Republicans if he runs as a independent. Because the fact is that most Republicans are not thrilled with their party right now, so they may chose to vote for Leiberman instead of either party.

Linda,

Your make excellent points in your posts. However, I would really love to be a fly on the wall in Chuck Schumer's office. The DSCC has said that they will support the winner of the Democratic Primay. Liebermann is positioning himself as the "independent Democrat" if he needs to run an independent campaign (and that is looking more and more likely). If the DSCC doesn't have the gumption to campaign against Liebermann (if he should go ahead with his plans to run as an independent), then they deserve to lose. As of yesterday, the Dem leaders refused to say anything beyond the CN primary results. By Lieberman labeling himself as an "Independent Democrat", he has given some wiggle room to the party leaders. However, if the party leaders wont come out strongly for Lamont, if he should happen to win, then the Dems are sure to lose the November election due to a split vote.

Posted by: sparrow at July 3, 2006 09:07 PM

Sparrow,

Why would Republicans vote for an "independent" who has made it abundantly clear that he will remain a Democrat?

I think Republicans would vote for an Independent.
Alot of Democrats have done so (such as for McCain).
I even know Democrats who voted for Howard Dean & then turned around & voted for Dino Rossi for WA Governor.
It doesn't make sense to me but it may make sense to them.
I also know an actual Independent who absolutely is in love with Lieberman but hates both Bush & Ted Kennedy. We disagree on almost everything.

Ally & Henry & I are listening to Thai rap & we're headed out for Karaoke - it's part of our West Coast summit & trade negotiations talks for the Pacific Rim.

Patti F
I don't think Joe Klein would be any expert on the Kerry campaign. I read everything he wrote for Newsweek & it didn't relate at all the reality experienced at the time.

"Update from Karen:

They were at the Gandhi statue now they're marching up Connecticutt Ave near the White House. ..."

Posted by: Suz at July 3, 2006 03:59 PM

I didn't know there was a Gandhi statue near the White House! Cool. So I googled it--it's outside the Indian Embassy. Here's a link to a photo:
http://www.art.com/asp/sp-asp/_/pd--12079642/sp--A/Statue_of_Gandhi_outside_Indian_Embassy_Washington_DC_USA.htm

Dianne,

I respectfully disagree with your assessment. ~30% of the electorate is diehard, blockhead, Republican. They will never vote for Lieberman nor Lamont. Of the remaining ~70% of the voters, those that voted for Lamont are not likely to switch their vote. If Lamont wins the primary, that means at least ~35% voting for Lamont and ~25% for Lieberman (It is worth noting that of the latest numbers I can find, Lieberman's favorable are 55% with an unfavorable of 41% http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=5b2ae37d-ddb3-43ce-9ef4-f463f260dbe9.). Out of the remaining voters there is the remaining ~60% who need to be convinced to vote for Lieberman. If Lieberman captures half of that vote ( a long shot by any stretch of the imagination), that will be enough to split the vote potentially favor of the Republican candidate to take the seat thereby making Lieberman's run simply that of a spoiler.

Here is a link regarding independent voters in CT. This is more apropos for my post above.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=5b2ae37d-ddb3-43ce-9ef4-f463f260dbe9&x=751,3

Dianne,in Klines book he speaks about ALL the Dean stuff that we experienced during the campaign ie:"more of a movement rather than winning the presidency". He even uses some phrases like we used on the blog. I happen to like Kline as mostly he wants dems to win..but MORE importantly he wants US to shape up. There is a message in there..it's good stuff!!

I didn't know there was a Gandhi statue near the White House! Cool. So I googled it--it's outside the Indian Embassy. Here's a link to a photo:
http://www.art.com/asp/sp-asp/_/pd--12079642/sp--A/Statue_of_Gandhi_outside_Indian_Embassy_Washington_DC_USA.htm

Posted by: beth at July 3, 2006 10:50 PM

Not only did we pay homage to the man and the statue of him, but the Freepers who were across the street yelling vicious statements against Cindy (the awful woman who was hurtful to Gilda was there, as usual--she appears to follow Cindy around. She is truly horrid.) were drowned out by the Rev. Yearwood, who gave a truly appropriate mini-sermon on nonviolence and peace.

Dick Gregory also reminded us that we do not fast to change the hearts and minds of those in power; we fast to bring all those in need of hope closer together.

Tonight we had a birthday party for Cindy Sheehan at Busboys and Poets, a celebration of light in the darkness, with music and dancing and prayers. I have never experienced such a deeply loving tribute--and it was a tribute from Cindy to all of us as much as it was a tribute to her.

We are working very very hard--all of you here as well--to do something unprecedented, and that is to end a war with peace and not more violence. Our efforts tomorrow and the days to follow may not get much attention, but know that those of us who are there are there for everyone who cannot be there, but who is in need of hope and justice.

Oncall
You may be right. I don't think I have ever voted for a Republican. Even if there were one I liked, I would probably have to sit it out because I'd be so paranoid about his or her association with such a party. So I can imagine there are people who could be fed up with the Republicans but that doesn't mean they're ready to vote for a Democrat. The parties, though some think they overlap alot, are still too different. It's a different mindset.

PattiF
You may be right. Though I did not like the article I read in Newsweek, maybe I'd like the longer book about the Kerry campaign, Dean phenomenon etc. We did live history, didn't we?!! Now the Dean thing wasn't all bad - there was alot of good. I learned alot at YearlyKos. What was really good was the potential to use new technology for politics. They just hadn't completely harnessed it or worked out all the kinds & no one really has yet. I heard alot at YearlyKos about campaigns & blogstuff being still apples & oranges & not smoothly meshed. It's more of an ideal.

Karen
Love to Cindy! People are with you all in spirit from all over the world.

Ally has gone for now & will tour Mt. Rainier tomorrow - what a strong, smart person. We really had fun.

Happy 4th of July

Wow

These came almost simultaneously at midnight. Kossacks have already been on this for hours, so 160 comments as this is posted:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/3/17221/04318

Waas at 'National Journal' Reports Bush Urged Cheney to Lead Charge Against Joe Wilson

By Editor & Publisher Staff

Published: July 03, 2006 6:20 PM ET
NEW YORK President Bush told the special prosecutor in the Plame/CIA leak case "that he directed Vice President Cheney to personally lead an effort to counter allegations made by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, " Murray Waas writes today in his latest revelation for the National Journal.

Waas, who has broken a string of stories on this case, attributed the information to "people familiar with the president's statement."

He adds: "Bush also told federal prosecutors during his June 24, 2004, interview in the Oval Office that he had directed Cheney, as part of that broader effort, to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson, the sources said.

"But Bush," Waas continues, "told investigators that he was unaware that Cheney had directed I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, to covertly leak the classified information to the media instead of releasing it to the public after undergoing the formal governmental declassification processes.

"Bush also said during his interview with prosecutors that he had never directed anyone to disclose the identity of then-covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife. Bush said he had no information that Cheney had disclosed Plame's identity or directed anyone else to do so."

Dana Perino, a spokesperson for the White House, declined to comment.

A senior government official familiar with the matter told Waas that in directing Libby to leak the classified information to Miller and other reporters, Cheney said words to the effect of, "The president wants this out," or "The president wants this done."

The complete, lengthy article can be found at http://www.nationaljournal.com.
*****************************************************************
http://www.huffingtonpost.com

National Journal: Bush Told Prosecutors He "Directed" Cheney To Discredit Joe Wilson...

Having already engulfed numerous high-ranking Bush administration officials, today the Valerie Plame CIA leak case produced perhaps its most damning expose. A National Review article by Murray Waas cites a number of sources with knowledge that President Bush told the special prosecutor, during a 2004 Oval Office interview, that he himself directed Vice President Dick Cheney to personally spearhead an effort to counter allegations made by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

According to sources, Bush told Cheney to disclose classified intelligence that would defend the administration and discredit Wilson. The President claimed he did not tell anyone specifically to expose the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, nor did he know that Cheney instructed his chief of staff to leak Plame's identity to the press. However, a source with direct knowledge of conversations between Bush and Cheney said that Bush told Cheney, regarding information that would discredit Wilson, to "get it out." Another person with knowledge of Bush's interview with the special prosecutor did not confirm the President's words, but said that the "get it out" account was consistent with what Bush told the prosecutor.

Posted by: DiAnne at July 4, 2006 03:16 AM

Well, didn't we all believe the order to swiftboat Wilson came from the top? I did, anyway. There was never a doubt in my mind about it, regardless of spinmeister apologists in Lamestream Media.

Karen -

Kudos to you and everyone there... and don't forget to drink water, even if you are fasting. It just wouldn't do to have anyone end up in ER because of dehydration.

All the best....

Raped And Murdered: Victim Was 15 year Old Child
Details emerge in alleged atrocity by U.S. troops
By Ellen Knickmeyer
He found Abeer sprawled dead in a corner, her hair and a pillow next to her consumed by fire, and her dress pushed up to her neck.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13828.htm
[Some interesting comments to this story from ICH readers.]

Orwell in Iraq: Snow Jobs, Zarqawi and Bogus Peace Plans
By Dahr Jamail
With the plan to secure Baghdad, "Operation Forward Together," now three weeks old, and the so-called terror leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed, the security situation has only continued to deteriorate.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13840.htm
[A different perspective about al-Zarqawi, his previous role in Iraq, and his death, and the criminals committing attacks in Iraq....}

Shadows On The Wall
By Sheila Samples
And so we sit, shackled by self-imposed chains of fear, captivated by shadowy forms that move discordantly across the walls of our perception. Once again we are eager to accept appearance for reality. The Supreme Court ruling last week rejecting George Bush's military commissions to try Guantanamo detainees casts a huge shadow on the wall. Many are saying it not only curbed Bush and Cheney's unlimited presidential power grab, but absolved us of the responsibility of having to do anything about it.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13841.htm
[Zing-g-g-g-g! Shows that the recent SCOTUS decision isn't what it's cracked up to be if things don't change - and fast....]

Brian Cloughley: When Liberation is Worse Than Oppression:
Of greatest concern is the pronouncement by Bush that Iraq and Afghanistan "are now democracies and they are allies in the cause of freedom and peace." If he truly believes this to be a fact, then there is no hope for either Iraq or Afghanistan. And there isn't much hope for America, either.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13838.htm

Greg Palast: The Assassination of Hugo Chávez:
On August 26, 2005, the Lord spoke to His servant on cable television and His servant told the faithful watching in TV land: "Hugo Chávez thinks we're trying to assassinate him. I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13829.htm
[Wow... eye-opener...!]

Journalists besieged over Iraq, terror news:
Media advocates are alarmed at what they see as a mounting assault on press freedom in country after country, arguing it is potentially chilling the pursuit of truth as U.S. and European leaders pursue wars on terror and in Iraq.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14952486.htm

Stephen Lendman: Dirty Secrets of the Temple -
How the Federal Reserve Runs the US
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13833.htm

Postwar German government and CIA shielded Adolf Eichmann:
The recent publication of some 27,000 pages of secret CIA documents has brought to light new details regarding the close ties between the political elite in post-war Germany and leading Nazis who survived the collapse of the Third Reich.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/nazi-j03.shtml

Stranger than fiction?:
Alan Dershowitz: Should we fight terror with torture? :
The United States' Supreme Court has ruled that military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay breach the human rights of inmates. But in an age of suicide bombings and mass civilian casualties, do our laws themselves need to be rewritten? Are we just ignoring the unpalatable truth: that the survival of our society may depend on the legalised torture of terror suspects?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1154084.ece
[What Dershowitz is proposing is nothing less than legalized torture. I find that notion more appalling than I have the ability to express...!]

Obstacles to the abolition of war
By John J. Neumaier
In spite of the ever growing inhumanity of war, people the world over tend to take the fighting of future wars for granted. All too many accept their governments’ recourse to war as “normal”, as a legitimate tool of a nation’s foreign policy.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13826.htm

"It’s true that violent social conflict has been around for as long as recorded history, but this doesn’t make it a law of nature." (This sentence is a quote from the article.)

Since "recorded" written history, yes, war has been around. But if one studies Paleolithic art from 35,000 years ago, there are no depictions of war. Hunting and animals and human figures and many little Venus figurines are found all over Europe, yes. Depictions of war, no. The inescapable conclusion is that people (few in number at that time) were too busy trying to merely exist and survive by gathering and hunting for food, to bother with getting into fights to kill each other in any organized fashion. That tells me that our ancient ancestors weren't uncivilized or barbaric, but highly civilized, social and caring beings because they tried to get along with each other to ensure their mutual survival....

We, their distant descendants, have become a barbaric and uncivilized lot for devising methods to murder massive numbers of people with organized precision, not to mention the "collateral damage" of rape, pillage, and plunder. (Birth control and zero population growth would be ever so much more practical than killing massive amounts of people as a method of population control. We've become like lab rats in an over-populated cage, turning on and murdering each other.)

Ordinary people (ordinary schmucks like myself, that is) just want to peacefully co-exist with our neighbors and live a normal life with as little strife or tension as possible; we realize over the course of a long lifetime that there will be great joys, as well as sorrows when dear loved ones die or natural disasters happen. We celebrate the joys with song and dance; we cry and mourn over tragedies and losses and get over it because life goes on and one can't maintain unhappiness and depression for too long; there must be a time to laugh and sing. We don't own weapons because we'd rather get along with other friendly people who are interesting conversationalists or who share our interests, and we want to provide for ourselves and our offspring and make our homes as comfortable as possible within our means, work at something we like, and have a few enjoyable hobbies.... Not too much to ask, all in all. That's the 'pursuit of happiness' in our Constitution. (The pursuit of happiness doesn't guarantee we will be happy, just that we can search for happiness and contentment in ordinary daily lives.)

It's the current military-industrial complex and devious politicians and egomaniacal fundies who are polarizing public opinion, who want war so they can make a few bazillion dollars... and they solicit (and/or brainwash) our cooperation to control masses of people with fear and warmongering rhetoric, if not the actual horrors of war inflicted on others.... They are the reason the term "control freak" exists in our modern lexicon.

If our very ancient ancestors had been able to forsee what a destructive and murderous lot some people have become (to our own kind as well as to species now going extinct because of human 'development,' and the destruction of Mother Earth herself), I wonder if they would have stopped having children and let our species go extinct...? Humans may go extinct anyway if we don't stop polluting our earth which will render the planet uninhabitable for ourselves and our descendants and countless other species, and if we don't stop murdering each other with all the high-tech weapons at our disposal. Just because we have the means to murder massive amounts of people doesn't mean we must choose to do so. Choosing to live peacefully is ever so much more practical.

Why isn't it more honorable, ethical, and moral to choose to peacefully co-exist with our neighbors and choose to not pollute the planet and choose not to murder each other?

This Teddy Roosevelt quote, which seems particularly appropriate today, was one of the headers for the ICH newsletter:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country." Theodore Roosevelt

Posted by: sparrow at July 3, 2006 03:39 PM

Bold and Novel...?!?!?

More like "Cowardly and Despicable!"

John Kerry: How to Love Your Country John Kerry
Tue Jul 4, 12:12 AM ET

This Fourth of July it's right to spend some time thinking about what it means not just to be an American, but to be a patriot -- because the concept of patriotism itself is under assault in ways that remind me of a different time in our history.

ADVERTISEMENT

When we protested the war in Vietnam some would weigh in against us saying: "My country right or wrong." Our response was simple: "Yes, my country right or wrong. When right, keep it right and when wrong, make it right."

I feel history repeating itself.

What did the United States Senate do before leaving town for the 4th of July break? In a summer when things are decidedly not right for American soldiers in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, while their families at home are hit with record gas prices, health care costs a mess, and veterans still go without the health care they were promised, did we unite in some big hearted cause to make these urgent challenges right?

No. We debated a craven effort to amend the Constitution allegedly to protect the flag we all love. The Senate -- the place the original patriots -- the Founding Fathers -- imagined as the place big national issues would be addressed out of love of country, became a place where the Constitution itself was nearly shredded for political convenience, for ideology, for short term political gain and political timidity.

Make no mistake -- this wasn't a test of who loves the flag. But it was a test of who had the courage to protect the Constitution.

I love the flag for all the history, the glory, the promise, and the possibilities that are carried within its four corners. I will never forget seeing our flag draped over my father's casket and remembering that long ago he too served his country when freedom was threatened. I've seen the cloak of patriotism draped over the coffin of friends I lost thirty seven years ago, and too recently I've seen Old Glory cover the caskets of young men lost from Massachusetts in two new wars. Our flag is a stunning symbol of all that has made us who we are.

That's why I get so angry to see politics -- again and again -- fail to live up to our flag, and to our values -- in the way politics too often has become a food-fight, in the way news is too often treated as mere entertainment, in the way millions tune out because they're so sickened by what's happening they've given up on the idea of changing it.

We desperately need a real debate about patriotism -- about service, about American values.

We don't need another series of phony debates about whether we love our country, we need an injection of honesty about how to love our country.

I think patriotism starts with telling the truth. Truth is the American bottom line. I don't think it's an accident that among the first words of the first declaration of our national existence it is proclaimed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident...".

Patriotism also means dissent -- when it's hardest. The bedrock of America's greatest advances--the foundation of what we know today are defining values--was formed not by cheering on things as they were, but by taking them on and demanding change.

Patriotism demands we debate how we live by our principles and our values in the world. America has always embraced the best traditions of civilized conduct toward combatants and non-combatants in war. But does anyone think we're well served when leaders hold themselves above the law--in the way they not only treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib, but assert unchecked power to spy on American citizens? The Supreme Court certainly doesn't!

Patriotism demands telling the truth to Americans -- America can handle the truth about the Administration's boastful claim of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. The true pessimists are those who cannot accept that America's power and prestige depend on our credibility at home and around the world -- and the most dangerous defeatists, the most are those who invoke September 11th to argue that our traditional values are a luxury we can no longer afford.

But it's more than that. It's not just what we fight against, but what we fight for. Patriotism means not just ending this war, but preventing the next one -- to act now so that at some future date America will never have to fight for its economic security because we are permanently held hostage to foreign oil. Patriotism ought to be commanding us for the second time in our history todeclare and win our independence, this time not from foreign rule but from foreign oil. To live out the patriotism of Abraham Lincoln who said we were the "last best hope of Earth," leaders should be insisting that we stop being the denier of global warming that endangers the Earth. Al Gore is a patriot this Fourth of July who is living out that kind of love of country -- and we need more like him.

We need a politics of national purpose -- that recognizes America has always been stronger when we have not only proclaimed free speech, but listened to it. A politics that's not afraid to fight for big ideas -- because, after all, there are no bigger idea than the ones on which America was founded.

So, on this Fourth of July, the bottom line is that we will only be stronger if we reclaim America's true character and strength -- if we declare our independence from a politics that lets America down --if we truly commit ourselves to the big hearted patriotism determined "to 'make it right' and "keep it right" once again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060704/cm_huffpost/024283

More like "Cowardly and Despicable!"

Posted by: NonnyO at July 4, 2006 07:53 AM

Exactly!

We're headed to Rhode Island for a few days' vacation.

Happy 4th to everyone who celebrates it!

Posted by: dwahzon at July 4, 2006 08:26 AM

Have a good time, and wave to the countryside in RI for me.... Many of my ancestors were from there, including the first president/governor of RI - that was a century before it became a state and part of the thirteen colonies.