September 6, 2006

Keith Olbermann to Bush: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" YouTube

September 9, 2006

  • Beware the October Surprise -- Jon Ponder in the Pensito Review wonders if the return of Osama to the Bush rhetoric means that Bin Laden is in custody waiting for an October unveiling.
  • Spreading Disbelief -- An article by Michael Powell of the Washington Post discusses the change of mind about the veracity of the official government explanation of the 9/11 attacks. "It was a year before David Ray Griffin, an eminent liberal theologian and philosopher, began his stroll down the path of disbelief. He wondered why Bush listened to a child's story while the nation was attacked and how Osama bin Laden, America's Public Enemy No. 1, escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora." And this: "A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands." Ideas that were tabu in mainstream media a while back are now surfacing. Such a poll result is hard to ignore. MSNBC

    September 15, 2006

  • Royally Pissed -- Boy, is Bush pissed now. The Senate isn't supporting his desire to legalize torture. Even his Republican buddies are failing to rise and salute him. Bush does not like to be defied. Will we now start seeing stories about McCain's "love child" again, like when he ran against Bush in 2000? Will Rove turn the smear hose on these Republicans like he did John Murtha when he opposed Bush's war policies? We shall see. The Independent

    Labor Day Weekend, September 4, 2006

    Show Biz News -- I heard that George Stephanopoulos had Bo Derek on his show on Sunday. ( Bo Derek! The sex object in the movie "10", and some other more mindless movies. Ms Derek is listed as an "activist" -- pro Bush, pro war, pro corporatism, apparently. This is Stephanopoulos' idea of a major news story for the Sunday morning audience. I rest my case. The corporate media "news" shows are an utterly ridiculous distraction. Who Killed Who? -- This weekend People magazine has Jon Benet Ramsey on its cover, embarrassingly sitting on the newstands after the case was blown to pieces and shown to be a fraud because the DNA evidence didn't match. At least it's only People magazine, and you don't really expect anything of substance. The corporate news carnival was ready to hop on that one and wring it to its last drop. Another desperate distraction from the real news, which is real bad from the standpoint of the Bush corporate world order. How Many #2 Al Qaeda Leaders Killed So Far? -- According to, we've been sold a bill of 39 so far. Neutralizing the Language -- In the midst of a right wing campaign intended to confuse the meaning of the word "fascism" by calling Muslim theocrats "Islamo-fascists", it's important to keep a clear definition of what the word "fascism" means. It is not just a synonym for "tyranny". It's a specific kind of perverted capitalism, what Mussolini defined as a merger of corporate and state power. There's a good discussion of the subject by Thom Hartmann in the Baltimore Chronicle

    September 16, 2006

  • Going Mad -- Anyone who had the good fortune of discovering and reading Justin Frank's amazing psychoanalytical examination of George W. Bush, Bush on the Couch, has to be wondering how the old boy's mental health is holding up under the stress he is now enduring. With his approval ratings stuck in the trough around 30% for as long as anyone cares to remember, he is really chafing. And now with some of the media people suddenly willing to confront him with some of the important questions for which he has no answers, he's about to blow sky high.

    Some video links posted at the excellent Randi Rhodes Fans Mypsace site show Bush and Tony Snow trying to roll over reporter attempts to ask what it is they object to about the Geneva Conventions, the cause of the current brouhaha with some stalwart Republicans like John McCain opposing Bush's attempt to legalize torture. Even Colin Powell, who never seemed to be unwilling to bend over farther to please the boy prince, wrote a formal letter opposing Bush's torture proposals.

    When reporters actually try to pin Bush or Tony Snow down for some answers to specific questions, the results are amazing. The normal methods these people always use to dodge questions are laid bare in this case when the agenda they are trying to drive is so ugly that it can barely be referred to in words at all without exposing the savagery of it. In this clip: "Lauer interviews Bush", you see Bush in a private conversation with one reporter, doing his best to dodge the issue. When told that Amnesty International says the well-known torture methods of Guantanamo and Abu Graib violate international law, Bush shrugs and says, "So what? We just disagree with them." Bush barely lets the guy get a word in, he's so determined to avoid having to admit that he is really talking about torture. Our people have to have "the tools" he said. Don't worry about it, we'll protect you, he tells the reporter. In the clip entitled Tony Snow says Colin Powell is confused, Snow flies into a giddy hysteria as he tries to avoid confronting questions of NBC's White House correspondent David Gregory, who is starting to show a little spine. Snow tries to get by saying absurdly that General Powell is somehow "confused" about the issues. When Gregory displays some tenacity in pushing for an answer, Snow looks like he's about to leap off the podium in confusion and panic. It's unbelievable. You have to see it for yourself. Gregory shows up again in the clip entitlted Bush's pissy press conference, and Bush flies into a rage at Gregory's attempts to make him answer questions about why he wants to defy the Geneva Conventions article three with prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Bush says this is "vague" and wants to come up with legal language that is very specific, because "you can't ask our professional people to break the law..." Always speaking in vague terms and steering clear of what these "specifics" are, sexual humiliation? near drowning? dog attacks? beating? Which of our repertoire of torture techniques can we legalize? Bush says, with a bloodthirsty grin.

    We can't ask them to break the law, he says, (though they never had a problem with doing it before) so we'll rewrite the laws so we can do whatever we want to. We control congress, he reasons, so what's to stop us? Now, however, he's encountering some resistance and he's willing to nuke them in their homes if he has to to get his way. Good God he is furious!

    Another line of discussion he has apparently been coached to take is to say, If Congress doesn't pass this bill, the program won't go forward. He says this as if the program is protecting the American people and if Congress doesn't cooperate, there will be no protection. But he steers wide of saying that "the program" is torture. He just keeps repeating that the program won't go forward, tries to shout down the reporter and move to another reporter while Gregory is still trying to get an answer to his questions about

  • American Airlines issued a most unusual press release on September 11 saying, "The Disney/ABC television program, The Path to 9/11, which began airing last night, is inaccurate and irresponsible in its portrayal of the airport check-in events that occurred on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. A factual description of those events can be found in the official government edition of the 9/11 Commission Report and supporting documents. This misrepresentation of facts dishonors the memory of innocent American Airlines employees and all those who lost their lives as a result of the tragic events of 9/11."

  • Back with a Vengeance -- Bill Moyers will present three documentaries on PBS in October on major issues of interest to voters: "Capitol Crimes" on the Abramoff corruption scandal; "Is God Green" on the battle within the evangelical community on whether to protect or destroy the environment; and "The Net at Risk" about the attempt by Congressional corporate stooges to give the Internet away to big corporations.

    September 17, 2006

  • The Fall of Tony Blair -- Summing up the now nearly complete destruction of what was once the colosssus of Tony Blair on Truthout, Chris Floyd writes, "It may look and feel like a farce right now, but one day some future Shakespeare might write it as a tragedy: the fall of a powerful, popular leader broken on the wheel of war. For make no mistake: if not for the criminal folly of the Iraq invasion, British Prime Minister Tony Blair would not have been unceremoniously shoved toward the exit last week by his own party, including some of his fiercest loyalists. The man who once commanded one of the largest majorities in the history of the ancient British Parliament, who won three successive national elections and appeared to have sealed his party's hold on power for decades to come, has seen his stature and authority eaten away by the hubris that led him to join George W. Bush's duplicitous, disastrous Babylonian Conquest."
  • Criminality's Zenith: All Eyes on the Bush Administration -- By Larry Chin. Online Journal
  • And Good Luck -- George Clooney's film on Edward R. Murrow may not have made a huge splash, but one guy seems to have seen it, Keith Olbermann. See "Keith Olbermann's finest hour" Online Journal
  • How to Steal the Next Election -- Princeton scientists demonstrate how to rig Diebold voting machines. Online Journal
  • Ha Ha! Scared Ya! Bush pulls out the scare tactics to coerce Senate in to passing his bill legalizing torture. He says if they won't give him what he wants, he'll shut down the CIA program. And that will be bad because "they're coming again," he said. And if he doesn't get his way, he threatens to just dismantle the program and let them get us ... again. Sydney Morning Herald
  • What Won't Bend Will Break -- Bush's intransigence in his battle to legalize torture may force him to his Waterloo. "Bush digs in as his party revolts" The Age


    September 19, 2006

    See This Film -- Now available on DVD, Eugene Jarecki's film Why We Fight is brilliant and should be seen by everyone. Framed around the profoundly insightful words of Eisenhower's Farewell Address, it shows a military industrial complex gone completely out of control. It shows how deeply imbedded in our culture and our economic system the militaristic madness is. It is so deeply entrenched that it is difficult to see how this country can avert disaster. It is hard to imagine a force that can derail the military-industrial cycle that is leading the country to virtually inevitable ruin if it is not stopped. It is not a comforting film, it is deeply disturbing, frightening. About the only comforting thing is that the film was made, the statement was delivered. And there are thoughtful statements by people of simple wisdom that give some hope in the human spirit to rise above all this, but probably not before much, much more profound disaster for America.

    The film is built on Eisenhower's Farewell Address, in which he said we have just finished a half century in which four major wars were fought. It has necessitated the rise of a permanent arms industry. This is new in the American experience. While we recognize the necessity of this, it presents a very grave danger of the rise of unwarranted power.

    It then goes on to show how the abuse of power warned against by Eisenhower has indeed gained a foothold in America. The armaments is now deeply entrenched in American life and has become a driver for wars that must be fought, or the war economy will grind to a halt.

    The film includes interviews with Richard Perle, a Defense Department advisor and one of the neocon cabal that pulled the strings to change American foreign policy to one of outright domination and aggression. Perle says if someone were getting ready to fire a missile at you and you could kick it over you would, "so what's the fuss about pre-emption?" He goes from describing a situation in which self defense would require you to strike at the weapon that is aimed at you, to justifying all the aggressive acts of the administration. Saddam did not have a weapon pointed at the U.S. He was not a threat.

    Perle said some people object to the U.S. policing the world, but if we don't do it, someone else will... But what has happened through the misguided exercise of power by the Bush administration and the neocons is that the military power of the U.S. has been squandered in Iraq, and now the U.S. is virtually helpless to do anything anywhere else in the world. And the rest of the world knows it. If the U.S. held its power in reserve and used it judiciously, it could exercise some influence over the world. But by insisting on carrying out unnecessary attacks and getting the military tied up in an endless conflict in Iraq, Bush has actually stripped the country of its defenses.

    September 21, 2006

    Check out this great new film on 9/11: 9/11 Mysteries One more mountain of evidence that shows yet again that a real, thorough, credible investigation of the crime of the new American century is necessary. It includes a thorough examination of the structure of the World Trade Center, which shows what an impressive structure it really was. It had its flaws in terms of energy consumption; many did not like the architectural style. But it was a brilliantly designed building, and it was designed, credibly, to be able to withstand multiple crashes of Boeing 707s, not much smaller than the 767s that crashed into the WTC towers. This building has gotten a bad rap as a result of faked history. This is an impressive film document and polemic. No one can afford to remain ignorant of the case presented. You owe it to yourself to at least look. See 9/11 Mysteries. For more links to information on 9/11 that is independent of the official story, click here. Do you believe the official story? Do you believe that America's leaders tell you the truth? Do you reject out of hand suggestions that the story may be untrue? Do you consider any deviations from the official story to be conspiracy theories woven by cranks? Just take a look at this film. Just look.

    September 22, 2006

  • Chavezmania -- I had to write to Charlie Rangel, the congressman from the Bronx who came out with some phony indignant statement about how Hugo Chavez' comments about Bush were a "personal attack" and an insult to every American. Here's my letter since Rangel will surely never see it.

    Dear Rep. Rangel, With all due respect for you as the U.S. Congressman from Harlem, I must say that I found your statement about Hugo Chavez an unfortunate waste of your talent and reputation, and also essentially untrue.

    I am not insulted personally when someone takes Bush to task for his inhumane, lying policies. I unfortunately have to agree with the substance of what Chavez said. I do not consider Bush to represent me in any way. Bush has made it very clear he has no concern for me or for 90% of Americans. I don't even believe he is a legitimately elected president. So attacking Bush is not an attack on me personally, or on Americans in general. I don't even consider the statement of Chavez to be a "personal attack". Sure, he characterized Bush facetiously as a "devil", but otherwise he spoke of Bush's policies, not about him personally. And his criticisms of Bush's policies were right on.

    The United Nations is not "sacred". Since our country is not a theocracy, the closest thing we have to the sacred is our Constitution, and Bush has repeatedly shown his contempt for it, just as he has for our people. Did you come out so strongly against Colin Powell when he lied at the United Nations for the purpose of frightening the world into following the U.S. into an unjustified attack on Iraq? If the U.N. is sacred, I think that would have been the time to come out so indignantly.

    I do respect you sir, but I am disappointed at your choice of causes. Why does George Bush need you to protect him? I think you should be trying to protect the defenseless people of the world who are under attack by Bush's policies.


    David Cogswell

  • No wonder the media is railing so much about Chavez calling Bush a "devil", as if he were some kind of fundamentalist like... like Bush, actually, who is a fanatical fundamentalist. No, that bit about "the devil" was very tongue-in-cheek, irreverent in a way that is gloriously refreshing. If you get past the corporate media spin portraying Chavez as a lunatic and just look at the transcript or the video of what he said. It's actually quite lucid, and about four times as intelligent as any speech Bush ever gave. You can see the video of it with a translation at Randi Rhodes Fans.

    Check it out and judge for yourself. It's great to see someone in the world not kiss Bush's ass. Even if Bush had Chavez assassinated, it wouldn't make him a better man. Chavez: "They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons. What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy. What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs? The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, 'Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom.' Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him. The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up. I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations."

  • Here's Rangel's statement against Chavez. He says, "George Bush is the President of the United States and represents the entire country. Any demeaning public attack against him is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us." Where did he get an idea like that?

  • Bush's inner punk. "Generally speaking, the more people tell you how tough they are, the harder theyíre working to convince themselves," says the NWA News. "George W. Bush is no exception. The presidentís authoritarian impulses, on display during an amazingly petulant Rose Garden press conference, so clearly derive from his own fundamental weakness of mind and character that it's become increasingly embarrassing to watch him perform. The more strenuously he struggles to hide his inner punk, the more clearly it emerges."

  • Bush's Rose Garden Debacle -- Molly Ivins, Truthdig

  • The Bushes, Iran, and the Iran/Contra Scandal -- Robert Parry, one of the original reporters on Iran Contra, writes: The evidence is now persuasive that George H.W. Bush participated in negotiations with Iran's radical regime in 1980, behind President Jimmy Carter's back, with the goal of arranging for 52 American hostages to be released after Bush and Ronald Reagan were sworn in as Vice President and President, respectively. In exchange, the Republicans agreed to let Iran obtain U.S.-manufactured military supplies through Israel. The Iranians kept their word, releasing the hostages immediately upon Reagan's swearing-in on Jan. 20, 1981. Over the next few years, the Republican-Israel-Iran weapons pipeline operated mostly in secret, only exploding into public view with the Iran-Contra scandal in late 1986. Even then, the Reagan-Bush team was able to limit congressional and other investigations, keeping the full history - and the 1980 chapter - hidden from the American people.... Robert Parry

  • Creeping Dictatorship -- An immigrant from Romania: I think the same thing will happen as in Romania when I grew up there. It starts with fixed elections. First the 2000 election was fixed and then the 2004 election was fixed. It happened in Communist elections just like it happened here. The people who count the votes are all in the government that's in power. And even when it seems like people have had enough, the tyrant will always somehow come out winning just enough to make your conspiracy theories seem ridiculous. Just like in Romania and Bulgaria of the sixties and seventies, the press may even report problems with elections, but Bush knows that Americans are lazy. I am sorry my friend. Maybe not you. But Americans are lazy and they will not seek their freedoms. Because it is always frightening to fight the government. But you are mistaken if you think you will avoid trouble by going along with the government. One day you will write a letter to the editor and sign your name, and then the next time you are at a train station, they will tell you `you cannot ride'. Or at the airport they will say you cannot get on a plane. Or they will stop you are the border, and just like Romania and the other Communist countries, America will become your prison. Daily Kos

    September 23, 2006

  • McCain sells out again. When it comes down to it, McCain will always cave. He wants political power, he wants to be president, so principles will always be sold out when push comes to shove, if his political power is threatened. So after his big show about upholding the Geneva Conventions, he gave in to Bush, saying essentially we won't condone torture, but we won't outlaw it. Bush can do it now with executive order. What a proud moment for the U.S. to have its supposed chief executive fighting tooth and nail for the right to torture. How pitiful America has become under Bush. See Citizens for Legitimate Government

    We know torture is not an effective way of getting information, though Bush and his buddies pretend it is. Of course anyone will say anything to stop being tortured. The fact that the information received from tortured prisoners is not reliable is well documented, and really who needs documentation? An ounce of common sense would tell you the same thing. Bush is a sadist. He gets off on that kind of thing. That too is well documented. He executed more people as governor of Texas than anyone, never spent more than 30 minutes considering whether a case was worthy of executive clemency. He used to blow up frogs with firecrackers as a kid, no lie. This is the man who now leads the "free world" into the sewer.

    See "Maverick Senators Cave in to The Torture President", "Bush Gets His Way", "Pro-Torture Pact", "Bush strikes a deal that lets him keep fighting dirty"

    September 25, 2006

  • Bill Clinton Takes Off the Gloves -- Now that the Bushites, with the help of Disney/ABC, have opened the war on who's to blame for allowing 9/11 by presenting a fraudulent history designed to make Bush look great and blame everything bad that happened on Clinton, Clinton has become more outspoken than ever before since he left office. In an interview on Fox, this exchange went down. (see the video at

    WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I got to say I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question. Why didn't you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President? There's a new book out which I suspect you've read called the Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.

    CLINTON: OK, let's just go through that.

    WALLACE: Let me -- let me -- may I just finish the question sir? And after the attack, the book says, Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20/20.

    CLINTON: No let's talk about it.

    WALLACE: But the question is why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

    CLINTON: OK, let's talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this arises. I'm being asked this on the FOX networkŠABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 9/11 Commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn't do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush's neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn't have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn't do enough said that I did too much. Same people....

    WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?

    CLINTON: No, because I didn't get him.

    WALLACE: Right.

    CLINTON: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn't. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke. So you did FOX's bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

    WALLACE: Well, wait a minute sir.

    CLINTON: No, wait. No No.

    WALLACE: I asked a question. You don't think that's a legitimate question?

    CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked: Why didn't you do anything about the Cole? I want to know how many you asked: Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know.

    WALLACE: We asked ... we asked...

    CLINTON: I don't...

    WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday sir?

    CLINTON: I don't believe you ask them that.

    WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of ...

    CLINTON: You didn't ask that did you? Tell the truth.

    WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

    CLINTON: Tell the truth.

    WALLACE: With Iraq and Afghanistan there's plenty of stuff to ask.

    CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on climate change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.

    [Clinton on his priorities and the Bush administration priorities:]

    CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don't think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you've got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you're so clever.

    WALLACE: [Laughs]

    CLINTON: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get Bin Laden. I regret it but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwiseŠWe could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that's strange.

    Check out the whole transcript at Think Progress.

    September 27, 2006

  • An excellent documentary film on 9/11 by Barrie Zwicker, The Great Conspiracy. A fascinating analysis, rich on historic background. Add this to the growing film archive on the Crime of the New American Century. It can be viewed online at
  • Bush Crime History -- Gerald Plessner on George Bush Senior and the October Surprise, in which Bush negotiated a deal with Iran to hold the U.S. hostages longer to defeat Carter and put Reagan in the White House.
  • Newsweek Newsfilter -- Newsweek's international editions featured a cover story called "Losing Afghanistan" about you know who's war. In the U.S. edition the scrubbed the story and ran a puff piece on Annie Leibowitz on the cover instead. Take a look here. Good old Newsweek, sheltering Americans from the truth.
  • Nuclear Clinton -- Excellent piece on Clinton's explosion of anger and Fox News stooge Chris Wallace in The Nation
  • -- Houston Chronicle: "The Big Dog Barks Back"
  • Clinton, Rice and Dick Clark According to CNN: "In 2004, Clarke told CNN that Bush did 'virtually nothing about al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001.' He said that while Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel Berger, held daily meetings after being warned of a possible terrorist attack and 'shook out of their bureaucracies every last piece of information to prevent the attacks,' Rice, as Bush's national security adviser, did not do so before the attacks. 'I would argue that for what had actually happened prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a great deal,' he said. 'In fact, so much that when the Bush people came into office they thought I was a little crazy, a little obsessed with this little terrorist bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism?' Clarke also is an outspoken critic of the Iraq war."

    September 26, 2006

  • Write to the fraudulent war president who led America into a fraudulent war on false pretenses and is now leading the country into the medieval pit of torture at this address: Torture is America's most foul disgrace. Bush is leading America backwards to a barbaric period of history. We follow at our peril. Silence is complicity. These are the last days of the American empire and of American leadership. The fool Bush is bankrupting the country economically and spiritually. In the 21st century war is no longer a viable instrument of foreign policy, just as oil is no longer a viable fuel on which to base a civilization. Don't think it can't end, America. Don't think the country is immune to the destructiveness of this mad cabal.

    September 29, 2006

  • Bush Did Nothing to defend against attacks from Osama bin Laden, just as he has done nothing about anything else, except to launch a war for lies against a defenseless people. For the record. For what it's worth. Keith Olbermann did a short piece that clearly explains the difference between Clinton's approach to Osama bin Laden and Bush's. See
  • Call It What It Is! You bastards! The press is euphemistically talking about a "detainee bill" (See MSNBC "US Senate backs detainee bill") What is this detainee bill? It's a law allowing Bush to torture them! Torture! It's the torture bill! It's not the "detainee bill". How does it feel, America, to be the worst thing since Nazi Germany? Germany was led to hell by a paperhanger. The U.S. is going down with a do-nothing frat rat who never did anything before he got into politics except run businesses into the ground. Oh yeah, one thing. He was a part owner of a baseball team.
  • The Fall of the Republic -- The Senate clinched it. They in effect legalized war crimes. Gave Bush autocratic power. Power that nullifies the Constitution. Yahoo

    September 30, 2006

  • Who Won the Cold War? As the United States government continues its march toward Stalinist style government autocracy, it looks like the bad guys won. Now this lame Congress has continued to neutralize the Constitution by giving Bush wider powers to wiretap American citizens in his probes on "terror", which is whatever Bush says it is. (See LA Times) That seems a little bit appropriate since Bush is the king of terror, the purveyor of "shock and awe" against defenseless Iraqi civilians.

    Last week Congress also give the American dictator the legal clearance to torture people, to detain anyone anywhere in the world with no proof of any kind, no need to declare charges against the accused, no need to try them. He can grab virtually whoever he wants, lock them up and throw away the key. Nice power. Near absolute power. They say power corrupts, but I guess we don't have to worry about this guy being corrupted. He's shown such nearly superhuman moral integrity. Other than a few thousand lies.

  • Congressional profile of a Republican pervert -- And speaking of integrity of Republican politicians, Congressman Mark Foley, a shining example of the "Values" that the party stands for, resigned over the revelation that he's been sexually involved with 16-year-old senate page. (See ABC News) According to the Boston Globe, "ABC News reported Friday that Foley also engaged in a series of sexually explicit instant messages with current and former pages, all male. In one message, ABC said, Foley wrote to one page, 'Do I make you a little horny?' In another message, Foley wrote, 'You in your boxers, too? ... Well, strip down and get relaxed.'" Heard enough yet of Republican values yet? Dig this: "Foley, as chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus, had introduced legislation in July to protect children from exploitation by adults over the Internet. He also sponsored other legislation designed to protect minors from abuse and neglect. 'We track library books better than we do sexual predators,' Foley has said." And who should know better? These are the kinds of corrupt bums, easily manipulable stooges, that are selling out the Constitution to corrupt power. The system is rotting from within. The stench is paralyzing.

  • Of course Foley votes with the Republican Right on all the phony "moral" issues that they put up as smokescreens for what they are really doing, robbing the American people blind. (See And thanks to the piss-poor job of the media, we are talking about really blind.

    Foley voted to allow governments to display the 10 Commandments. Obviously he wasn't too concerned about the commandments themselves, but it seemed the right political move. Foley voted to Amend the Constitution to allow the government to prohibit flag burning. Very important issue to march it around to all the state legislatures to seek the approval of two-thirds of them. A wise use of resources considering we have so few real problems that need resources.

    He voted for a law to define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. A valiant effort to defend the institution of marriage itself, the Republican right would have us believe, because who of us could feel safe in our own marriages if someone else somewhere decides to get married and they are of the same sex! What a horror! God help us all! What will become of us? I wonder how much thought Foley gave to what would become of 16-year-old boys who are sexually propositioned by pervert congressmen. Guess not much.

  • Lt. Gen. Odom on how to get out of Iraq: "Well, the Constitution gives the House the right to impeach." Raw Story
  • Revolt of the Generals -- According to The Nation: "A revolt is brewing among our retired Army and Marine generals. This rebellion--quiet and nonconfrontational, but remarkable nonetheless--comes not because their beloved forces are bearing the brunt of ground combat in Iraq but because the retirees see the US adventure in Mesopotamia as another Vietnam-like, strategically failed war, and they blame the errant, arrogant civilian leadership at the Pentagon. The dissenters include two generals who led combat troops in Iraq: Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack Jr., who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division, and Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division (the "Big Red One"). These men recently sacrificed their careers by retiring and joining the public protest."
  • Accessories to Torture -- Again, The Nation: "These are grim days for the Constitution. The House and the Senate have passed the catastrophic 'compromise' negotiated by senators McCain & Co. to the President's 'enemy combatants' bill. The only thing compromised is the rule of law; the bill still strips detainees of the right to appeal, broadens the President's unilateral powers to decide who is an enemy and which interrogation methods violate the Geneva Conventions, and fatally undermines the War Crimes Act. The bill was rushed to passage just days after the Canadian government exonerated Maher Arar, irenderedi by the United States to Syria, imprisoned and tortured for nearly a year."
  • Diebold Whistleblowers Reveal Secret Patch -- in Georgia 2002. (Atlanta Progressive) Remember Georgia 2002? That was when Senator Max Cleland, a vet who lost three limbs in the Vietnam War, was beat by a Republican nobody. The story we were given was that pictures that put Cleland together with Osama bin Laden for his opposition to Bush's Iraq war had been the reason for the mind-bogglingly improbable upset. This is reminiscent of when Bush defied the history of exit polls and came out with victory in 2004 against all evidence but that of the voting machine results. That time they said that people voted against their preferences on virtually all the most pressing issues of the time -- the war, most notably -- in favor of "moral issues", like banning gay marriage. Is the scam not becoming visible? If you control the voting machines, then create some sham that you can use to explain the impossible results, you can get over with sheer power and momentum.
  • Back to Home Page