BG: DemsTV = underwhelming.....
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Alternative view says homosexuals can change - Politics - MSNBC.com
Alternative view says homosexuals can change - Politics - MSNBC.com
BG: I'd bet heterosexuals can change too.
BG: I'd bet heterosexuals can change too.
Republican Rep. Robin Hayes' office is standing by -- sort of -- the congressman's claim Wednesday that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the attacks of 9/
Salon.com Politics War Room | Politics
More on the Saddam-9/11 link -- or not
Republican Rep. Robin Hayes' office is standing by -- sort of -- the congressman's claim Wednesday that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the attacks of 9/11. Carolyn Hern, Hayes’ communications director, told North Carolina's Independent Tribune Wednesday: “We know Iraqis did not board the planes, but there is strong evidence a connection exists between Saddam and al Qaida. All he's saying’s there is a connection between the two.”
But that's not "all" that Hayes said, of course. In a CNN interview Wednesday, Hayes didn't just say that there's a "connection" betwen "Saddam and al Qaida." He said: "I'm saying that Saddam Hussein -- and I think you're losing track of what we're trying to talk about here -- Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11."
Hayes suggested that members of Congress know things about 9/11 that the rest of us -- including, apparently, the members of the 9/11 Commission -- don't. His colleagues in Congress don't agree. John McCain said Wednesday that he's seen no compelling evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and Rep. Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat, told the Independent Tribune that he hasn't, either. "Unless Robin is going to some tippy-top secret briefing, I’m not sure what Robin’s source of information is," Miller said.
Hayes says that anyone who hasn't seen the evidence of Hussein's involvement in 9/11 just hasn't "looked in the right places." At the suggestion of a reader, we just went looking on Hayes' Web site. Sure enough, there's a link there for the "Hayes statement on terrorist attacks." It leads to Hayes' biography. We're not sure how the fact that Hayes has two kids and owns the Mt. Pleasant Hosiery Mill establishes a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. But we're the first to admit: Robin Hayes knows things that we don't.
-- Tim Grieve
More on the Saddam-9/11 link -- or not
Republican Rep. Robin Hayes' office is standing by -- sort of -- the congressman's claim Wednesday that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the attacks of 9/11. Carolyn Hern, Hayes’ communications director, told North Carolina's Independent Tribune Wednesday: “We know Iraqis did not board the planes, but there is strong evidence a connection exists between Saddam and al Qaida. All he's saying’s there is a connection between the two.”
But that's not "all" that Hayes said, of course. In a CNN interview Wednesday, Hayes didn't just say that there's a "connection" betwen "Saddam and al Qaida." He said: "I'm saying that Saddam Hussein -- and I think you're losing track of what we're trying to talk about here -- Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11."
Hayes suggested that members of Congress know things about 9/11 that the rest of us -- including, apparently, the members of the 9/11 Commission -- don't. His colleagues in Congress don't agree. John McCain said Wednesday that he's seen no compelling evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and Rep. Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat, told the Independent Tribune that he hasn't, either. "Unless Robin is going to some tippy-top secret briefing, I’m not sure what Robin’s source of information is," Miller said.
Hayes says that anyone who hasn't seen the evidence of Hussein's involvement in 9/11 just hasn't "looked in the right places." At the suggestion of a reader, we just went looking on Hayes' Web site. Sure enough, there's a link there for the "Hayes statement on terrorist attacks." It leads to Hayes' biography. We're not sure how the fact that Hayes has two kids and owns the Mt. Pleasant Hosiery Mill establishes a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. But we're the first to admit: Robin Hayes knows things that we don't.
-- Tim Grieve
Senate May Vote on CAFTA This Week
Senate May Vote on CAFTA This WeekSenate May Vote on CAFTA This Week
- By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, June 30, 2005
(06-30) 01:08 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Buoyed by the addition of several new converts, Senate supporters of the Central America Free Trade Agreement closed in on a vote to approve the accord with six Latin American nations.
A successful Senate vote for CAFTA, which could come Thursday, would shift the battle to the House, where Democrats opposing the labor rights provisions in the agreement and Republicans concerned about its effects on local industries have vowed to bring it down.
The House is expected to consider the agreement, signed a year ago but needing congressional approval to take effect, sometime in July.
The Bush administration has lobbied hard for its passage, stressing its importance in promoting economic development and political stability in Central America and determined to avoid what would be a stunning defeat for its policy of promoting a more open global trading environment.
Backers say the agreement, which would break down trade barriers on U.S. farm and manufactured goods, could significantly increase exports to Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, now totaling about $15 billion a year. It would also tear down obstacles to U.S. investors and strengthen intellectual property rights.
But CAFTA has met stiff opposition from labor and environmental groups that contend it doesn't require the Central American countries to improve their records in those areas. Some lawmakers link free trade deals to America's soaring trade deficit and loss of manufacturing jobs. Some Hispanic groups are concerned that poor Central American farmers will not be able to compete with cheap food imports from the United States.
Leading groups in the U.S. sugar industry say increased imports from Central America, while minimal, will open the door for imports from other countries that could destroy the industry.
CAFTA, said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., generally a free-trade supporter who has come out against the agreement, is "the most controversial trade agreement to come before the Congress since the North American Free Trade Agreement a decade ago."
Supporters picked up three votes Wednesday after the administration offered proposals to ease concerns over labor rights and sugar.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., announced he would vote for CAFTA after U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman said the administration was committed to spending $160 million over four years to promote labor and environmental laws, as well as $150 million over five years to help subsistence farmers in three Central American countries who might be displaced by an increase in U.S. agriculture imports.
Two senators who had previously criticized the agreement, Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said Wednesday the administration concessions to protect the sugar industry were enough to win their votes. Those included a pilot program to determine whether a sugar-based ethanol initiative is feasible.
The American Sugar Alliance, an industry association, said the administration proposals were inadequate.
"We came up with some good ideas, but in the end the timeline was too short," said Republican Sen. Craig Thomas of the sugar beet-growing state of Wyoming. Thomas voted against the pact when it cleared the Senate Finance Committee earlier Wednesday.
The Bush administration has so far succeeded in enacting free trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, Australia and Morocco. It is working on a new World Trade Organization round of market-opening measures as well as bilateral agreements with South Africa, Bahrain and others.
___
The bill is S. 1307.
- By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, June 30, 2005
(06-30) 01:08 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Buoyed by the addition of several new converts, Senate supporters of the Central America Free Trade Agreement closed in on a vote to approve the accord with six Latin American nations.
A successful Senate vote for CAFTA, which could come Thursday, would shift the battle to the House, where Democrats opposing the labor rights provisions in the agreement and Republicans concerned about its effects on local industries have vowed to bring it down.
The House is expected to consider the agreement, signed a year ago but needing congressional approval to take effect, sometime in July.
The Bush administration has lobbied hard for its passage, stressing its importance in promoting economic development and political stability in Central America and determined to avoid what would be a stunning defeat for its policy of promoting a more open global trading environment.
Backers say the agreement, which would break down trade barriers on U.S. farm and manufactured goods, could significantly increase exports to Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, now totaling about $15 billion a year. It would also tear down obstacles to U.S. investors and strengthen intellectual property rights.
But CAFTA has met stiff opposition from labor and environmental groups that contend it doesn't require the Central American countries to improve their records in those areas. Some lawmakers link free trade deals to America's soaring trade deficit and loss of manufacturing jobs. Some Hispanic groups are concerned that poor Central American farmers will not be able to compete with cheap food imports from the United States.
Leading groups in the U.S. sugar industry say increased imports from Central America, while minimal, will open the door for imports from other countries that could destroy the industry.
CAFTA, said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., generally a free-trade supporter who has come out against the agreement, is "the most controversial trade agreement to come before the Congress since the North American Free Trade Agreement a decade ago."
Supporters picked up three votes Wednesday after the administration offered proposals to ease concerns over labor rights and sugar.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., announced he would vote for CAFTA after U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman said the administration was committed to spending $160 million over four years to promote labor and environmental laws, as well as $150 million over five years to help subsistence farmers in three Central American countries who might be displaced by an increase in U.S. agriculture imports.
Two senators who had previously criticized the agreement, Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said Wednesday the administration concessions to protect the sugar industry were enough to win their votes. Those included a pilot program to determine whether a sugar-based ethanol initiative is feasible.
The American Sugar Alliance, an industry association, said the administration proposals were inadequate.
"We came up with some good ideas, but in the end the timeline was too short," said Republican Sen. Craig Thomas of the sugar beet-growing state of Wyoming. Thomas voted against the pact when it cleared the Senate Finance Committee earlier Wednesday.
The Bush administration has so far succeeded in enacting free trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, Australia and Morocco. It is working on a new World Trade Organization round of market-opening measures as well as bilateral agreements with South Africa, Bahrain and others.
___
The bill is S. 1307.
....twisting his quote to mean the very opposite of what he apparently believes.
The Huffington Post | Latest News: "State Department Doctors Bono Quote... "
06.29.2005 David Rees, My Old Bus Stop
The Huffington Post | The Blog: " I am convinced that within his essay we will find the distillation of every cognitive danger attendant to the support of war on humanitarian grounds. "
DIPLOMATIC CABLES
DIPLOMATIC CABLES
Under orders from CIA Directors George Tenet and Porter Goss, some CIA Special Activities Division paramilitary personnel have reportedly been assigned to work with the Pentagon's Task Force 121covert units, as was the case in the Italian operation.
Under orders from CIA Directors George Tenet and Porter Goss, some CIA Special Activities Division paramilitary personnel have reportedly been assigned to work with the Pentagon's Task Force 121covert units, as was the case in the Italian operation.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Don't "Son" Me - End this silly talk about sacrificing children. By Christopher�Hitchens
Don't "Son" Me - End this silly talk about sacrificing children. By Christopher�Hitchens: "Christopher Hitchens"
BG: Hitchens is the top nominee so far for my "Most likely to be lying for money" contest.
BG: Hitchens is the top nominee so far for my "Most likely to be lying for money" contest.
ProfessorBainbridge.com: WSJ on 10 Commandments Cases
ProfessorBainbridge.com: WSJ on 10 Commandments Cases
BG: Things are be going down the tubes. It seems that I agree with Bainbridge and WSJ EB.
Of course, I'm sure if the question comes back to an ndividual State's ruling, things might get contentious.
BG: Things are be going down the tubes. It seems that I agree with Bainbridge and WSJ EB.
Of course, I'm sure if the question comes back to an ndividual State's ruling, things might get contentious.
A Supreme Court Conversation - The Miss Manners school of jurisprudence. By Walter�Dellinger, Charles�Fried, Dahlia�Lithwick, and Tim�Wu
BG: Scotus = Bonkers
Here's why... (not saying I completely agree with analysis, but the idea that this is our reality is just mind bending to me.)
A Supreme Court Conversation - The Miss Manners school of jurisprudence. By Walter�Dellinger, Charles�Fried, Dahlia�Lithwick, and Tim�Wu: "From: Tim Wu
To: Walter Dellinger, Dahlia Lithwick, and Charles Fried
Subject: The Miss Manners School of Jurisprudence
Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 7:31 AM PT
Dear Walter and Dahlia:
It may strike you as ambitious for me to suggest similarities between the Ten Commandments and Grokster cases (though in a certain sense both are about the distribution of forbidden content). But reading your posts, I do think the cases have something in common and reflect a theme that is particularly strong over the last five years in the writings of O'Connor and Breyer.
The theme is respectability and etiquette. The O'Connor-Breyer view is that there are sometimes well-mannered and ill-mannered ways to do something�and that in hard cases, how you do things can make all the difference. It's almost like the Miss Manners' School of Jurisprudence�be polite and ask nicely, and you'd be surprised what can be done. This view of the law has gained surprising influence over the last five years, particularly in hard cases. Consider the Michigan affirmative-action cases, where the court, in essence, said that while quotas are unseemly, a little nudge and wink, done quietly and discreetly, is a respectable way to handle racial preferences.
Grokster turns on these ideas to a degree. The P2P companies were loud scofflaws, foreigners, and college students who blatantly encouraged illegal acts. KaZaA's successor by contrast, Apple's iTunes, may ultimately pose a greater threat to the recording industry, but it operates in a respectable way. Steve Jobs is a rebel with manners. And that has made all the difference.
The Ten Commandments cases are even more clearly centered on etiquette. You can talk about Lemon all you want, but in Van Orden everything seems to turn on the dull respectability of the stone tablets near the Austin State Capitol. Kentucky's gold-framed courtroom commandments, on the other hand, have all the subtlety of Pat Robertson—they're flashy, aggressive, and even rude. The contrast between loud and quiet religiosity may be the key to understanding the differing outcomes in Van Orden and McCreary County.
It may seem strange to court-watchers and American citizens that something akin to etiquette can decide cases. It certainly drives people like Justice Scalia up the wall—he thinks that rules are rules and that it is ridiculous to worry about manners in a serious case. But of course those from the etiquette school (while they'd never say so) think Justice Scalia himself ill-mannered and brash (not personally, but judicially). Using the power of judicial etiquette, they have successfully contrived to isolate Scalia's views and mark them as inappropriate for the court to follow in important cases. There's a lesson here. As Amy Vanderbilt herself might have said: As powerful as law may be, the power of good manners should never be underestimated.
Here's why... (not saying I completely agree with analysis, but the idea that this is our reality is just mind bending to me.)
A Supreme Court Conversation - The Miss Manners school of jurisprudence. By Walter�Dellinger, Charles�Fried, Dahlia�Lithwick, and Tim�Wu: "From: Tim Wu
To: Walter Dellinger, Dahlia Lithwick, and Charles Fried
Subject: The Miss Manners School of Jurisprudence
Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 7:31 AM PT
Dear Walter and Dahlia:
It may strike you as ambitious for me to suggest similarities between the Ten Commandments and Grokster cases (though in a certain sense both are about the distribution of forbidden content). But reading your posts, I do think the cases have something in common and reflect a theme that is particularly strong over the last five years in the writings of O'Connor and Breyer.
The theme is respectability and etiquette. The O'Connor-Breyer view is that there are sometimes well-mannered and ill-mannered ways to do something�and that in hard cases, how you do things can make all the difference. It's almost like the Miss Manners' School of Jurisprudence�be polite and ask nicely, and you'd be surprised what can be done. This view of the law has gained surprising influence over the last five years, particularly in hard cases. Consider the Michigan affirmative-action cases, where the court, in essence, said that while quotas are unseemly, a little nudge and wink, done quietly and discreetly, is a respectable way to handle racial preferences.
Grokster turns on these ideas to a degree. The P2P companies were loud scofflaws, foreigners, and college students who blatantly encouraged illegal acts. KaZaA's successor by contrast, Apple's iTunes, may ultimately pose a greater threat to the recording industry, but it operates in a respectable way. Steve Jobs is a rebel with manners. And that has made all the difference.
The Ten Commandments cases are even more clearly centered on etiquette. You can talk about Lemon all you want, but in Van Orden everything seems to turn on the dull respectability of the stone tablets near the Austin State Capitol. Kentucky's gold-framed courtroom commandments, on the other hand, have all the subtlety of Pat Robertson—they're flashy, aggressive, and even rude. The contrast between loud and quiet religiosity may be the key to understanding the differing outcomes in Van Orden and McCreary County.
It may seem strange to court-watchers and American citizens that something akin to etiquette can decide cases. It certainly drives people like Justice Scalia up the wall—he thinks that rules are rules and that it is ridiculous to worry about manners in a serious case. But of course those from the etiquette school (while they'd never say so) think Justice Scalia himself ill-mannered and brash (not personally, but judicially). Using the power of judicial etiquette, they have successfully contrived to isolate Scalia's views and mark them as inappropriate for the court to follow in important cases. There's a lesson here. As Amy Vanderbilt herself might have said: As powerful as law may be, the power of good manners should never be underestimated.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
GLOBAL ANTIWAR MOVEMENT DECLARES SUPPORT FOR TERRORISTS AGAINST US, UK
GLOBAL ANTIWAR MOVEMENT DECLARES SUPPORT FOR TERRORISTS AGAINST US, UK: "THE ENEMY IS WITHIN"
BG: The Freepers would be funny if they weren't stone cold serious.
BG: The Freepers would be funny if they weren't stone cold serious.
Breyer casts decisive vote on religious displays - Tom Curry - MSNBC.com
Breyer casts decisive vote on religious displays - Tom Curry - MSNBC.com
BG: I find myself in the extremely usual position of thinking Thomas has this right:
[Joining Scalia in Monday’s Ten Commandments decisions was Clarence Thomas.
In his view, when the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it means exactly that and nothing more than that. Congress “shall make no law,” but the states may do so, if they choose to.
“This case would be easy,” Thomas said, if the court would simply “return to the original meaning of the (Establishment) Clause.” ]
Instead of a logical approach to this question, look what a muddle has been created. Check out this paragraph:
[Hinting at practical political consequences, Breyer also worried that if the court banned long-standing displays of the Ten Commandments, it might spark public outrage, “the very kind of religiously based divisiveness that the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.]
The highest court in the land ends up with a split-the-middle ruling with logic that amounts to deciding what rules should govern the kindergarten based on what might cause too many tantrums. (Perhaps if I'd ever been a K-school teach, I be more inclined toward this compromise).
I can't remeber which Justices I most often agree with, nor do I have Breyer's record in mind. All indications to this observer are that Breyer's reasoning, using whimpy logic and prose as shown above, sets a lower tone than even the Court's low standard. Guessing (prior to looking at the details) Scalia is on the side of 10 Commandments in public buildings, it's interesting that one of the best minds who could excoriate Breyer for his "how can we all just get along" reasoning, is in fact on his side (for logical reasons one would hope).
... looking up Scalia... in news article....
Logical Reasons, perhaps not: examine Scalia....
[What Justice Antonin Scalia wanted — and could not get from most of his colleagues — was a robust statement that religion is not merely part of America’s heritage but a vibrant part of American society and government today.]
Using this from Scalia, you have nothing standing out as logic being applied to the situation. Rather, you simply have a cultural bias being expressed as right because of it's imputed value (in the jurist's mind, i.e. public emphasis on historically embraced religious values and symbols being more valuable to our Republic over neutrality on such matters).
Whatever the dubious quality of this ruling, given the current political climate I think it can be assumed that future rulings will fall further from reasoned enlightenment.
All in all, this ruling is not unexpected (muddled, illogical, and unlikely to stand for long), considering that decisions such as Bush v. Gore are part of this Court's legacy.
BG: I find myself in the extremely usual position of thinking Thomas has this right:
[Joining Scalia in Monday’s Ten Commandments decisions was Clarence Thomas.
In his view, when the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it means exactly that and nothing more than that. Congress “shall make no law,” but the states may do so, if they choose to.
“This case would be easy,” Thomas said, if the court would simply “return to the original meaning of the (Establishment) Clause.” ]
Instead of a logical approach to this question, look what a muddle has been created. Check out this paragraph:
[Hinting at practical political consequences, Breyer also worried that if the court banned long-standing displays of the Ten Commandments, it might spark public outrage, “the very kind of religiously based divisiveness that the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.]
The highest court in the land ends up with a split-the-middle ruling with logic that amounts to deciding what rules should govern the kindergarten based on what might cause too many tantrums. (Perhaps if I'd ever been a K-school teach, I be more inclined toward this compromise).
I can't remeber which Justices I most often agree with, nor do I have Breyer's record in mind. All indications to this observer are that Breyer's reasoning, using whimpy logic and prose as shown above, sets a lower tone than even the Court's low standard. Guessing (prior to looking at the details) Scalia is on the side of 10 Commandments in public buildings, it's interesting that one of the best minds who could excoriate Breyer for his "how can we all just get along" reasoning, is in fact on his side (for logical reasons one would hope).
... looking up Scalia... in news article....
Logical Reasons, perhaps not: examine Scalia....
[What Justice Antonin Scalia wanted — and could not get from most of his colleagues — was a robust statement that religion is not merely part of America’s heritage but a vibrant part of American society and government today.]
Using this from Scalia, you have nothing standing out as logic being applied to the situation. Rather, you simply have a cultural bias being expressed as right because of it's imputed value (in the jurist's mind, i.e. public emphasis on historically embraced religious values and symbols being more valuable to our Republic over neutrality on such matters).
Whatever the dubious quality of this ruling, given the current political climate I think it can be assumed that future rulings will fall further from reasoned enlightenment.
All in all, this ruling is not unexpected (muddled, illogical, and unlikely to stand for long), considering that decisions such as Bush v. Gore are part of this Court's legacy.
Audio: Klein nailed on falsehoods in Al Franken Show grilling
I wondered if I should post this. But now that I listen, it is just devastating.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Video: Cross Posted from Crooks and Liars: Republican Porn Biz
Had no idea this would be quite so low brow.....
Friday, June 24, 2005
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Stick a Fork in this Blog, It's Done
If simply 10% of the 911 Truth information posted or referred to in this blog is true, then, logically, those behind the crimes would need to be somewhat agressive in guarding their secrets.
My plan and hope has been this blog and the internet could "light one candle" and shine as brightly as possible. For reasons that anyone could understand, and I think my rotation for candle lighting is done for a while. I need to focus on taking care of other areas in life.
To my knowledge, I've not be harassed in any way for exercising using my free speech here. There are several alternative explanations that would seem to apply:
1) My "truth" is not anything except wild speculation, and since there is not truth, no smoking gun, I'm only a danger to those who would mistakenly waste time following the trail of false belief.
2) Those who are charged with "keeping the lid on" have bigger fish to fry, or are using approaches I'm not aware of to manage to Psyops and coverup.
3) Some other explanation that I don't have enough insight to explore.
My plan will be to return and augment this post with a list of websites that forward the cause of exposing the Truth of 09/11/2001. In the mean time, I can only hope that #2 or #3 explains why all the previous blog is allowed to continue as posted.
=========================
In closing here are gif file linked which together (that I just ran across today), which point to 911 Coverup
gif (hat tip to www.whatreallyhappened.com)
This is showing the news articles archived at archive.org
(to be continued...)
My plan and hope has been this blog and the internet could "light one candle" and shine as brightly as possible. For reasons that anyone could understand, and I think my rotation for candle lighting is done for a while. I need to focus on taking care of other areas in life.
To my knowledge, I've not be harassed in any way for exercising using my free speech here. There are several alternative explanations that would seem to apply:
1) My "truth" is not anything except wild speculation, and since there is not truth, no smoking gun, I'm only a danger to those who would mistakenly waste time following the trail of false belief.
2) Those who are charged with "keeping the lid on" have bigger fish to fry, or are using approaches I'm not aware of to manage to Psyops and coverup.
3) Some other explanation that I don't have enough insight to explore.
My plan will be to return and augment this post with a list of websites that forward the cause of exposing the Truth of 09/11/2001. In the mean time, I can only hope that #2 or #3 explains why all the previous blog is allowed to continue as posted.
=========================
In closing here are gif file linked which together (that I just ran across today), which point to 911 Coverup
gif (hat tip to www.whatreallyhappened.com)
This is showing the news articles archived at archive.org
(to be continued...)
Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran
Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran
BG: This gent seems kinda dangerous. (Saw him on the Daily Show).
BG: This gent seems kinda dangerous. (Saw him on the Daily Show).
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
assassination policy
International News Article | Reuters.com
BG: Not posting this to condemn, only to document seeming sad downward spiral.
BG: Not posting this to condemn, only to document seeming sad downward spiral.
Old News (2004) Max Cleland: Bush 'flat-out lied' on Iraq
Max Cleland: Bush 'flat-out lied' on Iraq
BG: This seems so familiar, where have I heard this before? Notice how the Bush defenders that were posting comment look in today's light.
BG: This seems so familiar, where have I heard this before? Notice how the Bush defenders that were posting comment look in today's light.
Old News: Scoop: UQ Wire: Bush Bribes Max Cleland To Shut Up?
Scoop: UQ Wire: Bush Bribes Max Cleland To Shut Up?: " Bush Bribes Max Cleland To Shut Up"
Social Security Opened Its Files for 9/11 Inquiry - New York Times
Social Security Opened Its Files for 9/11 Inquiry - New York Times: "June 22, 2005
Social Security Opened Its Files for 9/11 Inquiry"
Social Security Opened Its Files for 9/11 Inquiry"
News Hounds: Bill O'Reilly Unhappy - "Due Process" Takes Too Long
News Hounds: Bill O'Reilly Unhappy - "Due Process" Takes Too Long
You'd think such idiots as O'Reily would discredit Fox's pretense of being a fair and balances news org. You'd think.......
You'd think such idiots as O'Reily would discredit Fox's pretense of being a fair and balances news org. You'd think.......
The Secret World of Jack Abramoff
The Secret World of Jack AbramoffJune 21, 2005 -Venice, FL.
by Daniel Hopsicker
The MadCowMorningNews has learned exclusive new details about the gangland-style hit in Florida of Gus Boulis, whose murder figures prominently in lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s rise to power.
The 'secret world' of Jack Abramoff being probed by investigators today has definite connections and unmistakable links to the one inhabited during their final year in the U.S by Mohamed Atta and the other hijackers.
So as the scandal embroiling House Major Domo Tom Delay and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff grows hotter, there may be new revelations about the 9.11 attack.
One of the most amazing thing about this most amazing scandal—hundreds of millions in slush funds beats Oval Office blowjobs by a mile—is that some of the same names in the Abramoff scandal also surface in connection with Mohamed Atta’s.
Less than a week before the 9.11 attack, for example, Atta and several other hijackers made a still-unexplained visit onboard one of Abramoff’s casino boats.
What were they doing there? No one knows.
Wrestling with alligators
There remains a strong suspicion that Atta’s terrorist cadre—supposedly unknown and friendless and burrowing into the woodwork—was able to call on the assistance, when necessary, of a friendly global network.
Could it be that this network is the same one being probed so gingerly today by investigators looking into Jack Abramoff?
What could a scandal involving Indian casinos and gambling boat “cruises to nowhere” & pay-for-play government officials have to do with the story of 19 hijackers planning a mass murder in supposed isolation in Florida?
Let’s take a look
by Daniel Hopsicker
The MadCowMorningNews has learned exclusive new details about the gangland-style hit in Florida of Gus Boulis, whose murder figures prominently in lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s rise to power.
The 'secret world' of Jack Abramoff being probed by investigators today has definite connections and unmistakable links to the one inhabited during their final year in the U.S by Mohamed Atta and the other hijackers.
So as the scandal embroiling House Major Domo Tom Delay and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff grows hotter, there may be new revelations about the 9.11 attack.
One of the most amazing thing about this most amazing scandal—hundreds of millions in slush funds beats Oval Office blowjobs by a mile—is that some of the same names in the Abramoff scandal also surface in connection with Mohamed Atta’s.
Less than a week before the 9.11 attack, for example, Atta and several other hijackers made a still-unexplained visit onboard one of Abramoff’s casino boats.
What were they doing there? No one knows.
Wrestling with alligators
There remains a strong suspicion that Atta’s terrorist cadre—supposedly unknown and friendless and burrowing into the woodwork—was able to call on the assistance, when necessary, of a friendly global network.
Could it be that this network is the same one being probed so gingerly today by investigators looking into Jack Abramoff?
What could a scandal involving Indian casinos and gambling boat “cruises to nowhere” & pay-for-play government officials have to do with the story of 19 hijackers planning a mass murder in supposed isolation in Florida?
Let’s take a look
Salon.com Politics War Room | Politics
BG: It won't take long before they engineer an atrocity to cure this.
Salon.com Politics War Room | Politics: "Scary news for Bush: We're not afraid anymore
The polls keep bringing bad news for the Republicans, and the new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll may bring the worst news for the White House yet.
Americans aren't afraid anymore.
The Bush administration has made fear its stock in trade. The White House used fear -- of another 9/11, of a Saddam Hussein with WMDs -- to sell the war in Iraq, and it used fear to get the president re-elected. Remember Dick Cheney's warning about John Kerry? 'It's absolutely essential that . . . on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. . . .'
But how do you sell fear when the people aren't buying it? According to Gallup, fewer Americans fear that terrorists will strike in the United States soon than they have at any point since 9/11. Only 35 percent of Gallup's respondents fear such an attack, down from 39 percent in January and from 85 percent in the days after 9/11.
It's not that Americans are suddenly thinking that the Bush administration is doing a great job of protecting them from a terrorist attack. To the contrary, confidence in the ability of the administration to fend off an attack is slipping. While a majority of respondents still say they have at least a moderate degree of confidence that the administration will protect them, 38 percent now say they have little or no such confidence. Only 52 percent of the public is satisfied with how things are going in the war on terrorism, down from 75 percent two years ago.
But the war in Iraq is making the world a safer place, right? That's wha"
Salon.com Politics War Room | Politics: "Scary news for Bush: We're not afraid anymore
The polls keep bringing bad news for the Republicans, and the new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll may bring the worst news for the White House yet.
Americans aren't afraid anymore.
The Bush administration has made fear its stock in trade. The White House used fear -- of another 9/11, of a Saddam Hussein with WMDs -- to sell the war in Iraq, and it used fear to get the president re-elected. Remember Dick Cheney's warning about John Kerry? 'It's absolutely essential that . . . on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. . . .'
But how do you sell fear when the people aren't buying it? According to Gallup, fewer Americans fear that terrorists will strike in the United States soon than they have at any point since 9/11. Only 35 percent of Gallup's respondents fear such an attack, down from 39 percent in January and from 85 percent in the days after 9/11.
It's not that Americans are suddenly thinking that the Bush administration is doing a great job of protecting them from a terrorist attack. To the contrary, confidence in the ability of the administration to fend off an attack is slipping. While a majority of respondents still say they have at least a moderate degree of confidence that the administration will protect them, 38 percent now say they have little or no such confidence. Only 52 percent of the public is satisfied with how things are going in the war on terrorism, down from 75 percent two years ago.
But the war in Iraq is making the world a safer place, right? That's wha"
Guantnamo's Long Shadow - New York Times
Guant�namo's Long Shadow - New York TimesThe known and detailed treatment of Gitmo detainess "is forbidden by three sources of law that the United States respected for decades - until the administration of George W. Bush." Mistreating prisoners makes the world see our moral claims as hypocrisy.
June 21, 2005
Guantánamo's Long Shadow
By ANTHONY LEWIS
Boston
WHEN Vice President Dick Cheney said last week that detainees at the American prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, were treated better than they would be "by virtually any other government on the face of the earth," he was carrying on what has become a campaign to whitewash the record of abuses at Guantánamo.
Right-wing commentators have been sounding the theme. Columnist Charles Krauthammer said the treatment of the Guantánamo prisoners had been "remarkably humane and tolerant."
Yes, and there is no elephant in the room.
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation observed what went on in Guantánamo. One reported on July 29, 2004: "On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more."
Time magazine published an extended article last week on an official log of interrogations of one Guantánamo detainee over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003. The detainee was Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi who is suspected of being the planned 20th hijacker on Sept. 11, 2001, but who was unable to enter the United States.
Mr. Kahtani was interrogated for as long as 20 hours at a stretch, according to the detailed log. At one point he was put on an intravenous drip and given 3½ bags of fluid. When he asked to urinate, guards told him that he must first answer questions. He answered them. The interrogator, not satisfied with the answers, told him to urinate in his pants, which he did. Thirty minutes later, the log noted, Mr. Kahtani was "beginning to understand the futility of his situation."
F.B.I. agents, reporting earlier on the treatment of Mr. Kahtani, said a dog was used "in an aggressive manner to intimidate" him. At one point, according to the log, Mr. Kahtani's interrogator told him that he needed to learn, like a dog, to show respect: "Began teaching detainee lessons such as stay, come and bark to elevate his social status to that of a dog. Detainee became very agitated."
At a minimum, the treatment of Mr. Kahtani was an exercise in degradation and humiliation. Such treatment is forbidden by three sources of law that the United States respected for decades - until the administration of George W. Bush.
The Geneva Conventions, which protect people captured in conflict, prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." The scope of that clause's legal obligation has been debated, but previous American governments abided by it. President Bush decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members who are detained at Guantánamo.
The United Nations Convention Against Torture, also ratified by the United States, requires signatories to "prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction ... cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." The Bush administration declared that this provision did not apply to the treatment of non-Americans held outside the United States.
Finally, there is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It makes cruelty, oppression or "maltreatment" of prisoners a crime. Armed services lawyers worried that some methods of interrogation might violate the Uniform Code and federal criminal statutes, exposing interrogators to prosecution. A Pentagon memorandum obtained by ABC News said a meeting of top military lawyers on March 8, 2003, concluded that "we need a presidential letter" approving controversial methods, to give interrogators immunity.
The idea that a president can legalize the unlawful evidently came from a series of memorandums written by Justice Department officials. They argued, among other things, that President Bush's authority as commander in chief to set interrogation methods could trump treaties and federal law.
Although President Bush decided to deny detainees at Guantánamo the protection of the Geneva Conventions, he did order that they must be treated "humanely." The Pentagon, responding to the Time magazine article on the treatment of Mr. Kahtani, said, "The Department of Defense remains committed to the unequivocal standard of humane treatment for all detainees, and Kahtani's interrogation plan was guided by that strict standard."
In the view of the administration, then, it is "humane" to give a detainee 3½ bags of I.V. fluid and then make him urinate on himself, force him to bark like a dog, or chain him to the floor for 18 hours.
No one can seriously doubt now that cruelties and indignities have been inflicted on prisoners at Guantánamo. Nor is there any doubt that worse has happened elsewhere - prisoners beaten to death by American soldiers, untold others held in secret locations by the Central Intelligence Agency, others rendered to be tortured by governments such as Uzbekistan's.
Since the widespread outrage over the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Americans have seemingly ceased to care. It was reported yesterday that Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former American commander in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib scandal, is being considered for promotion. Many people would say the mistreatment of Mohamed al-Kahtani, or of suspects who might well be innocent, is justified in a war with terrorists. Morality is outweighed by necessity.
The moral cost is not so easily put aside. We Americans have a sense of ourselves as a moral people. We have led the way in the fight for human rights in the world. Mistreating prisoners makes the world see our moral claims as hypocrisy.
Beyond morality, there is the essential role of law in a democracy, especially in American democracy. This country has no ancient mythology to hold it together, no kings or queens. We have had the law to revere. No government, we tell ourselves, is above the law.
Over many years the United States has worked to persuade and compel governments around the world to abide by the rules. By spurning our own rules, we put that effort at risk. What Justice Louis Brandeis said about law at home applies internationally as well: "If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law."
Anthony Lewis is a former Times columnist.
June 21, 2005
Guantánamo's Long Shadow
By ANTHONY LEWIS
Boston
WHEN Vice President Dick Cheney said last week that detainees at the American prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, were treated better than they would be "by virtually any other government on the face of the earth," he was carrying on what has become a campaign to whitewash the record of abuses at Guantánamo.
Right-wing commentators have been sounding the theme. Columnist Charles Krauthammer said the treatment of the Guantánamo prisoners had been "remarkably humane and tolerant."
Yes, and there is no elephant in the room.
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation observed what went on in Guantánamo. One reported on July 29, 2004: "On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more."
Time magazine published an extended article last week on an official log of interrogations of one Guantánamo detainee over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003. The detainee was Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi who is suspected of being the planned 20th hijacker on Sept. 11, 2001, but who was unable to enter the United States.
Mr. Kahtani was interrogated for as long as 20 hours at a stretch, according to the detailed log. At one point he was put on an intravenous drip and given 3½ bags of fluid. When he asked to urinate, guards told him that he must first answer questions. He answered them. The interrogator, not satisfied with the answers, told him to urinate in his pants, which he did. Thirty minutes later, the log noted, Mr. Kahtani was "beginning to understand the futility of his situation."
F.B.I. agents, reporting earlier on the treatment of Mr. Kahtani, said a dog was used "in an aggressive manner to intimidate" him. At one point, according to the log, Mr. Kahtani's interrogator told him that he needed to learn, like a dog, to show respect: "Began teaching detainee lessons such as stay, come and bark to elevate his social status to that of a dog. Detainee became very agitated."
At a minimum, the treatment of Mr. Kahtani was an exercise in degradation and humiliation. Such treatment is forbidden by three sources of law that the United States respected for decades - until the administration of George W. Bush.
The Geneva Conventions, which protect people captured in conflict, prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." The scope of that clause's legal obligation has been debated, but previous American governments abided by it. President Bush decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members who are detained at Guantánamo.
The United Nations Convention Against Torture, also ratified by the United States, requires signatories to "prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction ... cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." The Bush administration declared that this provision did not apply to the treatment of non-Americans held outside the United States.
Finally, there is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It makes cruelty, oppression or "maltreatment" of prisoners a crime. Armed services lawyers worried that some methods of interrogation might violate the Uniform Code and federal criminal statutes, exposing interrogators to prosecution. A Pentagon memorandum obtained by ABC News said a meeting of top military lawyers on March 8, 2003, concluded that "we need a presidential letter" approving controversial methods, to give interrogators immunity.
The idea that a president can legalize the unlawful evidently came from a series of memorandums written by Justice Department officials. They argued, among other things, that President Bush's authority as commander in chief to set interrogation methods could trump treaties and federal law.
Although President Bush decided to deny detainees at Guantánamo the protection of the Geneva Conventions, he did order that they must be treated "humanely." The Pentagon, responding to the Time magazine article on the treatment of Mr. Kahtani, said, "The Department of Defense remains committed to the unequivocal standard of humane treatment for all detainees, and Kahtani's interrogation plan was guided by that strict standard."
In the view of the administration, then, it is "humane" to give a detainee 3½ bags of I.V. fluid and then make him urinate on himself, force him to bark like a dog, or chain him to the floor for 18 hours.
No one can seriously doubt now that cruelties and indignities have been inflicted on prisoners at Guantánamo. Nor is there any doubt that worse has happened elsewhere - prisoners beaten to death by American soldiers, untold others held in secret locations by the Central Intelligence Agency, others rendered to be tortured by governments such as Uzbekistan's.
Since the widespread outrage over the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Americans have seemingly ceased to care. It was reported yesterday that Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former American commander in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib scandal, is being considered for promotion. Many people would say the mistreatment of Mohamed al-Kahtani, or of suspects who might well be innocent, is justified in a war with terrorists. Morality is outweighed by necessity.
The moral cost is not so easily put aside. We Americans have a sense of ourselves as a moral people. We have led the way in the fight for human rights in the world. Mistreating prisoners makes the world see our moral claims as hypocrisy.
Beyond morality, there is the essential role of law in a democracy, especially in American democracy. This country has no ancient mythology to hold it together, no kings or queens. We have had the law to revere. No government, we tell ourselves, is above the law.
Over many years the United States has worked to persuade and compel governments around the world to abide by the rules. By spurning our own rules, we put that effort at risk. What Justice Louis Brandeis said about law at home applies internationally as well: "If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law."
Anthony Lewis is a former Times columnist.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
HOUSE THREAD - REPUBLICANS RIP DURBIN IN HOUSE
HOUSE THREAD - REPUBLICANS RIP DURBIN IN HOUSE
BG: Ok, gents, we got to get the war effort back on track. We are going to have an all-out attack on the evil Iraqi insurgents. We need to warm up and get in fighting shape. How 'bout we practice on Durbin?
BG: Ok, gents, we got to get the war effort back on track. We are going to have an all-out attack on the evil Iraqi insurgents. We need to warm up and get in fighting shape. How 'bout we practice on Durbin?
Television "Journalists"
Here's my take on MSM:
Interview:
Newsperson: Sir, let me ask you: you've been accused of mass murder, baby mutilation, baby killing, and wholesale corruption. How do you respond?
"Tough" Interview Target: Did you see how mad Tom Cruise got when he was squirted in the face by the squirt gun microphone?
Newsperson: "yeah, that was something wasn't it."
Interview:
Newsperson: Sir, let me ask you: you've been accused of mass murder, baby mutilation, baby killing, and wholesale corruption. How do you respond?
"Tough" Interview Target: Did you see how mad Tom Cruise got when he was squirted in the face by the squirt gun microphone?
Newsperson: "yeah, that was something wasn't it."
Chomsky's Propaganda Model Essays
New from Black Rose Books: "Filtering the News
Essays on Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda Model
Jeffery Klaehn, editor"
Essays on Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda Model
Jeffery Klaehn, editor"
Rigorous Intuition: "Dead man, dead man. When will you arise?"
Rigorous Intuition: "Dead man, dead man. When will you arise?"
Technorati Tag: Bush Crime Family
Technorati Tag: Bush Crime Family
Democrats say Noe case concealed to assist Bush
- toledoblade.com -
BG: My Fair and Balanced Comment: Any thinking human with a Party allegiance would try to keep the lid on.
BG: My wholly hateful comment: I thought Kerry lost because the Repubs will protect us, and Kerry wouldn't protect us as well as Bush, and he's a traitor, and he's a Mass. liberal and loves abortion, and gays, and gay marriage, and labor, and lazy teachers, and wasteful spending. And he and Ms. Clinton, and Kennedy, and Biden, and Dashle will get in power and trash this country worse than any Republican could. And by the way, do you know the kinds of activities that Mrs. Kerry funds with her enormous wealth. Her activities are an affront to every decent American.... Yeah, that's it....
The truth is that the Election of 2004 was stolen in Ohio. Honestly, at this point, I'm not too fond of Kerry, myself, for not lifting an f-ing finger.
BG: My Fair and Balanced Comment: Any thinking human with a Party allegiance would try to keep the lid on.
BG: My wholly hateful comment: I thought Kerry lost because the Repubs will protect us, and Kerry wouldn't protect us as well as Bush, and he's a traitor, and he's a Mass. liberal and loves abortion, and gays, and gay marriage, and labor, and lazy teachers, and wasteful spending. And he and Ms. Clinton, and Kennedy, and Biden, and Dashle will get in power and trash this country worse than any Republican could. And by the way, do you know the kinds of activities that Mrs. Kerry funds with her enormous wealth. Her activities are an affront to every decent American.... Yeah, that's it....
The truth is that the Election of 2004 was stolen in Ohio. Honestly, at this point, I'm not too fond of Kerry, myself, for not lifting an f-ing finger.
Monday, June 20, 2005
The Damning Downing Street Memo - by Gordon Prather
The Damning Downing Street Memo - by Gordon Prather'
PBU25
"The Damning Downing Street Memo
by Gordon Prather
No thanks to the domestic and international neo-crazy media sycophants, you probably now know about the 'Downing Street memo.'
The memo is actually the minutes � stamped 'Secret and Strictly Personal � UK Eyes Only' � of a meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior national security team.
The meeting was held at Downing Street on July 23, 2002, and the leaked minutes were first published by the Sunday Times of London on May 1, 2005.
No one in Bush's or Blair's government has questioned the accuracy or validity of what the Sunday Times published.
No one!
Perhaps the most damning revelation is that Richard Dearlove � then director of the Brit equivalent of the CIA � told Blair that 'Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'
Remember that these are minutes of a meeting, not an actual transcript. And much of the meeting concerned Bush's plans and decisions. So Bush and Blair have discounted the Downing Street memo, claiming that most of those plans and decisions were never implemented.
Consequently, the neo-crazy media sycophants are claiming the reason they didn't tell you about the Downing Street memo is that 'there is nothing in it that we didn't know about at the time.'
Well, maybe they already knew in July of 2002 that Bush-Cheney-Bolton-Wolfowitz-Feith had been 'fixing' the intelligence for almost a year to fit the upcoming war of aggression. But did you?
For example, did you know that Bush-Cheney-Bolton had conspired in early 2002 to get Jose Bustani, director-general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Wea"
PBU25
"The Damning Downing Street Memo
by Gordon Prather
No thanks to the domestic and international neo-crazy media sycophants, you probably now know about the 'Downing Street memo.'
The memo is actually the minutes � stamped 'Secret and Strictly Personal � UK Eyes Only' � of a meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior national security team.
The meeting was held at Downing Street on July 23, 2002, and the leaked minutes were first published by the Sunday Times of London on May 1, 2005.
No one in Bush's or Blair's government has questioned the accuracy or validity of what the Sunday Times published.
No one!
Perhaps the most damning revelation is that Richard Dearlove � then director of the Brit equivalent of the CIA � told Blair that 'Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'
Remember that these are minutes of a meeting, not an actual transcript. And much of the meeting concerned Bush's plans and decisions. So Bush and Blair have discounted the Downing Street memo, claiming that most of those plans and decisions were never implemented.
Consequently, the neo-crazy media sycophants are claiming the reason they didn't tell you about the Downing Street memo is that 'there is nothing in it that we didn't know about at the time.'
Well, maybe they already knew in July of 2002 that Bush-Cheney-Bolton-Wolfowitz-Feith had been 'fixing' the intelligence for almost a year to fit the upcoming war of aggression. But did you?
For example, did you know that Bush-Cheney-Bolton had conspired in early 2002 to get Jose Bustani, director-general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Wea"
Editorials Grow Increasingly Skeptical of War
Editorials Grow Increasingly Skeptical of WarPBU25 This is a little better.
The All Spin Zone / Can We Dispense With the Revisionist Justifiers?
The All Spin Zone / Can We Dispense With the Revisionist Justifiers?: "founding director of the Project for a New American Century"
PBU25
PBU25
Sunday, June 19, 2005
SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Politics -- Sen. Durbin apologizes for Guantanamo remarks
SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Politics -- Sen. Durbin apologizes for Guantanamo remarks
PBU25
BG: You don't like me.... I want you to really really like me. Coward.
PBU25
BG: You don't like me.... I want you to really really like me. Coward.
A senator's shame - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
A senator's shame - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
BG: ok, he was a rascist, next question.
BG: ok, he was a rascist, next question.
THE HANKY-PANKY AROUND THE RECOVERING OF WTC-HARD DRIVES
THE HANKY-PANKY AROUND THE RECOVERING OF WTC-HARD DRIVES: "Moments before the World Trade Towers collapsed, $100 million in credit card transactions were sent through the computers inside the doomed buildings, transactions that should have vanished when the buildings collapsed.
But a German company was able to recover data from the hard drives pointing to WHO, armed with advance knowledge, executed this monstrous fraud. But the company doing the data recovery was bought out, the project halted, while the FBI as usual does not look where it is told not to look.
'PIRMASENS, Germany (Reuters) - German computer experts are working
round the clock to unlock the truth behind an unexplained surge in
financial transactions made just before two hijacked planes crashed
into New York's World Trade Center on September 11.
Were criminals responsible for the sharp rise in credit card
transactions that moved through some computer systems at the WTC
shortly before the planes hit the twin towers?
Or was it coincidence that unusually large sums of money, perhaps
more than $100 million, were rushed through the computers as the
disaster unfolded?
A world leader in retrieving data, German-based firm Convar is trying
to answer those questions and help credit card companies,
telecommunications firms and accountants in New York recover their
records from computer hard drives that have been partially damaged by
fire, water or fine dust... � here
The CONVAR data salvage has made it completely clear that more than $100 million in insider credit card transactions took place in the hours and minutes before the twin towers collapsed. The mainframe computers in the towers processed these transactions; and the credit card data would have been lost forever had it not been for the successful data reconstruction of the CONVAR specialists.
A German company, CONVAR of Pirmasens near the French border, was given more than 400 computer hard drives from the wreckage of the World Trade Center. These are extremely sensitive computer components that went through the collapse of the World Trade Center. Using blue laser technology, CONVAR succeeded in reconstructing all the data from the computer debris. This includes diverse financial data and telecommunication protocols up to a few seconds before the collapse of each tower. (Source: e-mail from CONVAR Germany on October 16, 2003.) The U.S. government’s blatant lie about the allegedly missing black boxes is outright made ludicrous by this fact.
The reconstructed data was given by CONVAR to the FBI. The FBI was held by law to investigate, based on the reconstructed data, who placed the inside transactions.
The FBI is doing no such thing. – here
GFP would like to inform, that in June 2002, Ontrack/Convar was aquired by Kroll Inc. (Kroll O'gara Eisenhardt), which has strong with the US Government. One of their former employees, Jerome Hauer, organised a security job for ex-FBI anti-terror chief John O'Neill in the Twin Towers, where he died on Sep11th.
Kroll O’ Gara Eisenhardt is one of the oldest security companies in the United States and, some say, responsible for every U.S. President since the end of WW2. What does an upstanding, powerful company like Kroll do in its spare time? Why it trains local forces in Saudi Arabia, of course!
One partner of Kroll, Cable & Wireless provides training in Counter-Terrorism and Urban Warfare in Saudi Arabia. In August 2001, former Kroll employee, Jerome Hauer, arranged a security job in the Twin Towers for FBI Agent John O’Neill. At the time, O’Neill had been investigating ENRON’s business deals with the Taliban and was subsequently pulled from that investigation. Neither Kroll nor Hauer was asked to testify about this coincidence. – here Jerry Hauer has been around a bit – Batelle, Dyncorp, SAIC (note DAVID KAY’S (of Iraq WMD fame) MENTION of him) ...
But a German company was able to recover data from the hard drives pointing to WHO, armed with advance knowledge, executed this monstrous fraud. But the company doing the data recovery was bought out, the project halted, while the FBI as usual does not look where it is told not to look.
'PIRMASENS, Germany (Reuters) - German computer experts are working
round the clock to unlock the truth behind an unexplained surge in
financial transactions made just before two hijacked planes crashed
into New York's World Trade Center on September 11.
Were criminals responsible for the sharp rise in credit card
transactions that moved through some computer systems at the WTC
shortly before the planes hit the twin towers?
Or was it coincidence that unusually large sums of money, perhaps
more than $100 million, were rushed through the computers as the
disaster unfolded?
A world leader in retrieving data, German-based firm Convar is trying
to answer those questions and help credit card companies,
telecommunications firms and accountants in New York recover their
records from computer hard drives that have been partially damaged by
fire, water or fine dust... � here
The CONVAR data salvage has made it completely clear that more than $100 million in insider credit card transactions took place in the hours and minutes before the twin towers collapsed. The mainframe computers in the towers processed these transactions; and the credit card data would have been lost forever had it not been for the successful data reconstruction of the CONVAR specialists.
A German company, CONVAR of Pirmasens near the French border, was given more than 400 computer hard drives from the wreckage of the World Trade Center. These are extremely sensitive computer components that went through the collapse of the World Trade Center. Using blue laser technology, CONVAR succeeded in reconstructing all the data from the computer debris. This includes diverse financial data and telecommunication protocols up to a few seconds before the collapse of each tower. (Source: e-mail from CONVAR Germany on October 16, 2003.) The U.S. government’s blatant lie about the allegedly missing black boxes is outright made ludicrous by this fact.
The reconstructed data was given by CONVAR to the FBI. The FBI was held by law to investigate, based on the reconstructed data, who placed the inside transactions.
The FBI is doing no such thing. – here
GFP would like to inform, that in June 2002, Ontrack/Convar was aquired by Kroll Inc. (Kroll O'gara Eisenhardt), which has strong with the US Government. One of their former employees, Jerome Hauer, organised a security job for ex-FBI anti-terror chief John O'Neill in the Twin Towers, where he died on Sep11th.
Kroll O’ Gara Eisenhardt is one of the oldest security companies in the United States and, some say, responsible for every U.S. President since the end of WW2. What does an upstanding, powerful company like Kroll do in its spare time? Why it trains local forces in Saudi Arabia, of course!
One partner of Kroll, Cable & Wireless provides training in Counter-Terrorism and Urban Warfare in Saudi Arabia. In August 2001, former Kroll employee, Jerome Hauer, arranged a security job in the Twin Towers for FBI Agent John O’Neill. At the time, O’Neill had been investigating ENRON’s business deals with the Taliban and was subsequently pulled from that investigation. Neither Kroll nor Hauer was asked to testify about this coincidence. – here Jerry Hauer has been around a bit – Batelle, Dyncorp, SAIC (note DAVID KAY’S (of Iraq WMD fame) MENTION of him) ...
tell the truth
DSM Protest (sorry it's hard to see sign text)
Photo theme today is truth and lies.
PBU25
Photo theme today is truth and lies.
PBU25
Response to Beyond Downing Street by Bud Beck
Response to Beyond Downing Street by Bud Beck: "But the memo being unimportant? No, there I could not disagree with you more. It is as significant as if (hypothetically) a memo was discovered that proved that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, and purposely did nothing (which apparently did not happen) or the equivalent revelation that LBJ knew at the time that the Tonkin Gulf incident never happened, but let Congress go ahead and drive us into the Vietnam War (oops, we know from his tapes that actually was the case!). You see? Our view of history can be sharply altered by having something concrete to resolve forever the belief that the American people were lied to.
Because of this memo I believe this President will be forever remembered as a liar and an ideologue. To me that is a pretty significant thing."
BG: PBU25
BG: Sorry to burst your bubble, but the FDR Admin did know about and did purposely do nothing about Pearl Harbor.
Because of this memo I believe this President will be forever remembered as a liar and an ideologue. To me that is a pretty significant thing."
BG: PBU25
BG: Sorry to burst your bubble, but the FDR Admin did know about and did purposely do nothing about Pearl Harbor.
Mocking the Downing Street Memo - AfterDowningStreet.org
Mocking the Downing Street Memo - AfterDowningStreet.org
PBU25
Mocking the Downing Street MemoSubmitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2005-06-18 17:27. By Robert Parry
June 18, 2005
If American progressives think they have enough media clout to make a real issue of George W. Bush’s possible impeachment over the Iraq War, they should read the account of Rep. John Conyers’s rump hearing on the Downing Street Memo that appeared in the Washington Post.
The story by political correspondent Dana Milbank drips with a sarcasm that would never be allowed for a report on, say, a conservative gathering or on a topic involving any part of the American political spectrum other than the Left.
“In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe,” Milbank wrote. “They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole think look official.”
And the insults – especially aimed at Rep. Conyers – just kept on coming…
Those of us who have covered Washington for years have seen the pattern before. A group without sufficient inside-the-Beltway clout tries to draw attention to a scandal that the Post and other prestigious news arbiters have missed or gotten wrong. After ignoring the grievances for a while – and sensing that the complainers have no real muscle – the news arbiters start heaping on the abuse…
[I]f Milbank were tempted to write an over-the-top attack on Bush – like he did on Conyers and the Downing Street Memo hearing – he would pay a high price from retaliating conservatives who would accuse him of bias and flood his editors with complaints.
Almost certainly, Milbank would have second thoughts about such an article or his editors would for him. Without doubt, the story would not have appeared in the openly insulting form that it did when Democrats and liberals were the target.
Though no one wants to say it, everyone in mainstream journalism knows intuitively that there is no real risk in ripping liberals. Most often, it’s a win-win. Not only can you write almost whatever you want, but it buys the journalist a measure of protection from conservatives, who have a long record of costing reporters their jobs…
[F]unders on the Left – unlike their counterparts on the Right – have chosen over the past three decades to divert money away from media into other priorities, such as “grassroots organizing” or direct-action projects, such as feeding the poor or buying up endangered wetlands.
Sometimes this refusal by wealthy liberals to “do media” seems so extreme that one has to wonder whether – except perhaps for some indigenous tribes in the jungles of Borneo – any group on the planet has less a grasp of the importance of information and media than American liberals do.
Even the Arabs – not usually known as information pioneers – have learned how investments in media, such as the satellite news channel al-Jazeera, can change the political dynamic of an entire region.
Though there have been a few positive developments in liberal media – particularly the growth of AM progressive talk radio at Air America and Democracy Radio – Left funders still show few signs of understanding how valuable media could be to a liberal political renaissance.
The latest trend in liberal grant-giving has been for “media reform,” such as trying to “save PBS” even as it adds more and more conservative programs. But the Left funders still shy away from the construction of media outlets and the creation of independent journalistic content.
Without that strong media, liberals can do little more than gnash their teeth when the Washington Post and other mainstream news outlets banish issues like the Iraq War deceptions beyond the bounds of Washington debate. [For more on the Post’s treatment of this issue, see Consortiumnews.com’s “LMSM – the ‘Lying Mainstream Media.”]…
While Web sites and progressive talk radio have helped puncture the image of Bush’s invulnerability, a much broader media infrastructure would be needed if issues, such as the Iraq deceptions, are to be forced consistently into the national debate.
PBU25
Mocking the Downing Street MemoSubmitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2005-06-18 17:27. By Robert Parry
June 18, 2005
If American progressives think they have enough media clout to make a real issue of George W. Bush’s possible impeachment over the Iraq War, they should read the account of Rep. John Conyers’s rump hearing on the Downing Street Memo that appeared in the Washington Post.
The story by political correspondent Dana Milbank drips with a sarcasm that would never be allowed for a report on, say, a conservative gathering or on a topic involving any part of the American political spectrum other than the Left.
“In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe,” Milbank wrote. “They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole think look official.”
And the insults – especially aimed at Rep. Conyers – just kept on coming…
Those of us who have covered Washington for years have seen the pattern before. A group without sufficient inside-the-Beltway clout tries to draw attention to a scandal that the Post and other prestigious news arbiters have missed or gotten wrong. After ignoring the grievances for a while – and sensing that the complainers have no real muscle – the news arbiters start heaping on the abuse…
[I]f Milbank were tempted to write an over-the-top attack on Bush – like he did on Conyers and the Downing Street Memo hearing – he would pay a high price from retaliating conservatives who would accuse him of bias and flood his editors with complaints.
Almost certainly, Milbank would have second thoughts about such an article or his editors would for him. Without doubt, the story would not have appeared in the openly insulting form that it did when Democrats and liberals were the target.
Though no one wants to say it, everyone in mainstream journalism knows intuitively that there is no real risk in ripping liberals. Most often, it’s a win-win. Not only can you write almost whatever you want, but it buys the journalist a measure of protection from conservatives, who have a long record of costing reporters their jobs…
[F]unders on the Left – unlike their counterparts on the Right – have chosen over the past three decades to divert money away from media into other priorities, such as “grassroots organizing” or direct-action projects, such as feeding the poor or buying up endangered wetlands.
Sometimes this refusal by wealthy liberals to “do media” seems so extreme that one has to wonder whether – except perhaps for some indigenous tribes in the jungles of Borneo – any group on the planet has less a grasp of the importance of information and media than American liberals do.
Even the Arabs – not usually known as information pioneers – have learned how investments in media, such as the satellite news channel al-Jazeera, can change the political dynamic of an entire region.
Though there have been a few positive developments in liberal media – particularly the growth of AM progressive talk radio at Air America and Democracy Radio – Left funders still show few signs of understanding how valuable media could be to a liberal political renaissance.
The latest trend in liberal grant-giving has been for “media reform,” such as trying to “save PBS” even as it adds more and more conservative programs. But the Left funders still shy away from the construction of media outlets and the creation of independent journalistic content.
Without that strong media, liberals can do little more than gnash their teeth when the Washington Post and other mainstream news outlets banish issues like the Iraq War deceptions beyond the bounds of Washington debate. [For more on the Post’s treatment of this issue, see Consortiumnews.com’s “LMSM – the ‘Lying Mainstream Media.”]…
While Web sites and progressive talk radio have helped puncture the image of Bush’s invulnerability, a much broader media infrastructure would be needed if issues, such as the Iraq deceptions, are to be forced consistently into the national debate.
James Wolcott: Manure Spreaders
James Wolcott: Manure SpreadersManure Spreaders
Posted by James Wolcott
Kids dreaming of breaking into the journalism business often ask how I'm able to maintain my healthy cynicism year after year.
Honestly, kids, it's easy. There's no great secret to it.
Simply observe how human beings actually behave without any gauzy preconceptions, ignoring their reputations and judging them by their actions, measuring the invisible distance between they profess to be and what they actually say and do.
It also doesn't hurt to get burned now and then as a reminder of what happens when you let other considerations override your perceptions.
Take Chris Wallace. I actually coughed up some nice words about him at the end of my chapter on Fox News in Attack Poodles. I would quote the passage, but I'm too ashamed. Mind, there were mitigating circumstances. He had just taken over hosting Fox News Sunday from Tony Snow and seemed less political than his predecessor, and, I am ashamed to admit this, I wanted to end my Fox chapter on a slightly up note so that it wouldn't read unremittingly negative. By dabbing on a little praise at the end, I thought it would make my criticisms more credible than an all-out attack would. That's what happens when you let formal considerations smother your intuitions, because I suspected that it was only a matter of time before Wallace rottened to the core like every other egotistical toady on Fox News.
By tacking on that bit of praise for Wallace, I betrayed the very cynicism I hold dear. And when you betray your cynicism, giving credit where no credit is due, it nearly always comes back to mock you.
I look at Chris Wallace now and, apart from wishing I had never written his name except in execration, wonder how Mike Wallace feels about having produced such a blot of a son to carry on the family name in broadcasting. He must wonder where he went wrong, even perhaps in the dark night of the soul wish he had worn a rubber rather than spawn this disgrace to a once-proud profession.
It was bad enough when he was badgering and interrupting the American spokesman of Amnesty International like a road-company Joe McCarthy for comparing Guantanamo to a Soviet gulag, conducting the interview as if it were an inquisition, but via Atrios from the Clever Pleasantry blog, we learn of Wallace's most recent gift to reasoned discourse. A guest on Hugh Hewitt's ham radio show for halfwits, Wallace mused that compared to the inmates of Auschwitiz or Belsen, Gitmo's prisoners would probably be happy to defecate on themselves, if that's as bad as it gets.
This is the new meme among our shit-for-brains neoauthoritarian friends, that the residents of Gitmo should be grateful for their captivity and degradation. The other day on MSNBC, Republican strategist Jack Burkman blithely echoed the idiocy spouted by angry caucasian Congressman Duncan Hunter and proposed that the regular meals the Gitmo guests were getting were probably better than what they had back in their native lands, where "they have to hunt their own animals for food." This rightly the normally Buddhist-calm Ron Reagan, who immediately protested Burkman making such a silly, stupid statement.
But of course in the Fox universe such trash talk is the lingua franca. There's no Ron Reagan or Keith Olbermann around to blow a referee's whistle. This morning on Cashin' In, part of Fox's Saturday morning business/investment block, the first topic was (I kid thee not) "The Prison at Guantanamo Bay: Good for the Stock Market?"
Opening up the mental-midget debate for the panel, host Terry Keenan asked, "If we 'cut and run' from there, isn't it all bets off for the market?"
Yeah, if we close Gitmo, everyone's going to sell Google and into the black hole goes the stock market: real smart thinking there, Terry.
Terry Keenan, to refresh some memories, joined Fox from CNN, where she maintained outward appearance of being a real journalist, a pretense she (like Wallace) can dispense with now that they're in the propaganda business, where the cynicism required to draw the first breath in the morning and show up to work without hating yourself is beyond any cynicism even I can muster
Posted by James Wolcott
Kids dreaming of breaking into the journalism business often ask how I'm able to maintain my healthy cynicism year after year.
Honestly, kids, it's easy. There's no great secret to it.
Simply observe how human beings actually behave without any gauzy preconceptions, ignoring their reputations and judging them by their actions, measuring the invisible distance between they profess to be and what they actually say and do.
It also doesn't hurt to get burned now and then as a reminder of what happens when you let other considerations override your perceptions.
Take Chris Wallace. I actually coughed up some nice words about him at the end of my chapter on Fox News in Attack Poodles. I would quote the passage, but I'm too ashamed. Mind, there were mitigating circumstances. He had just taken over hosting Fox News Sunday from Tony Snow and seemed less political than his predecessor, and, I am ashamed to admit this, I wanted to end my Fox chapter on a slightly up note so that it wouldn't read unremittingly negative. By dabbing on a little praise at the end, I thought it would make my criticisms more credible than an all-out attack would. That's what happens when you let formal considerations smother your intuitions, because I suspected that it was only a matter of time before Wallace rottened to the core like every other egotistical toady on Fox News.
By tacking on that bit of praise for Wallace, I betrayed the very cynicism I hold dear. And when you betray your cynicism, giving credit where no credit is due, it nearly always comes back to mock you.
I look at Chris Wallace now and, apart from wishing I had never written his name except in execration, wonder how Mike Wallace feels about having produced such a blot of a son to carry on the family name in broadcasting. He must wonder where he went wrong, even perhaps in the dark night of the soul wish he had worn a rubber rather than spawn this disgrace to a once-proud profession.
It was bad enough when he was badgering and interrupting the American spokesman of Amnesty International like a road-company Joe McCarthy for comparing Guantanamo to a Soviet gulag, conducting the interview as if it were an inquisition, but via Atrios from the Clever Pleasantry blog, we learn of Wallace's most recent gift to reasoned discourse. A guest on Hugh Hewitt's ham radio show for halfwits, Wallace mused that compared to the inmates of Auschwitiz or Belsen, Gitmo's prisoners would probably be happy to defecate on themselves, if that's as bad as it gets.
This is the new meme among our shit-for-brains neoauthoritarian friends, that the residents of Gitmo should be grateful for their captivity and degradation. The other day on MSNBC, Republican strategist Jack Burkman blithely echoed the idiocy spouted by angry caucasian Congressman Duncan Hunter and proposed that the regular meals the Gitmo guests were getting were probably better than what they had back in their native lands, where "they have to hunt their own animals for food." This rightly the normally Buddhist-calm Ron Reagan, who immediately protested Burkman making such a silly, stupid statement.
But of course in the Fox universe such trash talk is the lingua franca. There's no Ron Reagan or Keith Olbermann around to blow a referee's whistle. This morning on Cashin' In, part of Fox's Saturday morning business/investment block, the first topic was (I kid thee not) "The Prison at Guantanamo Bay: Good for the Stock Market?"
Opening up the mental-midget debate for the panel, host Terry Keenan asked, "If we 'cut and run' from there, isn't it all bets off for the market?"
Yeah, if we close Gitmo, everyone's going to sell Google and into the black hole goes the stock market: real smart thinking there, Terry.
Terry Keenan, to refresh some memories, joined Fox from CNN, where she maintained outward appearance of being a real journalist, a pretense she (like Wallace) can dispense with now that they're in the propaganda business, where the cynicism required to draw the first breath in the morning and show up to work without hating yourself is beyond any cynicism even I can muster
European and Pacific Stars & Stripes
European and Pacific Stars & Stripes: "Several parents of soldiers killed in Iraq visited Capitol Hill on Wednesday to ask for congressional hearings on the Downing Street memo, which one mother called President Bush�s �Watergate."
PBU25
PBU25
Mario Profaca: Mario's Cyberspace Station: The Global Intelligence News Portal
Mario Profaca: Mario's Cyberspace Station: The Global Intelligence News Portal
German agents told Die Zeit newspaper that they had warned the Bush administration long before last year that there were "problems" with Curveball's account. "We gave a clear credibility assessment. On our side at least, there were no tricks before Colin Powell's presentation.
PBU25
German agents told Die Zeit newspaper that they had warned the Bush administration long before last year that there were "problems" with Curveball's account. "We gave a clear credibility assessment. On our side at least, there were no tricks before Colin Powell's presentation.
PBU25
Iraqis Found in Torture House Tell of Brutality of Insurgents - New York Times
Iraqis Found in Torture House Tell of Brutality of Insurgents - New York Times
BG: This is almost certainly propaganda based on lies / psyops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 19, 2005
Iraqis Found in Torture House Tell of Brutality of Insurgents
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
KARABILA, Iraq, Sunday, June 19 - Marines on an operation to eliminate insurgents that began Friday broke through the outside wall of a building in this small rural village to find a torture center equipped with electric wires, a noose, handcuffs, a 574-page jihad manual - and four beaten and shackled Iraqis.
The American military has found torture houses after invading towns heavily populated by insurgents - like Falluja, where the anti-insurgent assault last fall uncovered almost 20 such sites. But rarely have they come across victims who have lived to tell the tale.
The men said they told the marines, from Company K, Third Marines, Second Division, that they had been tortured with shocks and flogged with a strip of rubber for more than two weeks, unseen behind the windows of black glass. One of them, Ahmed Isa Fathil, 19, a former member of the new Iraqi Army, said he had been held and tortured there for 22 days. All the while, he said, his face was almost entirely taped over and his hands were cuffed.
In an interview with an embedded reporter just hours after he was freed, he said he had never seen the faces of his captors, who occasionally whispered at him, "We will kill you." He said they did not question him, and he did not know what they wanted. Nor did he ever expect to be released.
"They kill somebody every day," said Mr. Fathil, whose hands were so swollen he could not open a can of Coke offered to him by a marine. "They've killed a lot of people."
From the house on Saturday, there could be heard sounds of fighting from the large-scale offensive to eliminate strongholds of insurgents, many of whom stream across Iraq's porous border with Syria. [Page 10.]
As the marines walked through the house - a squat one-story building of sand-colored brick - the broken black window glass crunched under their boots. Light poured in, revealing walls and ceiling shredded by shrapnel from the blast they had set off to break in through a wall. Latex gloves were strewn on the floor. A kerosene lantern lay on its side, shattered.
The manual recovered - a fat, well-thumbed Arabic paperback - listed itself as the 2005 First Edition of "The Principles of Jihadist Philosophy," by Abdel Rahman al-Ali. Its chapters included "How to Select the Best Hostage," and "The Legitimacy of Cutting the Infidels' Heads."
Also recovered were several fake passports, a black hood, the painkiller Percoset, handcuffs and an explosives how-to-guide. Three cars loaded with explosives were parked in a garage outside the house. The marines blew them up.
This is Mr. Fathil's account of his ordeal.
He was having a lunch of lettuce and cucumbers in the kitchen of his home in the small desert village of Rabot with his mother and brother. An Opel sedan pulled up. Two men in masks carrying machine guns got out, seized him, and, leaving his mother sobbing, put him in the trunk of their car.
The drove to the house here. They taped his face, put cotton in his ears, and began to beat him.
The only possible explanation for the seizure he could think of was his time in the new Iraqi Army. Unemployed and illiterate, Mr. Fathil signed up after the American occupation began.
But nine months ago, when continuing working meant risking the wrath of the Jihadists, he quit. In all, 10 friends from his unit have been killed, he said. So have his uncle and his uncle's son, though neither ever worked as soldiers.
The men tended to talk in whispers, he said, telling him five times a day, in low voices in his ear, to pray, and offering him sand, instead of water, to wash himself. Just once, he asked if he could see his mother, and one of them said to him, "You won't leave until you are dead."
Mr. Fathil did not know there were other hostages. He found out only after the captors left and he was able to remove the tape from his eyes.
The routine in the house was regular. Because of the windows, it was always dark inside. Mr. Fathil said he was fed once a day, and allowed to use a bathroom as necessary in the back of the house.
When marines burst in, one of the captives was lying under a stairwell, badly beaten. At first, they thought he was dead.
The others were emaciated and battered. Mr. Fathil had fared the best. The other three were taken by medical helicopter to Balad, a base near Baghdad with a hospital.
But he still had been hurt badly. Marks from beatings criss-crossed his back, and deep pocks, apparently from electric shock burns, were gouged in his skin.
The shocks, he said, felt "like my soul is being ripped out of my body." But when he would start to scream, and his body would pull up from the shock, they would begin to beat him, he said.
Mr. Fathil has been at the Marine base south of Qaim since his release, on Saturday around noon. His mother still does not know he is alive.
When she was mentioned, he bowed and lowered his head, and began to cry softly, wiping his face with the jumpsuit given him by the marines.
He asked a reporter for help to move to another town, because it was too dangerous for his family to remain in their house. He begged not to have a photograph taken, even of the scars on his back. The captors took pictures of that, he said.
His town has always been a good place, he said, but the militants have made it hell.
"These few are destroying it," he said, his face streaked with tears. "Everybody they take, they kill. It's on a daily basis pretty much."
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top
BG: This is almost certainly propaganda based on lies / psyops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 19, 2005
Iraqis Found in Torture House Tell of Brutality of Insurgents
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
KARABILA, Iraq, Sunday, June 19 - Marines on an operation to eliminate insurgents that began Friday broke through the outside wall of a building in this small rural village to find a torture center equipped with electric wires, a noose, handcuffs, a 574-page jihad manual - and four beaten and shackled Iraqis.
The American military has found torture houses after invading towns heavily populated by insurgents - like Falluja, where the anti-insurgent assault last fall uncovered almost 20 such sites. But rarely have they come across victims who have lived to tell the tale.
The men said they told the marines, from Company K, Third Marines, Second Division, that they had been tortured with shocks and flogged with a strip of rubber for more than two weeks, unseen behind the windows of black glass. One of them, Ahmed Isa Fathil, 19, a former member of the new Iraqi Army, said he had been held and tortured there for 22 days. All the while, he said, his face was almost entirely taped over and his hands were cuffed.
In an interview with an embedded reporter just hours after he was freed, he said he had never seen the faces of his captors, who occasionally whispered at him, "We will kill you." He said they did not question him, and he did not know what they wanted. Nor did he ever expect to be released.
"They kill somebody every day," said Mr. Fathil, whose hands were so swollen he could not open a can of Coke offered to him by a marine. "They've killed a lot of people."
From the house on Saturday, there could be heard sounds of fighting from the large-scale offensive to eliminate strongholds of insurgents, many of whom stream across Iraq's porous border with Syria. [Page 10.]
As the marines walked through the house - a squat one-story building of sand-colored brick - the broken black window glass crunched under their boots. Light poured in, revealing walls and ceiling shredded by shrapnel from the blast they had set off to break in through a wall. Latex gloves were strewn on the floor. A kerosene lantern lay on its side, shattered.
The manual recovered - a fat, well-thumbed Arabic paperback - listed itself as the 2005 First Edition of "The Principles of Jihadist Philosophy," by Abdel Rahman al-Ali. Its chapters included "How to Select the Best Hostage," and "The Legitimacy of Cutting the Infidels' Heads."
Also recovered were several fake passports, a black hood, the painkiller Percoset, handcuffs and an explosives how-to-guide. Three cars loaded with explosives were parked in a garage outside the house. The marines blew them up.
This is Mr. Fathil's account of his ordeal.
He was having a lunch of lettuce and cucumbers in the kitchen of his home in the small desert village of Rabot with his mother and brother. An Opel sedan pulled up. Two men in masks carrying machine guns got out, seized him, and, leaving his mother sobbing, put him in the trunk of their car.
The drove to the house here. They taped his face, put cotton in his ears, and began to beat him.
The only possible explanation for the seizure he could think of was his time in the new Iraqi Army. Unemployed and illiterate, Mr. Fathil signed up after the American occupation began.
But nine months ago, when continuing working meant risking the wrath of the Jihadists, he quit. In all, 10 friends from his unit have been killed, he said. So have his uncle and his uncle's son, though neither ever worked as soldiers.
The men tended to talk in whispers, he said, telling him five times a day, in low voices in his ear, to pray, and offering him sand, instead of water, to wash himself. Just once, he asked if he could see his mother, and one of them said to him, "You won't leave until you are dead."
Mr. Fathil did not know there were other hostages. He found out only after the captors left and he was able to remove the tape from his eyes.
The routine in the house was regular. Because of the windows, it was always dark inside. Mr. Fathil said he was fed once a day, and allowed to use a bathroom as necessary in the back of the house.
When marines burst in, one of the captives was lying under a stairwell, badly beaten. At first, they thought he was dead.
The others were emaciated and battered. Mr. Fathil had fared the best. The other three were taken by medical helicopter to Balad, a base near Baghdad with a hospital.
But he still had been hurt badly. Marks from beatings criss-crossed his back, and deep pocks, apparently from electric shock burns, were gouged in his skin.
The shocks, he said, felt "like my soul is being ripped out of my body." But when he would start to scream, and his body would pull up from the shock, they would begin to beat him, he said.
Mr. Fathil has been at the Marine base south of Qaim since his release, on Saturday around noon. His mother still does not know he is alive.
When she was mentioned, he bowed and lowered his head, and began to cry softly, wiping his face with the jumpsuit given him by the marines.
He asked a reporter for help to move to another town, because it was too dangerous for his family to remain in their house. He begged not to have a photograph taken, even of the scars on his back. The captors took pictures of that, he said.
His town has always been a good place, he said, but the militants have made it hell.
"These few are destroying it," he said, his face streaked with tears. "Everybody they take, they kill. It's on a daily basis pretty much."
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top
DSM, MSM, Wash Post, Conyers
Another Day in the Empire: "Conyers Gives Both Barrels to Milbank, Shoots Himself in the Foot "
PBU25
PBU25
Two Top Guns Shoot Blanks - New York Times
Two Top Guns Shoot Blanks - New York Times: "Nearly seven decades later the mingling of news and fiction has become the default setting of American infotainment, and Americans have become so inured to it that the innocent radio listeners bamboozled by Welles might as well belong to another civilization. "
BG: Mr. Rich is stating that the public sees thru the propaganda ruses. How wrong he is. 911 is working well as the most magic ruse in the history of our planet.
BG: Mr. Rich is stating that the public sees thru the propaganda ruses. How wrong he is. 911 is working well as the most magic ruse in the history of our planet.
Daly Thoughts �� When Does A Problem Become Too Big To Ignore
Daly Thoughts �� When Does A Problem Become Too Big To Ignore: "t Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations ��� that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an ���insider trading scam��� on 9/11 ��� that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks."
BG: It's not so Kooky
BG: It's not so Kooky
OpinionJournal - Extra, Barnes and twisted logic
OpinionJournal - Extra: "It's sad but true that our political system, assuming the economy is not in the tank, rewards presidents (and sometimes governors) for doing little. "
BG: Fred Barnes says Bush is unpopular because unlike Reagon,(Mr. Popularity), Mr. Bush is not getting rewarded with high pol numbers "for doing little." How do these people write this stuff and expect to have anyone's respect.
BG: Fred Barnes says Bush is unpopular because unlike Reagon,(Mr. Popularity), Mr. Bush is not getting rewarded with high pol numbers "for doing little." How do these people write this stuff and expect to have anyone's respect.
Publius Pundit - Blogging the democratic revolution
Publius Pundit - Blogging the democratic revolution: "INVESTIGATING TUCSON�S IRAN POLLING STATION "
Does anybody have thoughts on this. I know this is coming from Iran Regime change advocates, but I believe this would seem to be illegal under current US law. Thoughts?
Does anybody have thoughts on this. I know this is coming from Iran Regime change advocates, but I believe this would seem to be illegal under current US law. Thoughts?
Bashing Dick Durbin
HughHewitt.com
BG: If I believed in Hell, I would believe that there's a special place in Hell for these people.
BG: If I believed in Hell, I would believe that there's a special place in Hell for these people.
Memos show concern over Iraq invasion - International News - MSNBC.com
Memos show concern over Iraq invasion - International News - MSNBC.com
MSNBC.com
Memos show concern over Iraq invasion
'Downing Street' documents renew debate over U.S. motives
The Associated Press
Updated: 3:58 p.m. ET June 18, 2005
LONDON - When Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn’t want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about “regime change” in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.
President Bush wanted Blair’s support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington’s motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.
In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.
“U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing,” Ricketts says in the memo. “For Iraq, ‘regime change’ does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.”
Determined to go to war
The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America’s top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
“The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September,” said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
“But even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.”
Details from Rice’s dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.
The eight memos — all labeled “secret” or “confidential” — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Confirmation of post-invasion investigations
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.
The eight documents total 36 pages and range from 10-page and eight-page studies on military and legal options in Iraq, to brief memorandums from British officials and the minutes of a private meeting held by Blair and his top advisers.
Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert who teaches at Queen Mary College, University of London, said the documents confirmed what post-invasion investigations have found.
“The documents show what official inquiries in Britain already have, that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the evidence to the level of mendacity,” Dodge said. “In going to war with Bush, Blair defended the special relationship between the two countries, like other British leaders have. But he knew he was taking a huge political risk at home. He knew the war’s legality was questionable and its unpopularity was never in doubt.”
Dodge said the memos also show Blair was aware of the postwar instability that was likely among Iraq’s complex mix of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds once Saddam was defeated.
The British documents confirm, as well, that “soon after 9/11 happened, the starting gun was fired for the invasion of Iraq,” Dodge said.
Speculation about if and when that would happen ran throughout 2002.
On Jan. 29, Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea “an axis of evil.” U.S. newspapers began reporting soon afterward that a U.S.-led war with Iraq was possible.
On Oct. 16, the U.S. Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq. On Feb. 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the Bush administration’s case about Iraq’s weapons to the U.N. Security Council. On March 19-20, the U.S.-led invasion began.
Firestorm among critics
Bush and Blair both have been criticized at home since their WMD claims about Iraq proved false. But both have been re-elected, defending the conflict for removing a brutal dictator and promoting democracy in Iraq. Both administrations have dismissed the memos as old news.
Details of the memos appeared in papers early last month but the news in Britain quickly turned to the election that returned Blair to power. In the United States, however, details of the memos’ contents reignited a firestorm, especially among Democratic critics of Bush.
It was in a March 14, 2002, memo that Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, told the prime minister about the dinner he had just had with Rice in Washington.
“We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq,” wrote Manning, who’s now British ambassador to the United States. Rice is now Bush’s secretary of state.
“It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair’s) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option.”
'Practical difficulties, political risks'
Manning said, “Condi’s enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed.” But he also said there were signs of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks.
Blair was to meet with Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on April 8, and Manning told his boss: “No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy.”
A July 21 briefing paper given to officials preparing for a July 23 meeting with Blair says officials must “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... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point.”
The British worried that, “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 end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein’s regime and the time scale within which it would be possible to identify a successor.”
Convincing the public
In the March 22 memo from Foreign Office political director Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Straw, Ricketts outlined how to win public and parliamentary support for a war in Britain: “We have to be convincing that: the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran).”
Blair’s government has been criticized for releasing an intelligence dossier on Iraq before the war that warned Saddam could launch chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes’ notice.
On March 25 Straw wrote a memo to Blair, saying he would have a tough time convincing the governing Labour Party that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law.
“If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq,” Straw wrote. “In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida.”
He also questioned stability in a post-Saddam Iraq: “We have also to answer the big question — what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything.”
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8270144/
MSNBC.com
Memos show concern over Iraq invasion
'Downing Street' documents renew debate over U.S. motives
The Associated Press
Updated: 3:58 p.m. ET June 18, 2005
LONDON - When Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn’t want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about “regime change” in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.
President Bush wanted Blair’s support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington’s motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.
In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.
“U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing,” Ricketts says in the memo. “For Iraq, ‘regime change’ does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.”
Determined to go to war
The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America’s top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
“The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September,” said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
“But even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.”
Details from Rice’s dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.
The eight memos — all labeled “secret” or “confidential” — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Confirmation of post-invasion investigations
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.
The eight documents total 36 pages and range from 10-page and eight-page studies on military and legal options in Iraq, to brief memorandums from British officials and the minutes of a private meeting held by Blair and his top advisers.
Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert who teaches at Queen Mary College, University of London, said the documents confirmed what post-invasion investigations have found.
“The documents show what official inquiries in Britain already have, that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the evidence to the level of mendacity,” Dodge said. “In going to war with Bush, Blair defended the special relationship between the two countries, like other British leaders have. But he knew he was taking a huge political risk at home. He knew the war’s legality was questionable and its unpopularity was never in doubt.”
Dodge said the memos also show Blair was aware of the postwar instability that was likely among Iraq’s complex mix of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds once Saddam was defeated.
The British documents confirm, as well, that “soon after 9/11 happened, the starting gun was fired for the invasion of Iraq,” Dodge said.
Speculation about if and when that would happen ran throughout 2002.
On Jan. 29, Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea “an axis of evil.” U.S. newspapers began reporting soon afterward that a U.S.-led war with Iraq was possible.
On Oct. 16, the U.S. Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq. On Feb. 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the Bush administration’s case about Iraq’s weapons to the U.N. Security Council. On March 19-20, the U.S.-led invasion began.
Firestorm among critics
Bush and Blair both have been criticized at home since their WMD claims about Iraq proved false. But both have been re-elected, defending the conflict for removing a brutal dictator and promoting democracy in Iraq. Both administrations have dismissed the memos as old news.
Details of the memos appeared in papers early last month but the news in Britain quickly turned to the election that returned Blair to power. In the United States, however, details of the memos’ contents reignited a firestorm, especially among Democratic critics of Bush.
It was in a March 14, 2002, memo that Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, told the prime minister about the dinner he had just had with Rice in Washington.
“We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq,” wrote Manning, who’s now British ambassador to the United States. Rice is now Bush’s secretary of state.
“It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair’s) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option.”
'Practical difficulties, political risks'
Manning said, “Condi’s enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed.” But he also said there were signs of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks.
Blair was to meet with Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on April 8, and Manning told his boss: “No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy.”
A July 21 briefing paper given to officials preparing for a July 23 meeting with Blair says officials must “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... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point.”
The British worried that, “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 end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein’s regime and the time scale within which it would be possible to identify a successor.”
Convincing the public
In the March 22 memo from Foreign Office political director Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Straw, Ricketts outlined how to win public and parliamentary support for a war in Britain: “We have to be convincing that: the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran).”
Blair’s government has been criticized for releasing an intelligence dossier on Iraq before the war that warned Saddam could launch chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes’ notice.
On March 25 Straw wrote a memo to Blair, saying he would have a tough time convincing the governing Labour Party that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law.
“If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq,” Straw wrote. “In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida.”
He also questioned stability in a post-Saddam Iraq: “We have also to answer the big question — what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything.”
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8270144/
The US are continuing to make a case against Iran, can we expect a new 9/11 soon?
The US are continuing to make a case against Iran, can we expect a new 9/11 soon?: "Al-Qaeda, Iran and the next 9/11
(16.06.2005)"
(16.06.2005)"
Audio: Recording of Rep. C. McKinney questioning Rumsfeld
This audio was taken from question on 4/2004 I think. Issues in the audio are several. Information below only covers first question in audio.
DynCorp Disgrace - Middle-Aged Men Having Sex With 12-15 Year-Olds
DynCorp Disgrace - Middle-Aged Men Having Sex With 12-15 Year-Olds: "DynCorp Disgrace - Middle-Aged
Men Having Sex With 12-15 Year-Olds
By Kelly Patricia O'Meara
Insight Magazine
1-29-2
Americans were seen in Bosnia as defenders of the children, as shown here, until U.S. contractors began buying children as personal sex slaves.
Middle-aged men having sex with 12- to 15-year-olds was too much for Ben Johnston, a hulking 6-foot-5-inch Texan, and more than a year ago he blew the whistle on his employer, DynCorp, a U.S. contracting company doing business in Bosnia.
According to the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) lawsuit filed in Texas on behalf of the former DynCorp aircraft mechanic, 'in the latter part of 1999 Johnston learned that employees and supervisors from DynCorp were engaging in perverse, illegal and inhumane behavior [and] were purchasing illegal weapons, women, forged passports and [participating in] other immoral acts. Johnston witnessed coworkers and supervisors literally buying and selling women for their own personal enjoyment, and employees would brag about the various ages and talents of the individual slaves they had purchased.'
Rather than acknowledge and reward Johnston's effort to get this behavior stopped, DynCorp fired him, forcing part of its business in Bosnia.
But DynCorp was nervous. For instance, an internal e-mail from DynCorp employee Darrin Mills, who apparently was sent to Bosnia to look into reported problems, said, 'I met with Col. Braun [a base supervisor] yesterday. He is very concerned about the CID investigation; however, he views it mostly as a DynCorp problem. What he wanted to talk about most was how I am going to fix the maintenance problems here and how the ...
DynCorp Disgrace - Middle-Aged Men Having Sex With 12-15 Year-Olds
DynCorp Disgrace - Middle-Aged Men Having Sex With 12-15 Year-Olds: "DynCorp Disgrace - Middle-Aged
Men Having Sex With 12-15 Year-Olds
By Kelly Patricia O'Meara
Insight Magazine
1-29-2
Americans were seen in Bosnia as defenders of the children, as shown here, until U.S. contractors began buying children as personal sex slaves.
Middle-aged men having sex with 12- to 15-year-olds was too much for Ben Johnston, a hulking 6-foot-5-inch Texan, and more than a year ago he blew the whistle on his employer, DynCorp, a U.S. contracting company doing business in Bosnia.
According to the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) lawsuit filed in Texas on behalf of the former DynCorp aircraft mechanic, 'in the latter part of 1999 Johnston learned that employees and supervisors from DynCorp were engaging in perverse, illegal and inhumane behavior [and] were purchasing illegal weapons, women, forged passports and [participating in] other immoral acts. Johnston witnessed coworkers and supervisors literally buying and selling women for their own personal enjoyment, and employees would brag about the various ages and talents of the individual slaves they had purchased.'
Rather than acknowledge and reward Johnston's effort to get this behavior stopped, DynCorp fired him, forcing part of its business in Bosnia.
But DynCorp was nervous. For instance, an internal e-mail from DynCorp employee Darrin Mills, who apparently was sent to Bosnia to look into reported problems, said, 'I met with Col. Braun [a base supervisor] yesterday. He is very concerned about the CID investigation; however, he views it mostly as a DynCorp problem. What he wanted to talk about most was how I am going to fix the maintenance problems here and how the ...
�The Threat Is Urgent - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com
�The Threat Is Urgent� - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com
BG: Article follows below... (wish I knew what these jokers are up to).
MSNBC.com
‘The Threat Is Urgent’
Members of the 9/11 Commission reconvene to assess the government’s progress in preventing another terror attack, and find there is much left to do.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Jennifer Barrett
Newsweek
Updated: 10:32 a.m. ET June 9, 2005
June 8 - It’s been nearly a year since the 9/11 Commission released their final report, in which commissioners spread the blame among the FBI, CIA, Congress and the Bush administration for failing to act in time on intelligence suggesting an imminent Al Qaeda terror attack in 2001. The 567-page report, which became a national best seller, was released after a year of hearings in which some of the country’s highest-ranking officials were called to testify. Commissioners also included several recommendations to boost U.S. defenses against potential attacks—from reorganizing the intelligence community and creating a director of national intelligence, to redistributing terror funds so high-target areas get more money.
Since the report was released, some proposals, like creating a national intelligence director post, have been implemented. But many of the report's other recommendations have not been acted on, including the establishment of unified radio frequencies to facilitate communication between emergency workers nationwide and the appointment of a federal civil-liberties board to prevent abuses by intelligence and law-enforcement agencies.
Now the five Democrats and five Republicans who made up the commission have formed a new organization, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, which will assess the government’s progress in implementing its original recommendations. The group launched public hearings this week and will release a report of its findings as early as August. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with Lee Hamilton, former Democratic congressman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, about the government’s progress—or lack of—in helping to protect the country against future terror attacks. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: It’s been nearly a year since the commission’s report came out. Why hold new hearings now?
Lee Hamilton: Back when we launched the report, it was discussed and determined that we would issue a report card in roughly a year’s time. As events moved along we [commission members] determined that a lot of things have been happening and we needed to bring ourselves up to date on the issues to produce a more credible report card. We decided to have eight briefings or hearings on several different aspects of the recommendations. We’re reviewing the progress made since 9/11, but particularly since we closed up shop last year, and looking at the capabilities of the CIA and the FBI and how the DNI [Department of National Intelligence] is coming along and the other recommendations.
Has the government done enough since the report came out to prevent another major terrorist attack?
I don’t think I’d be satisfied by saying they have done enough. They have done a lot, but they have a lot more to do. I don’t want to put a letter grade on it now—we’ll do that later. But the performance is a mixed one.
Can you give examples of the progress that has—or hasn’t—been made since last year?
There’s been a good bit of progress and a good bit of lack of progress. On setting up the national intelligence director and National Terror Center, substantial progress has been made. And legislation has been passed, but no legislation is self-executing. We wanted robust oversight by Congress of the intelligence community, but not much has been done there. There’ve been a few modest changes, but none of the fundamental changes we think are necessary. And the distribution of Homeland Security funds is not where we want them to be. Legislation is pending. A bill passed the House [of Representatives] the other day which would distribute funds on the basis of risks and vulnerabilities rather than on a political and general revenue-sharing basis. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was set up, but no appointments have been made and no money allocated. If you look at setting a radio spectrum apart so first responders would communicate, there’s been a lot of agreement and a lot of opposition. There’s nothing imminent, but I’m encouraged that in time they will act on that.
Why?
It’s pretty hard to argue against having interoperable communications among first responders.
What’s the goal of these public hearings and the report card?
We clearly would like to see additional action on the recommendations. We put a lot of effort into that, and we’ve been pleased with the responses made, but we also think a lot more needs to be done. We do want to encourage policy makers to move ahead. An educated public is part of that and the families—they have been important players and very supportive.
How has the public response been so far?
The public followed pretty carefully our hearings, and we were pleased with the amount of interest in this [one on Monday]. I don’t want to overstate the interest. A lot of the issues are quite technical, though important, so the public may not weigh in so heavily. But I still feel a lot of sympathy and support for the 9/11 Commission and its recommendations, and I think politicians and policymakers appreciate that we earned our place at the table, and they will pay attention to what we have to say.
You no longer have authority to force the Bush administration to hand over information or to make witnesses available. How do you plan to get information to make your assessment?
You’re right—we don’t have the power now that we did. Though we didn’t use it much when we had it. The only indication I have is the statement from White House that said they wanted to be cooperative. I accept that. I think we’ll get good cooperation.
When are you planning to release the report card on the government's counterterrorism efforts?
It depends on the progress of the hearings. We’re aiming for sometime around the anniversary of 9/11—late summer, early fall.
Thomas Kean was quoted as saying that "we don't have a lot of time left to act." How imminent is the threat of another attack? Are you worried?
Tom and I—and I think the other commissioners—have always felt the threat is urgent. I certainly continue to think that now. We are worried about complacency. Since 9/11, there has not been an attack on American soil, and that lends a certain support for complacency. But at the same time, the number of terror attacks worldwide has gone up pretty substantially.
What do we know now about Al Qaeda and the chances it will strike again on U.S. soil?
Al Qaeda and radical jihadists have the intent to kill us; they want to kill us. The steps we have taken have indeed put them in some disarray. But the threat is still out there. We are confident of the intent—we’re less sure of what their capabilities are now. But one characteristic we found in the investigation is that they are very patient. The 9/11 attacks happened eight years after their first attack on the World Trade Center. They spent three to four years planning for 9/11 itself. We know the enemy is sophisticated, patient, persistent, and knowledgeable. The commission interviewed about 1,200 people, and I don’t think a single one said there is no threat. They all said we would be hit again.
Where would you like to see us a year from now?
I’d like to see all our recommendations adopted by then.
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8149051/site/newsweek/
BG: Article follows below... (wish I knew what these jokers are up to).
MSNBC.com
‘The Threat Is Urgent’
Members of the 9/11 Commission reconvene to assess the government’s progress in preventing another terror attack, and find there is much left to do.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Jennifer Barrett
Newsweek
Updated: 10:32 a.m. ET June 9, 2005
June 8 - It’s been nearly a year since the 9/11 Commission released their final report, in which commissioners spread the blame among the FBI, CIA, Congress and the Bush administration for failing to act in time on intelligence suggesting an imminent Al Qaeda terror attack in 2001. The 567-page report, which became a national best seller, was released after a year of hearings in which some of the country’s highest-ranking officials were called to testify. Commissioners also included several recommendations to boost U.S. defenses against potential attacks—from reorganizing the intelligence community and creating a director of national intelligence, to redistributing terror funds so high-target areas get more money.
Since the report was released, some proposals, like creating a national intelligence director post, have been implemented. But many of the report's other recommendations have not been acted on, including the establishment of unified radio frequencies to facilitate communication between emergency workers nationwide and the appointment of a federal civil-liberties board to prevent abuses by intelligence and law-enforcement agencies.
Now the five Democrats and five Republicans who made up the commission have formed a new organization, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, which will assess the government’s progress in implementing its original recommendations. The group launched public hearings this week and will release a report of its findings as early as August. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with Lee Hamilton, former Democratic congressman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, about the government’s progress—or lack of—in helping to protect the country against future terror attacks. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: It’s been nearly a year since the commission’s report came out. Why hold new hearings now?
Lee Hamilton: Back when we launched the report, it was discussed and determined that we would issue a report card in roughly a year’s time. As events moved along we [commission members] determined that a lot of things have been happening and we needed to bring ourselves up to date on the issues to produce a more credible report card. We decided to have eight briefings or hearings on several different aspects of the recommendations. We’re reviewing the progress made since 9/11, but particularly since we closed up shop last year, and looking at the capabilities of the CIA and the FBI and how the DNI [Department of National Intelligence] is coming along and the other recommendations.
Has the government done enough since the report came out to prevent another major terrorist attack?
I don’t think I’d be satisfied by saying they have done enough. They have done a lot, but they have a lot more to do. I don’t want to put a letter grade on it now—we’ll do that later. But the performance is a mixed one.
Can you give examples of the progress that has—or hasn’t—been made since last year?
There’s been a good bit of progress and a good bit of lack of progress. On setting up the national intelligence director and National Terror Center, substantial progress has been made. And legislation has been passed, but no legislation is self-executing. We wanted robust oversight by Congress of the intelligence community, but not much has been done there. There’ve been a few modest changes, but none of the fundamental changes we think are necessary. And the distribution of Homeland Security funds is not where we want them to be. Legislation is pending. A bill passed the House [of Representatives] the other day which would distribute funds on the basis of risks and vulnerabilities rather than on a political and general revenue-sharing basis. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was set up, but no appointments have been made and no money allocated. If you look at setting a radio spectrum apart so first responders would communicate, there’s been a lot of agreement and a lot of opposition. There’s nothing imminent, but I’m encouraged that in time they will act on that.
Why?
It’s pretty hard to argue against having interoperable communications among first responders.
What’s the goal of these public hearings and the report card?
We clearly would like to see additional action on the recommendations. We put a lot of effort into that, and we’ve been pleased with the responses made, but we also think a lot more needs to be done. We do want to encourage policy makers to move ahead. An educated public is part of that and the families—they have been important players and very supportive.
How has the public response been so far?
The public followed pretty carefully our hearings, and we were pleased with the amount of interest in this [one on Monday]. I don’t want to overstate the interest. A lot of the issues are quite technical, though important, so the public may not weigh in so heavily. But I still feel a lot of sympathy and support for the 9/11 Commission and its recommendations, and I think politicians and policymakers appreciate that we earned our place at the table, and they will pay attention to what we have to say.
You no longer have authority to force the Bush administration to hand over information or to make witnesses available. How do you plan to get information to make your assessment?
You’re right—we don’t have the power now that we did. Though we didn’t use it much when we had it. The only indication I have is the statement from White House that said they wanted to be cooperative. I accept that. I think we’ll get good cooperation.
When are you planning to release the report card on the government's counterterrorism efforts?
It depends on the progress of the hearings. We’re aiming for sometime around the anniversary of 9/11—late summer, early fall.
Thomas Kean was quoted as saying that "we don't have a lot of time left to act." How imminent is the threat of another attack? Are you worried?
Tom and I—and I think the other commissioners—have always felt the threat is urgent. I certainly continue to think that now. We are worried about complacency. Since 9/11, there has not been an attack on American soil, and that lends a certain support for complacency. But at the same time, the number of terror attacks worldwide has gone up pretty substantially.
What do we know now about Al Qaeda and the chances it will strike again on U.S. soil?
Al Qaeda and radical jihadists have the intent to kill us; they want to kill us. The steps we have taken have indeed put them in some disarray. But the threat is still out there. We are confident of the intent—we’re less sure of what their capabilities are now. But one characteristic we found in the investigation is that they are very patient. The 9/11 attacks happened eight years after their first attack on the World Trade Center. They spent three to four years planning for 9/11 itself. We know the enemy is sophisticated, patient, persistent, and knowledgeable. The commission interviewed about 1,200 people, and I don’t think a single one said there is no threat. They all said we would be hit again.
Where would you like to see us a year from now?
I’d like to see all our recommendations adopted by then.
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8149051/site/newsweek/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)