Lift the Veil

Pentagon probes $6 billion in contracts

2007-09-22T01:42:00.000-05:00

This ain't two-for Tuesday, but it feels like it. See the previous post about Blackwater and read this one to understand what I mean.

Pentagon probes $6 billion in contracts

By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Federal investigators are examining allegations of criminal misconduct related to $6 billion worth of contracts for equipment and services needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior Pentagon official said Thursday.

he financial scope of the inquiries was provided during a congressional hearing at which Defense Department representatives were criticized for moving too slowly to deal with a growing number of cases of contract fraud and abuse.

Following the testimony from Thomas Gimble, the Pentagon's deputy inspector general, members of the House Armed Services Committee questioned whether a "culture of corruption" had consumed the military's system for buying the gear the troops need to fight.

No, said the witnesses. In addition to Gimble, they included Lt. Gen. N. Ross Thompson, a top Army acquisition official, and Shay Assad, director of defense procurement.

They attributed the impropriety to a handful of "bad apples," a lack of stringent accounting controls, too few properly trained contracting personnel and the demands of wartime operations.

"This sickens me, when there is even one case of an officer or a noncommissioned officer who is involved in case of fraud or accepting a bribe," Thompson said. But he said there was no "widespread conspiracy."

Added Assad: "We did not properly train our officers and enlisted (personnel) to work in the environment."

But Gimble's public remarks, which came after committee members received a classified briefing on the investigations, did little to assure the lawmakers that the problems are not deeper.

Gimble said his office has 225 people working on 90 investigations and 29 audits stemming from the hundreds of billions dollars spent on the wars thus far.

About half the investigations are for procurement fraud, a category that includes undelivered or defective products, overcharges and false claims, according to Gimble's testimony.

An additional 26 inquiries involve public corruption, which covers bribery and conflicts of interest, Gimble said. There are 16 linked to the theft of money or property and violations of U.S. export rules.

Just over 50 investigations originated in Iraq and 22 started in Kuwait, the site of an Army contracting office that service officials had previously said was a source of many flawed contracts.

Targets of the investigations include military and civilian government personnel, and contractors from the United States and other countries, according to Gimble's testimony.

Agents from the inspector general's office, FBI, Army, Air Force and Navy criminal investigative services, the Internal Revenue Service and Scotland Yard are engaged in the investigations.

Democrats and Republicans on the committee, often divided over the direction of the Iraq war, were united in their displeasure over what Gimble told them.

"This is a sad day for the United States," said Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the committee's top Republican. "Dishonesty is not a function of manning levels."

Assad pointed to the formation in early 2005 of a joint contracting command for Iraq and Afghanistan as a positive step toward more visibility over the huge amounts of money are spent. The command has close to 200 contracting officers at locations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a separate but related subject that also is under investigation, an Iraq expert from the Defense Department acknowledged that oversight of American weapons bound for Iraqi forces have been so lax that no one knows for certain where all the guns and ammunition wound up.

"There was an imperative to get this equipment out to the fighting forces as quickly as possible," said Peter Velz, a foreign affairs specialist for Iraq.

Velz said the U.S.-led command training Iraqi forces did not have enough people in Iraq to properly catalog the thousands of weapons flowing into the country. As a result, the Pentagon does not know if the number of weapons that were destined for the Iraqis "were in fact transferred," he said. The issue first surfaced in May when Pentagon officials learned that Turkish officials were concerned that American-issued weapons were being used in violent crimes in their country. In July, Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent the Pentagon's top lawyer, William Haynes, to Turkey to hear the concerns.

Pentagon Inspector General Claude Kicklighter was subsequently directed to investigate the failures that led to the distribution problems. Gimble said that inquiry is one of his office's "highest priorities."

Although the subjects are serious ones, only about a dozen of the committee's 61 members attended the hearing. By the time it ended, the witnesses outnumbered the lawmakers. Just the committee chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., remained.

(This version CORRECTS the day of the hearing to Thursday, not Wednesday.)

Blackwater Black Market?

2007-09-22T01:04:00.001-05:00

When news broke that Blackwater's armed security firm (ex-military, ex-domestic police, and ex-CIA, etc) would have forces commissioned to provide "security" in Iraq, some of us suspected that Blackwater's tenure there would not end without some kind of controversy. Blackwater insiders in Iraq may have proven our suspicions accurate.

US Federal prosecutors have targeted Blackwater in a black market arms probe. Blackwater is believed to be involved in smuggling arms into Iraq and selling them to accused terrorists that have used them in attacks against Iraqis and US troops.

According to the Associated Press, "The U.S. Attorney's Office in Raleigh, N.C., is handling the investigation with help from Pentagon and State Department auditors, who have concluded there is enough evidence to file charges, the officials told The Associated Press. Blackwater is based in Moyock, N.C."

The investigation was reportedly heightened after Blackwater contractors attacked eleven Iraqis while escorting "diplomats" visiting Iraq. The Iraqi government recently ordered Blackwater security forces out of Iraq.

The whole report and reference link appear below:

Feds target Blackwater in weapons probe

By Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors are investigating whether employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA illegally smuggled into Iraq weapons that may have been sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, officials said Friday.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Raleigh, N.C., is handling the investigation with help from Pentagon and State Department auditors, who have concluded there is enough evidence to file charges, the officials told The Associated Press. Blackwater is based in Moyock, N.C.

A spokeswoman for Blackwater did not return calls seeking comment Friday. The U.S. attorney for the eastern district of North Carolina, George Holding, declined to comment, as did Pentagon and State Department spokesmen.

Officials with knowledge of the case said it is active, although at an early stage. They spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, which has heightened since 11 Iraqis were killed Sunday in a shooting involving Blackwater contractors protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad.

The officials could not say whether the investigation would result in indictments, how many Blackwater employees are involved or if the company itself, which has won hundreds of millions of dollars in government security contracts since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is under scrutiny.

In Saturday's editions, The News & Observer of Raleigh reported that two former Blackwater employees — Kenneth Wayne Cashwell of Virginia Beach, Va., and William Ellsworth "Max" Grumiaux of Clemmons, N.C. — are cooperating with federal investigators.

Cashwell and Grumiaux pleaded guilty in early 2007 to possession of stolen firearms that had been shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, and aided and abetted another in doing so, according to court papers viewed by The Associated Press. In their plea agreements, which call for a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, the men agreed to testify in any future proceedings.

Calls to defense attorneys were not immediately returned Friday evening, and calls to the telephone listings for both men also were not returned.

The News & Observer, citing unidentified sources, reported that the probe was looking at whether Blackwater had shipped unlicensed automatic weapons and military goods to Iraq without a license.

The paper's report that the company itself was under investigation could not be confirmed by the AP.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ordered a review of security practices for U.S. diplomats in Iraq following a deadly incident involving Blackwater USA guards protecting an embassy convoy.

Rice's announcement came as the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad resumed limited diplomatic convoys under the protection of Blackwater outside the heavily fortified Green Zone after a suspension because of the weekend incident in that city.

In the United States, officials in Washington said the smuggling investigation grew from internal Pentagon and State Department inquiries into U.S. weapons that had gone missing in Iraq. It gained steam after Turkish authorities protested to the U.S. in July that they had seized American arms from the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, rebels.

The Turks provided serial numbers of the weapons to U.S. investigators, said a Turkish official.

The Pentagon said in late July it was looking into the Turkish complaints and a U.S. official said FBI agents had traveled to Turkey in recent months to look into cases of missing U.S. weapons in Iraq.

Investigators are determining whether the alleged Blackwater weapons match those taken from the PKK.

It was not clear if Blackwater employees suspected of selling to the black market knew the weapons they allegedly sold to middlemen might wind up with the PKK. If they did, possible charges against them could be more serious than theft or illegal weapons sales, officials said.

The PKK, which is fighting for an independent Kurdistan, is banned in Turkey, which has a restive Kurdish population and is considered a "foreign terrorist organization" by the State Department. That designation bars U.S. citizens or those in U.S. jurisdictions from supporting the group in any way.
The North Carolina investigation was first brought to light by State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard, who mentioned it, perhaps inadvertently, this week while denying he had improperly blocked fraud and corruption probes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Krongard was accused in a letter by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, of politically motivated malfeasance, including refusing to cooperate with an investigation into alleged weapons smuggling by a large, unidentified State Department contractor.
In response, Krongard said in a written statement that he "made one of my best investigators available to help Assistant U.S. Attorneys in North Carolina in their investigation into alleged smuggling of weapons into Iraq by a contractor."
His statement went further than Waxman's letter because it identified the state in which the investigation was taking place. Blackwater is the biggest of the State Department's three private security contractors.
The other two, Dyncorp and Triple Canopy, are based in Washington's northern Virginias suburbs, outside the jurisdiction of the North Carolina's attorneys.
___
Associated Press writers Mike Baker in Raleigh and Desmond Butler and Lara Jakes Jordan in Washington contributed to this report.

Progressively Treva Blog is Back

2007-09-17T05:29:00.000-05:00

I now have a new account at efx2blogs.com where Progressively Treva has relocated at:
progressivelytreva.efx2blogs.com

At the time of this writing I'm waiting for Keith to restore my posts and, if possible, other content. There's a long list of other former efx2.com members that are also waiting for their content, too.

I've been keeping an eye on the efx2blogs homepage and members' blogrolls and comments section to see which members of the former efx2.com community have found the new efx2 location, registered and got their blogs going. Although, it's a relief that we can use pre-designed templates, I'll be glad when we are able to have more control of our designs, assuming that we will. It's my understanding that Keith is, or plans on looking into customizing things to offer more member control over our own designs.

I'm just glad that Keith was able to get efx2 running again this quickly. I'm sure, he, and possibly Martin, have really worked hard and spent a lot of time to enable us to get our efx2 blogs back. I just hope, all members are able to find the new efx2 location. If they think to search technorati and sites like that they're more likely to catch up with the rest of us sooner than they might if they tried to use search engines, like Google and Yahoo.

I'll be updating links lists to also include any mirror blogs on this blog and on my efx2 blog. I'll do the same if I create another mirror blog. I hope, in the future people will bookmark mirrored versions and additional blogs if they want to keep in touch with their owners. That's how I was able to find Libertine's blogspot.com mirror.

EFX2blogs Online

2007-09-13T02:48:00.000-05:00

Scottitude Reports efx2 is back online. The new URL is efx2blogs.com. Keith left a message on the main page, some of which Scottitude relayed.

Is EFX2 About to Return Online?

2007-09-11T10:15:00.000-05:00

I acted out of curiosity to see if I might get new results by trying to access the efx2.com page. For the past couple of days, I got the Page Not Found message. A few minutes ago I tried again and read the following message:

This is the placeholder for domain efx2.com. If you see this page after uploading site content you probably have not replaced the index.html file.

This page has been automatically generated by Plesk.

Is this a positive sign for Keith and the displaced efx2.com blogging community? Does it mean that we might get our beloved blogs back? Do we dare have hope in being reunited with friends that haven't found us at our alternative blogs, who didn't have other means for us to keep in touch?

Carlyle Group Buys Home Depot Supplier

2007-08-27T03:32:00.000-05:00

The following was reported in the Washington Post on Sunday. (Source Link):

By Thomas Heath
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 26, 2007; 7:34 PM

Home Depot has reached a deal with a consortium of private-equity firms headed by Carlyle Group to sell its supply arm, HD Supply, for $8.5 billion, down from its original price of $10.3 billion, according to sources close to the negotiations.
The deal was reached Sunday after weekend-long negotiations between District-based Carlyle Group, Home Depot and several banks, according to sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.
Home Depot, the world's largest home-improvement store chain, had said last week that it was talking with the buyers about restructuring the agreement, which was expected to result in a lower price because of recent turmoil that has gripped the credit markets since the deal's announcement in June.

Related info about Carlyle Group at this blog:

War Profiteers Sell Bloody Fortune,

Bush Sr. Resigns From Senior Position at Carlyle Group.

This Blog Will Take a Major Dump

2007-08-20T01:38:00.000-05:00

I am updating this blog and making changes to it. I've decided to breathe new life into this blog. At least, blogger seems to have less down-time than the privately-run services I've used the most since late 2003.

I've already changed this page's appearance. It's a work in progress. I'll be changing the links and seeing how far I can go with graphical content, something free blogger accounts didn't offer when I started blogging here roughly four years ago.

2005-09-16T11:39:00.000-05:00

Besides the "justify" text option (which I hand-coded myself before the easy-click option came along), I really don't enjoy posting at blogger. I'm still doing my hell-raising blog rants at Progressively Treva. Otherwise, this blog is mostly for occasionally documenting stuff that tends to vanish down the memory hole.

Bloggers Beware of Murdoch

2005-09-12T02:17:00.000-05:00

I'd read a while back that Rupert Murdoch had bought up a service that provided a blog/photo/chat community aimed at teens and 20-somethings. A neighbor of mine uses that service, which reminds me...I need to introduce him to modblog. Guardian Unlimited tells more about Murdoch's and other corporate media hounds' efforts to knock us political bloggers off the blogophere. I've copied the story in case Guardian removes it from its site:

ACCESS DENIED
Rafael Behr
Sunday September 11, 2005
The Observer

This is the golden age of the internet, a time of glorious anarchy where information is free and anyone, rich or poor, can blog their views to the world. But government and big business are moving in - the clampdown has started.

Jamie McCoy used to have his own patch on a London street. It was a strip of the Victoria Embankment where he would sit every day and beg. He might have earned enough money by mid-morning to convert his cup of grimy copper coins into a crisp note and then convert his crisp note into a bag of heroin. Then he would go back to work, begging to get some breakfast. He lived on the streets for 30 years.

Jamie had a buddy. No one survives on the streets on their own. They had been knocking around together, homeless and wasted for what seemed like their whole lives. Then, one day, the buddy lay down in the middle of the road and died.

'I thought he was just having one of his naps. He used to do that, just lie down and have a sleep wherever he stood,' says Jamie over a pint and a cigarette in an east London pub. 'That affected me a lot.'

Jamie started to feel lonely.

Around a year later, he found himself sharing a hit with a young woman, barely out of her teens. She looked twice her age. She reminded him of himself a lifetime ago. This time, he felt lonely and angry. He threw his last bag of heroin off Waterloo Bridge, wen to a shelter run by Crisis, the homelessness charity, and withdrew from the drug, from his old self.

That was five years ago. Jamie learned to read and write, stuff he had missed at school. He loved it. And sitting at a computer in the London office of Crisis, he discovered the web.

Here was a place where Jamie was not an ex-junkie. Here, Jamie was a one-man publishing empire, broadcasting the experience of homelessness to the world through Jamie's Big Voice, his blog.

'I think of it as an independent newspaper,' he says with pride. 'A newspaper that I can trust, because all the sources in it are mine.'

Jamie's Big Voice gets readers from around the world, sometimes in their hundreds, sometimes in their thousands. He was invited to a party in Westminster where the Speaker of the House of Commons claimed to be a reader of the blog. That pleased Jamie. It could only happen now, early in the 21st century, the time when a homeless bloke with a borrowed computer can have the same reach around the world as Rupert Murdoch. It is a precious and fragile moment, a golden age of web democracy.

And all just under 15 years since the internet ceased to be a thing - a network of computers - and became a place. That was when Tim Berners-Lee, a British scientist based in Switzerland, developed a way of linking documents to each other in a big web. That was when the frontier to a new society was opened. That was when it became possible for Jamie McCoy to swap a patch of the Embankment for a plot of the web.

The size of Jamie's audience depends on who has linked to him. And blogging is all about links, a line of code that turns a piece of information into a destination, a refutation, a rebuttal, a recommendation.

One new blog is started every couple of seconds. The total number is hard to estimate because no one agrees on the definition. Around 15 million is a conservative guess. The total number of pages on the web is around 600 billion, or 100 per person on the planet. The number of people with some access to the web is around one billion.

But today's bloggers occupy a special role. They are, in fact, the second-generation web citizens, the first being the pioneer geeks who developed their sites in the early Nineties. Unlike the trailblazers, the new wave needed no significant technical know-how. Most of them don't speak the programming languages from which their blogs are built. They occupy digital prefabs and trailers crafted from easy-to-use, free software. They eke out an audience through the barter of tips, links and files. Their currency is trust. The community is open to all, self-policing, keen on transparency and ruthless about dishonesty.

In an era whose triumphant idea is capitalism, where success is generally measured in the accumulation of wealth, it is hard to conceive of a parallel society established and self-governed on principles of trust and common ownership. But it exists. The biggest aggregation of human experience and knowledge ever created belongs to everyone, it is available on demand and it is free.

But for how long? Ranged against the new culture of digital freedom is a strange coalition of spooks, suits and vandals. There are governments unable to resist the technology that can track our every move; there are corporations lusting after the attention of the 2 billion eyeballs focused on screens; and there are the spammers, clogging up the net with junk mail, hijacking computers to peddle trash.

'The internet, the first many-to-many medium, was going to liberate us from the tyranny of centralised media and the rancid consumerism that says we are merely receptacles for what Big Business, including Big Media, wants us to buy,' writes Dan Gillmor, a San Francisco-based writer, in We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People for the People. 'But the clampdown has begun. Everywhere we look, the forces of centralisation and authority are finding ways to slow and, perhaps, halt altogether the advances we've made.'

Gillmor is a chronicler of Citizen Media, the movement to transform news and entertainment from a one-way transaction (we make, you consume) to a conversation (we all make, we all swap). Taking its form from the web, it is oceanic, vast and shapeless. It has no leadership, although it has some poster children - Wikipedia, the excellent, collaboratively built encyclopedia; Ohmynews, the Korean newspaper written by its readers - but it is bigger than any site.

It is big enough to strike envy and fear into businessmen and politicians. Governments have been slow to appreciate the social changes effected by technologies, but quick to see their potential application for exerting control and invading privacy.

Bloggers have already been harassed and imprisoned by repressive regimes around the world. China has successfully walled off the entire internet for millions of users. The technology that enables governments to hoard emails and trace every click of the mouse across the web is too alluring for liberal democracies to ignore. Web snooping will almost certainly form a part of UK anti-terror legislation later this year.

Then there are the big media and entertainment corporations of the US. They are peeved because their audience is being poached by a DIY army of online publishers and broadcasters. Big Media also own the copyright to most of the English-speaking world's popular culture, a resource that is systematically plundered, mashed up, remixed, copied and passed around the web.

Not surprisingly, the owners don't like it when people share their intellectual property around without paying dues. Stealing, they call it. They will sue if they catch you. If you are too young, they will sue your parents.

Business also lobbies hard for politicians to make that sort of thing even more against the law than it already is. The result, say the citizen journalists, is a repressive intellectual property regime that stomps on creativity. The media companies see the remixers and swappers as apologists for piracy and organised crime.

'Most of those currently in the hallways of power have no clue about digital technologies or the cultural shift now taking place,' says JD Lasica, executive director of Ourmedia.org, an online creative archive. 'The entertainment industries still wield considerable clout on Capitol Hill.'

But for most web citizens, the trench warfare that goes on between digital freedom fighters and Hollywood studios is not the problem. The online party for them is being spoiled by the crooks, pervs and fraudsters.

Sharon Lemon is in charge of policing Web UK and she doesn't let her children visit internet chatrooms. She isn't hysterical about the threat of paedophiles, but nor is she naive. As Detective Chief Superintendent of the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit, she knows the score. DCS Lemon used to head Operation Ore, the excavation of Britain's underground child pornography network. When it started digging, it found 7,000 people. That was in 1998, when plenty of Britons didn't have internet access. That means it isn't all just a moral panic. There really are a lot of people who use the net for child porn. DCS Lemon is in a good position to see how accurately the web reflects the world that created it. All of human experience is there, including the dark side. And, without any borders, it is very hard to police.

'If anything, the internet works for criminals much better than it does for anyone else,' she says. 'It gives all the advantages of global networking without any of the constraints of the law.'

If you shut down an illegal site in Manchester, the same stuff appears the next day in Moscow. In addition to the paedophiles, police are chasing a new global breed of robbers, blackmailers and money launderers. Meanwhile, creeping up the political agenda is hate crime and the propagation of terrorist ideas by internet.

A technology novice could easily conclude from newspaper reports that the portion of the web not published by reputable media companies has been colonised exclusively by sex offenders, jihadi fundamentalists and a few crackpot conspiracy theorists.

Not so, says DCS Lemon: 'You have to work to the theory that most people are generally good.'

But for large media owners, fear of the poorly lit, sinister back alleys of the web is useful. It drives people into 'walled gardens', safe havens of manicured web content, provided on subscription; guaranteed free of bad guys; well stocked with familiar brands.

The problem with walled gardens is that people get bored. They hanker for the vagaries of life on the frontier. Once there, they soon discover that the dark side does not leap out at you; you have to hunt it down. The medium isn't to blame.

That is what makes the web a 'pull' medium. You make the show yourself, another reason why traditional media are flummoxed. They only know how to push stuff down the pipes. They keep building walls around the garden as fast as the web users breach them.

Rupert is 74 years old and, by his own admission, a bit long in the tooth for this internet malarkey. The next generation, he feels, get it better.

'I'm a digital immigrant. I wasn't weaned on the web, nor coddled on a computer,' Murdoch said in April. 'My two young daughters, on the other hand, will be digital natives.'

Murdoch was speaking earlier this year to the American Society of Newspaper Editors. He had been invited in his capacity as chief executive of News Corporation.

News Corp had, until recently, generally failed to grasp the significance of the web. Its few ventures online had failed. But, suddenly, there is vim in the old empire.

'The digital native doesn't send a letter to the editor any more. She goes online and starts a blog. We need to be the destination for those bloggers,' he said.

Deed followed word. News Corp has set aside a war chest of $1-2bn for online developments. It recently bought Intermix Media, owner of Myspace.com, a self-contained community of blogs for teens and twentysomethings. Murdoch is also in the market for a search engine. The News Corp strategy can be simply pieced together: take possession of the web allotments that all but the most hardened geeks depend on to pitch their blogging tents, then rent them out; sweeten the deal with privileged access to music and movies.

The goal must be to marshal the energy that bloggers currently expend on creating their own content into the consumption of industry-manufactured, pay-per-view content. Big Media want to retain the marketable frisson of Citizen Media and weed out the current culture of activism. The way to achieve this is by monopolising not only the copyright material that web users like to play with, but the tools that make it so easy for them to play.

'Nearly every day brings word of an entertainment company forming an alliance with a technology provider to corral an audience into walled gardens and force it to behave in a certain way,' warns Lasica.

Noam Chomsky, linguist and media commentator, agrees: 'Major efforts are being made by the corporate owners and advertisers to shape the internet so that it will be mostly used for commerce, diversion and so on. Then those who wish to use it for information, political organising and other such activities will have a harder time.'

Within 10 years, there will be no distinction between software companies, phone networks, search engines, movie studios and internet service providers. There will just be Web plc. To experience it, you will have to pay.

It is scarcely credible that, initially, all commerce was forbidden on the internet. Only gradually did the engineers and scientists running the hardware infrastructure of the net relax the rules. Last year, consumer trade online was worth $300bn.

To be fair to capitalism, the introduction of a profit motive created a spurt of innovation and growth. When Google started, it promised in its charter to 'do no evil'. It wanted to organise the world's information and it was good at it. So the web made sure everyone knew about this wonderful innovation. Google has never had to advertise.

But now, there is a growing feeling in the blogosphere that Google (worth around $50bn) has crossed the line. The power that it has over the way people search the web, and the data the company can amass about every individual user, is starting to look less like a project to organise the world's information and more like a bid to own it. The geeks have fallen out of love. Google, they say, has turned evil.

Not that that makes any difference. The web has been haranguing and maligning Microsoft as the embodiment of evil for years, because of the way it won't share anything - its codes, its platforms, its secrets. But around 95 per cent of the world's computers still run MS software. Bill Gates is still the richest man in the world.

And that is the problem for the current generation of web citizens. They are neither the aristocrats, nor the foot soldiers of the net. They are simply its conscience and they will scream and shout as the web is carved up and sold off. Jamie McCoy has few illusions about the current era of great web equality: 'As soon as someone finds a way to really make a lot of money out of blogging, that will kill it,' he says.

Not everyone is pessimistic. In fact, a lot of long-term web users are utopian about the future. All the hyperbole that was first draped around the web has proved inadequate. In the way it transforms and accelerates the communication of ideas between individuals and societies, it is about as big as the invention of the alphabet. And it is free. But for how long? The machinery of government and big business is only just beginning to understand the scale of the web. The culture of common purpose that prevails today is a product of neglect as much as design. The real gold rush has barely begun. To experience the sharing culture of the blogosphere today is like living in a commune built on an oil field. One day, the diggers will move in.

Ours is the last generation that will remember the analogue world and feel the difference between the two realms. For the next generation of digital natives, the web will be a slick, commercial machine. It will be just as big as the world we currently live in and it will be just as ruthless and as corrupt.

I hope I am wrong. I listen to today's web gurus, the people who preach freedom, and am fired with enthusiasm for the new digital society of the future. But I fear the odds are against them. An excess of idealism only seems to prove that the golden age of the web is, in fact, right now.

Yahoo Helped China Jail Journalist

2005-09-07T16:28:00.000-05:00

Yahoo published a report about itself and other freebie services (like Google) that act as government spies and snitches.
Here's the URL of the page the story appeared on at yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050907/ap_on_hi_te/china_reporter_jailed
This link, like all yahoo news links, has a very short life.

BEIJING - A French media watchdog said Tuesday that information provided by Internet powerhouse Yahoo Inc. helped Chinese authorities convict and jail a journalist who had written an e-mail about press restrictions.

The criticism from Reporters Without Borders marks the latest instance in which a prominent high-tech company has faced accusations of cooperating with Chinese authorities to gain favor in a country that's expected to become an Internet gold mine.

Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo and two of its biggest rivals, Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN, previously have come under attack for censoring online news sites and Web logs, or blogs, that include content that China's communist government wants to suppress.

Reporters Without Borders ridiculed Yahoo, saying it was becoming even cozier with the Chinese government by allowing itself to become a police informant in a case that led to the recent conviction of Chinese journalist Shi Tao.

"Does the fact that this corporation operates under Chinese law free it from all ethical considerations?" Reporters Without Borders said in a statement. "How far will it go to please Beijing?"

Pauline Wong, head of marketing for the Hong Kong office, said Wednesday that the company had no comment on the statement.

"We're still looking at it," Wong said.

Reporters Without Borders said court papers showed that Yahoo Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd. gave Chinese investigators information that helped them trace a personal Yahoo e-mail allegedly containing state secrets to Tao's computer. Yahoo Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd. is part of Yahoo's global network.

Shi, a former journalist for the financial publication Contemporary Business News, was sentenced in April to 10 years in prison for illegally providing state secrets to foreigners. Reporters Without Borders described Shi as a "good journalist who has paid dearly for trying to get the news out."

His conviction stemmed from an e-mail he sent containing his notes on a government circular that spelled out restrictions on the media.

"This probably would not have been possible without the cooperation of Yahoo," said Lucie Morillon, a Washington, D.C.-based spokeswoman for Reporters Without Borders.

Shi's arrest in November at his home in the northwestern province of Shanxi prompted appeals for his release by activists, including the international writers group PEN.

A number of Chinese journalists have faced similar charges of violating vague security laws as communist leaders struggle to maintain control of information in the burgeoning Internet era.

Yahoo and its major rivals have been expanding their presence in China in hopes of reaching more of the country's population as the Internet becomes more ingrained in their daily lives.

Just last month, Yahoo paid $1 billion for a 40 percent stake in China's biggest online commerce firm, Alibaba.com.

Meanwhile, Google and Microsoft are locked in a bitter legal battle over a former Microsoft engineer who Google hired in July to oversee the opening of a research center in China.

___

By ALEXA OLESEN, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 6,11:27 PM ET<>
AP Business Writer Michael Liedtke in San Francisco contributed to this story.

Unmanned Planes Survey New Orleans

2005-09-07T16:20:00.000-05:00

Just a note: It pays to switch back and forth between this blog, where I prefer to preserve documents that might otherwise vanish through the memory hole, and my other blog, Progressively Treva for material I personally author pertaining to what's going on in the US.

This is getting scary:

By BRIAN BERGSTEIN, AP Technology Writer Wed Sep 7, 1:21 PM ET

Tiny, unmanned surveillance planes are being pressed into action for reconnaissance over Katrina-ravaged New Orleans in what defense contractors call the biggest civilian deployment ever for the technology.

en of the unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, have been taking turns this week flying from the New Orleans Naval Air Station and relaying photos of the devastation below to the Air Force.The original mission for these UAVs — a new class known as the Evolution, an upgrade over the 4-pound Dragon Eye reconnaissance drones used in Iraq — was to help in searching for stranded hurricane survivors.

ut now the planes mainly are being used to assess damage to oil and gas distribution, dikes, berms and other aspects of the region's infrastructure, said Alfred Lumpkin, director of operations for ISR Group LLC, which is providing logistical support for the planes' maker, L-3 Communications Corp.

These UAVs are a far cry from their larger, more robust cousins such as the Predator that are employed by the U.S. military and intelligence services and can fire missiles and fly all day.

The battery-powered Evolution planes, which can stay aloft for two hours, are circling at a low altitude — 500 to 1,000 feet — to capture finely detailed images with their miniature cameras. They also have infrared capabilities for night missions and could be used for atmospheric sampling.

Although UAVs traditionally have been eyed for situations considered too "dull, dirty and dangerous" for human pilots, their workload is expected to expand in coming years because of the increasing sophistication of the vehicles' computers and communication systems.

ISR and L-3 say this is the largest civilian mission for UAVs to date, but drones have been used in domestic skies before.

The Border Patrol has sent UAVs to scan for illegal immigrants darting across southwestern deserts from Mexico. Remote-controlled planes also are launched for environmental studies and fire patrols.

FEMA Sent Help AFTER Storm Hit

2005-09-07T11:24:00.000-05:00

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. disaster official waited hours after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast before he proposed to his boss sending at least 1,000 Homeland Security workers

Part of the mission, according to the documents obtained by The Associated Press, was to "convey a positive image" about the government's response for victims.

Acknowledging that such a move would take two days, Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sought the approval from Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff roughly five hours after Katrina made landfall on Aug. 29.

Before then, FEMA had positioned smaller rescue and communications teams across the Gulf Coast. But officials acknowledged the first department-wide appeal for help came only as the storm raged.

Brown's memo to Chertoff described Katrina as "this near catastrophic event" but otherwise lacked any urgent language. The memo politely ended, "Thank you for your consideration in helping us to meet our responsibilities."

The initial responses of the government and Brown came under escalating criticism as the breadth of destruction and death grew George W. Bush nd Congress on Tuesday pledged separate investigations into the federal response to Katrina. "Governments at all levels failed," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said Brown had positioned front-line rescue teams and Coast Guard helicopters before the storm. Brown's memo on Aug. 29 aimed to assemble the necessary federal work force to support the rescues, establish communications, and coordinate with victims and community groups, Knocke said.

Instead of rescuing people or recovering bodies, these employees would focus on helping victims find the help they needed, he said.

"There will be plenty of time to assess what worked and what didn't work," Knocke said. "Clearly there will be time for blame to be assigned and to learn from some of the successful efforts."

Brown's memo told employees that among their duties, they would be expected to "convey a positive image of disaster operations to government officials, community organizations and the general public."

"FEMA response and recovery operations are a top priority of the department and as we know, one of yours," Brown wrote Chertoff. He proposed sending 1,000 Homeland Security Department employees within 48 hours and 2,000 within seven days.

Knocke said the 48-hour period indicated for the Homeland employees was to ensure they had adequate training. "They were training to help the lifesavers," Knocke said.

Employees required a supervisor's approval and at least 24 hours of disaster training in Maryland, Florida or Georgia. "You must be physically able to work in a disaster area without refrigeration for medications and have the ability to work in the outdoors all day," Brown wrote.

The same day Brown wrote Chertoff, Brown also urged local fire and rescue departments outside Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi not to send trucks or emergency workers into disaster areas without an explicit request for help from state or local governments. Brown said it was vital to coordinate fire and rescue efforts.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) , said Tuesday that Brown should resign.

After a senators-only briefing by Chertoff and other Cabinet members, Sen. Charles Schumer said lawmakers weren't getting their questions answered.

"What people up there want to know, Democrats and Republicans, is what is the challenge ahead, how are you handling that and what did you do wrong in the past," said Schumer (D-New York) .

Sen. Hillary Clinton , appearing Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America," renewed her call for an independent commission to investigate the federal response, saying neither Congress nor the administration should do it.

At the same time, she accused the administration of ignoring needs at home.

"The priority of this administration, at least domestically, has been tax cuts," she said. "We need to put the American people first. We need to be taking care of the needs that we have to fix the infrastructure. We need to be having spending priorities that will protect our country."

She, too, called for Brown's resignation, telling CBS's "The Early Show" that she "would have never appointed such a person" and saying that Bush should have picked someone with more experience.

Meanwhile, the airline industry said the government's request for help evacuating storm victims didn't come until late Thursday afternoon. The president of the Air Transport Association, James May, said the Homeland Security Department called then to ask whether the group could participate in an airlift for refugees.

NO, LA: Military Police State

2005-09-05T01:28:00.000-05:00

US Troops In New Orleans:
Met By Dispair, Not Violence,
By Scott Gold, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 3, 2005

NEW ORLEANS — Forty-four troops pressed together in their truck, swaying as one at every bump and turn like reeds in a river.

As they plunged into the dark water engulfing the business district of New Orleans, their wake pushed the body of a woman onto the steps of the Superdome. The floodwater had ripped her pants down to her knees. She was facedown in the muck, a red ribbon still tied neatly around her graying hair.

The troops, members of an elite Special Response Team from the Louisiana Army National Guard, were the first convoy out of what was rapidly becoming a massive military staging ground.

Their mission, simply, is to turn New Orleans into a police state — to "regain the city," 1st Sgt. John Jewell said.

The truck lurched through the streets, past buildings burning unabated and MPs in gun turrets. When they stopped to gear up for their arrival at the New Orleans Convention Center, where more than 15,000 people had been living in squalor since Katrina, these words echoed — for the first time, one would imagine — through the intersection of Poydras Avenue and Carondelet Street: "Lock and load!"

"Sixteen in the clip!" one Guardsman shouted, a common refrain used to indicate that rifles are fully loaded.

But when they arrived, they did not find marauding mobs. They did not come under fire. They found people who had lost everything in the storm and, since then, their dignity.

The troops were part of the Superdome team that came to town before the hurricane. For days, they had been cut off from news reports, sleeping and working among the refugees and the vicious rumor mill at the Superdome.

Their Superdome duties left them with a terrible image of the city. They knew that out on the streets, a police officer had been shot in the head, that looting was widespread, that snipers were taking shots even at boaters trying to rescue victims from rooftops and attics.

Now assigned to patrol the streets, they headed for the New Orleans Convention Center, in the city's central business district. Many had wads of tobacco in their bottom lip and emitted long, dense streams of spittle into the streets below.

Their mission was to establish a command post at the center, which officials have increasingly turned their attention to, particularly as the evacuation of the Superdome nears its end. They would then build a staging area to bring in food and water. Finally, they would send in teams to seize control of a massive and lawless facility.

The troops braced for the worst.

"Is this the calm before the storm?" one asked as they rolled through the streets.

"There are a lot of gangs out here in the water," said Sgt. 1st Class Maris Pichon, a 26-year veteran of the National Guard who served in Afghanistan last year. "This is not going to be a cakewalk."

Two trucks pulled beside them, one carrying water and one a massive pile of ready-to-eat military meals in boxes.

"Tell me they're not letting the food go in before the troops," one Guardsman said.

"That's called bait," another said.

They pulled into a parking lot next to the convention center in full battle mode. They spilled over the sides of the truck, formed a tight circle and began walking outward, stepping over the detritus of the refugees. Dirty underwear. A CD that included the song "Thank God I'm a Country Boy."

A troop carrier rolled over an empty water bottle, popping it like a balloon. The troops yanked their weapons to a firing position before realizing what it was.

"No civilians in this parking lot!" a sergeant shouted. "Hold your perimeter!"

No one came at them but a nurse. She was wearing a T-shirt that read "I love New Orleans." She ran down a broken escalator, then held her hands in the air when she saw the guns.

"We have sick kids up here!" she shouted. "We have dehydrated kids! One kid with sickle cell!"

Another storm victim, Cory Williams, 50, a respiratory therapist spending his third day at the convention center, greeted the troops as they came up the stairs.

He had ridden out the storm at his 9th Ward house. On Tuesday morning, when the flooding began in earnest, 6 feet of water came inside in five minutes, he said. He tried to stay on top of a car in the garage but the water continued to rise, so he made a run for it, dragging several neighbors out behind him on an inflatable raft as he swam, then waded, through the water.

He made it several miles west, toward downtown and higher ground, then watched police stop at gunpoint a Ryder van that had been hot-wired by thieves. The officers told the men inside that they had to stop looting and must try to get people out of the neighborhoods, that people were dying.

"Believe it or not, those dudes got the message," Williams said.

The thieves began ferrying people out of the devastated neighborhoods to the east. The police had deputized looters.

"They had to," Williams said. "There was no other way to get people out."

The thieves dropped him off at the convention center, where he stayed until the troops arrived.

Though there have been reports of shootings and several rapes, the crowd at the convention center does not appear to have degenerated into the kind of chaos and violence seen at the Superdome.

Physically, however, the masses at the center might have been in worse condition than those at the stadium, which was at least prepped as a storm shelter.

People at the convention center had received a single deposit of food and water, dropped from a helicopter, since Katrina's strike. The drop caused a riot; Williams, an Army veteran, said he feared the people clambering onto the pallet of food as it neared the ground were going to pull the helicopter into the parking lot. The craft never returned.

Children slept on laps and on the ground. There was an elderly emphysema patient. A diabetic. The boy suffering from sickle cell anemia, his eyes puffy and his skin yellowish-brown.

The troops arrived Friday, ready for anything.

"You've got to do something," said the nurse in the New Orleans T-shirt.

"We'll get you some help as soon as some people get here," Lt. James Magee said as the troops arrived. "OK?"

Inside, human waste covered the floor. An elderly woman tumbled out of her wheelchair and landed on the ground. Her housedress was soiled. A man had poured fruit punch into an industrial-size bottle of floor cleaner and was drinking it with a straw.

"If you kept a dog in an environment like this, they would arrest you for animal cruelty," said Cindy Davis, 39, the nurse, who had been separated from her group while caring for a patient and stranded at the convention center three days ago. "It's like a cesspool."

Frankie Estes, 80, said she was glad to finally see the troops. It was a glimmer of hope. Friday night marked her fifth night sleeping on the sidewalk in front of the center.

"I haven't had food or water for three days," she said. "I didn't know if I was going to make it."

By Friday night, dinner had been served to a seemingly endless line of refugees. Helicopters had begun descending on the convention center, airlifting the most critically ill. The troops had found their mission. It just wasn't what they thought it was going to be.

Chavez: US/NATO Plan Attack on Venezuela

2005-09-05T01:23:00.000-05:00

The following is a report published by smh.com.au:

Venezuela has uncovered plans for a US-led invasion and is preparing to defend the country against invading forces if necessary, President Hugo Chavez said in a report carried by the state-run news agency.

The Bolivarian News Agency reported that Chavez made the comments during an interview with CNN. It was unclear when the interview was to be aired.

"If it occurs to the United States to invade our country - Fidel Castro said it and I agree - a war will start here to last 100 years," Chavez was quoted as saying. "Not only this country would be burned up, but a good part of this continent; they shouldn't make any mistake about it, we are preparing to repel an invasion."

Chavez has made similar claims in the past, and US officials have repeatedly denied them as ridiculous. Venezuela is the world's fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of fuel to the US.

"We discovered through intelligence work a military exercise that NATO has of an invasion against Venezuela, and we are preparing ourselves for that invasion," Chavez was quoted as saying.

He said the military exercise is known as Plan Balboa and includes rehearsing simultaneous assaults by air, sea and land at a military base in Spain, involving troops from the US and NATO countries. US officials in the past have said such training is meant to prepare troops for general scenarios but not for a specify military action.

The state news agency, commonly known as ABN for its initials in Spanish, said according to Chavez the invasion plan focuses on western Venezuela and also includes a wave of bombings over Caracas and the cities of Maracay and Valencia.

"It's known they have everything planned out to capture the oilfields of the west and the east, the south," Chavez was quoted as saying.

Chavez repeated his threat that if the government of US President George W Bush were to attempt an attack, his government would immediately cut off oil shipments to the US. For this reason, it's important there is an effort to improve relations, Chavez said, according to ABN.

"It isn't us who should take the first step; the aggressor is the one that should show it is capable of sending some signal," Chavez was quoted as saying.

"The signal we have sent is enough: express our willingness to recover diplomatic, political relations, at least to the normal level that existed not long ago with the government of president Bill Clinton."

Tensions have grown in recent months between Chavez, who has emerged as a leading voice of the Latin American left, and a US government that has expressed concern about his close ties to Castro and what Chavez's opponents call an authoritarian streak.

The former army paratroop commander accuses the US government of backing a shortlived coup against him in 2002, another claim that US officials have repeatedly denied. Chavez, who was first elected in 1998, is up for reelection next year, and polls suggest he is strongly favoured to win.

Military Recruiters Advised to Use Uncle Pervey's Tactics

2005-08-27T21:55:00.000-05:00

Manual for recruiters is exposed for dirty tricks recruiters are encouraged to apply in efforts to convince teenagers in US high schools to enlist in the military. Source

Some of the tactics suggested in these manuals remind me of techniques sexual predators of children use.

Most of my remarks, links and such regarding US domestic issues concerning military recruiters and the effects the war in Iraq have on US citizens are posted at Progressively Treva (treva.modblog.com).

FOX Publicly Singles Out Innocent Family

2005-08-27T17:50:00.000-05:00

The following is a report by the Los Angeles Times as it appeared online (Original Source):

When Blame Knocks on the Wrong Door
by H. G. Reza, LA Times Staff Writer

Randy and Ronnell Vorick thought La Habra was about as far away as one could get from terrorism. They were wrong.

For the last 2 1/2 weeks, the lives of the couple and their three children have been plunged into an unsettling routine of drivers shouting profanities, stopping to photograph their house and — most recently — spray-painting a slogan on their property.

Their house, a suburban fixer-upper the Voricks bought three years ago, was wrongly identified in a cable news broadcast as the home of a terrorist.

"I'm scared to go to work and leave my kids home. I call them every 30 minutes to make sure they're OK," Randy Vorick said.

"I keep telling myself this can't be happening to me. This can't be happening to my family. But it is. I want our lives to be normal again," he said.

In what Fox News officials concede was a mistake, John Loftus, a former U.S. prosecutor, gave out the address Aug. 7, saying it was the home of a Middle Eastern man, Iyad K. Hilal, who was the leader of a terrorist group with ties to those responsible for the July 7 bombings in London.

Hilal, whom Loftus identified by name during the broadcast, moved out of the house about three years ago. But the consequences were immediate for the Voricks.

Satellite photos of the house and directions to the residence were posted online. The Voricks told police, who arranged for the content to be taken down. Someone even removed the street sign where the Voricks live to provide some protection.

Still, it has not been easy.

A driver yelled a profanity at the family and called them terrorists as they barbecued on their patio Aug. 14. Some drivers have stopped and photographed the house, Randy Vorick said.

Last weekend, someone spray-painted "Terrist" on their home. Police, who have regularly patrolled their house since the day after the broadcast, now station a squad car across the street.

Randy, a restaurant manager, and Ronnell, a manager at a staffing agency, have been married 19 years and met as teenagers when they worked at a local McDonald's.

They grew up in La Habra and bought the house three years ago after Hilal moved out so they could be close to Ronnell Vorick's parents.

La Habra Police Capt. John Rees said the department was "giving special attention to the family to make sure they're safe," but declined to elaborate.

"This thing broke on a Sunday, when we started receiving inquiries from the public about terrorists," he said.

The Voricks said they had made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Fox News and Loftus by telephone and e-mail. They want a public apology and correction.

Both have issued apologies — Fox in a one-line statement to the Los Angeles Times and Loftus in an e-mail to the family — after being contacted by the newspaper. The Voricks say they have yet to see or hear a correction.

"John Loftus has been reprimanded for his careless error, and we sincerely apologize to the family," said Fox spokeswoman Irena Brigante.

Loftus also apologized and told The Times last week that "mistakes happen."

"I'm terribly sorry about that. I had no idea. That was the best information we had at the time," he said.

Loftus said he gave out the address to help local police, and insisted that Hilal, a Garden Grove grocery store owner, was a terrorist.

"I thought it might help police in that area now that we have positively identified a terrorist living in [Orange County]," he said.

Cathy Viray, an FBI spokeswoman in Los Angeles, said agents were looking into Loftus' terrorist allegations but stopped short of calling it an investigation.

The Voricks' nightmare began Aug. 7 when they were returning from SeaWorld in San Diego with their daughters, 17 and 5, and son, 14.

"I was driving home and my neighbor called saying that some guy on Fox said a terrorist lives at my house and gave out the address," Randy Vorick said.

The next day, the couple left for a four-day cruise to Santa Catalina Island and Ensenada, leaving their children in the care of a house-sitter and Randy Vorick's brother, all unaware of the growing fallout from Fox's report.

When they returned Aug. 12, Randy Vorick said he had received several e-mails and messages on his cellphone from friends who told him that Loftus had been interviewed on KFI-AM (640) radio and repeated his allegation about a terrorist living in La Habra. The radio station did not broadcast his address.

In addition, the house-sitter said police had stopped by Aug. 8 to check on their safety and were keeping an eye on the house. Randy Vorick said he had e-mailed Fox and Loftus, asking for a public retraction and apology.

He said the apologies that came were too little, too late.

On Monday night, the day after someone spray-painted their house, the Voricks were up all night looking at the street and the cars that drove by.

"I just want a good night's sleep," Randy Vorick said. "I don't know when I'm going to have it."

US Army Recruit Ads - Same Old BS

2005-08-22T23:50:00.000-05:00

Army Fights to Sell Itself to Parents of America

By Mark Mazzetti, LA Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Success in advertising usually means getting people to part with their hard-earned cash. Ray DeThorne's success is measured by how many people he can get to let go of their sons and daughters.

As brand manager for the Army's advertising account at Leo Burnett Inc., a Chicago ad agency, DeThorne's job is to sell the Army. And these days, it's a difficult product to sell.

n marketing terms, the Army is a troubled brand. The daily images of violence from Iraq are scaring away potential recruits for the service that has shouldered the largest burden there.

The Army does not expect to meet any of its 2005 recruiting goals for the active, Reserve and National Guard ranks, and Army officials have said that next year the gap is likely to be greater.

This year, DeThorne will spend more than $200 million of the Army's money — the U.S. government's largest advertising contract — to try to reverse that trend and sell the nation on the benefits of military service.

It is a job that gets more difficult each morning, when Americans read over breakfast about the latest roadside bomb or insurgent ambush that killed another handful of U.S. solders.

"This is the most complicated, multilayered thing I have ever worked on," said DeThorne, who slips in and out of marketing jargon when discussing the challenge. "Every day you pick up the paper and there is a story reframing the product you are trying to sell."

Yet the problem for DeThorne and the Army goes deeper than the headlines from Iraq. As the percentage of adult Americans with military experience plummets — about 11% today, compared with 20% in 1970 — the young men and women sought by the Army are increasingly being raised by parents who didn't serve in the armed forces. Today's parents are likely to be more skeptical of military life than were their parents or grandparents, Army market research says.

It is the parents — or "influencers," as the Pentagon calls them — who are proving the most formidable obstacle to the Army's ability to meet its recruiting goals.

The problem is compounded in the middle of a protracted war, as already-skeptical parents are fearful that their child's decision to join the Army means he or she is bound to end up in Iraq.

"It's very different from folks who grew up with communism and the 'Red Menace,' " said DeThorne, 46, who was raised in a military family but has not served in the armed forces. The military is "just not something that is on people's radar screen."

Leo Burnett's latest advertising campaign for the Army addresses the problem head-on — by avoiding the war in Iraq.

In the ads, which began airing in April, there is no mention of combat, no shots of tanks driving through the desert, and no mention of an increasingly unpopular war.

More pragmatic than patriotic, the ads are a series of conversations between parents and their children. And the vignettes emphasize themes that resonate with parents of teenagers: how the Army can pay for college, provide career training and turn a listless kid into a focused, responsible citizen.

In one of the ads, a father and son are chatting on their front porch on a rainy evening. As the son listens, decked out in his formal uniform, the father tells him that he is a "changed man."

"You got off the train back there, you did two things you've never done before, at least not at the same time," the father says, fighting back his emotions. "You shook my hand, and you looked me square in the eye. Where did that come from?"

Col. Thomas Nickerson, who heads the Army's strategic marketing effort and signs off on all of the Army's advertising, said the Leo Burnett advertisements were designed to show parents that the Army was about more than combat.

"The single message we want to communicate in our advertising is that the Army will help someone be successful at whatever they have set as a goal for their lives," Nickerson said.

Each of the advertisements carries the tagline: "Help them find their strength" ("Ayudelos a descubrir su fortaleza," in the Spanish-language ad produced for the Latino market).

As part of a separate campaign aimed at parents, the Pentagon this year began a television advertisement starring Donald Trump and Kelly Perdew, a former military intelligence officer and the winner of "The Apprentice 2," the billionaire's television reality show. The Trump ad, part of the Pentagon's "Today's Military" campaign, emphasized that the qualities Perdew acquired while in the military equipped him for a successful career in the private sector.

Original Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-armyads22aug22,1,6525167.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Republican White Supremist

2005-08-07T04:35:00.000-05:00

Council Hopeful Doomed by Wep

Supremacist postings revealed

By TIM WHITMIRE, The Associated Press

CHARLOTTE -- A city council candidate dropped out of the race Friday after it was disclosed that he posted comments to a white supremacist Internet bulletin board more than 4,000 times.

Doug Hanks said the postings on the site were fictional and designed to win white supremacists' trust as he researched a novel he was writing.

"I needed information for the book and some other writings I was doing," Hanks told The Associated Press on Friday. "Obviously, when you go to a site like that as a reporter, nobody's going to give you the time of day. I did what I thought I needed to do to establish myself as a credible white nationalist."

Hanks' 4,000 postings to the Web site over the past three years were first reported Thursday by The Rhinoceros Times, a weekly newspaper.

Web postings

In a June 1 posting, Hanks wrote: "When Blacks start acting equally, only then will they enjoy the benefits of being treated equally. I treat a rabid dog differently from a healthy one. In fact, this gives me a terrific idea! Let's treat all the Blacks like the rabid beasts they are. 'Yeller! Here Boy!' "

Michael Dickerson, director of elections for Mecklenburg County, said Hanks formally withdrew from the race Friday morning. Hanks had filed papers seeking the Republican nomination for one of four at-large seats on Charlotte's council.

Hanks' novel, called "Patriot Act" and self-published under the name D.A. Hanks, is described on Hanks' Web site as " 'Unintended Consequences' and 'Harrison Bergeron' meets 'The Turner Diaries'. ... The book presents some unique methods of improvising weaponry when our guns are banned, as well as preparing and caching your weapons when that inevitable day arrives." The Web site also advertises an 80-page guide by Hanks that tells how to build a rifle "that requires no Government paperwork!"

Seeking an audience

Hanks told the AP that he thinks the Patriot Act has sent the nation sliding "downhill into a totalitarian society" but that he wanted his novel about it to appeal to more than just "the gun crowd."

"I saw how successful these 'Turner Diaries' had been, and that was the path to take," he said.

"The Turner Diaries," a racist novel by William Pierce that begins with a truck bombing of FBI headquarters as part of a war against the government, is thought to have inspired Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

"That [white supremacist readership] was who I was trying to target for better sales of the book," he said. "They have more of a tendency to word of mouth, to say, 'Hey, you ought to pick this up.' "

Hanks, who describes himself as a contractor, minister and conservation officer, was active in a debate last winter over whether a Confederate battle flag would be allowed to fly over a public cemetery in Charlotte. In January, he scaled a flagpole and reattached the flag. The city later removed both the flag and the pole.

But he said his support for that fight was distinct from racist beliefs.

"I believe wholeheartedly that the Confederate flag was [taken] down for the wrong reasons," he said Friday. "If there had been a black regimental flag there, I would have done the same thing."

Republican Mayor Pat McCrory condemned Hanks.

"He's a man of total inner hatred in both his heart and soul, and it doesn't matter what party he's in," McCrory said.

All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner.

Letter from an Iraq Vet

2005-08-07T02:02:00.000-05:00

The following is a letter fromUS Army Sgt. John Bruhns, an Iraq War Vet as published by Salon (SOURCE), excerpts of which were read on the floor of the US House of Representatives by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Dem. 0 Ohio) on 19, July, 2005:

I am a concerned veteran of the Iraq war. I am not an expert on the vast and wide range of issues throughout the political spectrum, but I can offer some firsthand experience of the war in Iraq through the eyes of a soldier. My view of the situation in Iraq will differ from what the American people are being told by the Bush administration. The purpose of this message is to voice my concern that we were misled into war and continue to be misled about the situation in Iraq every day. My opinions on this matter come from what I witnessed in Iraq personally.

George Bush and his political advisors have been successful in presenting a false image to the American people, that Saddam Hussein was an "imminent" threat to the security of the United States. We were told that there was overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed a massive WMD program, and some members of the Bush administration even hinted that Saddam may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.

We now know that most of the information given to us by the current administration concerning Iraq, if not all the information, was false. This was information given to the American people to justify a war. The information about weapons of mass destruction and a link to Osama bin Laden scared the American people into supporting the war in Iraq. They presented an admosphere of intimidation that suggested if we did not act immediately there was the possibility of another attack. Bush said himself that we do not want the proof or the smoking gun to come in the form of a "mushroom cloud." Donald Rumsfeld said, "We know where the weapons are."

After 9/11, comments like these proved to be a successful scare tactic to use on the American people to rally support for the invasion. Members of the Bush administration created an image of "wine and roses" in terms of the aftermath of the war. Vice President Cheney said American troops would be greeted as "liberators." And there was a false perception created that we would go into Iraq and implement a democratic government and it would be over sooner rather than later. The White House also expressed confidence that the alleged WMD program would be found once we invaded.

I participated in the invasion, stayed in Iraq for a year afterward, and what I witnessed was the total opposite of what President Bush and his administration stated to the American People.

The invasion was very confusing, and so was the period of time I spent in Iraq afterward. At first it did seem as if some of the Iraqi people were happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein. But that was only for a short period of time. Shortly after Saddam's regime fell, the Shiite Muslims in Iraq conducted a pigrimage to Karbala, a pilgrimage prohibited by Saddam while he was in power. As I witnessed the Shiite pilgrimage, which was a new freedom that we provided to them, they used the pilgrimage to protest our presence in their country. I watched as they beat themselves over the head with sticks until they bled, and screamed at us in anger to leave their country. Some even carried signs that stated, "No Saddam, No America." These were people that Saddam oppressed; they were his enemies. To me, it seemed they hated us more than him.

At that moment I knew it was going to be a very long deployment. I realized that I was not being greeted as a liberator. I became overwhelmed with fear because I felt I never would be viewed that way by the Iraqi people. As a soldier this concerned me. Because if they did not view me as a liberator, then what did they view me as? I felt that they viewed me as a foreign occupier of their land. That led me to believe very early on that I was going to have a fight on my hands.

During my year in Iraq I had many altercations with the so-called insurgency. I found the insurgency I saw to be quite different from the insurgency described to the American people by the Bush administration, the media, and other supporters of the war. There is no doubt in my mind there are foreigners from other surrounding countries in Iraq. Anyone in the Middle-East who hates America now has the opportunity to kill Americans because there are roughly 140.000 US troops in Iraq. But the bulk of the insurgency I faced was from the people of Iraq, who were attacking us as a reaction to what they felt was an occupation of their country.

I was engaged actively in urban combat in the Abu Ghraib area, west of Baghdad. Many of the people who were attacking me were the poor people of Iraq. They were definately not members of Al-Qaida or leftover Baath Party members, and they were not former members of Saddam's regime. They were just your average Iraqi civilians who wanted us out of their country.

On Oct. 31, 2003, the people of the Abu Ghraib area organized a large uprising against us. They launched a massive assault on our compoind in the area. We were attacked with AK-47 machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. Thousands of people took to the streets to attack us. As the riot unfolded before my eyes, I realized these were just the people who lived there. There were men, women and children participating. Some of the Iraqi protestors were even carrying pictures of Saddam Hussein. My battalion fought back with everything we had and eventually shut down the uprising.

So while President Bush speaks of freedom and liberation of the Iraqi people, I find that his statements are not credible after witnessing events such as these. During the violence that day I felt so much fear throughout my entire body. I remember going home [probably to the compound where he was stationed] that night and praying to God, thanking him that I was still alive. A few months earlier President Bush made the statement "Bring it on" when referring to the attacks on Americans by the insurgency. To me, that felt like a personal invitation to the insurgents to attack me and my friends who desperately wanted to make it home alive.

I did my job well in Iraq. During the deployment, my superiors promoted me to the rank of sergeant. I was made a rifle team leader and was put in charge of other soldiers when we carried out missions.

My time as a team leader in Iraq was temporarily interrupted when I was sent to the "green zone" in Baghdad to train the Iraqi army. I was more than happy to do it because we were being told that in order for us to get out of Iraq completely the Iraqi military would have to be able to take over all security operations. The training of the Iraqi army became a huge concern of mine. During the time I trained them, their basic training was only one week long. We showed them some basic drill and ceremony such as marching and saluting. When it came time for weapons training, we gave each Iraqi recruit an AK-47 and just let them shoot it. They did not even have to qualify by hitting a target. All they had to do was pull the trigger. I was instructed by my superiors to stand directly behind them with caution while they were shooting just in case they tried to turn the weapon on us so we could stop them.

Once they graduated from basic training, the Iraqi soldiers, in a way, became part of our batallion, and we would take them on missions with us. But we never let them know where we were going, because we were afraid some of them might tip off the insurgency that we were coming and we would walk directly into an ambush. When they would get into formation prior to the mission we made them part of, they would cover their faces so the people of their communities did not identify them as being affiliated with the American troops.

Not that long ago President Bush made a statement at Fort Bragg when he addressed the nation about the war in Iraq. He said we would "stand down" when the Iraqi military is ready to "stand up." My experience with the new Iraqi military tells me we won't be coming home for a long time if that's the case.

I left Iraq on Feb. 27, 2004, and I acknowlege a lot may have changed since then, but I find it hard to believe that the Iraqi people are any happier now than they were when I was there. I remember the day I left there were hundreds of Iraqis in the streets outside the compound that I lived in. They watched as we moved out to the Baghdad Airport to finally go home. They Iraqis cheered, clapped and shouted with joy as we were leaving. As a soldier, that hurt me inside because I thought I was supposed to be fighting for their freedom. I saw many people die for that cause, but that is not how the Iraqi people looked at it. They viewed me as a foreign occupier and many of the people of Iraq may have even preferred Saddam to the American soldiers. I feel this way because of the consistent attacks on me and my fellow soldiers by the Iraqi people, who felt they were fighting for their homeland. To us the mission turned into a quest for survival.

I wish I could provide an answer to this mess. I wish I knew of a realistic way to get our troops home. But we are very limited in our options in my opinion. If we pull out immediately, it's likely the Iraqi security forces will not be able to provide stability on their own. In that event, the new Iraqi government could possibly be overthrown. The other option would be to reduce our troop numbers and have a gradual pullout. That is very risky because it seems that even with the current number of troops the violence still continues. With a significant troop reduction, there is a strong possibility the violence and attacks on US and coalition forces could escalate and get even worse. In my opinion, that is more of a certainty.

And then there is the option that President Bush brings to the table, which is to "stay the course." That means more years of bloodshed and a lot more lives to be lost. Also, it will aggravate the growing opposition to the US presence in Iraq throughout the region, and that could very well recruit more extremists to join terror organizations that will infilitrate Iraq and kill more US troops.

So it does not seem to me we have a realistic solution, and that frightens me. It has become very obvious that we have a serious dilimma that needs to be resolved as soon as possible to end the ongoing violence in Iraq. But how do we end it, is the question.

We must always support the troops. If there were a situation in which the United States is attacked again by a legitimate enemy, they are the people who are going to risk their lives to protect us and our freedom. In my opinion, the best way to support them now is to bring them home with the honor and respect they deserve.

In closing, I ask that we never forget why this war started. The Bush administration cried weapons of mass destruction and a link to Al-Qaida. We know that this was false, and the Bush administration concedes it as well. As a soldier who fought in that war, I feel misled. I feel that I was sent off to fight for a cause that never existed. When I joined the military, I did so to defend the United States of America, not to be sent off to a part of the world to fight people who never attacked me or my country. Many have died as a result of this. The people who started this war need to start being honest with the American people and take responsibility for their actions. More than anything, they need to stop saying everything is rosy and create a solution to this problem they created.

Thank you for hearing me out. God bless our great nation, the United States of America.

Bush Cartel Afraid to Take Stance on China's Oil Take Over

2005-06-26T04:54:00.000-05:00

The following is a copy of a New York Times report located on this NYT temporary WEB page.

With Bid for Unocal, U.S. Struggles on China Policies

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

WASHINGTON, June 25 - President Bush's initial response to the proposed takeover of a major American oil company by a Chinese rival has been to duck. It is not hard to see why.

The $18.5 billion offer by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation for Unocal, which had already made a deal to be acquired by the American oil giant, Chevron, is forcing the administration to confront its own internal rifts over whether China should be viewed as friend, foe or something in between.

It is putting a spotlight on a host of related economic and foreign-policy issues - from North Korea's nuclear program to America's growing dependence on foreign capital and the upward pressure on gasoline prices caused by China's thirst for oil - that defy easy solutions.

Hardly a week goes by without Mr. Bush vowing to make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, so any deal that increases that dependence - or is even perceived as doing so - would create a problem for him.

And the situation has left the administration once again confronting the likelihood that its numerous ties to the oil industry will become a political issue.

"It's nothing but a headache for them," said James B. Steinberg, who was deputy national security adviser under President Bill Clinton.

For now, the administration is in a holding pattern. With no deal yet agreed to, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday that the issue remained hypothetical. The White House has avoided substantive comment on the matter.

People inside and outside the administration who are involved in the matter said the White House would do its best to avoid taking a position for a while by referring a deal, if one is completed, to a body known as the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which reviews sensitive acquisitions by companies from abroad on the basis of national security.

"We have so much on the plate with China," said an adviser to Mr. Bush, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because the president discourages unauthorized discussions about internal deliberations. "How do you come down hard on them for this deal?"

Dealing with energy policy has always been politically fraught for Mr. Bush, who got his start in business in the mid-1970's as an independent oilman in West Texas and who has often been cast by his opponents as a tool of the oil industry. Vice President Dick Cheney is even more of a lightning rod for that type of criticism, having led Halliburton, the giant oilfield services company, before joining the Republican ticket in 2000.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was a director of Chevron for a decade before Mr. Bush's election, and even had a Chevron tanker named for her. (The tanker has subsequently been renamed.)

Even if he were inclined to take a strong stand on the takeover, Mr. Bush would still have to navigate divisions among his advisers over how to proceed.

In recent months, the Pentagon and the State Department have been taking a harder line toward China, reflecting a broader push by conservatives in and out of government.

In a speech in Singapore this month, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld criticized China for stepping up military spending in the absence of an obvious threat, and said growth in political freedom in China has not matched economic growth. State Department officials have been blunt in stating that China has not done enough to use its economic clout to press North Korea into serious negotiations about ending its nuclear program.

Even before the oil deal was in the headlines, the White House was working furiously to file the rough edges off a soon-to-be-released Pentagon report on China that described the country as a potential military threat. And in just two weeks, Ms. Rice is expected to land in Beijing, pressing anew for help on North Korea and making the point that if the North refuses to give up its nuclear program, the administration wants China to join in on sanctions. The Chinese have made clear they want to avoid that at all costs.

But if Mr. Bush's national security advisers have tended toward a more hawkish view of late, his economic team has by and large viewed China as a vast market to be opened, a vital source of capital for the United States and a country whose political liberalization can be encouraged through economic engagement. Taking punitive action against China now, Mr. Snow told the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday, would be counterproductive.

It is still not clear where some of the major players in the internal debate, especially Mr. Cheney, the primary architect of the administration's energy policy, may come out.

"It will require some presidential leadership to address this array of issues and assign priorities and deal with the politics," said Richard C. Bush, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who is an authority on China.

The coming talks with Beijing over North Korea's nuclear threat come against the backdrop of a trans-Pacific relationship that grew warmer after a rocky start at the beginning of the Bush administration. But the diplomatic maneuvering has been subject to periodic flare-ups of tension over a variety of issues, including Taiwan and China's support for Iran, a major supplier of China's oil.

"Remember, to the Chinese everything is related: the economics, the diplomacy, the military posture. It's all one," said a senior administration official, who declined to speak on the record because of the sensitivity of the diplomacy.

The White House's reasons for playing for time, and avoiding any immediate escalation of tensions with Beijing, start with the fact that its most urgent diplomatic priority right now - defusing the nuclear threat from North Korea - depends to a great extent on cooperation from China. That effort is entering a crucial phase.

But there are other strategic reasons to keep the relationship on an even keel. The financial stability of the United States, with its chronic budget deficits and propensity to spend far more than its saves, depends increasingly on the willingness of China to buy American government bonds. Any breach in relations could lead to higher interest rates.

At the same time, the administration is trying to contain a protectionist backlash aimed not just at China but at Mr. Bush's free-trade philosophy in general. Congress has already grown impatient with what many members of both parties see as China's unwillingness to play by the rules of the global economy; any steps that inflame anti-China feelings could give new impetus to efforts to impose tariffs or other trade sanctions over the White House's objections.

The proposed deal presents Mr. Bush himself with a tough trade-off when it comes to economic openness. Mr. Bush has long lauded the benefits of reduced barriers to the flow of goods, services and money, and for the most part his administration has welcomed investment by China in American companies. This year, the administration approved I.B.M.'s sale of its personal computer business to a Chinese company, Lenovo. This openness also works in the other direction: Bank of America said earlier this month that it would pay $2.5 billion for a stake in China Construction Bank.

Mr. Bush has made "energy independence" one of his defining themes. While the Chinese in this case say they would not be taking oil away from the United States, the deal's opponents suggest that it would place a vital resource in the hands of a nation that has a voracious and growing appetite for energy to fuel its rip-roaring economic expansion.

The proposed oil deal is also a window into a much broader and even more complex topic: how the United States should manage its role in the global economy.

In the Clinton administration, globalization framed much of the debate about foreign and economic policy. Mr. Bush has tended not to view the world through the same prism, and, especially since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, globalization has been distinctly subordinated to security issues as a policy consideration.

But the forces that globalization encompasses have continued to reshape national economies and individual lives as jobs and money migrate across borders, and companies and markets adapt. And because of its high profile, the Chinese offer for Unocal could lead Mr. Bush to enunciate more of the principles he thinks should guide the painful trade-offs that globalization often requires.

"This is a piece of the larger and single most important challenge facing Americans," said Rahm Emanuel, who was a senior adviser to Mr. Clinton before being elected to Congress as a Democrat from Illinois in 2002. "How do we compete in a global economy we know is good for us but that individually leads to less security rather than more opportunity? Unless we deal with that as a country, we will lose our predominant position."

David E. Sanger and Jeff Gerth contributed reporting for this article.

1700 US troops died for oil in Iraq.

2005-06-12T20:12:00.000-05:00

The last report I saw (published today at YahooNews) shows a count of US troops killed in Iraq to have reached 1700. That's 1700 US troops that died in a war for oil, based on lies. (see the three posts below for more and feel free to explore the archives of this blog for further evidence.)

Intended Letter for Bush, from Rep. Conyers

2005-06-12T20:02:00.000-05:00

RE: Downing Street Memo (The Smoking Gun):

The two posts below this one and the one above should give good and plenty reason for any American (possibly citizens of other countries, if their signatures are permitted on this letter) to sign John Conyers' letter to George W. Bush concerning Bush and his regime's refusal to admit any involvement regarding information revealed in the Downing Street memo (see second post below for copy of memo and first post below for a follow-up news report by the Times Online).

Although the letter intended for Bush has received far more than the amount of signatures requested, it would be nice if the signature list reached the millions to reflect the number of people that want George W. Bush and his cronies to stop lying and start telling the truth about their lies and cooked=up excuse for war that has been revealed by this added piece of evidence against these lying mass murderers.

Please, signthis letter.

Times Online Report on Downing Street Memo

2005-06-12T19:46:00.000-05:00

The following material was copied from the Times Online website at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822_2,00.html

Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’

Michael Smith

MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal. The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.

The paper was circulated to those present at the meeting, among whom were Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The full minutes of the meeting were published last month in The Sunday Times.

The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.

“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.

The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.

The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it.

There has been a growing storm of protest in America, created by last month’s publication of the minutes in The Sunday Times. A host of citizens, including many internet bloggers, have demanded to know why the Downing Street memo (often shortened to “the DSM” on websites) has been largely ignored by the US mainstream media.

The White House has declined to respond to a letter from 89 Democratic congressmen asking if it was true — as Dearlove told the July meeting — that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” in Washington.

The Downing Street memo burst into the mainstream American media only last week after it was raised at a joint Bush-Blair press conference, forcing the prime minister to insist that “the facts were not fixed in any shape or form at all”.

John Conyers, the Democratic congressman who drafted the letter to Bush, has now written to Dearlove asking him to say whether or not it was accurate that he believed the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. He also asked the former MI6 chief precisely when Bush and Blair had agreed to invade Iraq and whether it is true they agreed to “manufacture” the UN ultimatum in order to justify the war.

He and other Democratic congressmen plan to hold their own inquiry this Thursday with witnesses including Joe Wilson, the American former ambassador who went to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore for its nuclear weapons programme.

Frustrated at the refusal by the White House to respond to their letter, the congressmen have set up a website — www.downingstreetmemo.com — to collect signatures on a petition demanding the same answers.

Conyers promised to deliver it to Bush once it reached 250,000 signatures. By Friday morning it already had more than 500,000 with as many as 1m expected to have been obtained when he delivers it to the White House on Thursday.

AfterDowningStreet.org [Note from Treva: I tried this URL today and it led me to what I believe was a website host page], another website set up as a result of the memo, is calling for a congressional committee to consider whether Bush’s actions as depicted in the memo constitute grounds for impeachment.

It has been flooded with visits from people angry at what they see as media self-censorship in ignoring the memo. It claims to have attracted more than 1m hits a day.

Democrats.com, another website, even offered $1,000 (about £550) to any journalist who quizzed Bush about the memo’s contents, although the Reuters reporter who asked the question last Tuesday was not aware of the reward and has no intention of claiming it.

The complaints of media self-censorship have been backed up by the ombudsmen of The Washington Post, The New York Times and National Public Radio, who have questioned the lack of attention the minutes have received from their organisations.

(For a copy of the Downing Street memo (except for missing pages) see post below this one. --Treva)

Copy of Downing Street Memo (except for missing page[s])

2005-06-12T18:56:00.000-05:00

The following is copied from the Sunday Times UK paper for the explicit purpose of preserving and sharing this information for educational and research reasons intended for me and anyone that reads this. It is assumed that this is time-dated material which may vanish from the original location where I found it. That is why I copied it.

The original link is http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758_1,00.html

The Sunday Times - World

The paper, produced by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, is incomplete because the last page is missing. The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source.

PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY
IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION (A Note by Officials)

Ministers are invited to:

(1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.

(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.
(3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the President on 4 August.

(4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002.

(5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US.

1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.

2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.

3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action. Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very difficult to support.

4. In order to fulfil the conditions set out by the Prime Minister for UK support for military action against Iraq, certain preparations need to be made, and other considerations taken into account. This note sets them out in a form which can be adapted for use with the US Government. Depending on US intentions, a decision in principle may be needed soon on whether and in what form the UK takes part in military action.

5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power. US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.

US Military Planning

6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.

7. US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. This means that legal base issues would arise virtually whatever option Ministers choose with regard to UK participation.

The Viability of the Plans
8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.

UK Military Contribution

9. The UK's ability to contribute forces depends on the details of the US military planning and the time available to prepare and deploy them. The MOD is examining how the UK might contribute to US-led action. The options range from deployment of a Division (ie Gulf War sized contribution plus naval and air forces) to making available bases. It is already clear that the UK could not generate a Division in time for an operation in January 2003, unless publicly visible decisions were taken very soon. Maritime and air forces could be deployed in time, provided adequate basing arrangements could be made. The lead times involved in preparing for UK military involvement include the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements, for which there is no financial provision.

The Conditions Necessary for Military Action

10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion.

Justification

11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.

12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.

13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully operational.

14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.

An International Coalition

15. An international coalition is necessary to provide a military platform and desirable for political purposes.

16. US military planning assumes that the US would be allowed to use bases in Kuwait (air and ground forces), Jordan, in the Gulf (air and naval forces) and UK territory (Diego Garcia and our bases in Cyprus). The plans assume that Saudi Arabia would withhold co-operation except granting military over-flights. On the assumption that military action would involve operations in the Kurdish area in the North of Iraq, the use of bases in Turkey would also be necessary.

17. In the absence of UN authorisation, there will be problems in securing the support of NATO and EU partners. Australia would be likely to participate on the same basis as the UK. France might be prepared to take part if she saw military action as inevitable. Russia and China, seeking to improve their US relations, might set aside their misgivings if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and economic concerns. Probably the best we could expect from the region would be neutrality. The US is likely to restrain Israel from taking part in military action. In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon. However, the greater the international support, the greater the prospects of success.

A Quiescent Israel-Palestine

18. The Israeli re-occupation of the West Bank has dampened Palestinian violence for the time being but is unsustainable in the long-term and stoking more trouble for the future. The Bush speech was at best a half step forward. We are using the Palestinian reform agenda to make progress, including a resumption of political negotiations. The Americans are talking of a ministerial conference in November or later. Real progress towards a viable Palestinian state is the best way to undercut Palestinian extremists and reduce Arab antipathy to military action against Saddam Hussein. However, another upsurge of Palestinian/Israeli violence is highly likely. The co-incidence of such an upsurge with the preparations for military action against Iraq cannot be ruled out. Indeed Saddam would use continuing violence in the Occupied Territories to bolster popular Arab support for his regime.

Benefits/Risks

19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.

Domestic Opinion

20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.

Timescales

21. Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington. That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action were deferred until the following autumn.

22. As this paper makes clear, even this timescale would present problems. This means that:

a) We need to influence US consideration of the military plans before President Bush is briefed on 4 August, through contacts betweens the Prime Minister and the President and at other levels;

(This is where the information made available to the Times Online ends. --TrevaP

Bush's Missing Air Guard Docs.

2004-09-06T05:19:00.000-05:00

The five types of missing files from George W. Bush's Air Guard records are:

A report from the Texas Air National Guard to Bush's local draft board certifying that Bush remained in good standing. The government has released copies of those DD Form 44 documents for Bush for 1971 and earlier years but not for 1972 or 1973. Records from Bush's draft board in Houston do not show his draft status changed after he joined the guard in 1968. The AP obtained the draft board records Aug. 27 under the Freedom of Information Act.

Records of a required investigation into why Bush lost flight status. When Bush skipped his 1972 physical, regulations required his Texas commanders to "direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination," according to the Air Force manual at the time. An investigative report was supposed to be forwarded "with the command recommendation" to Air Force officials "for final determination."
Bush's spokesmen have said he skipped the exam because he knew he would be doing desk duty in Alabama. But Bush was required to take the physical by the end of July 1972, more than a month before he won final approval to train in Alabama.
A written acknowledgment from Bush that he had received the orders grounding him. His Texas commanders were ordered to have Bush sign such a document; but none has been released.
Reports of formal counseling sessions Bush was required to have after missing more than three training sessions. Bush missed at least five months' worth of National Guard training in 1972. No documents have surfaced indicating Bush was counseled or had written authorization to skip that training or make it up later. Commanders did have broad discretion to allow guardsmen to make up for missed training sessions, said Weaver and Lawrence Korb, Pentagon personnel chief during the Reagan administration from 1981 to 1985.

"If you missed it, you could make it up," said Korb, who now works for the Center for American Progress, which supports Kerry.

A signed statement from Bush acknowledging he could be called to active duty if he did not promptly transfer to another guard unit after leaving Texas. The statement was required as part of a Vietnam-era crackdown on no-show guardsmen. Bush was approved in September 1972 to train with the Alabama unit, more than four months after he left Texas.

Bush was approved to train in September, October and November 1972 with the Alabama Air National Guard's 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group. The only record tying Bush to that unit is a dental exam at the group's Montgomery base in January 1973. No records have been released giving Bush permission to train with the 187th after November 1972.

Walls, the Air Force combat veteran, was assigned to the 187th in 1972 and 1973 to train its pilots to fly the F-4 Phantom. Walls and more than a dozen other members of the 187th say they never saw Bush. Only one member of the unit, retired Lt. Col. John Calhoun, has said he remembers Bush showing up for training with the 187th.

Pay records show Bush was credited for training in January, April and May 1973; other files indicate that service was outside Texas.

A May 1973 yearly evaluation from Bush's Texas unit gives the future president no ratings and stated Bush had not been seen at the Texas base since April 1972. In a directive from June 29, 1973, an Air Force personnel official pressed Bush's unit for information about his Alabama service.

"This officer should have been reassigned in May 1972," wrote Master Sgt. Daniel P. Harkness, "since he no longer is training in his AFSC (Air Force Service Category, or job title) or with his unit of assignment."

Then-Maj. Rufus G. Martin replied Nov. 12, 1973: "Not rated for the period 1 May 72 through 30 Apr 73. Report for this period not available for administrative reasons."

By then, Texas Air National Guard officials had approved Bush's request to leave the guard to attend Harvard Business School; his last days of duty were in July 1973.

(Source= Associated Press)

Soldier in "68" Says Kerry Earned Medal

2004-08-20T20:12:00.000-05:00

For documentary/educational purposes, I've taken the liberty of copying a report provided by the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/isele/109265584379530.xml?isele

Soldier with Kerry in '68 says he earned first medal

Monday, August 16, 2004
Bill SloatPlain Dealer Reporter

Trotwood, Ohio - An Ohio factory worker who was with John Kerry on a dangerous night mission 36 years ago in Vietnam said he has no doubt Kerry was grazed in a firefight and deserves his first Purple Heart for a combat injury.
"We were on about a 14-foot boat with an outboard motor. We started out, taking a guess, around 10 p.m. We were sup posed to sneak up and check sampans," said Pat Runyon, a 58-year-old grandfather from Eaton, a small southwestern Ohio town near the Indiana border.

Runyon, an enlisted man who served on Swift boats in Vietnam, was not a regular member of Kerry's crew.
He said in an interview Sunday he somehow was chosen - "Let me tell you, I didn't volunteer" - to go out on the Dec. 2, 1968, mission, called a "skim op" in Navy slang.
The small, flat-bottomed boat - Runyon called it a "skimmer" - carried three men - Kerry in command, Bill Zaledonis on a machine gun and Runyon operating the outboard motor.

Once in place on the river, the three U.S. sailors paddled and drifted. Covered by the darkness, they hid to stop sampans, small vessels common in Southeast Asia. Guerillas used the sampans to smuggle weapons in the Mekong River Delta.
Runyon said Kerry was wounded after one vessel tried to avoid an inspection.
"Lt. Kerry said, 'I'm going to pop a flare, and when I do, I want that engine started,' " Runyon said. But the outboard would not crank. Meanwhile, the sampan's crew steered it to the riverbank, and people started running on the shore. Runyon said shooting broke out.
Somehow, Kerry's weapon stopped firing. Runyon thinks he ran out of ammunition. He said Kerry bent down to pick up another gun and got hit in the arm.
"It wasn't a serious wound," Runyon said, and Kerry was able to start shooting again. When the firefight was over, Runyon said Kerry told him all he felt was a "burning sensation."
Runyon said he remembers the incident clearly because it was the first time he had been in combat. "I hadn't seen any kind of action or anything," he said.
He said Kerry, Zaledonis and himself were the only men aboard. When he got the motor started, they took off. He said the outboard was in bad condition and did not have a handle to steer with. "I had to wrap my arms around it, like hugging it, to turn it," he recalled.
Runyon now works the second shift at a plant that makes auto parts in Eaton. He works in the shipping department.
He is supporting Democratic nominee Kerry for president, but said he is not a Democrat and has never been active in politics. He said he and Kerry met for the first time since that night in 1968 at a rally in Dayton this year.
Runyon said he introduced himself to the Massachusetts senator and Kerry did not remember him. "When I talked to him about that night, he remembered the incident but not my name. He just eased up once he knew I was who I said I was."
Runyon was at a Democratic picnic Sunday in Trotwood, a Dayton suburb, where he told the small gathering of party activists that an anti-Kerry veterans group was smearing the senator with false charges. "It's very poor to try and discredit him after [36] years," Runyon said. "That's very poor."
Runyon said that firefight with Kerry is his brush with fame.
"I saw a nice, quiet guy who knew he was in command and didn't flaunt it. He could make a decision, and he made the right one because we got out of there alive. That's all I can tell you."

Shame on the Swift Boat Vets for Bush

2004-08-11T15:33:00.000-05:00

They call themselves Vietnam Veterans for Truth in a highly partisan and political campaign to smear the war record John Kerry holds over George W. Bush's and the majority of his regime's heads...Men (and at least one woman - Condi Rice) who avoided combat during war, who dodged the Vietnam war draft, but have become a profit-motivated war mongering regime that deserves to be challenged by a decorated war veteran.

The following is a copy of a letter written by James Rassmann, the man, and member of John Kerry's swift boat whom John Kerry saved. My reason for copying this message from the This Wall Street Journal webpage is for educational purposes to inform others free of all charges and under established U.S. legal protections. It was titled "Shame on the Swift Boat Vets for Bush," which more accurately describes these partisan veterans than what they call themselves (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.). We could also call them Swift Boat Veterans for Lies and Political Propaganda, or Swift Boat Veterans for War-Mongering, Chickenhawk Politicians. Below, James Rassmann, saved by John Kerry, sets the record straight:

(Begin quote)

I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.

On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.

It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got married, and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.

I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.

Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.

Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In 2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against Sen. McCain. In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.

But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.

(End Quote)

Wall Street Journal notes the following: Mr. Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam 1968-69.

2004-07-28T09:48:00.000-05:00

Here's a conversation between Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly, made available at the drudgereport.com (a right-wing disinformation and propaganda site that mixes fact with fascist illusions). I don't know how detailed and accurate Matt Drudge, or whomever provided the interview to him is. Nevertheless, I wanted to preserve this interview for disecting purposes.

MICHAEL MOORE/O'REILLY SHOWDOWN AT DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION

Tue Jul 27 2004 16:51:50 ET FOX NEWS is planning to air the interview between Bill O'Reilly and boxoffice sensation Michael Moore on Tuesday. The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained an embargoed transcript of the session:

Moore: That’s fair, we’ll just stick to the issues
O’Reilly: The issues… alright good, now, one of the issues is you because you’ve been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the senate intelligence committee, Lord Butler’s investigation in Britain, and now the 911 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Gladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction. Wanna apologize to the president now or later?
M: He didn’t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.O: Yeah, but he didn’t lie, he was misinformed by - all of those investigations come to the same conclusion, that’s not a lie.
M: uh huh, so in other words if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage…
O: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn’t the truth
M: Well, I’d have to turn around to see it, and then I would realize, oh, Bill, I just told you something that wasn’t true… actually it’s president Bush that needs to apologize to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this, and that there was some sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th, and he used that as a ...
O: Ok, He never said that, but back to the other thing, if you, if Michael Moore is president –
M: I thought you said you saw the movie, I show all that in the movie
O: Which may happen if Hollywood, yeah, OK, fine
M: But that was your question
O: Just the issues. You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, US intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction, you say, “he lied.” This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious
M: Well, that’s almost pathological – I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true, they could pass a lie detector test .
O: Alright, now you’re dancing around a question
M: No I’m not, there’s no dancing
O: He didn’t lie
M: He said something that wasn’t true
O: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources
M: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn’t listen to anybody
O: They wouldn’t go by Russian intelligence and Blair’s intelligence too
M: His own people told him, I mean he went to Richard Clarke the day after September 11th and said “What you got on Iraq?” and Richard Clarke’s going “Oh well this wasn’t Iraq that did this sir, this was Al Qaeda.”
O: You’re diverting the issue…did you read Woodward’s book?
M: No, I haven’t read his book.
O: Woodward’s a good reporter, right? Good guy, you know who he is right?M: I know who he is.
O: Ok, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said “President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, “slam dunk” if you’re the president, you ignore all that?
M: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.
O: I agree. The lieutenant was fired.
M: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn’t communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn’t have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th
O: Nobody disputes that
M: Ok, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a “slam dunk” and your going to go to war.
O: You’ve got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they’re all saying the same thing that’s why. You’re not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.
M: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can’t think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war, I mean, I don’t know a worse ...
O: It wasn’t a lieM: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?
O: I call that bad information, acting on bad information – not a lie
M: A seven year old can get away with that...
O: Alright, your turn to ask me a question...
M: ‘Mom and Dad it was just bad information’...
O: I’m not going to get you to admit it wasn’t a lie, go ahead
M: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question
O: OK
M: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?
O: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say. We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.
M: And, but what were they killed for?
O: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people
M: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war, to remove a brutal dictator
O: Well we’re back to the weapons of mass destruction
M: But that was the reason
O: The weapons of mass destruction
M: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat
O: That’s right
M: And there was no threat, was there?
O: It was a mistake
M: Oh, just a mistake, and that’s what you tell all the parents with a deceased child, “We’re sorry.” I don’t think that is good enough.
O: I don’t think its good enough either for those parents
M: So we agree on that
O: but that is the historical nature of what happened
M: Bill, if I made a mistake and I said something or did something as a result of my mistake but it resulted in the death of your child, how would you feel towards me?
O: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional
M: No, not intentional, it was a mistake
O: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that
M: Really, I’m driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead
O: If it were unintentional and you weren’t impaired or anything like that
M: So that’s all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake – how would you feel towards me
O: Ok, now we are wandering
M: No, but my point is ...
O: I saw what your point is and I answered your question
M: But why? What did they die for?
O: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people – M: No, that was not the reason...
O: That’s what they died forM: -they were given...
O: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake
M: Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world ...
O: Alright, I’ve got another question...
M: Would you sacrifice—just finish on this. Would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?
O: Depends what the circumstances were.
M: You would sacrifice your child?
O: I would sacrifice myself—I’m not talking for any children—to remove the Taliban. Would you?M: Uh huh.
O: Would you? That’s my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?
M: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.
O: Al Qeada was given refuge by the Taliban.
M: But we didn’t go after them—did we?
O: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qeada.
M: That’s why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there.
O: OK, well look you cant kill everybody. You wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan—you wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan, would you?
M: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people.
O: How?
M: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Osama was...
O: Why was that?
M: That’s my question.
O: Because Pakistan didn’t want its territory of sovereignty violated.
M: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn’t go there. He got a two month head start.
O: Alright, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?
M: No, unless it is a threat to us.
O: Any government? Hitler, in Germany, not a threat to us the beginning but over there executing people all day long—you would have let him go?
M: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.
O: Before—from 33-until 41 he wasn’t an imminent threat to the United States.
M: There’s a lot of things we should have done.
O: You wouldn’t have removed him.
M: I wouldn’t have even allowed him to come to power.
O: That was a preemption from Michael Moore—you would have invaded.M: If we’d done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, woah, I’m trying to stop this war right now.
O: I know you are but...
M: Are you against that? Stopping this war?
O: No we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to...
M: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.
O: I would sacrifice myself...
M: Your child—Its Bush sending the children there.
O: I would sacrifice myself.
M: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old...
O: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.
M: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’
O: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous
M: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?
O: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism—I know that escapes you...
M: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?
O: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.
M: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?
O: Iraq aided terrorist—don’t you know anything about any of that?
M: So you’re saying Iraq is responsible for what?
O: I’m saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.
M: You’re not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein.
O: I’m not? You’re his biggest defender in the media.
M: Now come on.
O: Look, if you were running he would still be sitting there.
M: How do you know that?
O: If you were running the country, he’d still be sitting there.
M: How do you know that?
O: You wouldn’t have removed him.
M: Look let me tell you something in the 1990s look at all the brutal dictators that were removed. Things were done, you take any of a number of countries whether its Eastern Europe, the people rose up. South Africa the whole world boycotted...
O: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that.
M: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe.
O: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed.
M: The people rose up.
O: why? Because they went bankrupt.
M: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up...
O: Alright alright.
M:...that’s how you..., let me ask you this question...
O: One more.
M: How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don’t do it down the barrel of a gun. That’s not how you deliver it.
O: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam...
M: Why didn’t they rise up?
O: Because they couldn’t, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off...
M: well that’s true in many countries throughout the world...
O: It is, it’s a shame...
M:...and you know what people have done, they’ve risen up. You can do it in a number of ways . You can do it our way through a violent revolution, which we won, the French did it that way. You can do it by boycotting South Africa, they overthrew the dictator there. There’s many ways...
O: I’m glad we’ve had this discussion because it just shows you that I see the world my way, you see the world your way, alright—and the audience is watching us here and they can decide who is right and who is wrong and that’s the fair way to do it. Right?
M: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?
O: I would sacrifice myself.
M: You wouldn’t send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?
O: I would.M: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?
O: That’s right.
M: Where’s the recruiter?
O: You’d love to get rid of me.
M: No I don’t want—I want you to live. I want you to live.

O: I appreciate that. Michael Moore everybody. There he is…

END

Bush Regime...War Crimes

2004-05-20T04:27:00.000-05:00

In 1996, Congress passed a little-known war crimes law (Section 2441 - War Crimes Act) that could lead to a Federal death penalty. Government officials were not exempt.

Recently, Newsweek magazine received a Jan. 25, 2002 White House memo to George W. Bush, from his legal advisor, Alberto R. Gonzales regarding International (and U.S.?) war crimes laws and concerning U.S. treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The Bush regime attempted to get around the Geneva Conventions laws on war crimes by declaring that the people detained as alleged Taliban and Al Qaeda members (respectively) were not prisoners of war. But, as pointed out in this Newsweek article by Michael Isikoff, officials could easily get off the hook if they're counting on Bush regime loyalists at the Justice Department, should lawmakers act on Section 2441 in a move to prosecute members of the Bush regime, including Pentagon department heads and other Americans for war crimes.

Another good point made in this article was that we couldn't really predict how special prosecutors and others at the Department of Justice would handle the case, should such a move occur, especially once Bush is replaced by another man in the White House and decides to prosecute officials and those directly handling and interrogating prisoners.

Apparently, the legal loophole Bush used to avoid domestic and international war crimes prosecution for how Taliban and Al Qaeda suspects were handled was not (to the best of my knowledge) used again with regard to how Iraqis and other prisoners and civilians were/are treated in the war in Iraq. However, the Bush regime apparently tried to expand this loophole by declaring the war in Iraq as part of the regime's alleged war on terrorism, which may have something to do with the Bush regime's reasoning behind establishing a special office to gather documents and "evidence" that gave the illusion of a Saddam Hussein WMD threat, which would have violated a U.N. ban on such weapons in Iraq.

Michael Isikoff pointed out in the article that White House lawyers could have also been concerned about protecting themselves from being prosecuted, because they are "officials." Therefore, they could be tried and possibly sentenced to prison, or death for their war crimes role, if prosecuted.

Isikoff adds:

This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined."

Presently, the only prosecution efforts being made seem to typically single out the people that carried out Pentagon orders to torture prisoners in Iraq...The ones at the bottom of the power pyramid. That may change.

Carl Hulse, of the New York Times reports Senate Panal to Summon 3 Generals to Hearings (free account required to view NYT site):

The Senate Armed Services Committee, in an abrupt change of course, said on Monday that it would summon three senior military commanders to testify Wednesday about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

Scheduled to appear are Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top officer in the Middle East; Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, ground commander in Iraq; and Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, head of detention operations in Iraq.

The panel had not intended to take up the prisoner abuse issue again until action was completed on its $422 billion military authorization bill, which is on the Senate floor. But since the committee's last hearing about prisoner abuse, on May 11, lawmakers have seen hundreds of images of the abuse and those accused have given statements saying they were following orders of intelligence officers.

Several lawmakers, including Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich, signed a message sent to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, requesting a special counsel be assigned to investigate whether, or not, officials in the Bush regime have committed war crimes.

It's unlikely that Ashcroft will respond positively to this request. If he refuses, alternative actions will be necessary.

On American Torture of POW's

2004-05-13T20:15:00.000-05:00

The first warning should have come before the 9/11/01 attacks on America when George W. Bush removed the U.S. from the World Court after failing to convince the other member nations to exempt Americans from facing circumstances expected of other countries should war crimes committed by Americans be suspected or committed. Bush's decision meant, if U.S. lawmakers, military leaders or military personnel committed war crimes, they'd be spared trial and possible conviction by the World Court.

Earlier this month, Japan Today reported that the U.S. failed to block U.N. anti-torture vote. In case this page expires, here's the brief report:

The United States failed to block a U.N. vote Wednesday on a plan to strengthen a treaty on torture, and was widely criticized by allies for trying to do so.

The United States argued that the measure, known as a protocol, could pave the way for international and independent visits to U.S. prisons and to terror suspects being held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.

The U.N. measure was made soon after news and images of U.S. military and private contractors (which included numerous plain-clothes covert intelligence operatives) torturing, humiliating and sexually abusing Iraqi prisoners circled the globe. This news follows previous reports with some shocking images taken of Americans torturing prisoners of war in Afghanistan and at the U.S. Navy compound, Guantanamo Bay.

Bush publicly reacted with claims of shock and disgust. Some of us question his sincerety, given his record as Texas governor and since he assumed the U.S. President title.

GNN contributing writer, Heather Wokusch, responds to the recent POW abuse scandal and questions Bush's sincerety in "From Texas to Abu Ghraib".

The Sunday Herald reported that Bush and Blair claimed to be shocked, but that they knew about the abuse of U.S. POW's two years ago. James Cusick (S.H. Westminster editor) wrote, "THE US and British governments have received Red Cross reports 'month after month' since the declared end of the Iraq war a year ago, detailing the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners." Cusick said that Bush and Blair didn't make public statements until after the recent broad circulation of evidence depicting some of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners made headlines around the world.

Despite Bush attempting to portray himself as ill-informed of the true extent of the abuse and torture, the White House has been fully aware for the past year of the violations of the Geneva Convention committed by its personnel in Iraq.

Bush's top man in Iraq, Bremer, received reports from the Red Cross, Amnesty International and others about the abuse and "Geneva violations throughout US-run camps in Iraq last July." Like Rumsfeld and Bush, Bremer did nothing to end the abuse, because they already knew about it and wanted it to continue, as you'll see near the end of this post. James Cusick wrote:

...Bush called defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld to the White House for briefings on January 16. Rumsfeld is said to have told Bush the extent of the concern over abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. The meeting was attended by White House chief of staff Andrew H Card Jr.

Male Iraqis aren't the only ones detained and abused by Americans. Baghdad based Guardian Unlimited correspondent,Luke Harding, reported in the May 12th edition that Female Iraq Inmates are also being abused:

According to Prof Shaker, several women held in Abu Ghraib jail were sexually abused, including one who was raped by an American military policeman and became pregnant. She has now disappeared.

The Bush regime has attempted to give the impression that the abuses were isolated and that they did not result from official orders from the Bush regime, including Pentagon brass and heads of any American intelligence agencies. Bush and Rumsfeld alleged that the responsible party was limited to some rogue military personnel and civilian contractors who acted on their own to mistreat the prisoners this way (which led to some deaths already known). Yesterday, the Guardian published a U.S. soldier's account in this story, headlined: US forces were taught torture techniques. The Washington D.C. based writer, Suzanne Goldenberg, refers to the Bush regime's "no tolorance" attitude toward international laws and "domestic niceties" after the the September 11, 2001 attacks on America, indicating enough reason to suspect that members of the Bush regime gave the orders to put aside recognition for U.S. and international laws regarding torture and that the orders trickled down the chain of command. Goldenberg indicated (via an unnamed soldier as her source) that her source and other military personnel officially reported their conscientious objections to the methods used on captives.

Donald Rumsfeld put on quite a show of mock humility when he assumed responsibility for the abuse happening on his "command," as if to suggest that he was as a parent assuming responsibility for his childrens' misbehavior that went on behind his back. Seymour Hersh, of The New Yorker exposes a secret Pentagon plan for torture, how much Rumsfeld really knew and the extent of his personal and indirect involvement. Hersh's sources may very well fill in the gaps of the sketchy details others report via their sources (Red Cross spokespeople, Iraqi prisoners, and U.S. military personnel willing to talk.)

Add up the facts that the Bush regime pulled the United States out of the World Court after failing to convince the other member nations to exempt Americans from war crimes laws, the fact that the Bush regime set the stage to allow covert forces and military personnel to commit war crimes and then attempted to block the U.N.'s measures to strengthen war crimes laws, and then consider the details of the neocons' Plan for a New American Century (PNAC). If the United Nations needs to step in where certain Americans in power (Congress members and Supreme Court Justices, just to name a few) fail, then so be it. Bring on the U.N. inspections of U.S. prisons. It's a start and just might also benefit American society, too.

Truth Rules

2004-04-15T08:49:00.000-05:00

If you really want to know what's on people's minds and in their hearts, forget about polls conducted by groups serving government, corporate or other entities. Forget about quotes you find in newspapers. Log online and visit the blogs and websites belonging to ordinary people that speak the contents of their minds and hearts.

I've seen some excellent commentary regarding the war in Iraq, from columnists like Ted Rall, rising alternative media influences, like Steve and Anthony at GNN, to bloggers I've come to like and respect. I could probably overwhelm you with links to outstanding commentary on the events surrounding the U.S. dominated occupation of Iraq. I'll spare you by simply offering one link to my impression of the absolute best remarks regarding this situation.

DenizenGT's views regarding this mess are the most thought-provoking, insightful and wise remarks I've seen yet. Believe me, I have heard and read some outstanding commentary on this matter. His stands out the most, above the words of his elders that also oppose this occupation and the invasion that took place a little more than a year ago. Please read his words. Give his blog time to load, because he's also an artist whose creative images grace his blog.

To Denizen, if you read this: Thank you for expressing what's been on my mind and in my heart so beautifully...With truth and compassion!

More on Bush Family and Skull&Bones War Profiteering

2004-04-10T13:38:00.000-05:00

I was already aware that G. W. Bush's father had profited from the war in Iraq. Now, I've learned that his uncle, cousins and brother Neil were also cashing in on the war. Margie Burns explains the who, what and how. The profits made by various Bush family members could not have been possible had it not been for the Bush regime's determination to attack and take control of Iraq. Perhaps, their profits should be taken from them as compensation for the rising expense the Bush regime is racking up on this war for profit.

Idealistic Way to End All War

2004-04-08T12:44:00.000-05:00

The number of American troops killed has passed 600 and rising. The body count of Iraqis killed is still believed to be in the double-digit thousands and rising as the count of other troops from countries allied with the Bush regime also increases. Still, the argument here in the U.S.A. continues, "Do we bring them home, or leave them there and keep adding more to replace the dead and seriously injured." This grave question and the circumstances surrounding the U.S. military presence in Iraq remind me of the war my father was sent to fight when I was a child - Vietnam.

If I had the means, I'd send a shovel with a message to every one responsible for this war, which includes the civilians that approve of it. The message would be simple: "You have a new job: digging the graves of the people that die as a result of this war and all violence in Iraq that would most likely not have happened, had it not been for this war. You receive no monetary compensation for this, but you'll get room and board from behind bars. Your assets will be used to pay expenses resulting from this war - to compensate the losses of tax dollars, Iraqi jobs lost, and other financial losses. If you are the sole provider for minor children, you'll be required to work extra hard and longer to earn provisions for them.

If we had laws to enforce such consequences, maybe people would think twice before waging, supporting, promoting, and/or profiting from war. Laws forcing people that are, in some way or another, responsible for preventable war could be a way to pressure the media to truthfully report facts surrounding political drives to abuse their power to send our troops to war. Such laws could pressure U.S. citizens to become better informed and more thoughtful as a way to discourage such citizens from jumping on the war-mongering bandwagon. These laws could discourage lawmakers from waging unnecessary war, and to prohibit these lawmakers from changing the laws that must be held in place for as long as the human race survives. Indeed, laws like these should also apply to officials at the Pentagon and military leaders serving under the Pentagon's rule.

We could establish a system where supporters of preventable war are chosen at random to determine which graves they'll dig. That way, we'll have some that dig the graves of fallen soldiers after their bodies are returned home, while others dig the graves of fallen civilians in the foreign land our troops were sent to invade.

Digging graves and burying the fallen isn't enough. These people should be forced to view the corpses up close and in person, regardless of the state the bodies are in at the time they view them. They should also be forced to face and humble themselves to the grieving families of the killed loved ones they must bury.

Such mandatory punishment would discourage people from wanting wars that must be prevented. If the world's masses adopted these terms in every nation, maybe we'd end most, hopefully all, wars. Then we can all learn to get along, respect each other and live in peace so that we can address other issues plaguing people throughout the world, to unite as one to make this world a better place for everyone.

CIA Wins, Democracy in Haiti Now Threatened

2004-03-01T07:19:00.000-06:00

It didn't take long before answers to the post below this one arrived. From Congress, Maxine Waters has been laying the truth on the line about Haiti, the Bush Regime and the CIA. And I knew that Stan Goff would come through for us. He, Special Forces vet is quite familiar with that country. He was sent there by Clinton during the previous coup attempt against his democratically-elected government.

I commend the Black Commentator zine for providing excellent and most appreciated (by me) information of what's really happening down in Haiti and why. So, I've gained more insight, thanks to this source's efforts to inform us on what's happening down there and why. You can access links to the pages provided by the Black Commentator, or access them individually from here via the following links:

US GOAL: Declare Haiti a Failed State. STAN GOFF: Time for conciliation is past.
Commentary: Bush, Call Off Your Dogs! US Can End the Killing it Started in Haiti
US House Members to Bush: Don't Usurp Aristide's Power
Washington Hand Against Democracy and for Extra-Constitutional Regime Change in Haiti, by Marguerite Laurent, Esq. guest commentator.

Haiti & U.S. Foreign Policy

2004-02-20T17:23:00.000-06:00

Upon seeing the first Associated Press (AP) releases of the situation rising in Haiti, I must admit to having no idea exactly what is happening over there. It seemed to me that the people staging the coup may be oppressed citizens that reached the boiling point leading to riots, but something felt very weird about this and I couldn't quite nail it. Ever suspicious of AP reports, because propaganda frequently finds its way into their stories and (occasionally) photographic images (like the one of Iranian young men allegedly rioting at a stadium where cut and paste images were obvious), I went online to see what else I could find on this situation.

The BBC has, at least, one reporter on the case who seems to be showing both sides of the story, as if leaving us to draw our own conclusions. However, I still felt the need to keep looking. I've been doing just that.

If you're a U.S. Citizen, you can access any ol' corporate source that passes itself off as mainstream news, but I'm willing to bet that most of these sources won't bring up a lot of questions and issues that real professional journalists and those having greater understanding of the situation arising are already broaching. In fact, I suggest, before you believe what the corporate psuedo-journalists are babbling, read Anthony Fenton's Media vs. Reality in Haiti. The leference links following Fenton's analysis are noteoworthy for anyone wanting to understand what is happening there and how the U.S. Foreign Policy may be involved.

It seems, Narco News has returned from its temporary (economically caused) limbo state just in time to add some insightful questions and possible answers to the Haitian situation arising. Al Giordano of Narco News asks five questions about the situation and adds some quotes and historic facts (plus other references) worth reading. I've read these five questions just after reading the latest news that the Bush regime is sending troops to protect U.S. citizens at the U.S. Embassy there (ever reminded of situations, like the 1979 karmic return of the U.S. and British coup against a democratically-elected Iranian government, replaced by a U.S. puppet Shah.) Like Fenton, Giordano also provides good reference links. Check 'em out!

Yahoo.com published a Feb. 19th story quoting Colin Powell's double-speak comments that suggest the U.S. isn't asking Haitian President Aristide to step down before his term ends in Feb. 2006, but he added that the United States would not object if, as part of negotiations with opposition leaders, Aristide agreed to leave ahead of schedule. This remark stood out as I'd read Al Giordano's Five Questions About Haiti and the Coup Attempt (Echoes of Venezuela 2002 Are Heard Across the Caribbean).

I've had questions of my own, starting with the corporate psuedo-journalists' quotes of rebels blaming Aristide for their economic woes that are really caused by U.S. and U.N. sanctions against that country. With that, I've wondered why Clinton and Bush have imposed those sanctions on Haiti, especially after Aristide returned to Haiti's presidency. So, who is really to blame for that country's worsened poverty and hunger?

Like Giordano, I want to know how the top players that instigated this coup-attempt got their hands on the weapons, since the U.S. embargo against Haiti (which is also questionable) includes a ban on shipments of weapons. Why is it that these guys could get guns, but Aristide, who's pegged as the "villian" by the corporate media when his own cops aren't able to get guns. But these question leads me to other questions.

The corporate psuedo-journalists mention nothing about where the leaders of this coup effort have been living during the past decade and have failed to even hint that they've really made much of an effort to learn more about the leaders of this coup, which are few, compared to the majority of Haitian citizens, most of whom appear to support Aristide. I'm wondering if any of them were in the United States, perhaps in Miami (where a CIA compound exists), or at Ft. Benning, Georgia (Where the controversial and previously named School of the Americas trains domestic warriors in the manner that men like Osama bin laden and some of his militants, Manuel Noriega and Contra soldiers were trained. Noriega and Central and South American milititants were, in fact, trained at this school which creates forces used by Americans, sometimes later becoming named as U.S. national enemies and named as anti-US terrorists. (In many cases, the militants trained by U.S. forces later complain of being betrayed by the U.S. government, the CIA and other coverts when they offer their reasons for turning on these former helpers/weapons providers/trainers.)

Al Giordano mentions a number of other things that stick in my mind: Nicaragua, Argentina, Venezuela, drug smuggling, Haiti's location (near the Dominican Republic, where to Pa. narcotics officers uncovered a CIA/DR President coke smuggling ring that reminds me of what FTR's former narc., Mike Ruppert, discovered when he traced coke from the streets of L.A., to Nicaragua, the CIA, then-CIA director, George H. W. Bush, Oliver North, an arms smuggling [Iran/Contra scandal]). Al also mentioned Haiti's resources (mostly farming) and the IMF, which reminded me of what investigative journalist, Greg Palast uncovered and shared regarding the IMF, WTO and World Bank globalization efforts that destroyed Argentina's economy while profiteers like Enron made their money as they intensified the country's economic woes (Look for references to relative links on Greg Palast's Globalization page here.). And I am reminded of what Noam Chomski wrote in his book, "What Uncle Sam Really Wants," with regard to how George H. W. Bush, Oliver North and School of America's trained Contra soldiers helped to destroy Nicaragua's once-thriving and rising agriculture and economy by using U.S. trained Contras to terrorize and murder Nicaraguan families.

I see a possible situation similar in some ways to what's happened respectively in Argentina and Nicaragua, especially after U.S. narcotics agents helped to bring their findings of the drug smuggling deal between the CIA and the president of Haiti's next-door-neighbor, the Dominican Republic, into the mainstream news when they won a law suit in a Pa. courtroom after they'd lost their jobs over this discovery. That leads me to wonder if the militants staging this coup on President Aristide, his administration and police force may be the Contra soldiers of Haiti. If so, then I also wonder if the goal for this coup is to take advantage of U.S. led economic sanctions that have caused the extreme poverty in Haiti to dupe the country into selling off their resources (water and power supplies, farms and manufacturing industries) to global corporations in exchange for IMF assistance and other factors that may be used in any deals the Bush regime makes with either Aristide, should he remain in power.

If Aristide is offered this kind of deal during upcoming, or later negotiations with Bush regime members, or members of the IMF, what would happen if he refuses to agree to the terms? Would that mean violence erupts into greater extremes, perhaps terrorism of all Aristide supporters?

Is it likely that the WTO, IMF and members of the U.S. foreign policy group have set the stage for the neocon fascists Plan for the New American Century to finish off the once-promising independent democracy of Haiti? Is it also possible that Aristide hasn't been a puppet for the global megalomaniacs of these groups and that this is his last chance to either comply, or get out of the way to allow the Bush regime, or its replacement (possibly John Kerry) to insure that the next Haitian leader will obey and allow these groups to rape Haiti of its resources and what remains of Haitian dignity while the neocons and their helpers take control of that country? I'll keep these questions in mind as this situation unfolds.

Grim Facts

2004-02-07T04:40:00.000-06:00

Thanks to cryptome.org for creating the calanders showing the number and names of troops killed in Iraq and some killed in Afghanistan from March 2003, to Feb. 3, 2004, as of this post: Calander of U.S. Military Dead During Iraq War.

If you're an American and you oppose the draft to replace dying soldiers with new targets in Iraq, please tell Congress Don't Draft Our Youth! The petition is available on Libertarian presidential candidate, Aaron Russo's website.

For those that support the draft, the war in Iraq, and the chickenhawks in Congress and in the Bush regime, I have an idea. If the war, Bush, oil and Bush regime lies mean so much to these people, they can spare the lives of our young men and women by volunteering to go in their place. So, let's encourage these war mongers to risk their lives, instead. Better yet, let's just bring our troops home. Enough people have died, already.

Mountain of Evidence Keeps Rising

2004-02-01T21:10:00.000-06:00

Researchers and investigators look around for evidence that answers the questions Who, What, Where, When, Why and How. They follow leads down trails, turn stones, open drawers and doors, folders and books....looking for anything that might be evidence to solve the riddle. They gather anything that could be fact-supporting proof. They know, they'll also carry with them meaningless details and items gathered, just in case they prove to be valuable articles of evidence.

The CIA and other intelligence cooperatives were doing this while watching Saddam. Their job was to track anything that seems suspicious and document their findings. Rumors and bogus documents are no exception. Everything and every one is suspicious, unless proven otherwise. If cops and FBI agents are expected to handle investigations this way, what makes a person think that the CIA and other intelligence agencies should maintain a different approach?

CIA agents documented allegations and bogus papers suggesting that Saddam Hussein may have conspired to rebuild the WMD arsenol that he'd lost over twelve years ago. When Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney carped on the agencies to deliver evidence to prove that Saddam Hussein was guilty of doing something that warrented war on Iraq and a regime change in that country, the agencies provided reports on Hussein and with them, doubtful remarks that insufficient evidence existed to back the Saddam/WMD speculations.

At the end of 2002, as Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice and Perle, were beating war drums more loudly and feverishly, British Prime Minister, Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister, John Howard carried the beat to their homelands. Meanwhile, thunder-struck members of the intelligence community watched the results of their work undergo mutation obviously intended for propaganda to induce enough fear in the hearts of Americans and Britons to gain the public support for war that it couldn't gain from several members of the United Nations. (Until blackmail and bribary changed minds of U.N. members.)

Close observers noted the twists and turns in the claims Bush regime members and British PM Blair made on seperate occasions, well documented by the media. It's as if this gang hadn't learned to remember their own lies, lies based on sketchy and isolated intelligence reports. They exhibited classic errors known to bust liars. They waffled on their claims with grand statements alleging that Saddam Hussein already had super-duper powerful missiles aimed at the U.S.A.

No Wait!

...Aimed at Great Britain! (Yeah, yeah! That's It!) Great Britain had less than an hour to prepare for a WMD attack from Iraq, read one British newspaper story.

Wait! That's not it. Saddam was only planning these alleged weapons. Then again, he was already building and gradually stockpiling them. Or is it that Saddam was merely contemplating it? But then again, he committed the Orwellian thought crime, because he desired to do it, which is grounds for a pre-emptive military strike, according to Bush, Blair and the other chickenhawks that pounded the hell out of that war drum as easily duped citizens in both lands, particularly in the United States, danced madly around them, waving flags as they gyrated and screamed for war.

Most Americans and the majority of U.S. Congress members weren't paying close enough attention to what these guys and that gal (Condi Rice) were saying. For some reason, they failed to catch contradictions in the Bush Regime's and Tony Blairs claims. None of them appeared to also make the connection between global oil supply depletion and the richness of oil in the Persian Gulf and across Iraq, nor did they see how all this had to do with corporations that make up a part of the U.S. and British oil industries (but mostly U.S.) that are tied to every neocon in the Bush Cartel regime.

But some people were paying attention, searching in all the right places and turning to the right sources to figure out why the Bush regime really wanted to attack Iraq and oust former Bush and Rummy pal, Saddam. Like the staff at From The Wilderness, which has been building evidence all along to prove why the Bush regime wanted this war and what these neocons have done to get what they want. With help from Special Forces veteran, Stan Goff, the From The Wilderness team has been building the case to prove that the regime's drive to attack Iraq is linked to depleting world oil supplies and the rich supplies located in the Persian Gulf and Iraq. As soon as one link was made between the push for war and the facts about oil supplies began to circulate around the web and through offline alternative media sources, government insiders, most notably in the U.S. Intelligence community, gradually left their jobs and united to urge the active intelligence community to start leaking information revealing the truth to the public and press. The former intelligence community members formed a group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, where they worked together to get the truth out that the Bush regime insisted intel insiders cough up any kind of information they could conceive, even invent, to give the illusion that the U.S. and U.K. had justifiable reasons to attack Iraq without provocation.

CIA insiders revealed that Dick Cheney was unsatisfied with the answers he was getting from the CIA.

Cheney wasn't getting anywhere with standard procedure and his frequent trips to interrogate and pressure CIA analysts to tell him what he wanted to hear. Thus, Donald Rumsfeld established the Office of Special Plans (OSP), outside formal intelligence channels to stove-pipe selective data that supported the "WMD reason for pre-emptive attack on Iraq" goal. They then selected men within the CIA willing to tell them what they wanted to hear.

Dick Cheney sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Nigeria to bring back evidence that supported the bogus Nigerian "yellow cake" story (later debunked). The ambassador returned home to inform Cheney that there was no Hussein/Nigerian yellowcake link. Wilson later passed this on to the press. When Cheney learned that Joseph Wilson had publicly revealed the results of his Nigerian trip to the press, Dick Cheney and the other neocons were furious with Wilson, enough to degrade him to the media and get revenge.

As soon as right-wing nut columnist Bob Novak publicly exposed classified information on Wilson's wife (Valarie Plame Wilson), as a CIA agent (N.O.C.) and her front operation, Brewster Jennings Associates, Bush regime watchdogs and some intel insiders immediately suspected that Karl Rove, or his minions, leaked this information. (To expose a CIA agent and the agent's cover is a federal offense, punishable by law and, according to G. W. Bush's father, the greatest act of treason.) Some media insiders questioned about who told them, indicated that the leak came from the White House via phone calls.

Why would a government insider expose an agent and risk the life of that agent and the lives of networked covert agents and cooperatives in the field? The answer: to punish Joseph Wilson via his wife and send a warning to others in the government and intelligence community to comply with the regime and watch what they say in public..., Or else! Evidently, columnist Bob Novak was willing to risk their lives, regardless of the legal risk that he took to do it. He was, afterall, serving his masters. Novak refuses to name his source. The leak is now being investigated by a pre-dominantly Republican Congressional committee.

Several members of the Intelligence community, the military, and also former U.S. Treasury Paul O'Neill have publicly revealed that when the Bush regime dislikes official testimony and advice, no matter how sound and fact-based, the neocons regect it. Bush fired Paul O'Neill for repeatedly telling him something he didn't want to hear (Not to drastically cut taxes for the rich).

Recently, Paul O'Neill revealed a bounty of inside information about the Bush regime's dirty tricks in the book, The Price of Loyalty, by former Wall Street Journal reporter, Ron Suskind. During a recent interview on the CBS show, 60 Minutes, O'Neill said:

"Almost as soon as George W. Bush took office in January 2001, he and his top advisors were plotting a regime change in Iraq."....At Bush's first National Security Council meeting 10 days after the inauguration, O'Neill said going after Saddam Hussein was topic "A." "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" said O'Neill.

He said, "[T]hat he was surprised that during the first National Security Council meeting questions like "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked. (Source for O'Neill's comments PR Watch Spin of the Day quote from CBS News)

Members of the Bush regime and its loyal spin artists reacted predictably in the Karl Rove style of rumor-mongering smear campaign to punish O'Neill by discrediting him as their first response to cover their tails (again). The attention O'Neill's remarks were getting was causing a buzz through a growing number of mainstream media sources that had previously and flat-out ignored the tremendous amount of information provided by alternative and foreign media proving that the Saddam/WMD claims were a hoax.

The result of this hoax has caused the following:

Over 500 U.S. troops died in the line of duty (This figure does not account for the total number of U.S. troops that died over there). Over 6,000 U.S. troops suffered severe wounds. Unknown thousands of Iraqi people have died (The Pentagon refuses to take count and reveal how many Iraqis were killed. (The numbers of dead Iraqi civilians are based on media and other sources that are unable to get a full count because of the violent situation in Iraq.) Journalists (some embedded, many independent) from around the world that reported on the war, and those continuing to report, have also been counting their victims, many that were deliberately killed by U.S. troops, acting on Pentagon orders to snuff out independent reporting of the war and to prevent and stop leaks of information the Pentagon is afraid will be leaked to the public. The Pentagon refuses to come clean with a solid figure and evidence proving the number of troops that have taken their own lives, stating an indefinite figure of 19, but non-government researchers are trying to track down relatives of troops that took their own lives to get a solid figure.

Demands for WMD inspections before the war turned up nothing. The Bush regime attempted to suggest that Saddam had pressured the U.N. to leave, but that's a lie based on an incident years ago when Saddam ousted inspectors because, as our own media also reported, Saddam suspected CIA agents were posing as U.N. inspectors. Saddam cooperated with the U.N. inspections that took place before the war. Any resistence from government employees and other Iraqis was mild and short-lived, usually nothing more than grumbling and argument, like when inspectors tagged non-WMD missiles for destruction. The CIA had also been searching before and during the war, until they recently decided to abandon their efforts after their search failed to turn up any shred of concrete evidence, other than a few castor beans and decrepid old weapons that were useless and contained no chemical or biological WMD substance.

This is interesting to note, because members of the Bush regime had suggested that they knew exactly where the weapons were, that the weapons were aimed at our country and they referred to massive amounts. Colin Powell had provided a digital-media cartoon example to the U.N. showing exactly what he and the rest of this regime insisted was the set-up where the WMD were allegedly stored. Given the watchful eye of U.S. satilite and intelligence technology and intel man-power, there's no way Saddam could have possibly hidden those weapons, let alone, smuggled them across the Iraq border into another country. The tractor trailors the Bush regime eventually claimed were used to transport WMD materials, or act as WMD labs, turned out to be trailors from Great Britain used for helium balloons.

It's obvious that the Bush regime violated the U.N. treaty established to prevent pre-emptive strikes. The neocons and their token, Colin Powell, told lie after lie in their effort to convince everyone that the attack would be/was justifiable. To paraphrase former CIA analyist, Ray Mc Govern, there was nothing to pre-empt". All the while, Intelligence insiders were coming out to tell whatever media sources would listen that the information the Bush regime was using was unreliable and that the Bush regime refused to listen to them when they said as much.

The Bush regime planted their own man, CIA Chief Weapons Inspector, David Kay, to join the search for the WMD evidence that never existed. After giving up on the fruitless search where no real evidence was found, David Kay admitted to the whole country via the media that there was no evidence of the alleged WMD program. Ever loyal to the Bush regime, Kay must have assumed that none of us had learned about Cheney's biased refusal to acknowledge the CIA's reports that there was no WMD evidence, because Kay twisted the truth when he blamed the agents' reports for misleading the Bush regime and stated that the intelligence community owed Bush an apology. (Asia Times- Bush Barking Up CIA's Tree)

Actually, George W. Bush and the other neocons owe an apology to every Iraqi, to every American, to the families of all troops sent to Iraq, to all surviving troops used for that war based on a lie, to the United Nations and to the world. They also need to apologize to our country's intelligence community for now trying to shirk responsibility for their own actions by scapegoating the intelligence community..

America's corporate media also needs to apologize to the American people for failing to practice professional journalism that could have prevented the war.

Disclosure

2004-01-29T06:58:00.000-06:00

Just recently, I've seen a sudden change with many corporate mainstream news sources. They're finally reporting some unflattering truths about the Bush regime, non-existent WMD's, and the neocon's attacks on our civil liberties. Editors that stopped saying anything critical of Bush Regime tactics since September 2002 are finally addressing the lies that led us to war and the regime's attacks on civil liberties. And political comic strips that aim their brutal humor at political leaders are finally allowed to take the kind of parody shots at the regime that they were intimidated from doing as the more rebellious ones refusing to censor themselves either lost their jobs, or were censored by papers, like the Washington Post.

I'm not the only one to see this switch. Editor & Publisher magazine has also taken notice, as indicated in their recently featured article Editorials Question Bush's Role in 'Cooking' Up a War, by Greg Mitchell, dated Jan. 28th. This follows after Bush weapons inspector, David Kay publicly announced that the prospect of ever finding WMD's is unlikely, because of the possibility that the alleged WMD's never existed. (There is no possibility. It's a fact.)

Hundreds of millions of us that objected to the attack/invasion/occupation of Iraq already knew this. Unfortunately, David Kay is counting on the most bewildered Americans not to know other details that many of us have learned from sources like U.S. and U.K. government insiders that publicly told the truth.

I refer to information from the intelligence community released last year about Dick Cheney establishing an office where he hand-selected members of the intelligence agency to stove-pipe questionable pieces of intelligence reports that specifically built the argument and supported the Bush regime's claims that Saddam sought and possessed WMD's. Our former intel sources For several months last year, numerous sources from the intelligence community and also former Ambassador Wilson openly stated that there's no solid evidence to prove that Saddam Hussein was back in the WMD business. Some former intelligence members insisted that Cheney refused to accept any reports debunking the WMD myth and demanded the intel community deliver evidence to prove the Bush regime's claims.

An associated Press release a few days ago quoted Kay as saying that the intelligence community owes the Bush regime an apology for allegedly misleading the neocons with questionable and unreliable reports of the WMD's that don't exist. The Bush regime hand-selected Kay to participate in the fruitless search for the non-existent WMD's. Over the months that I've been trying to keep up with reports from the insiders that either resigned or retired earlier than planned since the neocons took control of the highest executive government offices. All along, I had expected that they'd send a group to plant WMD's, then direct Kay to lead the other inspectors to the site where they were planted. I even suspected that CIA Director Tenet would cooperate. I'm actually surprised that this didn't happen.

Another revelation: Names of most Senators that participated in the voice vote on neocons $87 million spending money for war profiteers in Iraq has been released. Members of the Society for Professional Journalism contacted Senators to ask them to reveal how they voted. This is a list of the Senator's names and the stance they claimed to have taken in response to the SPJ's question. Some Senators refused to disclose their votes. Hillary Clinton and Trent Lott were two of them.

American Politics & U.S. Troops in Iraq

2004-01-19T20:16:00.000-06:00

Howard Dean and any other Democrat candidate that insists our troops must remain in Iraq need to raise their awareness to understand why our troops need to come home. Howard Dean assumes that by pulling our troops out of Iraq, we'll be abandoning the Iraqi people that don't want our troops there.

Keeping our troops in Iraq is just as foolish as it was for the French to keep their troops in Vietnam. The French got their asses kicked over there, then duped the U.S. government into sending our troops to that country. Why did the French get slaughtered? Because they occupied Vietnam and their presence was unwanted, just like the presence of Americans was also unwanted which cost tens-of thousands of American lives...Something those of you that support unpopular U.S. troop occupation of Iraq need to seriously think about.

The longer U.S. troops remain in Iraq, the greater anti-American hostilities will grow. As that resentment increases, we'll get a lot more of what it has been causing death on both sides, much like what happened in Vietnam.

Iraqis don't want our troops there. That's the way it is, like it, or not. The Pentagon and other military brass made our troops do very bad things that made even the most U.S. supportive Iraqis think twice about seeing Americans as their heroes. Add this fact to the realization that outsiders have entered the country to attack our troops (Probably what Donald Rumsfeld had in mind when he announced to the press last year that the Bush regime's plans included instigating situations to smoke out the "hornets nests of terrorists." They've apparently invited them to duke it out with our troops in Iraq. ) The longer our troops remain, the more the mutual violence between them and Iraqis, as well as, those pesky outside forces and Saddam loyalists will continue.

The following links provide information to explain this and more reasons why our troops must come home and the U.N. must be allowed to help Iraqis establish democracy, their own media (not U.S. controlled), and their economy without interference from greedy corporations from the U.S.A. or any other nations so that unemployment rate will drop below more than 50% and peace will be restored in Iraq:

500 U.S. soldiers dead as of Jan. 19, 2004. The longer they stay, the more this death toll will rise. But Howard Dean agrees with George W. Bush that our troops must remain.

Suicide rate of soldiers rising: meanwhile, troops that came home for care must wait for medical treatment. But reports like these won't convince those that believe we need to keep our troops there that the longer they stay, the more tragic this situation will get.

The relatives and many other Americans have a long list of reasons why they want their loved ones (the troops) to return home ALIVE and IN ONE PIECE WITH NO BODY PARTS MISSING!
Bring Them Home Now
Military Families Speak Out Organization

Not enough to provide a convincing argument? That's okay, there's more for those that are willing to read more than that crap printed on "short, sweet and incomplete" newspapers and glossies. Check out Occupation Watch and also Iraqi Aftermath: The Human Face of War. Be sure to get a gander at what Iraqis are saying about this occupation and the rest of America's presence in that country. After all, we Americans really need to break the habit of depending on Americans to learn what people in the world think. A dandy idea here, but why not go to the people of that country to get their first hand perspective, instead? Woven through various topics are points made by Iraqis that Americans need to know about our military's presence there and how it affects their lives:
Check out Baghdad Burning, and Dear Raed. feel free to also explore the links on their blogs, with the latter Iraqi blogger also providing links to the blogs he's inspired his relatives and friends to create.

What? No female Jedis?

2004-01-09T04:18:00.000-06:00

So, if I really was a Jedi, how Jedi would I be? I took the quiz and this is the answer I received:

:: how jedi are you? ::

It's Christmas Eve in the U.S.A.

2003-12-24T19:36:00.000-06:00

A lot of our soldiers won't be home for Christmas. The dead will never celebrate with their loved ones. What about the ones living right now? How many of them will return alive to spend another holiday at home? How many living soldiers will return with minds haunted by the truth...Of horrors they've survived and witnessed, of orders many followed that they knew were ethically wrong, and of the reality that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and that they really weren't there to liberate Iraq, but to prepare that nation for the robber barons to steal its treasures?

In about an hour, I'll be standing before the time clock, ready to swipe my card. It's an early night, just like every year. No matter the occasion, from holidays, to natural and man-made disasters, we'll get those newspapers out on the trucks and the drivers will get them to the carriers and sales racks. I'm fortunate this year, because I'll have tomorrow night off to spend with my son.

Last week, my greatest concern was convincing higher-ups that they need to allow us all to get, at least, one significant (family oriented) holiday off, especially those of us that aren't getting any over-time pay for working on the designated holidays. But then, I think of all the people that have a lot less to look forward to this year. I think of those that celebrate the various religious holidays that are missing a parent, a son or daughter, a sibling or other loved one. I remember spending the first Christmas after my sister, Candy, died. I still hadn't gotten over the grief. The holiday was depressing.

I know that the recent Ramaden has been painful for many Iraqis. I hope, they gained something priceless from their fasting and prayers. Signs indicating reasons for hope and faith that everything will get better?

I've been spending more time with my blog at modblog.com. It's called Progressively Treva. I like the blog service there. It's more user-friendly in some respects. I can't use certain preferred codes, like to justify my text, as I do here. However, modblog is created and run by some outstanding young techie geeks. One seems to be Republican and disagrees with my progressive views and such, but the other two seem to be more progressive or liberal...Or so it seems to me. There's more built-in features, like a chatterbox, ability to activate a forum, a comments section and some other stuff, plus a new user community. No commercial ads!!!!!! (I love that part). I wish blogspot.com did this without trying to turn it into a profit-motivated thing. I'm satisfied with what I have here, as far as frills go, but I only wish that blogspot users could have an easier time getting to know each other where we could communicate. Mostly, I feel like Lift The Veil is sitting here like a ship-wreck survivor on an uncharted island. Of course, I don't aggressively promote this blog.

I'll bet, you may have thought that I'd comment on Saddam's capture. I did at the round table. After Christmas, I'll do it here. Presently, I'm just watching all the wierd twists on versions of how he ended up in U.S. custody, assuming that is really him and not a look-alike decoy. I figure, Rumsfeld and Georgie Boy's daddy would know the difference, since they were once buddy-buddy with Saddam.

Whether you celebrate Christmas, or not, I wish the world in every nation all the beautiful things that I have learned from the man and his spiritual self this holiday honors: peace, universal love and compassion born to that love, mutual generosity, and increased wisdom. You don't need to be Christian or a non-Christian believer and follower of Jesus to accept this. Just be the human spirit that we all are.

Soldier Enlightened

2003-11-16T15:05:00.000-06:00

The soldier opens his eyes,
And the light beams into his brain.
Truth slashes through lies.
After this, he will never be the same.
The soldier breaks down and cries.

He sees that he has been used,
For all the wrong reasons.
He now knows that he's been abused,
Learns truth during the war vets season.

(by Treva L. Van Fossen copyright © 2003)

I'm taking the liberty of copying the portion of the conversation that I saw and posting it here. I hope that the chatters don't take offense and decide to kick my ass for this. Really, I feel honored to have seen their text-based conversation and I want you to see it, too. So here it is (the text qualities [bold, italic and underline] were done by me and did not appear in the conversation in the GNN chatroom):

sts yes i joined to serve and protect and preserve lives, not have the govt manipulate me and fellow soldiers
born2liberate quite rite
GlassBender i think that you shoulld be happy, knowing that you finally see the light . there are many other followers that are still losing friends and loved ones that are still in the dark. welcome to the other side
sts is this tyrue plz tell me this some fanatsasy someone cooked up I am crying right now no joke I am for real I gave up everything for my govt
born2liberate man it ok to cry u know, soft as it may snd!
born2liberate hey jus read up on everythin u can, it dont really mena u gotta believe it
GlassBender its ok to cry. pain is a powerful motivator. the pain causing your tears sould be focused now. direct it towards preventing others from blindly making the same decisions.
sts So now what we just stand bye and let us it continue? or what can we do as americans, I am tired of more bodies falling over probably oil, not liberation for a free iraqi
born2liberate did u actually serve in iraq then?
sts was the election cooked up so this would happen, no way Gore would have let it happen. We should have never let a former CIA run our country in the first place, Former Pres Bush, and now his son can finish up stuff for him., I have been reading im freakin
SeeOtter st you should read Stan Goff latest
GlassBender i gotta jet. be well all
SeeOtter "you were chumped"
born2liberate take care, peace
SeeOtter http://www.counterpunch.com/goff11142003.html

Retired U.S. Gov. Spooks ~vs~ Bush Cartel

2003-11-05T23:55:00.000-06:00

I'm giving credit where due, like to Stephen, Anthony and contributors to the GNN for rising above the mainstream media by passing on the statements and written analysis provided by ignored sources, like CIA veteran of 27 years, Ray Mc Govern (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). I believe, GNN will actually kick mainstream ass, unless the dudes calling the shots sell out. (And they'd better not!)

Americans eating up the junk-food diet provided by mainstream corporate news media are oblivious to what's transpiring in Washington D.C., including parts of Virginia and Maryland, and more specifically at Arlington and at the White House. So, they don't know that there are Intel pros seeking the nearest exit A.S.A.P. to gain freedom to tell the American people what the mainstream news media, the Bush Cartel and most Congressmen aren't.

The retired Mc Govern has amazed me in ways he didn't before his retirement. The following document is Mc Govern's take on Iraq, Rumsfeld's "winnable war" spin, the Bush administration's wizz-kids conjuring up these war-related ideas that don't work, and Ray Mc Govern's experienced and knowledgeable explanation of what's happening and what should be done to end the attacks on U.S. troops. Mc Govern also touches briefly on the "what if" possibilities of Iraq's fate if our troops were suddenly returned home from Iraq. I strongly advise you to read Chinook Down
by Ray Mc Govern, dated November 4, 2003.

Another Intel regular featured at GNN is Stan Goff, veteran of Special Forces. Goff was one of the first sources (if not the first to fill us in on the underlying reasons why the U.S. government and certain corporate industries were determined to attack oil rich countries, like Afghanistan and Iraq. GNN recently interviewed Goff. (Be sure to read this interview and check out the linked references, especially if you're a newbie to all this info you can't find on American TV news or in the local papers.)

If you're unfamiliar with GNN or you just happen to occasionally browse there, I suggest that you keep your eyes on GNN's Home Page, which is predictably updated Monday-Friday, including news media headlines linked to various news sources throughout the U.S.A. and world.

A thumbs up to GNN from just a- nutherprole.

War Profiteers Sell Bloody Fortune

2003-11-04T19:47:00.000-06:00

Buy Low (before war), sell high (when war-related losses multiply). Congratulations to Former President (VP. CIA Director, Nixon goon...) George H. W. Bush and other powerful men and women that are members of the Carlyle Group. You've reaped your bloody fortunes!:

OCT 31,2003 9:02 PACIFIC 12:02 EASTERN

( BW)(VA-UNITED-DEFENSE)(UDI)
Carlyle Group to Sell 1.5 Million United Defense Shares

ARLINGTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 30, 2003--United Defense Industries, Inc. (NYSE:UDI) announced today that certain of its stockholders, primarily affiliates of The Carlyle Group, sold 1.5 million shares of its common stock, or approximately $50.5 million, in a public offering led by J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.[former and possible current Sullivan & Cromwell lawfirm clients]. United Defense Industries will not receive any proceeds from the offering.

A shelf registration statement relating to these securities was filed and has been previously declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commissions (the 'SEC'). A prospectus supplement relating to the offering will be filed by United Defense Industries Inc. with the SEC and will be available on the SEC's Web site at www.sec.gov. Printed copies of the prospectus supplement relating to the offering may also be obtained, when available, from the Prospectus Department of JPMorgan at 277 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10072, 212-622-5219. This announcement does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy the securities described herein, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any jurisdictions in which such an offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.

About United Defense Industries, Inc.

United Defense designs, develops and produces combat vehicles, artillery, naval guns, missile launchers and precision munitions used by the U.S. Department of Defense and allies worldwide, and provides non-nuclear ship repair, modernization and conversion to the U.S. Navy and other U.S. Government agencies.

CONTACT: United Defense Industries, Inc., Arlington
Jayne Schmitt (investor relations), 703-312-6122
jayne.schmitt@udlp.com
or
Doug Coffey (media), 703-312-6121
doug.coffey@udlp.com

KEYWORD: VIRGINIA
INDUSTRY KEYWORD: BANKING MANUFACTURING GOVERNMENT
AEROSPACE/DEFENSE

Copied from: http://www.pressrelations.de
Origional SOURCE: United Defense Industries, Inc.

-- J.P. Morgan was represented by the Wall Street based Sullivan & Cromwell law firm when the Dulles Brothers cashed in on Nazi clients, including Hitler and when other clients had of this firm helped to provide Hitler with resources enabling him to build up the military machine used to terrorize marked German residents (Jews, Chechs, democrats, etc...) and neighboring countries (France, England, Poland, etc...). See Nazi posts below and check archives for more info. -- End note by Treva

"Bring 'Em On!"

2003-11-04T19:22:00.000-06:00

The following young Americans will not celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas with their loved ones. They were on their way home in a chopper that was struck by a missile attack in response to Bush's "Bring 'em on," dare. They are (according to Pentagon officials, relatives, as reported by the Associated Press and New York Times:

Sgt. Earnest G. Bucklew, age 33, of Enon Valley, Pa. was on his way home to attend his mother's funeral. Now, the family must bury another relative.
Second. Lt. Benjamin J. COLGAN, age 30, of Kent, Washington,
Sgt. Steven D. Conover, age 21, of Wilmington, Ohio,
Pfc. Anthony D. D'AGOSTINO, age 20, of Waterbury, Conn.,
First Lt. Joshua C. Hurley, age 24, of Cordova, S. C.,
Specialist Darius T. Jennings, age 22,
Pfc. Karina S. Lau, age 20, of Livingston, Ca.,
Sgt. Keelan L. Moss, age 23, of Houston, Tx.,
Sgt. Ross A. Pennanen, age 36, Shawnee, Ok.,
First Lt. Brian D. Slavenas, age 30, of Genoa, Ill.,
Spc. Frances M. Vega, age 20, of Ft. Buchanon, Puerto Rico,
Staff Sgt. Paul A. Velazquez, age 29, of San Diego, Ca.,
Staff Sgt. Joe N. Wilson, age 30, of Crystal Springs, Miss.

Congratulations to the news industries and to investors that have reaped in material abundance as a result of the deaths the Bush administration caused. May your joy over blood money turn into your worst nightmares.

Tears for the World

2003-10-24T06:22:00.000-05:00

Recently, two Green party members of Australia's Parliament heckled George W. Bush to his face, their voices resonating through his pampered ears. I cannot think of a single report of anyone directly confronting him, especially without being attacked by a cop or aprehended and jailed. Yes, they were ordered to leave, but they remained and nobody forced them away.

Those lucky Aussies! I salute them! And I must admit that I also envy those two. I would have traded places with either one just for a moment to ask him the questions he's afraid to answer, let alone hear, and be one of the first two people to tell that idiot off to his face.

The moment that they were ordered to vacate the premesis (sp), George the Weed Bush had the balls to say how great free speech is. What an arrogant bastard! (What's with these Skull & Bones pricks?) I guess, nobody bothered to inform Bush and his Frat buds that their shit stinks like every one else's. They don't care who they offend.

I realize, it must have felt good to those Parliament Greens. However, I hope they realize that the target of their messages and questions doesn't care. Don't get me wrong, he hates to be confronted, especially if he's reminded of his secrets (past, present and in the making now), and if he's the butt of jokes.

He can't handle personal criticism and mockery. He's very sensitive about this. He isn't a real man, because he's never learned how to stand on his own two feet. He's probably never had his ass kicked real good. That's part of his problem.

Emotionally and psychologically, George W. bush is under-developed. He behaves as if his mother never stopped breast-feeding him. Maybe his mommy coddled him for comfort because Daddy, Gram (father's mother) and his school mates were always cutting him down to where he stuttered and stammered like a bumbling idiot, which surely made matters worse for him. But if anything exceeds "worse," it must be the fact that he has accumulated so many secrets that he fears will become common public knowledge. But it doesn't stop there, because his secrets are gradually released to the public and there's nothing he can do to prevent, or halt the free flow of this information.

George W. Bush is a cowardly boy in a man's body and suit, pretending to do an adult's job. His arrogance indicates that he has a low self-esteem and an inferiority complex. That he's had everything handed to him on a golden platter throughout his life and has never taken responsibility for his own actions has retarded the development of his conscience. He is a spoilt brat! George W. Bush isn't mature enough to lead an entire nation. He's unfit and so are his playmates in high places.

I extend my deepest regrets to the world on behalf of every decent American. I am so sorry that my fellow Americans are too divided, so many too lazy, apathetic, uninformed, evil or stupid to allow that dangerous and insulting band of idiots to first take my country hostage with their consent, and then cheer them on as they do the same with the world, and so depressingly more against weak nations.

The People of the United States of America have no control of the elite sociopaths running the show here. Not many Americans want it. Perhaps you know that most of these people blindly believe that they're making a sound decision for a leader based on empty promises, sketchy and questionable pasts, and physical appearances polished with charm. These voters here actually believe that their votes count and this is the way they practice democracy. They don't think they must do more, because they figure they vote for the people that will while all other Americans go about their personal lives paying no attention to what those people they've voted to serve them are really doing.

Some Americans know, but they are divided from their own. Of them are Americans that dismiss politics altogether, apathetically whining that we can't do anything about it, so let's just stay in line and do nothing to attract unwanted attention from the Establishment.

Ah, the days when I was a Proud American. That was before the bitter truths appeared in clever hiding places, like under rugs, in basements and in closets. (Figuratively speaking.) I feel the kind of shame that a person would feel when the world meets her severely dysfunctional family. Or when she grows up believing that her family is just fine, her pride and joy, before the whole town starts telling her just how fucked up her relatives are. And then she looks at them, eyes wide open, but with tears streaming as she feels the love in her heart, but the shame.

I feel this way and I refuse to pretend that I don't. I will not censor myself, either. I'm a lot smaller and I haven't the body guards and other protections that George W. Bush hides behind, but the real world taught me not to worry about what could happen to me if I speak my mind and to never accept passive submission to a Bully's scare tactics and cruel attacks. I stopped being afraid of bullies when I got angry and over the years, I've learned to improve how I use my anger wisely and effectively.

So I dare say that Bush and the bullies pretending to like him are wimps. For that matter, every person that refuses to stand up to them for fear of retaliation that follows the insults and tough over-acting, which predictably follows the stunts, the lies and the bribes, are also wimps. So, I guess this means that a few wimps are mastering a lot more wimps. They're all scared!

But most of us need to examine our leaders and representatives in government with a sharp eye. I mean, put these people under the magnifying glass and examine them closely. Take note and do your utmost to correctly analyse what they are doing, because these leaders of nations, including my own, are setting us all up for the kill.

If you aren't counted among the ones in power, you're either a pawn, or you're a target. True democracy (where the People are the power) has yet to be established in any nation. The world is still in transion where pawns guard the elite hiding behind them, allowing the ultra-elite hand that controls them to determine their fate.

Will it always be this way? The answer depends on the People - All of us in every nation.

Plan for a New American Century (P.N.A.C.)

2003-10-22T21:28:00.000-05:00

In earlier posts (and no doubt future ones) I've made references to the Plan for a New American Century (P.N.A.C.). There was a website dedicated to it, created by someone connected to the Bush administration, but since the publicity of that site became widespread to the informed masses that clicked the links to the P.N.A.C. site to see for themselves, the pages on that website have been removed. Nevertheless, we won't let it go. And somewhere around this cyberspace, I'll again find copies that were made of that website's pages where screen shots and duplications of images and source codes were copied. (I should have done this myself.) Nevertheless, some of you may be in the dark about what P.N.A.C. is and why it's caused such a great stir. Thus, I'll be adding references to it and attempt to connect the dots (some of them) as they're relative to P.N.A.C.'s agenda. Here's a link to one of those resources: The Project for the New American Century. You'll find a link on that page to lead you to other articles on this topic.

Bush (senior) Resigns fm Sr. Position at Carlyle Group

2003-10-22T15:15:00.000-05:00

Former U.S. President George H. W. Bush is retiring from his senior position at the Carlyle Group, according to a Financial Times Oct. 21st report by James Politi in New York. The reporter mentioned nothing about whether, or not Bush would stay on as a Carlyle Group member and continue to reap the harvest provided by war and other secret investments. (Carlyle Group is a private equity firm and not required to disclose its investment information to the public.)

Carlyle's coveted investments includes news media corporations (Great way to control the news!). Carlyle Group has been said to heavily invest in the military industrial complex where it would depend on war to dramatically increase profits for members.

Carlyle Group members buy their way into the firm. According to Financial Times, "Mr Bush was one of a handful of former politicians to occupy high-level positions at Carlyle. Others include James Baker, secretary of state in Mr Bush's administration between 1989 and 1993, John Major, a former conservative British prime minister, and Frank Carlucci, defence secretary under Ronald Reagan.".

The bin Laden family was also with the firm, but quickly sold out under pressure when their membership was exposed, along with reports of how the U.S. government and other well-connected American friends smuggled them out of the country just after the 9/11 attacks. The bin Laudens have enjoyed a long-standing and friendly business relationship with the Bush family and other lawmakers and U.S. corporate businessmen where they've shared mutual investment interests in industries, like oil.

Timing is Everything!

2003-10-21T22:05:00.000-05:00

How thoughtful of Osama bin Laden to send another tape right when the Bush administration desperately needs it. The timing is perfect (as usual). The Bush regime wants something. And they're really stinking at the polls. I'm meeting more and more conservatives against Bush . (That's pretty bad! The Bush gang is not getting an easy pass, so they suddenly whip an Osama tape out of their magic box of tricks.

These guys need to get a clue about the fine art of illusion. Never perform the same old trick to the same audience, especially if it's lame. People catch on, some sooner than others. But then, I'm frequently reminded that there's another sucker born every minute. At least, I see this here in the U.S.A. No matter how well one explains how the trick is done, some people don't get it, because they want to believe the illusion is real.

I seriously doubt if Osama bin Laden is really a wanted man where the Bush administration and their corporate friends are concerned. The ties are too numerous and secured, bonding them to the Saudi Royals and other leaders with strong corporate ties. I know that the bin Laden family has had a mutually rewarding relationship with the families profiting most from the oil industry based in the United States, as well as, in various countries that have quietly supported the Bush administration while publicly denouncing the war on Iraq, as well as, countries that openly supported the war before the first attack took place last March.

It's common knowledge (to the informed) that some of Osama's relatives, direct and distant (All Arabs are related through their ancestor Ishmael) were in the United States the day before the September 11th attacks and on that unforgettable day. We know that they had met with other members of the Carlyle Group, to which former U.S. President and former CIA Director George H. W. Bush holds an official position. This wasn't intended to be common knowledge, but neither was the fact that Osama has had direct and cooperative ties to the CIA and the American oil industry, which includes ties to the Bush family in more ways than one. This includes Osama's ties to G. W. Bush through his former oil investments, which he sold out to them around the time his father officially prepared war on Iraq (a nation Osama is said to see is mostly infidel).

The question on my mind is, are the images and is the voice in these tapes really Osama, or someone else? Why the timing? If the tapes are sent by order of Osama, does the Bush administration just hold onto them until they need to use them to influence Congress and the American people to support unpopular demands? And if they are really tapes of Osama, then is it possible that Osama is just playing along, richly reaping compensation for allowing the U.S. government to mark him as the Number One enemy?

I know something isn't right here. I may not be able to explain what the illusion really is, but that doesn't make an illusion anything else, but what it is... Deceptive.

Propaganda for Christians

2003-10-18T18:11:00.000-05:00

Not all people of the Christian faith are gullible morons. Some have minds of their own and occasionally stray from the flock, especially when the flock is being misguided by maniacs and propaganda specialists. The danger isn't with those that reject guidance from false prophets and devious leaders, but with those that submit to such guidance.

Jerry Boykin (a.k.a., Army Lt. General William G. "Jerry" Boykin) is on a propaganda mission for the Bush regime with a radical Christian theme intended for Christians throughout America. His mission is quite appealing to the fundamentalist extremists that are just as nutty and dangerous as extremists of other religions. As William M. Arkin reported in the October 16th edition of The Los Angeles Times, (See copy of this story - The Pentagon Unleashes a Holy Warrior on this Truth Out page) Boykin is doing his job as Donald Rumsfeld's underling at the U.S. Department of Defense by visiting American Christians in their churches to spin the "see the devil in the picture" propaganda. He relies on pictures that he alleges to have taken during the Gulf War where he points to one of those spots that form a pattern he's using to suggest that the spots are symbolic of Satan.

It's an old trick that still works on people gullible to the power of suggestion. Just think about how many different images people claimed to have seen in the same photos where flames and smoke plumes billowed from the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 (Some claimed to have seen the devil, some Al Gore, others George W. Bush and some even claimed to see Osama). With this in mind, it's obvious that Boykin's strategy would flop if he attempted to convince those of us that know how this trick is played and are inclined to explore what other images our imaginative minds can perceive when we view the spots that Boykin singles out while suggesting to Christian Americans that they are symbolic messages from God revealing certain places in the world where evil dwells and must be destroyed. As we consider what Boykin is doing, let us also remember that George W. Bush has made several references to infer that he's on a mission for God, that he's been selected to wipe out godless unChristian evil in the world. Boykin's cross-country Christian campaign is supporting Bush's claims while undermining common sense in the minds of people easily duped by propaganda with religious overtones that are crafted to resonate with them as desired.

This is another form of psychological warfare using propaganda to manipulate the minds, emotions and actions of a general population. Boykin's resume includes information that I've taken into consideration before drawing this conclusion. It matters not which side of the battle line, everyone involved in the war (no matter how great, or small their role) is considered fair game for propaganda. Because Bush has been losing public support, his administration has returned (again) to America's Christian community (mainly Protestants and those of the Evangelical faith) for support in the P.N.A.C. fascist campaign.

Mr. Arkin stated in his article on Boykin's religious propaganda campaign:
This June, for instance, at the pulpit of the Good Shepherd Community Church in Sandy, Ore., he [Boykin] displayed slides of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and North Korea's Kim Jung Il. "Why do they hate us?" Boykin asked. "The answer to that is because we're a Christian nation We are hated because we are a nation of believers."

No evidence exists to support any argument that his claims are true. In fact, he's been lying to these people. He knows, many will believe him, because he knows that they want to believe. Surely, many will feel an obligation to Jesus to cling to his every statement and prop as if he had a pipeline to Jesus. That is a fragment of Boykin's objective. He is, perhaps, an example of what the Apostle John and Jesus had in mind when they'd warned the masses to beware of false prophets and false apostles.

Boykin may be serving more than just the Department of Defense's objectives. William M. Arkin mentions in the above linked report, "He has described himself as a warrior in the kingdom of God and invited others to join with him in fighting for the United States through repentance, prayer and the exercise of faith in God." I've underlined kingdom of God because I now refer you to a story of a little known underground group based in Virginia, not far from Washington D.C.'s official government center, that uses the concept of preparing the world for the kindgom of God as a ploy to convert and manipulate specific people while depending on their fees and other contributions to help maintain it and to materialize its ideas and plans.

Consider the religious themes that have involved George W. Bush's campaign for Presidency, his administration's wars and plans for more wars that the administration profits from through tax dollars and those connected to the administration. Include Boykin's propaganda to America's Christian communities and add these things to a group that leads U.S. lawmakers in the official prayer tradition, but also teaches its prospective converts that it is preparing the world for the kingdom of God and dismisses anything that Jesus denounced (like telling lies and resorting to violence). This group is known as The Family, as writer Jeffrey Sharlet reveals in the article Jesus Plus Nothing that appeared in Harper's Magazine. I strongly suggest that you click the link to it and read, then read this GNN interview with Sharlet. There is mention of John Ashcroft and other names connected to this group that obviously mixes religion with politics and U.S. foreign policies. I mention Jeffrey Sharlet's story and his interview with GNN because I now wonder if Boykin's propaganda to American Christians is somehow tied to that religious group AND if both are tied to the Bush Cartel's wars, as well as, the Bush administration's existence and its Ashcroft war on any exercise of Constitutional rights that oppose anything concerning the Bush administration.

I consider these things as I think about how many of us, regardless of religious views and practices, have come together as a force of one to protest against the Bush Cartel's war mongering and all-around destructive insanity. (My friend R. and I had spent most of our time at the Feb. protest in Pensacola, Florida talking with a delightful woman of Muslim faith and of African American heritage.)

Let's backtrack to Boykin's suggestions to the Christians in this country. He suggests that the congregations do things like repent, pray and keep the faith in God. He suggests that America is a Christian country and subtly suggests in roundabout terms that the U.S. Army is a Christian Army fighting against God's alleged enemies, in spite of the U.S. First Amendment Constitutional right to religious freedom and the religious diversity evident in American society and members of the U.S. military. He insists that the force Christians worship as their God is different from the force that the Children of Islam worship as their God (Allah) as if their god and our god are at war with each other, vicariously through the human race.

What Boykin's been doing can inspire young Christian men and women to want to join the U.S. Army, like many Muslims have joined militant groups that include Osama bin Laden's, because Boykin and others that prey on religious fanatics convince the fools that believe them that they need to be Christian soldiers marching through the world to kill what they have been programmed to believe are the devil's advocates and worshippers. Boykin's tactics have been used by Nazi propaganda artists and also by clerics determined to convince Muslims that the United States is the Great Satan and they are obligated to destroy the Great Satan, by command of Allah (Same as the God Christians and Jews worship, regardless of the stupid claims suggesting otherwise). Boykin is fanning the flames of what threatens to be a major and global religious war.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration aims the U.S. military guns at the Philippines where Christian (predominantly Catholic) and Islamic people live, as do Buddhists and members of other religions. While the Bush camp has clearly singled out this cluster of islands and is currently moving in on the Philippines, Chinese troops are getting in to position to prepare for the possibility that they must protect North Korea from a U.S. and allied attack and invasion. These events unfold as Japan's leaders support the U.S. leaders' wars, while Thialand's fate is still uncertain, as is South Korea's should the Bush administration (and maybe with Congressional Republicans' approval) send U.S. troops to attack North Korea.

I don't know if I'm fitting the correct pieces together as they truly are. I feel that I am. Time will reveal the true answer.

American/Nazis II

2003-10-18T15:48:00.000-05:00

Common Dreams recently reports that documents regarding the Congressional hearings of Preston Bush's Nazi ties were recently released to the American public. Documents like these have a way of getting lost in the U.S. National Archives, as if they don't exist where the general population is concerned. They seem to wait in obscurity for what threatens to be an eternity, unless somebody on the inside decides to locate and release them, either upon request, or on their own volition. Nevertheless, the evidence mulitiplies like feul and tinder for a torch that an earlier generation has passed to the younger generations today; the torch is the truth.

Trading with the enemy is a federal offense in the United States of America. When the enemy is Hitler, no excuse, not even Preston Bush's partner Thyssen's attitude that doing business with the Nazis was a better alternative than doing business with communists justifies what Thyssen and G. W. Bush's grandfather did (helping Nazis to launder stolen [seized] blood money to help fund Hitler's wars and other sick campaigns).

Indeed, some offspring will stray from a family's ways, but the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Bush family history shows generations of self-righteous men that value increased profits and power before all other considerations. From financing piracy on the high seas and the American slave trade, to Iran/Contra that involved the profits from the cocaine drug trade, and the real reasons behind the Gulf War and the present circumstances involving the United States, Afghanistan and Iraq, you can bet that the Bush family has investments at stake. They don't care how many people suffer and die as long as they get what they want. And Preston Bush wanted in on a peach of deal with the Nazis... The same man who also turned to politics after he'd traded with the enemy and became a U.S. Senator as well as father of a U.S. president that also served Nixon's administration and headed the CIA, and grandfather to the current White House resident and others that dabble in politics and business, often mixing the two.

Protecting the Dictator

2003-10-17T22:37:00.000-05:00

during his visits to other countries, former U.S. President Clinton dared to expose himself to the masses in countries, like South Africa and Greece. He's enjoyed warm welcomes in some places, confrontation from protestors in other's (like Greece). My point is, for all that I can say against former President Clinton, I give credit where credit is due: when it came to exposing himself to the masses of the world, Clinton was braver than the chimp now occupying the White House. Compared to George W. Bush, Clinton was a brave man.

Does that make Bush a big pussy? Apparently it does. Wherever Bush journeys, you can be sure that he won't need to face a very angry world population. He won't, because the Secret Service, with help from agencies like local law enforcement will take extreme measures to prepare for Bush's visits. They will block roads and clear areas of humans, only allowing ones that obviously love Bush (in America, only). Along American roads and highways, the Secret Service and its little helpers limit areas where protestors can stand around with signs that Bush and his gang never see, because those protestors are forced behind lines, often miles from where Bush will ride, and step out of in his Lemo.

Australia will be no exception. According to the Australian Herald Sun, much of Sydney Australia will be closed to the public to protect George W. Bush. (Bush visit closes city by Ian McPhedran, Oct. 17, 2003):

"President Hu jets into Sydney on Wednesday and travels to Canberra on Thursday night arriving after President Bush and his 600-strong entourage have departed.

In the days leading up to the US leader's arrival, giant C-141 Starlifter military cargo planes will fly into Canberra carrying armoured vehicles, weapons and other equipment to protect the President.
When the President arrives in Canberra all roads he uses will be closed and all buildings he visits will be locked down.

Security will not be so intense for President Hu, who will become only the second Chinese leader to visit Australia. Parliament House will not be closed for his visit.

His discussions will focus on North Korea and trade.

Bush has reason to hide. Put aside any real threats, Bush has trouble facing his personal truths: Most people in the whole world detest him and his foreign policies and most of the world's population compares his regime to Hitler's regime.

Also, Bush is getting testy about the leaks. He's put out a dictatorial order that the leaks had better stop, or people will pay dearly for them. That includes ranking members of his administration where the Philadelphia Inquirer reports a lot of infighting. The forming PNAC empire is crumbling and I seriously doubt if all the protections surrounding Bush will save it from itself.

American/Nazis 1

2003-10-17T20:39:00.000-05:00

I've got more information stored in my head and on notes scattered throughout my incredibly growing collection of paper material that dominates my home. Like with the Bush/Harriman Nazi connection and relavent stuff. Occassionally, I scour that paper collection (plus electronic data) in search of all things I've gathered on one particular topic. I am getting to hate this tendency to be unorganized anymore, because I've gone through the effort of holding onto things for future reference, but it's fruitless if I cannot find these saved items when I need them immediately. Like when I must rely on documented evidence to get my point across during a discussion and when I write.

Oh well...

I had no idea that any Americans really traded with the Enemy - Adolf Hitler until I'd read a book about the presigious Sullivan & Cromwell law firm, A Law Unto Itself by journalists Nancy Lisagor and Frank Lipsius. I suspected that this book was well-stocked with a treasure trove of information on the ties between corporate lobbyists and lawmakers when it caught my eye in the "reduced for clearance" sale display at a nearby bookstore. Indeed, this book has proven me correct and wise to purchase it. Not only has it provided me with great fragments to add to the rest of my research, but it's turned out to be an excellent source for my political research, especially now that I'm examining the Bush regime as an enemy of the United States and the world.

Like the ties between the firm's partners and clients to the Nazis. Those ties also connect the firm to the CIA, to various elected representatives and members of the Senate, and to the White House just to mention a few notable connections.

That book reads like a Who's Who in dirty practices of law, business (including banking) and politics. When the firm's founder died, the partner dramatically shifted the firm's dirty trick factory into high gear. People in high places, including some of the most powerful elite families, couldn't be any happier. Sullivan & Cromwell is a long-standing and powerfully influencial Washington lobbyist for clients throughout the world, many of whom are familiar names. Partners of this firm also include familiar names, including the Dulles brothers (Jonathan Foster and Allen).

The Dulles brothers did business with Adolf Hitler. They've represented Brown & Root for ages (I don't know if they still do). They've represented oil companies, banks and national leaders. They carefully select partners and associates. I'm convinced that their choices are rated, in part, by the connections partners and associates have. According to the authors of the above-mentioned book, Sullivan & Cromwell profited well and increased in power because of the relationship many partner's and associates had with U.S. lawmakers and various department and agency officials. Sullivan & Cromwell also boasts a powerful presence with the U.S. Federal Reserve. These are documented facts, many of which the authors accessed via the Library of Congress, a few members of the firm willing to talk, but failing to offer up the real dirt, and the Dulles brothers' respective libraries.

John Dulles later got into politics in non-elected, officially appointed roles at the White House. His brother, Allen joined the CIA and rapidly rose to the Director's chair. John helped Allen to earn the right merits for joining the CIA while Allen was trying to convince John to stop helping the Germans during WWII. (John Foster Dulles was a Nazi Sympathize.) Allen covered John's ass when questions were going around about John's European adventure during the war. Allen lied (propaganda) and made John out to be a hero trying to thwart the Nazis. Allen's propaganda worked and it so impressed officials at the then new CIA that they opened the door to warmly welcome him to the agency. Allen Dulles isn't the only CIA director with Nazi ties.

This firm also represented the robber baron Roland Harriman, related to a partner of the firm, Averall Harriman. Roland Harriman and Preston Bush were partners in a financial institution where they were helping the Nazis to launder money that funded Hitler's attempts to rule the world. When I first learned of this (via the Unauthorized Biography of Bush (the senior), I sat on it, unsure of its validity, but aware of how it was tied to supportive news reports making a similar claim a year before I'd read this book. But more has been offered to show the Bush and Nazi connection where the names of elite American families, U.S. corporations, and other institutions appear, ones referred to in A Law Unto Itself and tied to the corporations most oftenly named as the present reapers of war profits.

Recently, Al Martin, a former covert insider and whistle blower recently stated on his website that Karl Rove holds dual citizenship in the United States and Germany as is a direct descendant of a Nazi. As I recall, the Nazi grandfather was a high ranking party member. He certainly gets a lot of credit from people that accuse him of being the source of propaganda and rumors and also of leaking personal information about people that cross him, or their loved ones. (Like former U.S. Ambassador Wilson's CIA agent wife exposed by a Bush administration member after her husband refused to support the Bush WMD lies and publicly criticized the administration and its foreign policies concerning Iraq.) Karl Rove is also credited for some of the Bush administration's Nazi tactics.

The U.S. government gained possession of Nazi documents that were stockpiled in a location that U.S. forces attacked and invaded. These documents include the shocking photos of Nazi victims and the propaganda flicks that we've seen in history documentaries and books on WWII. Before releasing possession of the documents, many were photo-copied by U.S. government investigators examining the documents. These documents include information that's proven useful to (at least) the CIA, because CIA and other intel agents have used some of Hitler's tactics, as has the Bush administration.

Thus, members of the U.S. government, including the intelligence arm, know inside details of Nazi propaganda, torture techniques, scientific and military research, most likely beyond what we know. Add it to what William S. Shirer revealed in his book, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," and to whatever contributions were offered by Nazi scientists secretly smuggled into the U.S.A. where they lived in excile and served the U.S. government (Operation: Paperclip).

Another Bush/Nazi connection is another resource to explore as information is gathered to examine whether, or not there's a fascist movement by a group involving members of the Bush family and the present administration to take over the United States of America and the world and if this is what former President George H. W. Bush by his reference to a "New World Order" to come during his address to the Union shortly following the Gulf War.

If the Bush family and their friends, including every insider involved in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) are involved in a fascist movement intended to rule the world, then they've failed to learn the historic lesson that Hitler also failed to learn from Ceasar: Every empire falls. I keep this in mind whenever I stare at pictures taken of George W. Bush, his father, and Colin Powell giving the emperialistic salute that Hitler made famous in our time.

As I examine the obvious indications that fascists are on the move to completely take over, I also keep the Skull&Bones society (and its growing member list) in mind and I don't ignore others, like the Bilderberg Group and the Carlyle Investment Group. My eyes are also on the executives at FOX TV, because they've proven to be a propaganda spin machine that often uses old school tricks Nazis and Romans used.

Games World Leaders Play

2003-10-16T19:38:00.000-05:00

Perhaps, I should have dropped by GNN and also tapped into the latest news before writing the post directly below this one. Instead. in my usually abstract way of doing things, I did the opposite. But then again, that's usually what gets me started in accumulating so much as I go from one stop, to another during my information rounds. And that means, I'll either not post, or I'll end up trying to stuff everything on my mind at the moment in one post. I figure, my posts tend to get rather extensive as it is...

I do have a point to make here for anyone that takes the time to read the post below, as well as the content of this GNN forum thread, which partly backs up what I was saying about the "system" in the post below. To borrow some Pink Floyd lyrics:

Welcome my friend!
Welcome to the machine!

War on Terrorism?

2003-10-16T18:27:00.000-05:00

The Webster's New World College dictionary (4th Edition) offers definitions of the words terror and terrorism worth noting and pondering, worth comparing to facts involving current, recent and past events. Every American capable of reading the written American English word should certainly read these definitions. This includes lawmakers and law enforcers, military brass and their subordinates. May as well, because this country has been obsessed with our society's interpretation of terrorism and those supporting war to stop attacks on Americans and allies appear ignorant and hypocritical to me in light of this dictionary's definitions of terrorism.

I'm suggesting a source of meaning that is trusted in American universities, public schools and in journalistic circles that's officially used by employees of the Associated Press and Gannett Inc. newspapers. (In fact, both of my Webster's New World College Dictionaries [3rd and 4th Editions] were gifts from reporters/coworkers at a Gannett newspaper.) Maybe, that means the suggested reference is reliable, capable of being used as evidence in the U.S. court of law, or by Congress.

War is terrorism. Campaigns like "Shock and Awe" were acts of terror. Whenever anyone uses brute force and other ugly tactics to intimidate and coerce people to bend to the aggressor's will, these are acts of terror. The proof is in the definitions. I could post the definitions in full here, but I prefer to encourage people to take the initiative of investigating on their own, which is a good way to keep the mind from getting flabby and sluggish, a tendency plaguing Americans today.

I hear fellow Americans say things that I sum up as "But we didn't start the fire," and "We're just fighting fire with fire." Yeah, from people that know little of the relationships and conflicts that led to events where U.S. Embassies were attacked, where Americans were taken hostage (and they weren't ordinary Americans, but worked for Embassies, some of them at official levels), and where American corporate, military and government buildings were attacked.

I've been wondering if what we're told are terror attacks and what we're told are efforts to defeat terrorism, including war, is really a battle between isolated forces and we're just just getting sucked into it, may we be the people of countries allegedly fighting the war on terrorism, or people living in countries accused of being part of George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil."

I wonder how many people are getting sucked in, because I know that it's possible to manipulate people by playing on their phobias. I've known parents that use this tactic and also children. Cops use it, so do covert agents, soldiers, politicians and rulers. It's "psychological warfare" and some people make a wonderful living researching and testing the diverse ways of perfecting this ploy. When victims and potential victims haven't learned to recognize and avoid being played into this mind game, they suffer within. They react, often exactly the way the manipulators want and usually expect.

If we're to find our way out of the cycle involving war and terrorism (if there's a difference between the two), then we ordinary people in America and all other nations need to explore psychological warfare tactics and learn to overcome the weaknesses that make us willing participants like puppets controlled by their masters.

It is not just our fear that they use against us, but other emotions. These people don't give a damn about what we value, like community, family and the basic need to physically survive. We're being set up by a circle of sharks. They don't want us to realize that violent attacks invite violent attacks that will invite even more, unless somebody ends the cycle. They want us to help them to keep the conflicts going, because war causes various reactions that incline us to play into the puppet master's hands, thereby increasing the master's wealth and control.

There should be no war on terrorism, but resistance. To win it, we must become more fluid in thought and emotion to weaken the foundation of everything working against us, including ourselves. We need to learn where we deceive ourselves, where our thoughts, emotions and actions betray us. If we don't, then this world will become more intense, more violent while our basic physical need to survive will also become a hell of a lot harder. Everyone has enemies, but everyone is their worst.

This isn't to single out a specific group of people, either. Regardless of tribe, nation, religion or family line and social position, these basic truths apply to all. Included are presidents, dictators, prime ministers, kings and queens and so forth.

Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are no exception, but neither are George W. Bush and his administration, Prime Minister Tony Blair. These assholes played the masses in some way, or another. These people are guilty for what they've put out into the world, but every person that trusted and cooperated with them is equally guilty. We reap what we so.

We have a lot to learn about our world, the people manipulating it and our respective social structures as much as each others. We need to seriously learn history as its purpose is intended - to learn about the cycles of the human race, which helps us to learn about ourselves, our lives and our world. I caution against learning only from biased sources, including so-called experts and specialists.

I've learned that nobody leads or rules over a country alone. No one gains and holds power without help from others, may the aid come from cohorts and supporters, or from the compliant masses. Once in power, everyone serves whatever machine the leader or ruler relies on to maintain and increase the power and control. To those enjoying lofty positions, every place, person and thing is nothing more than a tool for their own selfish reasons.

Call that machine by any name. I often refer to it as a system created by humans that work at a more evolved level of an ant colony. It's not as sophisticated as our solar system, but it's a lot more complicated than an ant mound. Within a system is the core, the matrix, the center of the queen that feeds life into the system on all levels. It spreads like colonies. Eventually, some colonies battle for dominance and control in their drive to expand.

That's happening in our world. Very few people are aware of this. Some catch on and try to tell the rest, to help awaken them to what's happening. Sometimes, the awakened resort to creative measures to do this, like producers of movies, such as the animation Ants and the Matrix movies, each of which explain in two different ways so much of what I'm saying in this post.

Look at how we keep this system alive. At times when somebody questions this system, or comes up with an idea that will probably help to free us from it, most people resist, because they are programmed into the system. They either don't know it, or they sense what is true, but they've been programmed to be reluctant to learn why and to liberate themselves. They are slaves to the machine that exists and survives because of them.

They are the laborers, tax payers, soldiers, cops, teachers and even journalists. They are scientists, drug manufacturers and inventors. They are also merchants and consumers, philosophers and religious leaders.

See how foolish humans can be? But people can also be wise. It's a matter of choice and we've all got choices to make.

We can turn on the machine, shut it down and dismantle it. We've plenty good reason to do just that, but we cannot accomplish this if we refuse to examine our own inner weaknesses and challenge ourselves to overcome them. We sabotage ourselves and our world when we refuse to face and understand our own inner truths.

Man-made tragedies, sometimes followed by nature's revenge in some age, or another could have been prevented. The only way that fate played a role is when the effects followed the cause and set about a chain reaction.

As for freeing ourselves from cycles by removing ourselves from the manipulations of whatever machine controls our lives, we can then join forces with others to overcome it. Every effort we make to do all this requires exploration to enable us to learn what works and what doesn't and to learn the reasons why. In this, we reverse the tactics that the masters use to control the masses.

Oh, and violence isn't always necessary. The most powerful weapon is the human mind, how the mind gives and receives its contents, for what purpose and to whom.

Consider the cause and effects of how we rebel from being controlled, undermined, and what we perceive as mistreated or neglected by those we allow to be our masters. If we are apparently losing in our efforts, then we need to find different tactics. Perhaps, we can find answers in the past and present as we create future cycles.

We can end all wars if we, the world's masses, come together in friendship, bearing with us gifts of love and respect, honesty and modesty with the desire to become each other's trustworthy friend. Together, we can solve the problems that sometimes lead to major violence, destruction, death and suffering. We are capable of learning together, sharing information to allow this and making a cooperative effort to discover what answers and ideas our growing efforts and knowledge provide us.

Many of us are already taking these measures and our global circle is expanding, reaching parts of the world that seemed unlikely. We are recruiting members that have awakened as we strive to awaken more.

In a sense, we are an unofficial, non-government and global peace department. We are the millions of people that got together, cooperated and established specific dates to hold global protests against the war on Iraq. Our reported numbers are not the total of our true and consistently growing numbers. We welcome people of all nations, because we all need each other to revolt against the system that is destroying our world as it destroys one civilization, after another.

Heroes, or Villians?

2003-10-15T23:02:00.000-05:00

Here in America politicians, news reporters and televisions anchors and other influencial sources always make anything the U.S. does to affect other countries out to be a heroic deed. I cannot think of a time when this was any different. And I hope that Iraqi's like Riverbend understand this as a partial explanation for why some Americans feel righteous about sending the kind of messages that she's received. They truly believe that our troops are always sent out to do what is right and that they never do wrong. In their minds, every member of the U.S. military is perfect whenever they're involved in war.

Perhaps, the youth of a nation is reflected in the maturity level of most of its citizens. Maybe, that helps to explain why so many Americans act like children cheering on the home team while chiding and insulting anyone that isn't for the same side (i.e., same team, or nation and forces). I don't know if people in other countries are familiar with television shows like Jerry Springer, but the obnoxiously twisted guests on those shows reflect America's social garbage, revealing the lowlife tendencies that even the more prominant sector of our society possesses, no matter how cleverly they hide them from the public.

Many of us are raised in environments where we compete to dominate the direction that conversations take in an "I talk, you passively listen" manner which usually results in arguments riddled with tough-talking threats, name-calling and other insulting expressions. American audiences laugh and cheer at the "Yo mama" jokes, enjoying the disrespectful rips people take on each other's mother. Americans love "us against them" entertainment, especially played on nationalistic and cultural themes. We see this in cartoons, movies and documentaries that raise Americans up as the world's heroes, while reducing the "other guys" to rogues, or supportive allies. Yes, even our international allies have been sent to the back as minor charactors that pass the heroic triumphs to the American bad asses.

Our covert operatives are depicted by Hollywood and publishers as cool, sexy and slick, their only rivals of covert coolness are those in Her Majesty's Service (British spies, like James Bond). Our officers and generals are hailed as wise gentlemen. They aren't depicted as ruthless old farts that serve the Pentagon's interest to punish troops for complaining and questioning the government's treatment of them and the government's reasons for putting each troop's life on the line with orders to kill. Nor are they seen for what many do: order troops to do things that will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

Our media offers heart-touching spotlights on soldiers injured and killed during wars and foreign occupations, which is thoughtful and good. However, our media usually ignores the victims on the other side, especially civilians. Our media refuses to show us how foreign civilians are treated by our troops during a war, except when our troops do good deeds. So, most Americans don't know the side of the story where a fraction of our troops have been brutal, disrespectful, uncaring, and unethical in various ways. (And don't get me started on the number of babies fathered by American men that have left behind disgraced young women and often unwanted mixed children, like what happened in Vietnam during the 60's and 70's.)

It's difficult for Americans to understand why Iraqis or people of any other country have any reason to complain when our media and lawmakers repeatedly tell Americans that our troops are on missions intended to bring justice, help in humanitarian ways, establish freedom and democracy. Such are the claims Americans want to hear. Hell, even our troops hear these things and they like it that way. We're raised to believe that this is what America's global role is. We're raised to believe that America only wants to help, not hinder, harm, destroy or exploit. We're taught these things in school, in many religious institutions, at home and even at work. We are raised to believe that we are the good guys fighting evil in the world, often to defend our international neighbors from the Hitler types that are said to hate everything America is and promotes - human rights, freedom and democracy.

When an entire nation is programmed this way, it's difficult to deprogram the majority of the country's population. This conditioning is part of American tradition. It's so deeply ingrained in our culture that anything revealing the darker side of the story is treated with suspicion and anger, as if the unpopular truths are anti-American propaganda spun by communists and others said to hate freedom, democracy and human rights.

And we are raised to love our country (That's patriotism!) and to be proud Americans. Our constitutional rights are limited by restrictions and prohibitions that have rapidly multiplied over time, outnumbering the comparably few removed without much notice from most Americans. But we're often reminded of these rights, especially during times of division in America and when America is at war. With every war, we're told that our military people are fighting for our freedom and protecting our home and democracy, even when these claims have nothing to do with the reasons politicians send our troops to war. We are told these things because they are manipulative tactics intended to insure our support of every war and to regard our troops as heroes.

Every troop knows whether, or not he/she has done heroic deeds. We Americans won't know which ones did what. We won't know which ones did their best to spare the lives of innocent people and which ones didn't care who they killed, or why. We won't know which ones mistreated ordinary folks that just happened to live in a war zone, or invaded country, or which American troops showed mercy on them.

We won't know which U.S. soldiers stole precious few treasures from modest Iraqi homes and which ones were above such lowly acts. Regardless, most Americans will treat all of these troops like heroes, because the average American has been conditioned to do this.

And the Americans that treat all of the soldiers like war heroes will continue to sneer at Iraqis and accuse them of lacking gratitude for the freedom and democracy that Americans are duped into believing is the reason why our troops occupy and police Iraq today. No truths, not even questions and evidence will enlighten and change most American minds. Therefore, most Americans will neglect to do the honorable thing - demand that America's presence and influence in Iraq and other countries be as we're told it is and no less.

Occupation Watch

2003-10-15T14:55:00.000-05:00

If you're interested in keeping up with events in Iraq concerning the people and the foreign occupation of that country, especially with what goes unreported in U.S. media, then check out Occupation Watch.

Fair and Balanced, Fair and Balanced, Fair and Balanced!

2003-09-22T10:21:00.000-05:00

Just having a bit of fun with FOX TV lawyers by using the phrase "Fair and Balanced" on my blog. They've lost their suit against commedian Al Franklin for his use of the phrase "Fair and Balanced" on the cover of his new book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.". (The judge scolded the FOX lawyers for wasting the court's time with their frivolous and petty nonesense.)

Meanwhile, Blah3, known for participating in azz-whippin' flash movies in conjunction with symbolman for Take Back the Media is offering up an orgy of Fair and Balanced fun for those of us unaffiliated with and quite critical of whatever that crap is that FOX attempts to pass off as news and reliable information. Go see what I mean! (Hell, even when I lean more heavily to the progressive left, I'm still far more Fair and Balanced than FOX.)

Personally, I feel that FOX should be renamed to something like... Oh, maybe Chickenhawk, Weasle, or Coyote. (Native Americans will understand what Coyote means, but for others, it means "trickster".)

Dear me! It's way past my bedtime and I really need to get some Fair and Balanced sleep! I'll probably dream about FOX lawyers slapping me with a law suit for using the phrase Fair and Balanced not just once, but several times on this blog. Sue me, FOX! I dare you! I'll get Your worst nightmare of an attorney to shame you in the court of law, then I'll counter-sue for expenses and personal grief!

Truth and Spirit Warriors' Journey

2003-09-22T05:21:00.000-05:00

Supporting our troops isn't about supporting the war they're sent to fight. It's about giving a damn about them as human beings, realizing that their lives, not just physical, but also emotional and psychological, are put on the line for some reason, may it be justifyable, or not. Sometimes, supporting our troops means protesting against the reasons why they're sent to fight and risk their own lives, as well as, their physical, mental and emotional health in the process. Such points have not been made by the pro-war set, but they have been made by many of us, including war veterans, some of whom are parents of soldiers sent to Afghanistan and Iraq, others that are children of military war vets, including myself.

When my father returned from Vietnam he was a son of a bitch at home. He was quick tempered and frequently drunk, hypercritical and sometimes abusive. It wasn't until years later when I'd come in contact with other war vets and children and spouses of war vets that I grew to understand why my father was like that. Thank goodness, because the exposure helped me to understand to the best of my ability and to forgive my father, making my love for him easier to feel and express.

I've known war veterans that have lost their sanity. After viewing painfully graphic and horrifying war related photos of combat victims, I get a clearer picture of reasons why so many war vets "lose it." I see why so many drink heavily or dive into an abyss of drug abuse. I see why some become madmen and start killing off civilians, like the one in the 1980's that shot the patrons at a Mc Donalds, and another, a sniper that shot and killed most of his targets last October.

Perhaps, a delicate balancing act must take place within the heart and mind of every military man and woman. A portion of true grit, logic and quick reflexes and accuracy added to a strong sense of honor and a conscience colored with compassion. I was unsure if these qualities could ever be combined to help form the inner being of a soldier. One soldier, perhaps two, proved otherwise to me.

Here's is that soldier's photo page and check out his mug shot for the Sept. 12th update at this link. He's the author of the Turning Tables blog, known to us for a long time as Moja Vera. His comments have some times made me laugh, other times have made me cry. The more he posted, the more I felt my heart expand with love...

Especially when he'd express love, the basic kind directed at fellow soldiers, his fience, and the Iraqi people, like Salem Pax, Riverbend and Salem's friend G. Love deepened even more as he openly displayed some of the thoughts and feelings running through him about the war, reasons for it and more. The love did not end with him, nor did it begin, because it was already expanding and flowing toward G, Salem and now for Riverbend, along with all the others that try to get by, hope for a better future, and those that suffer over there, the living and those that succumbed to death.

While I see the officials as sometimes using our troops for terrorism, being no better than fanatics like Osama bin Laden, I cannot point an accusing finger at guys like Moja Vera, as somebody had done via a hate-filled emailed message to him. In fact, I was rather pissed off about that message. After reading Moja Vera's posts, I cannot possibly accuse him of such a terrible act.

In a sense, we Americans owed Iraqis the service of removing Saddam Hussein. After all, he would have never taken power without help from CIA agents backing his coup, because they wanted to get rid of the previous government (allegedly for its pro-communism direction). Perhaps, it would have been better if Iraq had become a communist nation, but then again, after learning of what's happened to countries previously controlled by the former U.S.S.R., I'd have to ponder deeply on that one before feeling comfortable with the view. Regardless, I'm damned glad Saddam is gone. However, I seriously wonder if the quality of life for Iraqis will only get worse than it's gotten since the invasion and the occupation began last spring.

I've tossed some of my ideas to a few tenured war vets where I've suggested what could have been a much better way. Indeed, what's done is done, but there's no reason to learn valuable lessons from this whole ordeal. So, I've dared to consider alternatives that could have been chosen if we Americans had a wise leadership able and willing to do the right thing, instead of the corporate executive chickenhawks that have been calling the shots while doing favors for their wealthy corporate friends. I mean, we could have gotten together with numerous educated, wise and clever Iraqis to join forces with them to overthrow Saddam and the thugs in his service. Yes, it would have probably led to violence, but the Art of War, as suggested by the ancient writings of Sun Tzu, indicates numerous ways to triumph without spilling much blood.

We could have borrowed from our own history to suggest and offer aid to Iraqis willing and able to travel outside Iraq, perhaps even to host them here, if they desired, and helped them to draft their own Constitution and Bill of Rights to be included into it long before overthrowing Saddam's regime. The whole thing could have been carefully planned out to avoid what's happening now. Yes, we Americans and the Brits had the means to help Iraqis to secure their borders while also determining which ones needed to be scrutinized, perhaps removed from Iraq's society and which ones would easily give up all allegience to Saddam in favor of a new and free nation. They could have already been prepared for an election with candidates lined up, especially ones that love their country and their people and aren't inclined to turn on them and a protective force, like a national guard and properly trained cops to insure that a fair election took place where Iraqis were protected from intimidation and attacks. We allegedly have the intelligence pros, as does the United Kingdom to make it happen from start to finish, as well as, other means to give them a helping-hand. It would've been the best way to reach out in friendship while also correcting the past errors of U.S. politicians and CIA spooks responsible for Saddam's cruel dictatorship.

If I can think of such strategy as a basic outline to serve as a foundation for more detailed plans, then why didn't the Pentagon Brass and the Bushies consider this? In answer, the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" name for this war was chosen to undermine those of us protesting against it out of ethics and humanitarianism. It was a way to dupe the ignorant sector of our society and acted like the famous middle-finger gesture directed at us and the rest of the world. After all, some of them, including George W. Bush's father, are profiting from every war involving our troops via their membership in the Carlyle Investment Group.

Evidently, to the elite sector of American and British society, as well as to the others in cooperative countries, the lives of soldiers, Iraqis, international journalists and other victims are nothing compared to the profits a few high-ranking rich people make from this war. The least they could do is to provide jobs to everyone that lost their livelihood as a result of this war, but they refuse to do even that.

I realize, fellow Americans supporting the war refuse to learn about and accept the harsh truths that make Americans appear horrible examples of being a nation that promotes democracy, freedom and human rights. Count the offensive assholes here in the U.S.A. that email the two aforementioned Iraqi bloggers with hate messages, you can see how difficult it is for some people in other nations to believe that not all of us are ignorant and arrogant asses. I cannot see why Iraqis should be greatful at this point, other than the fact that Saddam is gone. However, the Bushies have hardly proven that their control of the "regime change" is any better than Saddam's dictatorship (for which they have America to blame).

What's happend there and in Afghanistan, added to what's happened in numerous other nations, causes me to wonder if there's anything that my generation and the younger ones can possibly do to reverse America's well-earned dark reputation. This comes from love for my home land. I mean, this is also the home of my native ancestors, where I was also born and raised. I am heartsick that my country is the most resented and feared nation. The truth contradicts all the glossed-over feel-good things I've been taught by the forces that believe patriotism can only happen when we're raised on partial truths that stir national pride, mingled with gaping holes where facts have been removed to be filled with pervesions of facts.

As horrible and embarassing truths reach the surface, I am ashamed of the terrible things that the U.S. government has done and ordered various forces, including fractions of our military, to do. I'm also pissed off about it and have been pissed off for a very long time. I realize, the more my fellow Americans ignore the ugly truths, the more likely certain unworthy people will continue to add to them - to the shameful history that has earned this country's unsavory reputation in the eyes of the world.

Love for country and love for the world provides me with enough reason to care, often to cry, frequently rant and rage, and to desire to prepare myself to become more directly involved, to empower my mind, my voice and the hand that I use to sign my name. So, I fully intend to rise above my present status in an effort to make a positive difference here at home and with regard to the world. I refuse to force American ways and our nation's presence on the rest of the world. Fuck that shit! The world has had more than enough of this. No wonder they're disgusted and fed up with the U.S.A. I want to change that through positive change.

Presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich added a proposed Department of Peace to his long list of ideas of what he intends to do should he be elected as the next president of the United States of America. The idea of such a department appeals to me, provided it's not corrupted by manipulative and profit-seeking elements. I like the idea, enough that no matter what the outcome of this election is, regardless of what horrors are added to America's reputation and to the terrible things happening here at home, I am determined to do whatever's possible to make this dream come true. In fact, I've decided to prepare myself to become an active participant, especially after the election.

I'd like to see that type of department crop up in other countries, provided the people of those countries want it and strive to make it happen. To think that war is the way to end terrorism is for fools that believe in illusions. War may end some horrible campaigns and it is sometimes necessary, as it was to defeat Adolf Hitler. In that case, I'm rather ashamed that the people of the United States of America didn't prepare soon enough and get involved long before many nations fell to Hitler's brutal megalomania and hatred. There is a vast difference between Hitler and Saddam. Hitler proved to be a threat to all nations, as did the Emperor of Japan in that time. Saddam was mostly a threat to the people of his own country and lacked the means to be a major threat to any one else, including Israel.

I have learned the history that led to my nation's involvement in WWII, enough so that I see it being repeated today. Any fellow American can dismiss this, but the Bush administration's track record is becoming more and more similar to that of the Nazis. The very idea of America posing a threat the way Germany once did, with Americans as blindly loyal to the Bushies as Germans were to the Nazis is scary and I wish like hell that I'm wrong. But if my suspicions are true, then I refuse to be as the bewildered and loyal Germans were to Hitler. I refuse to bow to evil forces. They can fuck themselves, because I am an enemy of evil. I have love, a conscience and growing wisdom and knowledge as my weapons, my will and my wit are my shield.

Wanna Stop War Profiteers and End the War in Iraq?

2003-08-31T16:13:00.000-05:00

The Institute for Southern Studies asks us to join Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, United for Peace and Justice, Veterans for Peace, and others in the Campaign to STOP THE WAR PROFITEERS AND END THE CORPORATE INVASION OF IRAQ. I recently had myself counted as one of the "others" in this campaign. What about you? Let's get this petition filled and also pass the link around so others will know it's available for their signatures.

Let's keep in mind that real names lawfully signed are essential. Anything else will probably not be counted, including the rare smart-ass remarks posted by those opposing the petition... Then again, I've wondered if bothersome opposers that sign a petition just to criticize it and its supporters end up getting counted as being "for" it, instead of "against" it.

I suspect, it's only for U.S. citizens. However, if you're a member of another nation, you are free to also create your own petition, especially if your own country's troops have been used in this war. If you live in a country where the Bushies have used bullying tactics or other unethical means to pressure the leaders of your country to support them in this war and to support Bush's cowardly efforts to avoid being tried as a war criminal (and indeed, he is a war criminal) than feel free to petition the United Nations of petitioning your own government is not done, or ineffective.

That American Democracy Thing

2003-08-30T16:24:00.000-05:00

While the Bush Cartel and their media pundits, including dim -witted citizen fans, defend their lies with more lies that they're promoting democracy in Iraq, I return to the matter of election fraud. I may have said this before in an earlier post, but I reiterate that any American willing to pretend that fraud was not committed during an election and is critical of those that offer evidence to prove otherwise is not a patriotic American. I don't care if they literally wrap themselves in the U.S. flag, because any traitor can hide behind the flag and claim to love America and support American values as outlined by the Bill of Rights, while also participating in destroying all that is good in and of America merely by turning a blind eye to attacks on the best protections outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Such people are hypocrites and, in a sense, enemies of Democracy.

Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc, an active and strong supporter of Bush's candidacy and the Republican party is one powerful enemy we must overcome. He sent an Aug. 14th letter that went out the day before another possible domestic enemy - Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (a Republican) prepared "to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election," according to the Cleveland, Ohia based Plain Dealer news report at cleveland.com, which appeared on this page. The report went on to explain the close ties and loyal support between O'Dell, Bush and the other Republican candidates, and I do mean close:

"O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington."

After learning about the obvious indications of conflicts of interest, where O'Dell may likely insure that his money and efforts to re-elect Bush and support other candidates are well spent, Democrats are now reacting, hopefully in time to prevent more attacks on our democracy via election fraud, starting this week with Democrats now questioning "the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election."

What appeared to be a cut-and-dry effort to insure that Diabold would make certain that candidates in his favorite party would appear to win the election, disqualified bidder, Sequoia Voting Systems threw a wrench in their plans, thereby delaying Diabold's and the neocons' intended effort to completely rob us of our Constitutional right to a fair election by taking their issues to court over the unfair selection process, thereby forcing Ohio's Republican Secretary of State's move to announce that Diabold had qualified (perhaps erroneously) to count votes (and throw away the ones for his party's opponents).

House Representative Holt, of New Jersey has introduced a bill to provide paper copies of votes to each voter. It's time that America's patriots revolted. Let's start by contacting our representatives in Congress to encourage them to support this bill and to contact Rep. Holt to thank him and offer our support (as I've already done). And for those of us with Representatives that are members of the Republican party, we must warn them that refusing to support this bill is an admission that they object to fair elections and that they're obviously inside players, or they're accessories to the criminals and whatever crimes they're committing. It helps to remind them that we refuse to allow another election year to pass where violations are made. Let them know, "We aren't putting up with this any longer."

I'll be commenting more with a focus on non-violent revolution, like ways of applying pressure on powerful corporate executives that contribute generously to political campaigns of candidates that have been chipping away at our rights. It's time we stepped up our efforts. I don't mean by protesting, but finding ways to get through to the half-witted sector of our society, the brainwashed and the lazy-ass apathetic ones that add up to the dead weight in our path to progress. We're going to need to be more strategic and we need to really get this together ASAP, long before the 2004 election. Meanwhile, be sure to contact your Congressional Representative and offer up the challenge, "You're either with us (for protecting democracy) or you're against us (and willing to help the Republicans to destroy democracy). If your Representative is in on this, or you have reason to suspect that he/she is, then it's time to campaign throughout your district to insure that everybody knows the Rep. in question hates democracy and supports cheating us out of our votes. Bring the bastards down from their ivory towers. Also, be sure to apply powerful and unrelenting pressure on their voting supporters while striving to break them from their brainwashed-trance.

Still focused on Iraq

2003-08-28T21:03:00.000-05:00

I won't suddenly lose interest in what's happening in Iraq. I'm not like my corporate mainstream media employer or anyone else that decides it's no longer in vogue to care what's happening over there. In fact, I'll continue to care for years to come. I feel, it's my human duty and my obligation as an American to care and to seek truthful information. If I had the means to occasionally visit for a clearer and more detailed perspective, I would.

I hope that the author of Turning Tables is at liberty and is willing to openly share his views of the war in Iraq when he returns home. I hope that he chooses to help correct ignorant notions running rampant in this country. I see that he asks questions, obviously wants to have a fair assessment of what's happening over there and why. He's obviously not an ignorant fool. He's young (24), but his mind isn't like the minds of many his age that haven't seen what he's seen, nor survived what he's survived.

Why a young adult American, just barely out of high school and not even old enough to drink booze or gamble, decides to join the military cannot be easily summed up with one simple explanation. Everyone has his/her reason for joining. Like the Ithica, New York soldier told a reporter for his local paper shortly after he'd returned from Afghanistan - he always wanted to handle guns and shoot them.

A lot of people join for other reasons than what that guy explained as his. For a long time, the military has been used as a way out of a hard life, for advantages more accessable to military vets and enlisted personnel. In the 80's, I used to hear people say, "We've been enjoying peace and it's doubtful that anyone wants to mess with us. For one thing, we've got all these nukes." That was the same story I'd heard from a recruiter I knew.

We have actually been at war for a very long time. If you count soldiers of fortune that work for a nice profit from companies serving corporations to stir up conflict in countries with corporate interests, the ever-profitable (for the CIA and some other intel agencies) war on drugs that involves U.S. citizens of military and intel capacity in places like Colombia, and in Haiti... Just add 'em up and seriously ask how much the mainstream corporate media ignores and fails to report.

I feel that we U.S. citizens need to campaign for truth... Truth from lawmakers and media sources, and to persist in doing everything possible to insure that no American above the age of 17 is ignorant of the truth. It's about the only thing that will eventually set us free from certain patterns that have turned this country into one big Bulls Eye target.

We will never reduce, or end terrorist attacks on Americans by attacking other countries. We will never establish peace by taking over those countries, then privatizing their industries, especially when US corporations import workers, thereby denying citizens of those countries opportunities to work after a U.S. war campaign put them out of jobs. It'll never happen.

I hear otherwise from Americans that refuse to stop to think, "What if our country was invaded the same way, our people (including children) killed, and soldiers of that invading country searching each home the way Iraqi homes are searched, with each of us forced into bondage and bags placed over our heads? What if the invading force then decided to rebuild our country their way, using their corporations, importing their workers to rebuild, and establishing a puppet regime government of their choice, one that served their interests, not ours? What if they had hit our country with economic sanctions that killed over 500, 000 of our children, punished any of their own people that attempted to offer humanitarian aid, even medicine? Would we not (at least) resent them for it? How many of us would fight back, attacking their soldiers, using makeshift bombs?

I've read news stories where returning soldiers have made quite candid remarks, like a young Texas man returning home described how so many Iraqi people were cheering them after they first invaded, but how the peoples' attitudes have changed, that they look upon our soldiers with hatred, or anger, with distrust and fear. Any American that's tapped into alternative news sources knows why Iraqis have had a change of heart since the cruel dictator that the CIA propped up and empowered (Saddam) is no longer in power.

I don't know who is behind the orders to have our soldiers pull off searches in the middle of the night, where they sneak into private homes while families are sleeping, taking the families by surprise. I sure know that I'd be thoroughly pissed and feel violated if that happened to me. As I recall, in the words of journalist Borzou Daragahi in his most recent Letter from Baghdad, he's been frisked so many times that he feels like a sexual assault victim.

It's bad enough that our troops are over there, worse that they're in a position where they must protect themselves and each other. What is happening and what's obviously been required of the troops, from invading Iraqi homes, pointing guns in the faces of peaceful civilians, shooting at mobile vehicles filled withfamilies with young children where little tykes die and survivors are horrified and heartsick (like anyone would be), arresting a teenager for doing typically adolescent things like making fun of the troops, somebody somewhere is making matters worse for the troops. Attacking journalists (including photographers) and invading their homes (as is what happened to Salem Pax's family) is just making matters worse.

Add that to arresting or attacking peacefully protesting Iraqi activists complaining about their economic woes, because the U.S. corporations refuse to hire them to rebuild their own country and unemployment there is over 50% since the invasion. (see this story for details.) Everything about this mess is wrong. I see no evidence that Iraqi people are any better off than they were before. I'm trying like hell to be fair. Really, I am. If there was evidence that sincere efforts were made to show Iraqi people what a real democracy, civil rights and freedom is like, as we Americans have struggled for over 200 years to perfect, then I'd point out the positives. Unfortunately, mostly for Iraqi people, there's no genuine evidence to convince me that the Bush Cartel (including their corporate pals and Bremmer) are serious about the so-called freedom they insist they've used our troops to establish over there. I know, these words really chap the hell out of some fellow American asses. But those that defend this war have yet to provide an iron-clad argument to prove otherwise. Their constant references to "You should listen to Rush Limbaugh" merely proves just how ignorant and stupid these people are. I read transcripts of Rush Limbaugh's partisan and pro-war propaganda. I see where Rush is making a total ass of himself, but that his bewildered fans fail to see this because they lack enough common sense to seek as many diverse sources as possible and they haven't got minds of their own to think for themselves and question anything that doesn't quite add up to what Rush, Bush and the other liars are saying.

I've also been wondering something I've wondered many times. Shouldn't we raise the minimum age for military enlistment in America? I am getting the impression (so far) that most of the troops violating the rights and dignity of Iraqi people are quite young.

Oxymorons

2003-08-22T21:20:00.000-05:00

Think about this for a moment:

We want to protect the environment by causing fires, therefore smoking up our air with burning toxins.From Earth Liberation Front (ELF), a group of so-called environmentalists that just recently set ablaze apartments in the San Diego area and SUV's in other California communities.

We want to protect animals welfare and rights by freeing horses, that panic and run into streets where they can be hit by cars.From PiTA, a so-called animal rights group. A friend of mine, animal lover and owner of Norwegian Fjord horses told me about this one two or three years ago. She loves her horses and would never be cruel to them. She takes good care of her horses. The idea of a bunch of people releasing her horses into an environment where they can be harmed or killed would send this woman into a tearful rampage.

These two groups provide sound argument for me to feel comfortable in my "I rarely join" philosophy. I would hate for my name to be associated with the stupid acts that some members of these radical groups commit. Don't these numbskulls stop to think that actions like the two examples above actually defeat whatever cause they promote? Protect the environment by damaging it to make a statement? Protect animals by creating circumstances where they can be harmed or killed? This makes as much sense as peace and humanity activists going on a killing spree to protest against violence, or right-to-life anti-abortion activists killing doctors and others to show how much respect they have for a person's right to live.

Fools act on impulse, instead of first carefully weighing out the reasoning behind, and consequences of their actions before they do something stupid. Therefore, these people are fools. Just being foolish is one thing, but greater harm comes as a result of the actions mentioned above. These days, when fools representing non-government organizations of activists with causes, like human rights, animal rights, and environmental concerns act out in ways that give KGB John Ashcroft and the other fascists in government excuses for their attacks on American civil liberties, they defeat every argument the rest of us are making against the government burning our Constitutionally protected rights. The recent destructive acts of ELF members has been declared as acts of terrorism.

Not only have these fools set themselves up for John Ashcroft's KGB force, they've also delivered the message, "Our cause is unworthy for the American public to take seriously." They've communicated to the less-informed newspaper readers and television viewers of American mainstream society that they and their causes must be dismissed as silly radical nonesense that can be dangerous and is known to be destructive. These morons failed to take into account that they've already contradicted themselves. They've delivered the message that they, not SUV's and urban development are a threat to our society and/or the environment. The mainstream media (Associated Press and Reuters) reported on their recent actions and not too kindly and sympathetically, either. Just by stating a few facts, these media sources were able to convey that ELF is a destructive organization of extremists that endanger our environment while vandalizing other people's property. I'll just bet that the freedom-hating fascists of John Ashcroft's circles really love these morons.

Way to go, assholes!

!!EMERGENCY SITUATION AFFECTING OUR TROOPS!!

2003-08-20T10:32:00.000-05:00

Very Important! Please Read and Respond Accordingly ASAP

Take Back The Media has an extremely important message for every American that supports our troops over there in Iraq. Please visit this page at that website to learn more. The post directly below this one is relative to it. I urge you to also read it and click the links I've provided down there. This is not something to put off for another day. Our troops are dying over there, not just from those attacking them, but also from starvation and dehydration.

Thanks to the fellow Kucinich for President campaigner in Tulsa, Oklahoma for passing the word, and a cyber hug for Symbolman of Take Back the Media for the challenge. I urge everyone that reads this post to also spread the word and motivate people AFTER you take action.

A U.S. Soldier's Cry For Help

2003-08-19T13:36:00.000-05:00

The Bush Cartel, the Republican party and their media pundits intended to give Americans the impression that support for the War in Iraq (and any war this chickenhawk administration sends our troops to fight) is the definition of what it means to support our troops. Problem is, the Bush administration and the Pentagon need to learn what true support of our troops really is, because they obviously don't support them very well.

Methinks, the Bush Cartel has decided to us our troops to guard Iraqi oil interests while Halliburton and other oil industry corporations that are closely tied to the administration take over, then leave our troops there for the next year to suffer and die. There is good reason why the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and similar growps along with military families have organized to fight this war. They've also been speaking out against the long stay there and harsh conditions affecting the troops, as well as, the mountain of lies the administration has been telling the American people and our military personnel over there.

It seems, no matter how the Pentagon and military officials attempt to silence our troops, some have managed to get the word out about the ugly truths that the Bush administration and Pentagon don't want the folks back home to know. What follows is a cry for help from a US soldier's email, as reported at 5PM PDT on August 14th, by Chris Legeros of KIRO television channel 7 news. Within this report is also a statement made where the soldier backs up the "war for oil" argument:

The soldier is Private 1st Class Mary Yahne of Bonney Lake. According to the report, the soldier is somewhere in Iraq hauling cargo for the Fourth Infantry Division and "struggling to stay alive." Her email messages to her family and the television station were complaints about the 120-degree heat with no air conditioning, constant danger (mined
roads and launched grenades at troops), and a shortage of decent food with a limitation of two bottles of water per day.

"They need help, they need help badly," Treva Yahne, the soldier's mother, said.

Within the message, the soldier questions the reasons why they're still there adding, "I was [for the war] at the beginning.... I support the troops, but like I said, I don't support the war, if that's what they call it."

"KIRO's reporter describes pride in a sign outside Treva Yahne's [the soldier's mother] home and patriotism reflected with flags. But the Bonney Lake mother has had a change of heart over the past few months.

The soldier told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News staff that the military expected soldiers to be happy in Iraq. She explained that she's happy to serve her country, but not when the government fails to take care of the troops. She added, "We volunteered our lives to be out here and we get treated worse that people in prison."

Treva Yahn told KIRO, "she just wishes it was all over. Like I said, they want to come home."

Private First Class Mary Yahn exclaimed, "There is no real reason for us to be out here!!!!, We're protecting the oil is all, and as far as the supposed war ending, it hasn't. Not when everyday soldiers are still getting mines placed in front of convoys. Rocket propelled grenades thrown at us."

Private Yahne has also asked for care packages that the troops aren't getting from the Pentagon and other government sources, like non-parishable foods, including snack foods to tide them over between meals, and personal hygene items, such as shampoo, conditioner, body wash, and deodorant.

The more that the Pentagon, the White House occupants and those scheming on behalf of the government officials do in an effort to silence our troops, the more that these high-ranking people and those in service to them prove that they DON'T support our troops. Thus, when critics of anti-war protestors, including an Admiral in Pensacola Florida, accuse us of being unpatriotic, they need to look at their hypocritical selves to see the faces of real unpatriotic Americans.

The best way to support these troops after participating in a drive to send them plenty of necessary supplies that the Bush administration and it's Pentagon arm deny them is for every American to demand that the Bush Cartel and the for-profit and control Pentagon officials bring the troops home now.

Argument for Universal Healthcare and the Labor Force

2003-08-16T14:01:00.000-05:00

The pro-corporate wealthy sector has been spinning a yarn of lies in their effort to stamp out growing public support for universal healthcare in America. In that, they're also attacking 2004 Presidential candidate - Dennis Kucinich, a progressive Democrat determined to provide all Americans with guarunteed healthcare benefits. They intend to convince American voters that universal healthcare is socialist (playing on the Joseph Mc Carthy "There's a commie in your closet" paranoid mentality). They have no strong argument to oppose it, but they're working hard on building their own argument on what compares to an industrial house of cards.

The universal healthcare idea is excellent and it can benefit Americans of all income brackets. It can also help to control the spread of disease, which worsens as more Americans are unable to afford medical and dental aid, including prescription medicine.

I'm one of those Americans unable to afford to get medical treatment. Because of my low-wage labor status, added to my greedy corporate employer's new policies that prevent me from taking paid sick leave, I usually go to work when I'm ill. My immune system is not what it was when I was healthier (could afford healthcare). Since I help to produce and distribute products to the general public, what with my hands-on job requirement, I frequently cough on the product. Being forced to remain on the task with limited freedom to wash my hands, I am handling the product with unclean hands.

Keeping a roof over my head and affording what little food I can buy means more to me than fretting over how I spread a possibly serious and contageous illness. Sometimes, my food money goes to rent and I'm still left owning a portion of the month's total amount due. I know, it's selfish to put my needs first, but this is a personal-survival issues and hard times require desperate measures. It means, I'm putting managers at risk, but since they get paid sick leave, can afford insurance and are on the company's insurance plan, and they can afford the expense of being sick. So, I don't feel badly. They get bonus's for cuts they make at their low-wage subordinates' expense. But it also means that I put the general population at risk, too.

Let's say that I contract a contageous illness that ranks highly on the "this one can be deadly for some people" list. I (a person of conscience) don't enjoy making people sick, especially if the illness may cause serious health complications. However, being in the "low wage single parent" trap (I'm trying to escape it.) means that I must force myself to work even when I'm ill. It means, the product I help to produce may carry germs that don't require a living host to survive. It means that whatever I touch and breath on can carry an air-born or direct contact germ that will be handled by coworkers, including those that distribute the product around town, thereby infects my coworkers who come in contact with others. My germs can travel to the schools that receive this product or educate the students I've indirectly infected via their relatives or other people they know. My germs can travel to stores around town and vending machines that provide the product with correct change. It means that my germs will find their way to homes all over town in in surrounding communities. My germs will also be spread via mail delivery to other communities in my state, in other states and possibly outside the country.

Do you see the danger in me being a low wage earner, unable to take time off from work and also unable to seek health care?

If I could stay home from work, or if I get sick on an off-night, I'd still put the general public at risk. I'd need only to infect neighbors, the clerks and customers at the local convenience store or drug store. If more of us are infected and unable to take time off from work and get treatment, we'll make the rich people, the soldiers, the politicians and others sick. But at least they'll be able to see a doctor.

I suppose, if conservatives have their way and all healthcare clinics were closed, uninsured low wage workers could visit an emergency room. What if that meant that a seriously injured person, heart attack victim or other patient with money, especially ones that seriously need immediate treatment must wait because we non-emergency patients have finally managed to secure a bed or room. I guess, it means that the patient with a real ASAP emergency will need to wait, or be treated in the waiting area. That patient in need of immediate treatment could have been someone opposed to universal healthcare. That patient could have been a corporate boss, or a political prostitute favoring pro-corporate policy.

Consider how many people that contracted the so-called SARS illness have been seriously affected by it and how many died in Canada, a country that provides universal health care. The situation could have been a lot worse and probably more inclined to infect U.S. citizens, considering how many Americans and Canadians regularly cross the border.

Imagine that such a disease (SARS or whatever it really is) spreads throughout America. We Americans unable to afford healthcare will be the most vulnerable. That may mean nothing to Americans enjoying the priviledge of being able to rush for professional medical care over something as minor as a tummy ache and able to stay home to heal, but they shouldn't get too comfy about it. We'll make them sick, too. We are, afterall, the people that are busting our butts for low wages to clean public facilities and cook and serve food in commercial food establishment. We're the low-wage laborers that provide them with things like newspapers and magazines. We're ringing up their shopping purchases and handing back their change that's been handled by many people. We're stocking the store shelves with the products they buy. This takes me to the next issue.

Former President Bill Clinton and his side-kick, Albert Gore obeyed their corporate masters and political collegues by imposing the Welfare Reform act. It could have been okay, except they had also fattened up the political Corporate Welfare program for wealthy employers. This resulted in sending a lot of people into the job market that these people had manipulated by helping corporate bosses to bust unions by closing shops in the United States after moving them outside the country to take advantage of foreign laborers willing to work for less than $1. per hour, labor for more than 10 hours and without health and safety benefits, along with other job-related protections that have been established in the United States. They added extra goodies for the corporate welfare program to give corporate bosses more freedom to run smaller competitors out of business by utilizing all sorts of clever price fixing tactics, including corporate purchases and mergers with suppliers (manufacturers and farm produce, for example). This move was very good for the rich corporate employer and politicians that whore their votes for them, but bad for most Americans.

The result was, more job opportunites in the service sector. Even the South was in on this, especially in states with anti-labor rights laws that weaken organized labor power (Florida is one of those states). However, with the job growth came a lack of opportunity for most working class Americans to earn decent wages. With these changes, a surge in low wage part-time and temporary job opening began to replace full time workers. Added to this were corporate policy changes that denied many benefits to these low wage workers. Such benefits included paid vacation and paid personal holidays, or sick leave. Also changed were, for some industries, standards where part time workers are forced to work on holidays without being paid overtime for it. (That's rough for kids when mommy and daddy are forced to work on Christmas eve and Christmas day.)

The changes resulted in temporary gains for big-time investors and market players. Among the investors are major investors with seats on corporate board of directors and in executive offices. In the meantime, with the expansion of low wage job opportunities, another trend resulted where corporations competed for monopolistic control.

Banks were merging with, or acquiring other banks at a more rapid pace. Convenience and grocery stores did the same with Walmart taking the lead by accessing control of suppliers and shifting from the "buy American" plan, to "buy Chinese" manufactured products. Garment manufacturers adopted the foreign labor trend, with some industries exploiting enslaved refugees from China on a Pacific American Territory island. Newspapers, some of which were owned by corporations that also bought billboards and television stations. It also meant that corporations were buying out other competitors. At least one newspaper corporation also buys print shops surrounding one of its papers, either to close down, or to use as off-shoots for print jobs not done at the paper.

Newt Gingrich was one of the Congressmen (when he was Republican House Whip) that personally profited from his sell-out deal favoring Boeing's desire to move one of the corporation's plants (in Alabama) to China. In a round-a-bout way, his money was invested in Boeing stock. He rallied the House of Representatives to agree with him in voting in favor of allowing Boeing to move the plant from Alabama, to China. That put the plant workers in Alabama out of a job. This isn't just an isolated example of how both Republicans and Democrats aligned with the DLC whore their government positions to corporations and profit from it.

When you consider the direction our country's economy has taken, consider these examples of how lawmakers and corporate bosses, with help from other investors, have worked together to screw up a damned good nation. The greater their advantage over humble self-employed Americans, modest business partnerships, and working class Americans, the worse the quality of life gets for the average American.

Therefore, whenever a political candidate, like Dennis Kucinich campaigns for American workers and farmers (non-corporate, of course) and promotes programs like universal health care, you have every reason to blatently laugh off the silly nuts that are going around criticizing him and his issues. The people that are criticizing Kucinich, pro-laborers and a potential universal health care program in America can be divided into at least two groups:

One sector relies on limited information sources and their primary sources are actually performing the dual role of profiting from the corporations and political prostitutes for corporate clients (lobbyists). This sector includes a percentage of America's population that prefers seeking entertainment instead of information. This sector also includes people that have wrongfully chosen to support politicians that abuse or intend to abuse public office for personal gain and to help corporate friends gain greater control and privileges at our expense. Among these people are individuals that aren't very bright in the first place and ones that have adopted twisted ideals, such as, racism, sexism and nationalism. These people are selective blind followers inclined to parot catch phrases and catch words delivered their way for politically strategic purposes. Most are too lazy-minded and ignorant to know how to do some research before they foolishly adopt whatever propaganda they've been fed. They are easy to manipulate. These days, mention America, terrorism, patriotism and war and they'll repeat (like good little parots) every propaganda catch phrase they've recently been programmed to deliver. These people don't even know the meaning of patriotism, but they've followed their leaders in the march where they hide behind the American flag to support anti-American government and corporate policies.

The other sector assumes the leadership role combined with those that work behind the scenes. They personally profit from exploiting and oppressing foreign and America's working class, running family and other modest farms out of business, and running other self-employed Americans and small partnerships out of business. These are the people that also create circumstances (which they're still creating) that decline quality health care opportunities for all Americans. Additionally, with their attitude toward destroying America's public school system by finding all sorts of clever ways to deny teachers and the schools decent funding, as well as, with their tight-wad attitude toward funding public libraries, added to supporting the Total Information Awareness (recently renamed Terror Information Awareness because the first name revealed true intend) department's "spy on library patrons" program, they strive to keep American citizens that don't profit from the above mentioned scams, dumbed down, poorly informed, and enslaved to a destructive system.

No person of sound ethical values approves of this. No truly patriotic American does, either. So, while the pro-corporate, pro-government control freaks are spreading rumors about those of us that support universal healthcare in America, pro labor laws, laws to put corporations in their proper place by first getting rid of the big government Corporate Welfare program, people like me are here to set the record straight and to let you know who's behind the lies and why.

Thugs in Uniform

2003-08-13T13:46:00.000-05:00

A post with today's date on an update of Dear Raed where Salem Pax reveals an incident that brings shame on America and this country's troops:

"G. my friend got beaten up by US Army last night, he was handcuffed and had a bag put on his head. he was kicked several times and was made to lie on his face for a while. All he wanted to do was to take pictures and report on an attack, he works for the New York Times as a translator and fixer. He got more kicks for speaking english.
his sin: he looks Iraqi and has a beard.
story will be told, I need to get him drunk enough to get the whole thing out of him he doesn't want to talk."

An image suddenly flashed in my head of jackbooted Nazi soldiers giving a Nazi victim similar treatment. I'm relieved that "G" didn't get worse (Hope not, anyway) and that he survived the attack. I'd sure hate to be in his position. I wonder how many troops that had nothing to do with this and other war crimes committed by Americans will pay the price for what these punks are doing over there. It seems to me, the people in charge of the troops need to get off their butts and do something to put an end to this before a lot more people on both sides end up dead.

Do It Yourself Dictatorship

2003-08-12T03:47:00.000-05:00

National and Global Dictatorship Series

Easy, step-by-step basic instructions for anyone that dreams of ruling the world.

You! Yes you can be a dictator of your own country. If that's not good enough, then you can take over the world one, two, or three nations at a time! Tried and true methods used by famous dictators and emperors, like Ceasar, Nepoleon, and Hitler

Learn from the best! Read this....
***AMAZING GUIDE!***

After reading the following description below, we're sure you'll want to buy the whole instruction manual serious (each book sells for US$19.99, Satisfaction guarunteed. Secure your copy at Barbarian Books, your online corporate bookstore.):

Volume One teaches you to program popular thinking through amazing propaganda techniques. You'll learn just how powerful the mass media is when you and your closest cohorts control it. For example, every prospective dictator knows:

"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call
girl, for a couple of hundred dollars a month."
CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda
and cover stories.
-- "Katherine The Great," by Deborah Davis ,1991

In this volume, you'll learn how to locate the best P.R. Firms and how to work with them to manipulate public opinion through the media you intend to control and how to make deals with your strongest media moguls and their news teams to spin any misinformation and disinformation to the public. We'll teach you how to take advantage of the media's campaign politician's love of catch phrases and rhetoric and how to train their viewers and readers to parot these phrases as a sure-fire way to spread your propaganda while raising your popularity and simultaneously discrediting anyone that contradicts, criticises or questions your, actions and motives..

You'll gain the advantage of a society with warped and limited understanding and memory of facts and events, where their mind-set will actually support you and your goals. You'll learn to make use of division caused by differences in idealogy, race and culture, political party affiliation and economic class. If you're not already born to a wealthy and elite family, we'll show you how to get rich the way executives at Enron, Halliburton, Brown&Root have done and how you'll make friends with the most influencial (useful) wealthy and powerful "supporters.

We'll explain the art and practice of how you and your closest cohorts can infiltrate and control government, police, and education. By the time you've read the final chapters of Volume One, you and your supporters will be ready to establish your own popular media networks just for you and your ilk to launch your mass psychology campaign in preparation for your fascist rise to power.

In this second volume, we'll teach you tried and true techniques to undermine dissenters in government, media, and the public. We'll show you how to bully a nation and the world to get anything you desire.You'll learn from experts that have served recent U.S. presidential administrations and Congresses how to draft pre-takeover laws that will be altered after your country is attacked to ultimately strip civil rights from the people and remove power from their representatives and other government branches before you and your cabinet assume power. This volume shows you clever tricks to win elections without truly winning the popular vote, like how to disinfranchise voters. We'll explain the fine art of rigging ballots and we'll show you state-of-the-art computer ballots that your minions can hack into to insure that only you and your supporters will ever win before you end elections altogether.

You'll learn how to set the global and national economic stage, first as a behind-the-scenes player in your own corporate monopoly, then in public office. You'll also learn to take advantage over existing economic problems, how to shift funds from public service programs, to funding your own military industrial complex while paying off corporate friends and other insiders. You'll learn from some of the best corporate/government/military campaigns to prepare for a coup in small and militarily and economically weak countries. We'll show you how you can use the United Nations to help you disarm a nation before you're ready to attack it, to ban some nations from making and possessing WMD's, how to weaken a strong country via clever tricks, like convincing the U.N. to enforce economic sanctions on that country. (A decade of economic sanctions makes a targetted country much easier to overthrow and occupy.)

In the third volume, we'll show you ways to actually taking over your first country (Your own homeland works best.) You'll learn how to undermine industries at home and abroad, how to gain power over these industries and the watch dog consumer and government forces. We'll show you how to make foreign enemies by forcing regime changes in their nations while siphoning their resources, ones that will later serve your purpose when they fight back (become terrorists) after you've overthrown their governments to access their resources.

Volume Five is the mother-load of the series. This volume instructs you on how to stage The Big One attack on your home land that will offer you a quantum leap to national and World Domination.

We'll explain how to play on strong emotions to manipulate the masses following a horrible attack. We'll show you how easily people can be manipulated to give up their rights and line up behind you in support of your every decision, like when you're ready to establish a military police state.

And this is where you take full control. Yes, you can convince the majority of your nation's population to accept you with open arms as their dictator, or to insist that you're not a dictator when all reasonable evidence says otherwise. As soon as you declare in your public response to the attack, "We'll get them!" you'll have a whole nation behind you, its media will assure this, as they line up to support you. They'll cheer on your decision to send their uniformed loved ones to engage in pre-emptive strikes while the whole world looks on in horrified shock and awe. The people of your home-based nation will gladly obey martial law when your terror alerts rise to Code Red each time public support begins to waver, or when the masses begin to drift away from fear of every enemy you name in your "Axis of Evil" list (targets to attack, occupy and own to serve your whims and purposes). They'll welcome your agents and federal police to kick in their doors, listen in on their conversations, and read their mail. They'll willingly argue that your total information awareness data base is as necessary as public body searches to help root out enemies.

No need to worry about the United Nations or superpower friends. Even if you lose support and trust of international allies, you'll learn from this powerful series how to control the leaders of the world long before it's their turn for a regime change that puts you and your trusted pals in charge. You'll learn the valuable skills of blackmail, bribary and threats. You'll learn all about economic warfare and how to punish powerful nations that tell you "no," or say bad things about you, like how to tap into departments that have access to powerful virus and bacterial weapons.

Well, future World Emperor, or National Dictator... Does this seem like an ideal guide to you? Wouldn't you like to get started now to beat the other guys that are trying to take over the world? If so, then you're in for a treat, because we're also going to show you what errors they've made and how not to use an idiot as your puppet. We'll also show you the right way to lie and not get caught.

Act now, and you'll receive an inspirational poster print of Hitler, his people, George H.W. Bush, his son George and Colin Powell giving the emperialistic salute!

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." -- Julius Caesar

Content matter of the above promotion of non-existent book series does not reflect the ethical standards and desires of Lift The Veil and its author and may not reflect the views of blogger.com.

Copyright© Treva L. Van Fossen

All applicable rights reserved. No material here may be reproduced in exchange for money or other personal profits, and may not be reproduced on strictly commercial websites. Republishing of Do It Yourself Dictatorship and all other material posted on this blog (where applicable) is granted only if link back to this source, or any other provided by Treva L. Van fossen is provided with copy.

Patriotic is as Patriotic Does

2003-08-09T20:55:00.000-05:00

More petition signing... Just doing my duty as a patriotic American by taking part of a democracy that's been stolen from us, pretending that my voice actually makes a difference to more than just a few honorable representatives in Congress:

Thanks to Mike Ruppert page on Where is the money?, which leads to the interactive website that asks the same question, shows us where it's gone and encourages people to sign the petition demanding accountability for those that have stolen over 1.1 trillion bucks from the U.S. Treasury Department (where our tax dollars go, folks).

Sometimes, I don't stop with one petition when I see more. Like with the petition provided by the folks involved in the Working Poor Picnic campaign, which offers a petition for all of us to appeal to Congress to pass a living wage bill. It's good for us and good for the U.S. economy. If we don't make money, then our employers won't make money, because more and more employers are paying less to working class consumers.

I seriously doubt that there are enough truly ethical and patriotic members of Congress. The last time I looked, there was a large population of Republicans out-numbering Democrats and, of course, good ol' Bernie (the only Independent in the House of Representatives). And what makes matters worse are the pro-corporate, vote-selling members of the DLC, the sores on the Democrat mule's behind. Therefore, while I've done my patriotic duty to sign worthy petitions, I don't believe they'll be passed by Congress, because certain members of the House and Senate don't believe that we working class Americans vote. Besides, these days, election fraud is in and getting easier:

Thanks to Buzz Flash for posting a link to Safeguarding the Vote just when I was hunting for the links to sites I've visited where election fraud is getting easier and more commonplace in America. I'm deeply troubled that there aren't enough real patriotic Americans to raise hell about things like Black Box Voting. Thanks to David Dill, professor of computer science of Stanford University, for his democratic contributions and efforts to establish Verified Voting Results in order to protect Americans from those that strive to undermine the democratic process of fair elections. (It's been getting more and more like those South American countries and like Iraq's one-candidate [always Saddam] elections that our media and lawmakers occasionally talk about.) Pity, we citizens of the Land of the Free, home of the brave, where democracy is touted and said to be promoted around the world are having to fight against strong resistence just to clean up our dirty elections.

Shame on those politicians and certain corporate friends of their's for pushing us to where we must establish watchdog groups like, Vote Watch. It's a sad, sad era in America... Our flag has been turned upside-down, just like a tearful frown.

2003-08-09T17:41:00.000-05:00

Interesting Days

While I'm recooping from some weird illness that kicked my butt (I usually don't get sick during the summer, but all those chem trails over Pensacola, Florida are probably dumping gawdknowwhat on us), I've surfed the web during waves when the icky feeling wasn't as bad. I've also been warming myself up for a passionate Kucinich For President campaign.

First, I must share some cool finds of late:

One is another blog worthy of my growing list of links (like the ones scatted in posts below that aren't already listed). This blog is called Bush Lies. Nice quotes of news items that make up a worthy list of pointers for those of you documenting, or arguing and also for any fellow American that needs more proof that Bush and his friends lie and because if their lies, people have died and more keep dying.

Relative to Bush is his helper, Katherine Harris, a Florida neocon that served in his brother, Jeb's administration. You may remember Harris' role in committing the terribly unAmerican/unpatriotic attack on our democracy when she cooperated in a concerted effort to insure that Gov. Jeb Bush's big brother would occupy the White House to become America's Big Brother. Well, Harris isn't too popular with many Floridians, and she's making more enemies these days, like with America's elderly.

The Associated Press released a story that the Florida Ledger published with the headline, "Harris Booed at Town Hall Meeting." She wasn't booed just once, but several times!

Hundreds of people showed up for the Bradenton, Fl. town meeting located at the Bradenton Kiwanis Hall on Thursday night, August 7th. She spoke for about 30 minutes of the allotted hour, then the town folks formed a very long line to the microphone to ask questions, but Harris didn't answer each question. Instead, she waited until all questions were asked, according to the Bradenton Harold. The boos were loud!

The people were already irate. Members of the AARP (an advocacy group for senior citizens) had been handing out literature to explain the Bush Administration's horrible changes of the Medicare drug plan. Harris' staff members and security guards confiscated the literature from the people handing it out and from the people accepting it."

Tony Fransetta, president of the Florida chapter of AARP, protested, "This is wrong," when he was told to hand over his fliers, according to the Bradenton Harrold report. "We have never been restricted in what we could hand out at other town meetings," Fransetta said. "We have talking points that simply list questions that would help people better understand and articulate their concerns. They have been denied that right."

Connie M. McKee, a member of Harris' staff, excused the confiscation of the literature by claiming that it was against policy for literature to be handed out during a town hall meeting. But Senior citizens in protest of the medicare bills distributed the fliers in the parking lot during a news conference held before the people assembled indoors for the meeting.

Harris took the liberty of handing out her own fliers during the meeting. One flyer detailed propaganda intended to give the false impression that "Bush's economic plans are restoring confidence and creating growth through fiscal discipline. Another highlighted the many benefits of Medicare reforms passed in June."

What the AARP, a well-respected group that looks out for our elders also provided on their fliers showed a a chart of Harris' voting record since she began her term in the House of Representatives in January. Not good news for Harris if she intends to return, but then again, she's proven that some people can attack democracy by committing election fraud and then be rewarded with an advancement from being Florida's Secretary of State, to becoming a member of the House of Representatives.

I wonder what the AARP, senior citizens on fixed incomes and other Americans denied decent healthcare and affordable drugs feel about Dennis Kucinich's ideas for solutions? He knows what many low-income people are going through and he has excellent ideas that can help all Americans to get the medical help and treatment needed, instead of only those that can afford the high insurance and bills, ideas that offer better alternatives to greedy insurance companies and plans known to deny doctors' and patients' the right to choose doctors and treatment proceedures. Just another reason why we need Kucinich, not Bush.

2003-08-06T13:10:00.000-05:00

So much for discouraging terrorism

Not only were Saddam's two sons recently killed and buried on Aug. 2nd, but his 14 year old grandson, Mustafa, son of Qusay Hussein. I was unaware that the teenager was also killed. It seemed to me, press reports focused only on the two men.

In an earlier post here, I'd mentioned Iran and that country's state-controlled oil. In the early 1950's, the CIA and some cooperating British decided to overthrow the democratically elected Iranian government and replace it with the Shah, because the Shah was willing to do business with the West according to Western terms. It was all about the oil.

The Shah was a cruel dictator. He stole from the Iranian people, persecuted them, imprisoned them and executed many. Eventually (in the late 1970's), Iranians had had enough. They intended to execute the Shah. Well, the Shah's allies wouldn't have it, so then President Jimmy Carter launched a rescue mission to get the Shah and his family out of the country. Tensions had been brewing in Iran as it was. Iranian protestors were burning American flags and chanting, "Death to America, the Great Satan!"

Some Iranians interviewed by our media (at least, ABC News, as I recall) said, "It's not all Americans, but the government" and he'd mentioned some others.

Some Iranians decided to do a lot more than protest to make their voices heard in Washington D.C. and in places like Texas. Actually, they went to the extreme. They'd hijacked a commercial airline and took hostages. They freed hostages deemed as innocent, but kept ones tied to politics and the military, as I recall. It was an act of desperation, but here at home in America, we haven't been programmed to see things that way, except some of us that venture more deeply into the human mind. Nevertheless, the phrases, "Death to America" and the "Great Satan" burned into my teenaged mind. I wasn't, but a year older than the 14 year old killed when these events took place.

While reading a Truth Out copy of a New York Times story, I'd felt a sense of de ja vu when the headline At Funeral for Hussein Sons, a Call for 'Death to America':

"Our blood, our souls, we'll sacrifice for Saddam!" the crowd roared, repeating the line.

When friends and family lined up in a traditional prayer to mark the end of the funeral, one of the members rose from his knees and exploded in anger, jabbing his finger at a small number of Americans standing by.

"Death to America!" he shouted, with murmurs of assent behind him. "Death to America!"

And I thought I'd heard rumors of attacking the oil-rich Liberia. We've been wondering what weak country is next on the list. What American families will be seeing their soldier loved ones off to war in that ravaged country? And will it end up in total genocide, or will Liberian survivors remain? Either way, what amount of anti-Americanism will intensify, with whom and where? Who else will cry out, "Death to America," just as so many have done in the past and many do today? How many civilians in other countries and in the United States will die and how many seriously injured? How many soldiers will die and how many seriously injured?

It seems, regardless of the nation our troops are sent to invade, it's always rich with a prized and much coveted treasure. Surely, many pro-war people will say that this is merely coincidence, but is it coincidence when business men here and in "allied" countries always seem to get a handsome cut? I guess, one would need to understand the Business of War, but pro-war common Americans don't and they probably will never venture to learn, because they like what they've been programmed to support and believe, and they've been conditioned to think "war means peace and peace can't exist without war."

Meanwhile, profiteers are enjoying their blood money.

2003-08-06T11:35:00.000-05:00

Cynthia Mc Kenny is Back!

I have developed a deep admiration and respect for the former Congresswoman of Georgia, Cynthia Mc Kenny. She's one of the victims the Bush Cartel and their friends expected to stay down when they struck her, but she defied them. They underestimated her! For details provided by From The Wilderness:
Kill the Messenger

Mc Kenny stands up and speaks on behalf of the American People and Truth

Well, the neocons rallied their minions in an effort to silence Mc Kenny. Since she wouldn't shut up and she wouldn't sit down, they had numerous members of their party in Georgia switch voter registration to Democrat so that they could vote her out of the 2002 Democrat primaries by voting for a Bush ally. Then the Georgia voters filed suit in complaint of the malicious cross-over scam.

And it seemed that McKenny had vanished for a while, but she never really retreated from her determined effort to get to the truth and expose it to the American People. She just wasn't as public about it for a while, but she has participated in the ad campaign conducted by From the Wilderness subscribers to have the truth printed in newspapers around the country which resulted in (what I believe to be) the first published ad in the Washington Post: Subscriber Buys FTW Full Page Ad in The Washington Post (Leaked Copy May Have Forced Resignation of Army Secretary)

Her most recent public statement is, "Democracy Is Under Attack - Let's Take it Back".

2003-08-05T21:57:00.000-05:00

To the Democrats: Attract Progressives and Win, or Try for Conservatives and Lose

I'm a progressive. I used to be registered Democrat, but in 1995, I switched to become a registered Independent, just as I had wanted to during the early 1980's after I was old enough to register to vote. Back then, my only option was Democrat or Republican. I reluctantly and resentfully chose the lesser evil (Democrat).

I was of the mind that Republicans are all for the rich. They're anally retentive control freaks that are against any freedom outside the boundaries of their uptight, socially and religiously controlled ways. I saw and still see Republicans as being determined to undermine the poor, impoverish more people to oppress and suppress, while profiting from our labors and consumerism. Their wealthy and elite friends, political allies and relatives profit while we lose.

Democrats need not gloat over this. I saw the Democrat party as painfully overpopulated by wishy-washy wimps and sell-outs. During visits with candidates, I'd ask questions and express my feelings, views and desires. The candidates were inclined to tell me anything I wanted to hear, but their eyes betrayed them enough that I knew they were lying to me. The ones that were elected proved that my instincts were dead-on. Many Democrats will sell us out as quickly as Republicans. The difference is, Republicans are more blunt about it, whereas, the Democrats try to be sneaky with the underhanded deals they make with corporate and other elite lobbyists.

I'm not finished, folks, because there's more...

The Democrat party has been on a self-destructive streak for decades and it's getting worse. There would have been no need for Ralph Nader to run against the Democrat Presidential candidate during the last major election had this party better represented the people. Instead, only a minority within this party has best represented us and their state constituents. That is why Americans like me favored Ralph Nader.

The Democrat Leadership Council is badly represented by pro-corporate sell-outs partially responsible for this party's weak state. Yes, they whine and sniffle as they blame Nader for what happened during the last major election. Evidently, it's easier to blame an outside force instead of taking personal responsibility for giving we progressive voters every reason to turn our backs on this party. Democrats like Al From, Sen. Joe Lieberman and many others sold us out long ago and never stopped doing it. We've known this for years. Ralph Nader gave us a glimmer of hope while also giving us a way to send the Democrat party a powerful message:

Get your acts together and represent US, NOT elite minority lobbyists! Sadly, the sell-out Dems and the spineless wimps in the party failed to get the drift. They are evidently too stupid to understand such a blatent message? Obviously, they are. From and Coons of the DLC had the gall to put an ad in the Wall Street Journal where they begged for corporate campaign donations to counter the progressives that can save the party from losing votes to Nader, or another non-Democrat candidate. They showed their true colors, as well as, their stupidity.

After discussing at great length with registered Democrats in need of understanding that, 1. Nader and the Greens DID NOT LURE US, we walked away, 2. Gore really was a sorry candidate to go up against Bush in our opinion, 3. Gore did win the election, so the crybabies in the Democrat party need to stop blaming Nader and the Greens and place blame on the people that violated our Democratic process when they committed acts of voting fraud, 4. If Democrats want us progressives to return to the party and other progressives to support the party, Lieberman and company will need to step aside, shut up and follow our lead, beginning with supporting progressive candidates within the party.

We've watched Lieberman trail after Bush with his snout up a very smelly and intimate part of Bush's hind quarters. How can we respect a brown nose to the opposition? How can we respect the others that rolled over and helped Bush & Company to erode our civil liberties, deceive the American people and the world in their push for unwarrented war, and participate in a long list of other attacks on the best America ever had and had to offer? We cannot stand behind these people. They betray us. They also betray every registered Democrat that actually believes the party is fighting on our behalf. These people MUST GO! They MUST make room for progressives and do so gracefully. If they do not, the party will continue to grow weak until there's nothing left to it. If they refuse and stubbornly stick with their anti-progressive fight, there's a strong chance that, if Dennis Kucinich doesn't win and we don't like the guy that did, should Ralph Nader run again, we'll be campaiging for him and casting our vote in his name.

Should matters get to that, registered Democrats, from the modest voters, to the politicians (elected, or not) need to place blame where it belongs... We'll offer a long list of names to clue the clueless in on who's really at fault.

That kind of fate can be avoided. I am temporarily switching back to the Democrat party simply to vote for Kucinich during the primaries. If he wins, I'll vote for him during the major election. However, if I remain with the party, it will only be under the condition that major changes will be made. It means, pro-corporate lawmakers inclined to sell out the American people will not have our support in any way, shape or form. No wonder why they're scared and doing some fast anti-progressive talking. They enjoy the insider trading (using Congressional voting to gain profits with market investments), working out deals with corporate pals that donate to their campaigns and later lobby for special favors that requires foresaking the needs, rights and desires of We, The People. We progressives are returning to the Democrat party with a vengence. Run, sell out cowards! Run!

Check out Kucinich's official campaign website and his Web Log for more information and to understand why I support this candidate. I realize, Dean is a popular candidate, but I have issues with some of his ideals and ties (coughmicrosoft). I also realize that John Kerry is popular with some voters, but like G.W. Bush, his daddy, relatives of Cheney, and a long list of others, Kerry is a Skull & Bones man. (Skull and Bones is an extremely secretive fraternal society based at Yale University where a small number of members born to powerful and elite families are tapped for membership each April. One objective to this society is to network for power and increased wealth.)

2003-08-05T20:01:00.000-05:00

Thanks for the warning, Tom Paine

Ever since I first logged online in May 1998, I've seen signs of corporations attempting to work with the U.S. Federal government to undermine the way we use the Internet. I've accessed email groups, websites and other forums where people dedicated to the Internet remaining a free frontier for content and accessability have sounded off about threats to this freedom, as well as, to our civil liberties. I've seen indications of a buildup to a knock-down, drag-out battle between The People of the world defending themselves from corporate and government attacks on the quality of our Internet and World Wide Web experience.

A recent article at tompain.com titled Stealing the Internet exposes current corporate efforts to corrupt the quality of Internet access and content. The plans in motion also include the possibility of charging additional useage fees to broadband users and to force mainstream media (including news) sources and advertisements on users (especially those on fixed incomes). The latest threatening corporate scam would (if the schemers get their way) also force users to pay additional fees to access alternative news and other media.

There are members of Congress that don't seem too concerned about the attacks on our personal liberties should they give into the whims of corporate minorities lobbying our government. This is not merely a concern restrictive to U.S. citizens, because citizens of other countries are also likely to be adversely affected by what is happening. It is vital that we learn as much as possible about what is happening, exactly which individuals, companies and lobby firms are involved, which lawmakers are willing to sell their votes on these lobbyist's behalf and how these people are doing what they do. To know where their strengths and weaknesses exist is to know how to undermine their strengths while playing on their weaknesses as a means of breaking down their efforts to corrupt the Internet as they intend to do.

I ask that you stop to ponder how these corporations have acquired their wealth and how they maintain it. I suggest that we all consider how the Carlyle Investment Group may very well be playing its hand in this, as this group has been reported to be taking an interest in investing in media companies. Now, I strongly urge all netizens to pull together and develop a powerful counter force to these elite pigs. By forming our own investment groups and by strongly supporting alternative media and Internet services that share our concerns, we stand an excellent chance of defeating corporate enemies by empowering ourselves and what we cherish.

I realize, there are many ultra-leftist groups and individuals that shun the idea of using money and free interprise, even investing, as tools, but let's stop being naive. We need to be creative, daring and well-organized to protect the resources we've been tapping into and (in some cases) cooperating with to access and provide important media information to counter the fluff that's been forced on our society for years. This is not a matter to take lightly.

We can collectively work in small - large groups to bolster alternative media great enough to rival the mainstream. When I mention the word "media" I refer to the broad range, not limited to news and information, but to the Internet, the music industry, the television, radio and movie industries. That includes video, DVD and other digital options and also theaters.

As a result of the blacklisting efforts that have been made against performance artists that spoke out against the war in Iraq and against the Bush Cartel, I see no reason why these artists and the silent dissenters of their circles would not join our efforts. I am aware that some have made positive moves to establish alternative media (a cable tv channel and radio stations, or programs) to counter the attacks led by pro-corporate neocons and their corporate allies. A few may be off to a good start, but this is not enough.

There comes a time when we'll have no choice but to either put up the biggest fight for our rights that we've ever fought, or to simply shut up, roll over and take the neocon iron rods up the tail pipe. We cannot risk being lazy and sloppy about this. We cannot risk being divided by differences or by personal interests. We cannot cop out by refusing to participate under the assumption that someone else be our proxy while we go on living our lives uninvolved in these matters, then expect the results to magically appear in our favor. Realistically speaking, that's how we tend to lose our rights and privileges.