« The Less Things Change... | Main | We Endorse Paper Ballots »
A Surge of Protests: No Escalation, No More Guantanamo
NonnyO let us know that mainstream media took some notice of actions by concerned citizens in the Twin Cities area on Jan. 11. My friend Bert participated in and photographed both events -- in the morning, in front of Senator Norm Coleman’s office -- to demand an end to the US occupation of Iraq; in the evening, the marking of 5 years of incarceration of prisoners at Gitmo.
To protest the war, people lined University Ave. at the bridge over Hwy 280. They were there from sunrise, waiting for Senator Coleman, who has been a staunch supporter of the Iraq war and military occupation, but now is against the escalation. Coleman is upset about the extension of the Iraq "tours" of roughly 2500 Minnesota national guard troops who are part of Bush’s surge. Despite a disapproval rating of 70% and the fact that the war was entered based on lies and that the Baker-Hamilton recommendations for diplomacy were ignored, the "surge" begins and personnel have been abducted from the Iranian embassy.
For the Guantanamo protest in the afternoon, people dressed in orange hooded prisoner suits walked through the downtown skyways. The Gitmo protest was one of many around the world. Cindy Sheehan was in Cuba where Guantanamo is located. The mother of one of the detainees. Zohra Zewawi, the mother of British detainee Omar Deghayes, traveled from the United Arab Emirates with another son, Taher Deghayes, to join the protest. She said her son had been tortured and blinded in one eye after he was imprisoned in September 2002 and still has not been charged.
Critics say the camp, where most of the prisoners face indefinite incarceration, is an affront to democratic values. Allegations of abuse have fueled worldwide outrage. The military says the detention center is vital to the fight against terrorism and that instances of abuse have been investigated and the perpetrators disciplined. The detention camp commander, Adm. Harry B. Harris, says aggressive interrogation tactics are no longer used.
The protest outside the prison in Guantanamo didn’t affect the government’s position. Army Col. Lora Tucker, a spokesperson for the prison, said she wouldn’t acknowledge the protest. "Nothing changes for us based on a demonstration being held somewhere in Cuba," she said, adding that Thursday was "a normal work day" at the base.
(original text by Bert Schlaugh, edited for this site by DiAnne Grieser, photos by Bert Schlaugh)
Dianne--great pictures. And even in our area I saw some highway blogging. (Surprised me too!)
Regarding the Guantanamo protest in DC... Jesselyn Radack spoke at GWU to a very full house. She was part of a panel discussion there. Also, Ray McGovern participated in the protests earlier that day. He was one of many arrested. I'm not sure if anyone knows about the protest in DC and that when these people were arrested, they used the names of Guantanamo prisoners.
This has some ramifications.
http://tinyurl.com/ycmkm7
Karen is on her way to hear the verdict about Leah Bolger. Leah is retired Navy and was charged with disrupting Congress (The House Of Representatives) when she called out to end the war and bring the troops home.
Her sentencing is today and she will either get probation, jail, or a fine. Leah may take the jail time to make a statement.
More later as we know more.
'Surge' resistance
Jan. 16: President Bush's troop "surge" is facing resistance from some Iraqi officials, NBC's Ned Colt reports.
Also...
Bombings across Baghdad kill at least 26
Dozens wounded after twin blasts at market, explosion near university
The attacks came as the government prepares to launch a major security crackdown in the capital.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16649074/
The Decider is now The Escalator
US Will Be in Gulf Region "For A Long Time" (says Gate)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/299846_usrian16.html
It's sounding like the US military under Bush wants to impress Sunni governments such as Saudi Arabia that they mean business against Shiite governments such as Iraq, and aren't just bogged down in Iraq. Remember Cheney going to meet with Abdullah in Saudi Arabia & the Saudis saying they might support the Sunnis in Iraq?
More craziness.
I just spoke to Karen. The jury is still out. Maybe it will be a hung jury!
About the surge...From a local blog and paper about Schwarz and Walberg (Mi-O7):
http://walbergwatch.blogspot.com/2007/01/bush-schwarz-and-walberg-on-iraq.html
"In the Lansing State Journal, Tim Walberg says he agrees with the President.
Walberg said he favors the president's proposal because, "The majority of the people still want our United States forces to come home in victory."
What the heck does that mean? Yes, we want victory. I also want to win the lottery, but I don't sell off the home to buy tickets.
snip
Then in the Detroit News Walberg showed how out of touch he is.
Alone among the state's Republicans in offering unqualified support was newly elected Rep. Tim Walberg of Tipton. "I like the strength of commitment to victory," he said.
snip
Even Joe Schwarz who was more than happy to campaign on the fact that he had voted with Bush 80 - 85% of the time realizes the President has no plan. The Battle Creek Enquirer has the story about the Congressman's talk in Albion yesterday.
He said a troop surge would only result in more American troops dying, and a gradual withdrawal was necessary.
It is interesting how far Schwarz is distancing himself from the Administration.
(Bush Sr.'s administration) didn't want to get into an urban warfare situation in Baghdad," said Schwarz, who sat on the House Armed Services Committee. "Well, what's happened? ... There appears to have been no real policy. If there's no real policy, there's no real strategy. And if there's no strategy, you just kind of float out there in the ether."
As I posted yesterday I attended this event. I had a chance to talk to Congressman Schwarz after his presentation. I asked him why he had not been more vocal of his opposition to the President's policy in Iraq while he served. Schwarz said to me that he was in person and maybe he should have more publicly. Schwarz also said that he disagreed with John McCain who has called for even greater troop numbers than the President. Remember that Schwarz was the head of McCain's Michigan campaign when he ran for President in 2000.
Conflicting stories about Al Gore and his potential Presidential candidacy:
Buzz Flash says Gore officially out for '08. The Boston Globe however, suggest that Gore may still make a run. Perhaps this Globe story is intended to push JK to make a decision which I would welcome. Personally JK and Gore need to make a decision soon before they will start losing followers and I believe many bloggers are prepared to make their allegiance known and hook up with a campaign soon. I have family working in Arlington for the kickoff of the Edwards campaign asking for my commitment for involvment with his campaign and we know our friend Linda Enterkin has made her support for Edwards vocally known to us.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/01/16/another_chance_for_gore/
Boston Globe says:
"Publicly, Gore hasn't ruled out running, but neither has he evinced much interest.
snip
"But when one friend asked him recently about another campaign, Gore didn't dismiss the question out of hand. "We'll see how things go," he replied."
"Another Democratic source says that in recent weeks, the former vice president's camp has quietly put out feelers to presidential politicos, asking whether they are committed for 2008."
"The passage of time has a way of putting things and people in perspective, and six-plus years after he won the national popular vote but lost the presidency by half a whisker in Florida, Gore looks good.
"He has a very compelling theme: I was a guy who could see what was up ahead of us," says one national strategist. "And if ever there was a time when we needed a president who was sure-footed, it is now."
"Nor is it just on Iraq that Gore can say, I told you so."
"He is, then, a man who can rightly claim to have been prescient on two matters of international magnitude."
The Globe would love to choose Gore over Kerry.
Here is the info on Leah and her case:
Leah is a retired twenty-year Navy veteran. She retired as a Commander. She came to Camp Democracy to help out and was wonderfully supportive and willing to do whatever was needed.
At the Declaration of Peace event at the White House on September 21, (http://www.declarationofpeace.org/gallery2/main.php/v/whitehouse/), Leah was arrested along with 33 others for sitting down in front of the White House gate.
Four days later, Leah was with us at the torutre hearings:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/25/94243/4687
Michael Ratner's piece, http://www.chelseagreen.com/about/politicsandpractice/news/2006/september26b, also inspired her.
Wednesday September 27 was the day the House voted on H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act. Leah was in the Gallery, wearing a t-shirt that said "HONOR GENEVA". Rep. James Saxton (R-NJ) began to speak:
"We have produced an extraordinarily fair criminal process here to adjudicate the fate of these terrorists. Those who would find the court procedures laid out in this bill wanting will never be satisfied until we are reading Miranda rights on the battlefield...Mr. Speaker, I can think of no reason that this measure should not pass unanimously. It outlaws torture."
(read the rest here: http://congrecord.liberatedtext.org/habcorp/060927/h_cr27se06-108_02.html)
At that moment, Leah realized that even if Mr. Saxton could not, SHE could think of several reasons why the measure should not pass at all, much less unanimously.
She stood up and began to share her frustration:
"Because it is UNJUST."
"We need to honor our own laws and the Geneva Convention!"
"We've lost the respect of the whole world!"
She was removed from the gallery by two undercover policemen, one of whom told her while she was being processed that once he heard Rep. Saxton say "I can think of no reason..." he knew someone would speak up. She told me that he addded that although he did not agree with her method, "at least I was doing SOMETHING."
The time and expense prosecuting her for speaking out is baffling. When one goes into the House or Senate gallery, there is a ticket. On the back it lists what you cannot do in the gallery: no reading, writing, smoking, eating, drinking, applauding or picture-taking. There are signs that say no weapons may be brought in. The punishment for violating the rules is removal, not arrest.
Her argument that she was speaking out to stop a larger crime was not accepted by the court. Here is what she wrote about her reasons:
"I may have violated a RULE of the House, but it was an attempt to uphold the very foundation of our judicial system; the tenets of our demoocracy. I consider the suspension of habeus corpus and the flagrant disregard for international treaties and laws to be reprehensible, morally wrong, and truly unlawful. It is the height of irony that I was handcuffed, arrested, shackled, kept in jail for 24 hours and now face a $1000 fine and a six month prison term for simply speaking up, as our elected officials were in the process of undermining our entire legal system."
Kos version of above: let's share the news, OK?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/16/123737/147
DiAnne,
GREAT pics and story! I want all those orange jumpsuits going up the elevator in WASHINGTON!!
Karen
Yes - escalate against the Escalator!!
Bubba
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ax7pLgm4kL_k&refer=home
Obama may declare, if his exploratory committee finds favorable conditions. According to this article, H Clinton benefits from a large field of contenders. Not sure how it affects the others. It all comes down to funding, & then as you say, bloggers (& other activists) may be early adopters.
Check this out - the Saudis are ready to back the Bush plan.
http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iraq/208465
The Bushies are going back to 2003 and trying to recoup some of the Sunni support they lost when they fired the military and federal workers & messed up border security in so doing. Saudi Arabia is Sunni & Iran Shiite, so essentially, the US seems to be taking the Arabian side in the centuries old battle with the Persians. Why in the world would we ever get involved except that Persians started to control too much of the oil & Arabian princes risked overthrow by populists.
FROM CROOKS AND LIARS--GET OUT YOUR PHONES, FAXES AND E-MAILS AND GET TO WORK!!!
Action Alert on Katrina: Lieberman and Landrieu need to know
By: John Amato @ 10:40 AM - PST
We are all aware of Holy Joe's Iraq war stance, but this latest flip/flop is really deplorable.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, the only Democrat to endorse President Bush’s new plan for Iraq, has quietly backed away from his pre-election demands that the White House turn over potentially embarrassing documents relating to its handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans. Senator Joe Lieberman has just taken the very surprising step of revealing to Newsweek that he will not use his chairmanship on the Homeland Security committee to aggressively probe the government's catastrophic failings in the wake of Hurricane Katrina
Memo to Bullshit Moose, Joe is a warmonger—period and no Scoop Jackson or whoever you want to try and blur the reality line with, Since the DHS is Lieberman's baby, FDL finds that Joe has a major accounting problem there. Surprise! 46% of budget can't be accounted for. That's obscene.
Here's Lieberman's contact info. Ask him why he's covering up for the administration over such an important issue like the devastation that Hurricane Katrina caused this country. It's his "duty" to find the truth—where—ever —it—leads and the people effected by the Hurricane deserve at least that much. Bush gave Joe some props in his last speech so we all get it. We really do, but he needs to hear from us.
Lieberman's contact info:
(860) 549-8463 CT
(800) 225-5605 CT Toll-Free
(860) 549-8478 CT Fax
(202) 224-4041 DC
(202) 224-9750 DC Fax
Mary Landrieu supported Joe's re-election all the way. How's that working out for you?
202-224-5824, or email her here—If you want to save some money, the toll-free number for the U.S. Capitol is 888-355-3588. They can then connect you to Landrieu's office.
http://tinyurl.com/ykupbt (Reuters)
100 mostly female students killed in Bagdad while trying to attend University - in violence associated with Sunnis outraged by the mess with the botched hangings.
So let me get this straight - Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni governments are encouraged to help us get more Sunnis involved in the Iraq government yet Sunnis are carrying out revenge killings against Shiites who are associated with death squads which are affiliated with the Iraqi Government who has Al-Maliki in charge who is a Shiite and former Iranian?
I am so confused about this escalation thing.
If the Sunnis and Shiites are fighting over Baghdad, which is pretty much divided up by now - why is Maliki the Shiite supporting the Bush surge? Is it because he insists our Marines take orders from his Shiite-dominated army? Then we would be helping fight the Sunnis in Bagdad. We would be taking sides in a Shiite-Sunni civil war - in Bagdad. That doesn't sound like what Saudi Arabia had in mind. If Al-Sadr and the other Shiite Ayatollahs see civil war coming, they may use Maliki as their front man for flushing out Sunnis, starting with Bagdad and working out. How wierd is that?!
How are the surrounding countries going to align for the Shiite-Sunni civil war, which in the greater middle east would be more like the old Persian-Arab conflicts that go back way before Christ or Allah, such as the Jihad against Persian Zoroastrianism.
The Iranians were converted to Islam but that will never make them want to be dominated by Arabs such as the Saudis and certainly not in conjnction with the Americans. Are our Marines doing someone else's bidding?
DiAnne - KUDOS to the people demonstrating in the Cities and in every location across this nation - please pass on my admiration to Bert and the others, because I know how cold it is there right now. I do hope they dress warmly and go in from the cold to at least have hot cocoa or tea when they can. Locally or nationally, demonstrators have my deepest admiration. I love the photos, too.
In keeping with the theme of this thread, I was offended by the governor of this state (Pawlenty) who is now co-chairing McCain's committee to explore his run for president. Link to the video of the story which prompted my letter to WCCO's Pat Kessler, too.
~~~~~
http://wcco.com/video/?id=23305@wcco.dayport.com
Pawlenty-McCain
Dear Pat -
Do you not see Pawlenty's hypocrisy...? First he mildly chides Bush's escalation in Iraq where 2600 members of the Minnesota Guard are serving. So far, that's the only good thing I've ever heard Pawlenty say in all the time he's been governor. (Ditto that idiot Coleman with the sex pervert father who has finally seen the light by withdrawing his support for the escalation, but he's only looking toward '08 and isn't going to do anything about stopping Bush, and I'm sure he will vote in favor of any bills that keep that stupid war in Iraq going.)
Then Pawlenty turns around and is now the co-chair for McCain's exploratory committee to run for president. McCain is one of the foremost war-hawks in Congress and always supports Bush, even after Bush issued a signing statement saying he thinks he has the right to ignore the ban on torture that McCain supported, and yet... McCain has always supported the illegal Iraq war and supports Bush's latest escalation, and McCain voted in favor of MCA '06 which gives Bush dictatorial power and immunity from being charged for war crimes, especially regarding torture (another war crime under our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and US law - at least before the passage of MCA '06 by the last congress). Furthermore, Bush now has control of the guard troops in every state, not the governors of each state, in spite of the fact that the Iraq war was not voted on in Congress, and only Congress has war powers under our Constitution. (AUMF resolution does not grant war powers, no matter what Bush's lawyers say.)
If Pawlenty truly supported our guard troops, he would not blindly support McCain - or Bush - because it's the most certain way of getting more of our guard troops killed for the sake of lies and oil. In supporting McCain (and Bush), Pawlenty is silently approving the fact that more of our guard troops will be killed for lies and oil. That's just plain unpatriotic, unethical, immoral, and dishonorable, and it betrays our guard members and the rest of our military troops. Pawlenty's silent acquiescence to Bush's control of the guard and vocal support of McCain tells me Pawlenty doesn't care if more of our military personnel are killed for lies and oil during the commission of a war crime.
The invasion of Iraq was a war crime per the Geneva Conventions. There is NO "victory" to be had in the commission of a war crime! Doesn't anyone in the media get that fact? I have yet to hear anyone in TV media (local or national or international) ask politicians what they mean by 'victory in Iraq,' since it's obvious to the majority of Americans who disapprove of Bush's illegal Iraq war, and to the entire rest of the world, that 'victory' is not to be had during the commission of a war crime. The best we can do is get out of Iraq and pay reparations. We most certainly do not need to risk the lives of the US military personnel for the sake of someone else's civil war, the reasons for which go back centuries and we don't understand anyway.
State-boosterism is one thing, since Minnesota will be the host of the Republican Convention in '08, and Pawlenty seems to be good at PR. To be foolish enough to support an administration who has committed a very long list of war crimes (and it doesn't look like our Congress Critters will impeach them for their obvious crimes) is just plain disloyal to our guard troops who have already died, and to the living who may die in the future, thanks to those same war crimes. Pawlenty may want to do some soul-searching about his ethical and moral values before blindly supporting war criminals and those who support the war criminals and want to continue their policies.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
P.S. It shocked me completely when in-state media actually showed film footage and talked about the anti-war demonstrations in the Cities. More of the same, please, since the anti-war demonstrators all over this country are speaking for the nearly 70% of Americans who do not support Bush's Iraq war and want that shameful prison in Guantánamo closed, not to mention those of us who have been keeping current with the latest escalation fear Bush is expanding his war and could start a nuclear holocaust!!! Congratulations!!! (There are a lot more demonstrations going on that I know about that do not get TV coverage, and those could be mentioned, too....)
Just reading, because I'm snowed in. Still trying to make the nonsense make some sense, if only in the neocon mind.
Reading Juan Cole's Salon article on Saddam's hanging.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/12/30/saddam/
According to Juan Cole, Iraq is roughly 60 percent Shiite, 18 percent Sunni Arab and 18 percent Kurdish. If we are ever perceived as helping Sunnis, we would be associated with the repression by Saddam, in the minds of Shiites. If we are just trying to reduce Sunni alienation by our anti-de-Ba'athification (such as hiring back the guy who was fired for resisting Bremer when he fired 1/2 million people, even schoolteachers), maybe that's supposed to decrease sectarian violence. Al-Maliki and Chalabi, hard-line Shiites we have helped, still may be in a position to call the shots. Saddam's great fear was that Ayatollahs would take over, as in Iran. Al-Maliki is head of the party Saddam cracked down on. There has got to be a lot of revenge. There are festering resentments that go back way before we ever went to Iraq, even the first time!
NonnyO
Gates thinks cross-border violence is a problem (Taleban-Pakistan-Afghanistan). Do you think maybe he wants an "escalation" there too, & then maybe they'll catch Bin Laden - the ultimate PR stunt for the widening war?
http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=348294&sid=SAS
http://www.capitalnews.org/
Poll of the Day question:
Should the U.S. close the Guantanamo detention center?
Yes = 76% when I voted
I think I'll send this to in-state media and suggest they ask that same poll question on their local web sites... see what reaction they get....
Posted by: DiAnne at January 16, 2007 02:58 PM
Gates is full of hot air. (And he really should wash his face because it's been too close to Bu$h's butt for too long.)
Gates is completely The Cretin's creature, and yes, they only want to widen the war.
The ultimate aim is controlled chaos for the masses while they take control of the oil.
The one question I have to ask: If The Cretin or Vice Cretin and their administration unleash a nuclear holocaust in the Mideast, who will they get to actually go to the region to dig the oil wells they plan to control? The place will be radioactive for aeons. And: Wouldn't that same radioactivity seep into the oil...?
We SO need alternative energy sources... NOW!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070116/ap_on_re_eu/spain_journalist_death_1
Spain reorders arrest of 3 U.S. soldiers
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070116/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_070116194317
Baghdad university bombing kills 70
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070116180624
Four U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070116/wl_afp/usmideastiraqgulf_070116195030
US, Arab allies call on Iran not to meddle in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070116/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleuswomen_070116152607
Majority of US women living without spouse
WASHINGTON (AFP) - For the first time, a majority of American women are living without a spouse, media reported.
The New York Times, which based its report on an analysis of census results, said 51 percent of women in 2005 reported living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.
{{{Okay, this was my laugh of the day since I've been the head of my own household all of my adult life.... I wonder what the religious reich will do with that info...? They are sure to screech in horror! Oh, my gawd! A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle! Yikes! The fundies will never tolerate that!}}}
NonnyO
In the last article you posted, these are the countries responding to Condi's charm:
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as Egypt and Jordan.
Don't most of these have oil-rich sheiks and princes?
Ideologues can manipulate regular people in Christian and Muslim countries (and sub-factions within each religion) to think the conflicts are about something other than ..
oil.
But it's all about oil.
I couldn't make sense out of any of the business articles about oil prices and OPEC but I did see that Saudi Arabia "by far" has the most oil still, and were able to veto the requests of Venezuela and some of the other OPEC countries for a meeting. Looks like Saudi Arabia calls the shots for OPEC and the Prince is in bed with Cheney. They also support Bush's plan on a "lukewarm" basis because there is no way US can boost Sunnis back into power after overthrowing them. No way.
But it's all about oil.
Posted by: DiAnne at January 16, 2007 03:34 PM
It's always been about the oil. Don't remember where I read it and/or saw it (maybe on a PBS show for the latter), but US troops are guarding oil wells, escorting trucks transporting oil, etc. They are essentially guarding the private oil corporate interests in Iraq. They are a public army paid by our tax money to protect private interests.
All the other stuff is much ado about instilling fear in gullible sheeple.
Bottom line: It was about oil at the beginning of this stupid illegal war, it's about oil now, and it will be about oil in the future.
The "side benefit" is that they can rule the world through controlling the access to that same oil, and they stand to reap more money than we could ever dream of.
The only thing that can derail them is affordable alternative energy, and while they'll pay lip serve to alternative energy research and development, they won't DO anything about it until the world is totally out of oil.
More escalation proposed....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070116/ap_on_re_as/us_afghanistan
U.S. commander eyes longer Afghan tours
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070116/pl_nm/usa_crime_libby_dc
Rice could testify in Libby trial
Excerpt:
The names of Cheney, Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, appeared on a long list of government officials and news reporters who may be called as witnesses or whose names may come up in the trial of Cheney's former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
{{{Hmmmm.... Her Sleaziness has not been mentioned in connection with Libby before, has she? If so, I don't remember it....}}}
NonnyO
The guy who Bush listened to from the wingnut think tank has a seven page resume lacking in credentials for even theorizing about what to do in the middle east. It was at TPM and Kos yesterday and I can find the links if anyone wants more info.
The point is, the guy has a PhD in Russian history. You or I probably know as much as he does about what to do. What scares me - I wonder if Bush is doing that thing kids do where they just mix a bunch of various random chemicals together for fun - to "see if they'll blow up"?!!
NonnyO
Rice is suspected of the following:
RICE WAS ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE: Rice was one of several senior administration officials on a July 2003 flight to Africa, during which it was decided that she would appear on the Sunday shows to “protect Cheney by explaining that he had had nothing to do with sending Wilson to Niger, and dismiss the yellowcake issue.” [Newsweek, 7/17/05]
RICE RECEIVED TOP SECRET BRIEFING BOOK ON AFRICA TRIP: “To allow her to prepare on the long flight home to D.C., White House officials assembled a briefing book, which they faxed to the Bush entourage in Africa. The book was primarily prepared by her National Security Council staff. It contained classified information — perhaps including all or part of the memo from State. The entire binder was labeled TOP SECRET.” [Newsweek, 7/17/05]
RICE SAID SHE LEARNED OF WILSON’S TRIP FROM ABC NEWS APPEARANCE: ” [O]n Ambassador Wilson’s going out to Niger, I learned of that when I was sitting on whatever TV show it was, because that mission was not known to anybody in the White House.” [State Department, 7/11/03]
RICE CLAIMED NO KNOWLEDGE OF LEAKS: “I know nothing of any such White House effort to reveal any of this. And it certainly would not be the way the president would expect his White House to operate.” [Fox News, 9/28/03]
“COOPERATED” WITH FITZGERALD’S PROBE. When asked if she had been asked to testify before the grand jury, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, “I have, like everybody else, cooperated with Prosecutor Fitzgerald and I’m quite certain that he will make his report.” [Fox News, 10/16/05]
MEMBER OF THE WHITE HOUSE IRAQ GROUP: Rice was a regular participant in the weekly meetings of the Bush Administration’s White House Iraq Group. The main purpose of the group was the systematic coordination of the “marketing” of going to war with Iraq as well as selling the war here at home. One clear example of this fact is that “the escalation of nuclear rhetoric” during the pre-war stage, “including the introduction of the term ‘mushroom cloud’ into the debate, coincided with the formation” of WHIG. The group included the two individual who have been confirmed as leakers, Karl Rove and Lewis Libby. [Washington Post, 8/10/03]
http://thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal
The Source Beyond Rove- Condoleezza Rice at the Center of the Plame Scandal
by Roger Morris
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." It was September 2002, and then-National Security Advisor, now-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was fastening on CNN perhaps the most memorable and frightening single link in the Bush regime’s chain of lies propagandizing the war on Iraq. Behind her carefully planted one-liner with its grim imagery was the whole larger hoax about Saddam Hussein possessing or about to acquire weapons of mass destruction, a deception as blatant and inflammatory as claims of the Iraqi dictator’s ties to Al Qaeda.
Rice’s demagogic scare tactic was also very much part of the tangled history of alleged Iraqi purchases of uranium from Niger, the fabrication leading to ex-Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s now famous exposé of the fraud, the administration’s immediate retaliatory “outing” of Wilson’s wife Valerie Plame as a CIA operative, and now the revelation that the President’s supreme political strategist Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff Lewis Libby were involved in that potentially criminal leak—altogether the most serious political crisis Bush has faced. In fact, though her pivotal role has been missed entirely—or deliberately ignored—in both the media feeding frenzy and the rising political clamor, now-Secretary of State Rice was also deeply embroiled in the Niger uranium-Plame scandal, arguably as much as or more so than either Rove or Libby.
(more at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0728-25.htm)
Throw away the key.
The above link wouldn't open - NonnyO I have sent you the rest of the article via email.
It is great to hear that Senator Jim Webb will be a prominently spokesman for the Democratic Party next week in giving the response to the State of the Union, as we have heard little from him since his glorious election.
It is great to hear that Senator Jim Webb will be prominently featured as a spokesman for the Democratic Party next week in giving the response to the State of the Union, as we have heard little from him since his glorious election.
For those of you interested in the goings-on over at the Scooter Libby trial, there is live-blogging over at Firedoglake.
Starts in the thread header, and continues on the comments. Some interesting stuff about today's jury selection (for those of you who like that kind of thing, which I do!).
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/16/libby-trial-jury-selection-strategery/#comments
This from the comments section there (comment 141)
Pachacutec @ 141
The next juror:
I am completely without objectivity. There is nothing you can say that would make me feel positively about President Bush.
She was immediately excused, mid-20’s African American female.
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/16/libby-trial-jury-selection-strategery/#comments
Posted by: Fe at January 16, 2007 02:09 PM
I don't know that I'd call it a "cover-up" per se. The truth is, I doubt they'll ever account for a lot of that money, at least not properly. Why? Some of it's legitimate...people were rushing to fill needs so fast that the money flowed faster than the paperwork (i.e. completely skirting all the red tape that folks in here have been known to be so vocal about)...or working in places and capacities where "keeping track" of funds spent by any means was tough...receipts didn't exist, most places - even large businesses - only took cash for quite some time, nobody had any sort of connectivity or often, even electricity to run a computer system, and you were a very put-together person if you'd remembered to bring a paper ledger (or even remembered how to use one)...non-financial folks were often handling and disbursing money...etc. The list of viable excuses is long.
Does that mean there was no fraud, waste, or abuse? Hell no...there was a lot of it. Especially people taking advantage of the chaotic situation to procure things they knew they didn't have the authorization to get, and then intentionally muddying the waters behind them and blaming it on lack of paperwork, speed of response, etc. Sometimes those folks meant well...wanting to buy things that government funds aren't authorized to buy, but things people needed...and acting ahead of the negotiations to change the legislation to allow them to use their gov't funds for those purposes. Or to pay out funds for things like relocating or furnishing a temporary living area, which again sounds great but likely did not have proper legislative authority to approve.
And of course, any chaotic or anarchic situation provides ample temptation for the greedy to grab. What is interesting is that most of the problems occurred on the "micro" level...but these problems were so widespread that they became accretive...the snowball effect.
What would be much more useful in the long term than a long and angry blame session, in which nothing will really come of it since the senior folks won't be taking the fall and it's not like any of this money could be "recovered" anyway...would be an honest and forthright "lessons learned" process, followed by action items, which would facilitate quick and flexible financial response to disasters and other contingencies, even when all established methods of communication or funds transfer or financial tracking are eliminated, while still protecting the integrity of the process and the responsible stewardship of the public's hard-earned tax dollars.
Hint: such a process already exists...
V--It's always great to hear your perspective. The question that boils in my mind is why has there been so little cleaning and rebuilding. The pResident eliminated the Davis-Bacon Act to get a 'surve' of immediate help, and yet all it did was undercut local union people and the progress was still minimal.
So I want to know why!
Posted by: DiAnne at January 16, 2007 04:11 PM
http://www.counterpunch.org/morris07272005.html
July 27, 2005
Condoleezza Rice at the Center of the Plame Scandal
Original article quoted by Common Dreams. It does work. I found it on a Google search.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/15/cl-will-be-live-blogging-the-scooter-libby-trial/
C&L will be live blogging the Scooter Libby Trial–Murray Waas on board
Another live blogger....
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/16/how_to_defund_the_escalation.php
How To De-Fund The Escalation
Excerpts:
The Democrats’ real problem appears to be political rather than constitutional: They have convinced themselves that they cannot cut off funds without being accused of failing to keep faith with U.S. troops in Iraq.
But this is a false dilemma. Congress can force Bush’s hand without being vulnerable to the charge of stranding U.S. troops simplyby setting a date beyond which no funds can be used for U.S. military presence in Iraq. As long as the date provides a reasonable time for those troops to be “redeployed” from Iraq, the burden falls on the executive branch to adjust its policy to the congressional requirement by taking them out of the war zone.
~~~~
The McGovern-Hatfield legislative approach to ending the U.S. war in Iraq—setting date for complete withdrawal after which no more funds can be used to carry on the war—is the weapon on the wall for American democracy. The American people are waiting for Congress to use it. And as George McGovern himself observed before the Progressive Caucus last week, if George Bush refused to carry out its provisions, that would clearly constitute an impeachable offense.
Posted by: sparrow at January 16, 2007 05:55 PM
Well...there are a lot of reasons. One reason is the bickering between state, local, and various federal officials. This goes beyond partisanship to more of a cultural power struggle. Who do these Yankees think they are to tell us folk how to build our city? etc. White or black, it's the same thought process. And on the other side, all the good hardworking taxpayers who are footing the bill are demanding some level of accountability.
Another reason is the history of bribery and graft...so hard to overcome that. The lack of workers and the escalating cost of materials play their parts. The sort of "deadly circle" of places with no jobs, few people, not many businesses, little housing, etc. trying to rebuild - where do you start? The government creates jobs, let's say, but where do you find the workers? They tried to circumvent that with the temporary labor laws (which have since expired I believe...were only in place for a couple months), but then in addition to the outcry from the unions and undercut workers, where do all those minimum wage workers live if there is no housing? Where do they eat if there are no restaurants or grocery stores? Where do their children go to school if there are no schools? How do they get to and from work if the roads are in disrepair and the bridges washed out? Is it a place where they will stay, or where tourists will visit, if the crime rate is high?
But honestly I feel the biggest problem is that it would take more money than we've spent in Iraq to rebuild the South properly. Reconstruction was the last big money invested in the South and that was what, 125 years ago? Katrina just ripped the veneer off some of the poorest and most desperate parts of the country, as much in coastal Mississippi as in New Orleans. We would need the massive manpower and colossal funding of a New Deal-type project to rebuild the South for the 21st century, and few in this country are ready for that. It is easier to mop up the little areas where we feel we can give of our time and resources, driving down for a week or giving a week's worth of salary. On our own terms.
To rebuild the Gulf coast as it was before Katrina would not be overwhelmingly expensive; but to rebuild it as an area in which to take pride...that cost will be monumental. And I do not see anyone speaking of the immense commitment and sacrifice needed to accomplish that Herculean task.
V -
What do you think the solution in New Orleans is? I gave a slide presentation today about my trip, and mentioned many of the issues you discuss above.
It's very hard to see how the city will rebuild. To do it with just volunteer groups going down on their own time will take decades.
There HAS to be some kind of government commitment to repairing/rebuilding. Otherwise it will be a LONG process. It already has been a long process and we've hardly made a dent.
I don't say any of this to discourage people from going down, because that is definitely helping and little by little people are returning. It is just infuriating that more has not been done, and for nothing really pther than politics in one form or another.
I decided that I'm going to send Joe Lieberman one of my pictures of destroyed houses every day for the duration.
If nothing else, it might make one of his staffers think about it a little, or talk about it.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/12/we_have_to_tell_the_story_ourselves.php
'We Have To Tell The Story Ourselves'
Veteran journalist Bill Moyers on Friday challenged 3,000 progressive activists and communicators to take back the telling of America’s story at the National Conference of Media Reform in Memphis. He put his finger squarely on the deep vein of discontent with the way mainstream media is ill-serving American democracy.
Moyers, who is president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, went through a sordid litany of corporate media malfeasance, from the lackluster and largely non-skeptical reporting of the Bush administration’s launch of the war in Iraq to the lack of attention paid to a domestic landscape of increasing economic disparity and racial segregation. Virtually uncontrolled media consolidation over the past decade, he said, has meant a loss of independent journalism and created “more narrowness and homogenization in content and perspective, so that what we see on our couch is overwhelmingly the view from the top.”
It is in this environment that the Bush administration can, for example, can “turn the escalation of a failed war and call it a surge, as if it were a current of electricity through a wire instead of blood spurting from the ruptured veins of a soldier,” Moyers said.
{More on link.}
As has been said before many times on this blog, "we must be the media" (and I hope you'll forgive my old brain for not remembering who said it first so I can give proper credit where credit is due). Lamestream Media has failed this country badly, so the internet fills the void....
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/16/with_iran_against_women.php
With Iran, Against Women
The saber-rattling against Iran by President Bush and Secretary of State Rice last week—as part of the hype for sending 21,500 more Americans to Iraq to become more roadside-bomb fodder, and the push-back from Democrats and Republicans alike—overshadowed another official warning, this one against Sudan. U.S. special envoy Andrew Natsios, as he appealed to the Chinese for help with the genocide in Darfur that has killed 450,000 people to date, said on Friday, "If we find that the Sudanese government is stonewalling ... then we will go to a more coercive strategy."
But wait. The Bush administration actually agrees with both Iran and Sudan on one thing: Women’s rights aren’t important. The U.S. stands virtually alone with these countries against the rest of the civilized world in failing to ratify the international women’s human rights treaty known as CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women).
CEDAW was adopted in 1979 by the United Nations, and President Carter signed it in 1980, sending it to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for ratification. There it remains. The United States is the only holdout in the industrialized world in this massive failure to ratify and recognize the fundamental principles of equality for women worldwide.
Even though W has given lip service to women’s human rights in the past , he’s not about to go there now. His conservative base considers CEDAW an international abortion rights treaty, even though it does not even mention abortion and, in fact, guarantees rights for married women and mothers. But never mind—it’s a good fund-raising tool and red meat for the right wing. The Friday Fax, a weekly screed from the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, was cranking up the rhetoric even before the election, warning in the direst of terms of the catastrophe that awaits if the United States signs on to this simple declaration that women and girls are equal human beings with men and boys.
{More on link.}
Thanks V. I appreciate your thorough comments. I can see what you're saying, but I can't believe the Federal government can't control this bickering and get things done.
Carol, good idea. It will at least make them think.
NonnyO, thanks for the Moyer's link. I agree with what he's said. I also think that the media promotes a 'survivor' mentality. (I think it was you who had said that long ago.)
'It's People Dying for No Benefit'
A 22-year-old Marine on why he wants Congress to bring the troops home.
Jan. 15, 2007 - If there was one constituency President Bush could count on to back the war in Iraq through the past four years, it was members of the military. Now, their support is also ebbing. A poll conducted recently by Army Times, a commercial publication, showed only 35 percent of service members approve of the way Bush is handling the war, down from 63 percent in 2004. When asked if success in Iraq was likely, 50 percent said yes, compared to 83 percent two years ago.
In a sign of the erosion, more than 1,000 soldiers will urge their congressmen in a written appeal this week to "support the prompt withdrawal" of all American forces from Iraq. "Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price," the statement says. Anti-war appeals are common these days but this one is different: all the signatories are active duty soldiers and some have served in Iraq.
One of the appeal's organizers is Liam Madden, a 22-year-old Marine Corp. Sergeant now based Quantico, VA. He spoke to NEWSWEEK's Dan Ephron. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: How did [the appeal] start?
Liam Madden: I was visiting a friend last summer stationed in Norfolk, Virginia, who found a flyer for a talk on being active duty and opposing the war. David Cortright, the author of “Soldiers in Revolt”, about [G.I.] dissent during the Vietnam era, gave the talk. I think people there all had one thing in common: We all thought that if you feel strongly about something, you can't just rest on your laurels and hope things get better. You have to do something. We started coordinating with each other on how to affect change in Iraq.
NEWSWEEK: What's wrong with the [Iraq] war?
Madden: It's a war we never should have launched in the first place. It's been incompetently executed and it's brought no benefit to anyone involved, including the American people and the Iraqis. It's just people dying for no benefit.
more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16636745/site/newsweek/
U.N.: Nearly 35,000 Iraqi civilians killed in ’06
World body’s calculation shows sharp increase from previous reports
Updated: 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Nearly 35,000 civilians were killed last year in Iraq, the United Nations said Tuesday, a sharp increase from the numbers reported previously by the Iraqi government.
Gianni Magazzeni, the chief of the U.N. Assistance Ministry for Iraq, said 34,452 civilians were killed and 36,685 were wounded last year.
Earlier estimates had put the number killed at more than 12,000.
When asked about the discrepancy, Magazzeni said the U.N. figures were compiled from information obtained through the Iraqi Health Ministry, operations centers at hospitals across the country and other agencies.
"Without significant progress in the rule of law sectarian violence will continue indefinitely and eventually spiral out of control," he warned.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16648759/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/16/turley-reacts-to-pentagon-attack-on-due-process/
Turley Reacts to Pentagon Attack on Due Process
{Keith Olbermann interview.}
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/16/jon-stewart-serenades-condi/
Jon Stewart Serenades Condi
{Caveat: Hysterically Funny!!! Put down your beverage or food before watching!}
Posted by: Carol at January 16, 2007 06:57 PM
IMHO? We need another "New Deal" in the South, a 21st century Reconstruction program. But the sums of money will be vast, the negotiation needed will be tricky (both the locals and those taxpayers across the nation each want it built "their way"), and the demographic shifts will be sizable. Plus, there are the odd political overtones of such a socialist (or progressive?) program.
Definitely worth the investment but our country cannot then continue to explode money in IEDs halfway around the globe.
I think locals should be involved in the planning and the labor, but potentially not in the oversight or the firms hired, due to the corruption issues. And the federal government needs to take a hard line...here are xx billions of dollars, under these conditions only. Faith-based work is heartwarming and near to the soul of many in the South, but it is just a drip-drip-drip and what is needed is a huge flush of money.
We do not have a large unemployed population though, like we did in the 30s, so I would recommend college work programs, where students or potential students could commit to 1, 2, 3, or 4 years of work, doing anything from manual labor to design to construction to engineering to teaching or police work, then they would get an equivalent number of years of education funded when they are done.
NonnyO
The Jon Stewart was great! I laughed so hard!
Monkey
Re the decrease in military support .. just heard a young vet on Air America & he was fighting a conditioned reaction when he was around middle eastern people in NYC, such as in the subway, like if they had a backpack. I used to meet people like that who had come back from Vietnam & the anxiety reaction would be triggered when they were around Asians. How can we justify doing this to our own citizens - setting up situations to potentially increase racism & violence?!
We do not have a large unemployed population though, like we did in the 30s, so I would recommend college work programs, where students or potential students could commit to 1, 2, 3, or 4 years of work, doing anything from manual labor to design to construction to engineering to teaching or police work, then they would get an equivalent number of years of education funded when they are done.
Posted by: V at January 16, 2007 07:53 PM
This is a great idea!!! Like the GI bill, but without the death and killing. Have you sent this to your favorite candidate for '08???
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070116/ap_on_sc/ancient_civilization
Ancient weapons found in ruins in Syria
Excerpt:
Thought to be one of the world's earliest cities and located in northern Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, it is the site of joint excavations by the University of Chicago and the Syrian Department of Antiquities.
Excavations have been going on at the site since 1999, but in digs conducted this past fall, researchers uncovered new evidence of the city's end and more clues about how urban life there may have begun. The University of Chicago was to announce the findings Tuesday.
The site is so close to Iraq that Clemens Reichel, the American co-director of the expedition, has seen explosions on the other side of the border.
"It's somewhat surreal. We're not living in a vacuum there. We know exactly what's happening across the border," Reichel said. "But working in Syria is like working in the eye of the storm. It's very peaceful to work there. Practically no problems."
The site was anything but peaceful in approximately 3,500 B.C. The archaeologists have previously detailed how they believe Hamoukar's independence was ended by a battle that caused its buildings and walls to collapse and burn.
{{{More on link. Aside from the modern horrors as a result of Bu$hCo's illegal war, this is the other issue that pushes all my buttons and makes me furious!!! What's being lost in terms of art, artifacts, and history, all thanks to this modern war?!? Grrrrrrr......}}}
Grosvenor Square, London protest against Guantanamo - Amnesty International - lots of orange suits
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1988229,00.html
Looks like the real Libby trial is 1/22 and Cheney will get called?
& Obama isn't REALLY announcing til February. Well anyway, if you can stomach a story about McCain sucking up to evangelicals, here it is. Funny he's called a maverick or straight talker when he's a suck-upper and flip-flopper par excellence!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/16/mccain.conservatives.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Have you sent this to your favorite candidate for '08???
Posted by: Carol at January 16, 2007 08:03 PM
Go for it! :)
Canadian piece on Condi's trip - interesting
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070116.MIDEAST16/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa/
Iran Gets Army Gear in Pentagon Sale
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011607B.shtml
The US military has sold forbidden equipment at least a half-dozen times to middlemen for countries - including Iran and China - who exploited security flaws in the Defense Department's surplus auctions. The sales include fighter jet parts and missile components.
{{{Is this how/why DimWit 'knows' Iran is arming itself? If DimWit expands his war, our own people could be killed with weapons they acquired from the US in one of these "surplus" sales at the Pentagon.... Feel safer yet??? }}}
Steve Hammons | Vietnam, Iraq, Calls for Impeachment
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011607D.shtml
Steve Hammons writes: "Prior to this stage in the Vietnam War, some US officials kept thinking that if they just added more troops, there would be 'victory' and 'success.' After more than 58,000 US military deaths and many more wounded, maimed and damaged veterans the war seemed to be going worse than ever."
David Swanson | Part 1: Bush's Escalation Speech
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011607C.shtml
David Swanson writes: "Idiots don't offend me as much as smart people following idiots do. The Washington Post printed Bush's speech for those who missed it, and then printed some analysis of it. But the analysis was provided by the White House, which published a glossy brochure that so-called reporters could plagiarize."
George Lakoff | Framing, Death, and Democracy
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011607F.shtml
"The first duty of Congress is to be Congress, to provide a check on the executive through the power to hold hearings, write legislation, and tighten the purse strings," writes George Lakoff. "The central issue raised by the president's speech last Wednesday is not whether Iraq will have a democracy, but whether we will."
Excerpt:
The all-too-common metaphor that third world countries are children and industrialized countries are adults resonates in a telling sentence: "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people - and it is unacceptable to me." It is up to Bush, the Decider in Iraq as in America, what Iraqi behavior is acceptable, and if it is not, to use more force.
{{{Was anyone besides me majorly pissed off at that sentence in DimWit's speech? How dare he presume to speak for "the American people?" He doesn't have the authority; he didn't ask us what we thought, nor did anyone in his administration before writing that horrible speech. If the situation is "unacceptable to him" I still don't know what gives him the right to speak like an American dictator over a foreign people who "elected" their own [puppet] "leaders." I still remember when their election was a big deal and everyone was hoping the troops could come home shortly thereafter....}}}
As a general rule I try to avoid cross-pollinating and plugging one blog in posts to another.
In this case, though, I'm going to recommend a particular post on another blog because I really do think it's an analogy that we all can make use of when we're trying to talk some sense into recalcitrant non-progressive persons in the course of our ongoing political endeavors:
http://blog.johnkerry.com/2007/01/joe_jane_citizen_lessons_on_bu.html:
Plug away, because that is one great post. Paws up.
Definitely speaks to needing a more enlightened electorate about what legislative votes mean. Yes-but, or no-but votes, and the art of compromise.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_soldiers_reflect
Troops uncertain about Iraq's future
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Government_watchdog_says_control_spending_or_0115.html
Revealed: US comptroller says US taxes would have to double to pay for Bush budget in 2040
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2160081.ece
The Doomsday Clock: Nuclear threat to world 'rising'
For 60 years, it has depicted how close the world is to nuclear disaster. Today, scientists will move its hands forward to show we are facing the gravest threat in at least 20 years
THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND THE WORST POSSIBLE PRESIDENT
By Jane Smiley, HuffingtonPost.com
The longer Bush is in office, the more his psychology becomes clear. He's not a well-meaning doofus; he's a madman.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/46794/
{Worth reading. Interesting quotes from the Comments section by a blogger: thoughtcriminal on Jan 17, 2007 1:02 AM}
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/16/colberts-w%c3%98rd-on-bushs-surge/
Colbert’s WØRD on Bush’s “Surge”
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2007/01/17/notes011707.DTL&nl=fix
9 Uncommon Ways To Keep Warm
Frigid weather got you down? Warm the heart of your cockles with these smokin' tidbits
Mark Morford's latest.... Hey, stay warm! ;-)
http://www.alternet.org/story/46757/
Fox Show "24": Torture on TV
{{{Found this on C&L. I've not seen 24, but have seen part of an interview of Kiefer Sutherland by Charlie Rose and there was a brief sound byte. I've long avoided 'thriller' movies for the simple reason that I don't find being scared entertaining. 24 didn't look good for the same reason. It seems to me that if torture is featured in every show that it's a way of making something immoral and unethical and illegal into a form of entertainment, and that makes the sheeple accept the whole idea of torture authorized by DimWit & cohorts and the actual act of torture as something that's 'entertaining' and 'normal.'}}}
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070117/ap_on_re_as/philippines_abu_sayyaf
Top al-Qaida-linked militant killed
{{{Hmmm... Are they SURE a "top" al Qaida leader is dead this time...?}}}
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070116/lf_nm/whales_alaska_dc
Beluga whales faltering in Alaskan waters
Excerpt:
Oil drilling, associated bustle and noise, vessel-traffic pressures from thriving cargo-shipping and commercial fishing activities, sewage and storm water runoff from Alaska's most densely populated region and other industrial factors are likely hurting the belugas, according to environmentalists.
Particular scrutiny should focus on the oil and gas industry, with its constant marine disposal of wastewater and its reliance on loud seismic surveys that disrupt the underwater whale communications, said Bob Shavelson, executive director of the environmental group Cook Inletkeeper.
"Everybody said, 'OK, it was the hunting.' Everybody said, 'OK, once we get a handle on the hunting the problem will go away.' Lo and behold, we're not seeing any increase; we're seeing what's likely a decrease," Shavelson said.
Oil and gas industry representatives fear new restrictions will unfairly burden them.
{{{First, the polar bears; now the beluga whales....}}}
Morning All,
From Bart, Leah Bolger's husband:
The jury came back at midday today (Tues) and was still deadlocked. The judge sent them back with more instructions. They continued deliberations until 5pm and still could not reach a verdict. Trial's in recess until Wed morning.
If they're still deadlocked after tomorrow's deliberations, the lawyers think either the judge will declare mistrial (as Leah's lawyers have motioned) or Leah will be acquitted.
The lawyers seem to think that more deliberation is better, but I'm nervous.
Think good thoughts,
Bart
Interesting article in the Business section of the NYTimes...
What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy
--snip--
The way to come to grips with $1.2 trillion is to forget about the number itself and think instead about what you could buy with the money. When you do that, a trillion stops sounding anything like millions or billions.
For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign — a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives.
Combined, the cost of running those programs for a decade wouldn’t use up even half our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds.
The final big chunk of the money could go to national security. The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that have not been put in place — better baggage and cargo screening, stronger measures against nuclear proliferation — could be enacted. Financing for the war in Afghanistan could be increased to beat back the Taliban’s recent gains, and a peacekeeping force could put a stop to the genocide in Darfur.
All that would be one way to spend $1.2 trillion. Here would be another:
The war in Iraq.
--snip--
But the deteriorating situation in Iraq has caused the initial predictions to be off the mark by a scale that is difficult to fathom. The operation itself — the helicopters, the tanks, the fuel needed to run them, the combat pay for enlisted troops, the salaries of reservists and contractors, the rebuilding of Iraq — is costing more than $300 million a day, estimates Scott Wallsten, an economist in Washington.
That translates into a couple of billion dollars a week and, over the full course of the war, an eventual total of $700 billion in direct spending.
The two best-known analyses of the war’s costs agree on this figure, but they diverge from there. Linda Bilmes, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate and former Clinton administration adviser, put a total price tag of more than $2 trillion on the war. They include a number of indirect costs, like the economic stimulus that the war funds would have provided if they had been spent in this country.
--snip--
Besides the direct military spending, I’m including the gas tax that the war has effectively imposed on American families (to the benefit of oil-producing countries like Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia). At the start of 2003, a barrel of oil was selling for $30. Since then, the average price has been about $50. Attributing even $5 of this difference to the conflict adds another $150 billion to the war’s price tag, Ms. Bilmes and Mr. Stiglitz say.
The war has also guaranteed some big future expenses. Replacing the hardware used in Iraq and otherwise getting the United States military back into its prewar fighting shape could cost $100 billion. And if this war’s veterans receive disability payments and medical care at the same rate as veterans of the first gulf war, their health costs will add up to $250 billion. If the disability rate matches Vietnam’s, the number climbs higher. Either way, Ms. Bilmes says, “It’s like a miniature Medicare.”
--snip--
“This war has skewed our thinking about resources,” said Mr. Wallsten, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a conservative-leaning research group. “In the context of the war, $20 billion is nothing.”
--snip--
But the standard shouldn’t simply be whether a surge is better than the most popular alternative — a far-less-expensive political strategy that includes getting tough with the Iraqi government. The standard should be whether the surge would be better than the political strategy plus whatever else might be accomplished with the $20 billion.
This time, it would be nice to have that discussion before the troops reach Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html
For the Love of Money
by The O'Jays
Money money money money, money [x6]
Some people got to have it
Some people really need it
Listen to me y'all, do things, do things, do bad things with it
You wanna do things, do things, do things, good things with it
Talk about cash money, money
Talk about cash money- dollar bills, yall
For the love of money
People will steal from their mother
For the love of money
People will rob their own brother
For the love of money
People can't even walk the street
Because they never know who in the world they're gonna beat
For that lean, mean, mean green
Almighty dollar, money
For the love of money
People will lie, Lord, they will cheat
For the love of money
People don't care who they hurt or beat
For the love of money
A woman will sell her precious body
For a small piece of paper it carries a lot of weight
Call it lean, mean, mean green
Almighty dollar
I know money is the root of all evil
Do funny things to some people
Give me a nickel, brother can you spare a dime
Money can drive some people out of their minds
Got to have it, I really need it
How many things have I heard you say
Some people really need it
How many things have I heard you say
Got to have it, I really need it
How many things have I heard you say
Lay down, lay down, a woman will lay down
For the love of money
All for the love of money
Don't let, don't let, don't let money rule you
For the love of money
Money can change people sometimes
Don't let, don't let, don't let money fool you
Money can fool people sometimes
People! Don't let money, dont let money change you,
it will keep on changing, changing up your mind.
Question: How many members of the Bush
Administration does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer: TEN.
1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be
changed;
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed;
3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb;
4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for eternal darkness;
5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for a new light bulb;
6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor and standing on a step ladder, under the banner "Change Accomplished";
7. One administration insider to resign and in
detail reveal how Bush was literally "in the dark" the whole time;
8. Another one to viciously smear # 7;
9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light bulb-changing policy all along;
10. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing in a light bulb and screwing the country.
And after all is said and done, no one will notice that they never actually managed to change the light bulb.
Gonzales: Judges unfit to rule on terror policy
Attorney general says federal jurists should defer to president's will
Updated: 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases.
In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress when deciding national security cases. He also raps jurists who “apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences.”
The text of the speech, scheduled for delivery at the American Enterprise Institute, was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. It outlines, in part, what qualities the Bush administration looks for when selecting candidates for the federal bench.
“We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments,” Gonzales says in the prepared speech. “That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.”
more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16668110/
Texas to pick up 4 new Congressional seats and 4 additional electoral votes; Georgia and Utah 2 more in 2011 while places like New York, New Jersey and Ohio will be losing 2. This could create a titanic shift in power and require new strategies in running future Presidential elections. Its a ways off, but at some point the Democratic Party will need to rethink their practice of writing off states like Texas and Georgia. That strategy may be disatrous going forward.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4475836.html
Hmm... judge not, lest ye be Drudged.
BREAKING NEWS:
Guilty verdict for Leah Bolger. Prosecution asked for 6 months probation, $500 fine and 100 hours community service. Her lawyer asked for 30 days unsupervised probation; he pointed out that supervised probation and community service would not be appropriate. The prosecution asked for both to transfer to OR.
Leah spoke to the judge. She pointed out that the punishment for speaking out was overzealous. She would be willing to pay the required victim's compensation fine and do the community service but paying a $500 fine into the system she opposes is not OK. The judge listened and took notes.
The judge then said he did not know if a transfer of probation would work. He had planned to give her the fine only, until she spoke about it. He said to come back at 2:00 to see if the probation can be transferred. Leah is going to wait and see what will happen next.
What do we think we can do to help her?
Kos diary here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/17/114821/076
Let folks know, OK? I am going to go and meet Leah.
Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress....
Posted by: monkey at January 17, 2007 10:57 AM
Ummm....Hello? Apparently Gonzales never heard of checks and balances.
Jerk.
Posted by: Bubba at January 17, 2007 11:31 AM
Agreed. Especially Texas and Georgia - I still believe that they can be put into play. And since Texas used to be a blue state, we are morally obligated to turn it blue once again.
And don't forget - California may be blue, but its population growth comes from the south, the inland areas, and immigrant demographics - all very red. Keeping California blue will be an uphill battle.
Ummm....Hello? Apparently Gonzales never heard of checks and balances.
Jerk.
Posted by: Carol at January 17, 2007 12:21 PM
And the saddest thing is, I am pretty sure some liberals are still giving the likes of Gonzales and Yoo free passes, because they are nonwhites.
Honestly, I see the communal, anti-individualist mindsets of their ancestral cultures as the problem. If anyone hated America for its freedoms, it's these people.
I am very concerned and quite sickened at the news that Specter's office was responsible for the recent problems with the judges being released.
All last year, Specter was "The one between us and fascism." And yet, when I called his office his press office told me that he was putting Gonzalez under oath when Gonzalez was to testify about torture. He failed to do that.
Now Mr. Let-them-enjoy-Facism is likely the person who gave King George power to fire attorneys without cause and to appoint without a hearing.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002354.php
I have more to say about Leahh's guilty verdict. It is depressing to know that after all that deliberating, the jury got stuck on the definition of "intent"...as if it matters whether or not Leah thought she MIGHT speak out or planned to NOT speak out and then changed her mind, or planned to say something but maybe not so much...
It is because people are not speaking up nearly enough or nearly as loudly as we might that we are struggling with all of the issues mentioned in this blog.
Please help Leah by going to the Kos diary and recommending, commenting, moving it out there. Remember Howard Zinn's statement to us that people become emboldened by the acts of a few.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/17/114821/076
Looks like the military judged against Ehren Watada too, that the war against Iraq isn't illegal so he can't refuse to deploy again. Sucks.
I can now pick up Democracy Now right after the BBC on my commute if I take the right route at the right time - such as to hear about the Doomsday clock moving closer to midnight, or that our mail, phone, email OR financial records can be looked at without a subpoena and without our knowledge, then kept in interconneted databases (they're working on that) forever.
Posted by: monkey at January 17, 2007 10:57 AM
WHAT?!?!?
So, does that mean the SCOTUS nominees (now SCOTUS justices) are/were "unfit" for the positions to which Bu$h demanded they be elevated...?
Isn't the American Enterprise Institute the outfit that now has all the old PNAC members (since PNAC is now apparently disbanded)...? Or do I have the new neoconservative institutes which seem to be created monthly mixed up?
Does Godzilla not know that his words mean that he's all for making Bush a total dictator, this time in name by deluding him into thinking he can tell judges how to decide how to "interpret" laws that have been on the books since the Constitution was written, as well as laws made after that, not just the dictator by implication as mandated in MCA '06, that by labeling judges as "unfit" to make decisions that renders any decisions any judges make as childish and ignorant, meaning anyone else can also ignore the law, not just *our* incompetent, and nearly illiterate dictator...?!?
This is all about the info contained in the section of the article entitled "Challenges to Bush policies"....
Bush's "decisions" are not infallible. He may *think* and say he has messages from God and use that delusion to justify his illegal invasion of Iraq (among other bungled actions he's 'decided'), but that only proves how delusional he is and lets us know he really belongs in a mental institution.
Did you also see these stories?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16656557/
Gonzales says Gitmo trial delays not U.S.’s fault
Attorney general blames the terror detainees’ lawyers for hindering process
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16641834/
Some Guantanamo detainees fall into limbo
Big questions emerge about low-profile inmates
It is because people are not speaking up nearly enough or nearly as loudly as we might that we are struggling with all of the issues mentioned in this blog.
Posted by: karen at January 17, 2007 01:58 PM
YES, you are absolutely correct!!!
Lawmakers draft anti-Bush Iraq resolution
Democrats, leading Republican, say more troops not in 'national interest'
Updated: 29 minutes ago
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - A group of senators including a Republican war critic announced agreement Wednesday on a resolution opposing President Bush's 21,500 troop build up in Iraq, setting their marker for a major clash between the White House and Congress over the unpopular war.
The non-binding resolution, which was also gaining interest from a second key Republican, would symbolically put the Senate on record as saying the U.S. commitment in Iraq "can only be sustained" with popular support among the American public and in Congress.
"I will do everything I can to stop the president's policy as he outlined it Wednesday night," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican and potential 2008 presidential candidate, who joined Democrats at a press conference on the resolution.
"I think it is dangerously irresponsible," Hagel said.
Even as skeptical Republicans were summoned to private meetings with Bush and national security adviser Stephen Hadley at the White House, Bush's aides made clear that the Capitol Hill challenge would be met aggressively by the administration.
Snow: Bush won't budge
Presidential spokesman Tony Snow said resolutions passed by Congress will not affect Bush's decision-making.
"The president has obligations as a commander in chief," he said. "And he will go ahead and execute them."
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., a chief author of the Senate resolution, said it says "we do not support increased troops, deeper military involvement" and calls for shifting the mission of U.S. troops from combat to training, counterterrorism and protecting Iraq's territorial integrity.
He said it also calls for "the greater engagement of other countries in the region in the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq."
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, told reporters that she is considering supporting the resolution and said she believed it heads in the right direction.
"I want to make sure it's something I can support," said Snowe, who has adamantly opposed to the increase in troops.
more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11457525/
Senators Agree on Iraq War Resolution
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011707R.shtml
A group of senators, including a Republican war critic, announced agreement Wednesday on a resolution opposing President Bush's 21,500-troop buildup in Iraq, setting their marker for a major clash between the White House and Congress over the unpopular war.
This helps, BUT the resolution is non-binding. Excerpt (for full text, click on link):
A group of senators including a Republican war critic announced agreement Wednesday on a resolution opposing President Bush's 21,500 troop build up in Iraq, setting their marker for a major clash between the White House and Congress over the unpopular war.
The non-binding resolution, which was also gaining interest from a second key Republican, would symbolic