conspiracy of 09/11/2001
You don't get very much useful info.
You do get, however, bgtruth.blogspot.com as the number 5 ranking.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
First the Bad News
If you do a yahoo search with terms:
conspiracy of 09/11/2001
You don't get very much useful info.
You do get, however, bgtruth.blogspot.com as the number 5 ranking.
conspiracy of 09/11/2001
You don't get very much useful info.
You do get, however, bgtruth.blogspot.com as the number 5 ranking.
Newsweek / Koran story: The resignation of Scott McClellan - Bloggermann - MSNBC.com
The resignation of Scott McClellan - Bloggermann - MSNBC.com
BG: Olbermann sees the ugliness, and .... decides McCellan should resign. How does getting another equally dishonest Press Secretary help the situation?
Link to Video (Olbermann Show / Interview with Author)
More from Alex Jones... (I actually believe most of this stuff.)
BG: Olbermann sees the ugliness, and .... decides McCellan should resign. How does getting another equally dishonest Press Secretary help the situation?
Link to Video (Olbermann Show / Interview with Author)
More from Alex Jones... (I actually believe most of this stuff.)
Monday, May 16, 2005
Staying What Course? - New York Times
Staying What Course? - New York Times
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 16, 2005
Staying What Course?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Is there any point, now that November's election is behind us, in revisiting the history of the Iraq war? Yes: any path out of the quagmire will be blocked by people who call their opponents weak on national security, and portray themselves as tough guys who will keep America safe. So it's important to understand how the tough guys made America weak.
There has been notably little U.S. coverage of the "Downing Street memo" - actually the minutes of a British prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, during which officials reported on talks with the Bush administration about Iraq. But the memo, which was leaked to The Times of London during the British election campaign, confirms what apologists for the war have always denied: the Bush administration cooked up a case for a war it wanted.
Here's a sample: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
(You can read the whole thing at www.downingstreetmemo.com.)
Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, "the case was thin" and Saddam's "W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran"? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.
But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong Il fear us, when we can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport?
At this point, the echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable. Reports from the recent offensive near the Syrian border sound just like those from a 1960's search-and-destroy mission, body count and all. Stories filed by reporters actually with the troops suggest that the insurgents, forewarned, mostly melted away, accepting battle only where and when they chose.
Meanwhile, America's strategic position is steadily deteriorating.
Next year, reports Jane's Defense Industry, the United States will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Yet the Pentagon now admits that our military is having severe trouble attracting recruits, and would have difficulty dealing with potential foes - those that, unlike Saddam's Iraq, might pose a real threat.
In other words, the people who got us into Iraq have done exactly what they falsely accused Bill Clinton of doing: they have stripped America of its capacity to respond to real threats.
So what's the plan?
The people who sold us this war continue to insist that success is just around the corner, and that things would be fine if the media would just stop reporting bad news. But the administration has declared victory in Iraq at least four times. January's election, it seems, was yet another turning point that wasn't.
Yet it's very hard to discuss getting out. Even most of those who vehemently opposed the war say that we have to stay on in Iraq now that we're there.
In effect, America has been taken hostage. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the terrible scenes that will surely unfold if we leave (even though terrible scenes are unfolding while we're there). Nobody wants to tell the grieving parents of American soldiers that their children died in vain. And nobody wants to be accused, by an administration always ready to impugn other people's patriotism, of stabbing the troops in the back.
But the American military isn't just bogged down in Iraq; it's deteriorating under the strain. We may already be in real danger: what threats, exactly, can we make against the North Koreans? That John Bolton will yell at them? And every year that the war goes on, our military gets weaker.
So we need to get beyond the clichés - please, no more "pottery barn principles" or "staying the course." I'm not advocating an immediate pullout, but we have to tell the Iraqi government that our stay is time-limited, and that it has to find a way to take care of itself. The point is that something has to give. We either need a much bigger army - which means a draft - or we need to find a way out of Iraq.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Contact Us Back to Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 16, 2005
Staying What Course?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Is there any point, now that November's election is behind us, in revisiting the history of the Iraq war? Yes: any path out of the quagmire will be blocked by people who call their opponents weak on national security, and portray themselves as tough guys who will keep America safe. So it's important to understand how the tough guys made America weak.
There has been notably little U.S. coverage of the "Downing Street memo" - actually the minutes of a British prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, during which officials reported on talks with the Bush administration about Iraq. But the memo, which was leaked to The Times of London during the British election campaign, confirms what apologists for the war have always denied: the Bush administration cooked up a case for a war it wanted.
Here's a sample: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
(You can read the whole thing at www.downingstreetmemo.com.)
Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, "the case was thin" and Saddam's "W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran"? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.
But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong Il fear us, when we can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport?
At this point, the echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable. Reports from the recent offensive near the Syrian border sound just like those from a 1960's search-and-destroy mission, body count and all. Stories filed by reporters actually with the troops suggest that the insurgents, forewarned, mostly melted away, accepting battle only where and when they chose.
Meanwhile, America's strategic position is steadily deteriorating.
Next year, reports Jane's Defense Industry, the United States will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Yet the Pentagon now admits that our military is having severe trouble attracting recruits, and would have difficulty dealing with potential foes - those that, unlike Saddam's Iraq, might pose a real threat.
In other words, the people who got us into Iraq have done exactly what they falsely accused Bill Clinton of doing: they have stripped America of its capacity to respond to real threats.
So what's the plan?
The people who sold us this war continue to insist that success is just around the corner, and that things would be fine if the media would just stop reporting bad news. But the administration has declared victory in Iraq at least four times. January's election, it seems, was yet another turning point that wasn't.
Yet it's very hard to discuss getting out. Even most of those who vehemently opposed the war say that we have to stay on in Iraq now that we're there.
In effect, America has been taken hostage. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the terrible scenes that will surely unfold if we leave (even though terrible scenes are unfolding while we're there). Nobody wants to tell the grieving parents of American soldiers that their children died in vain. And nobody wants to be accused, by an administration always ready to impugn other people's patriotism, of stabbing the troops in the back.
But the American military isn't just bogged down in Iraq; it's deteriorating under the strain. We may already be in real danger: what threats, exactly, can we make against the North Koreans? That John Bolton will yell at them? And every year that the war goes on, our military gets weaker.
So we need to get beyond the clichés - please, no more "pottery barn principles" or "staying the course." I'm not advocating an immediate pullout, but we have to tell the Iraqi government that our stay is time-limited, and that it has to find a way to take care of itself. The point is that something has to give. We either need a much bigger army - which means a draft - or we need to find a way out of Iraq.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Contact Us Back to Top
I-BAT - 001
I-BAT - 001: "Research into 9/11 planning and a possible sequel, suggests that Maurice Strong and fellow insiders at Power Corp, Montreal, are laundering UN oil-for-food money through off-book partners, including French banks and oil, water and arms traders"
Meet the Poor Republicans - New York Times
Link to Good Discussion by Kevin Drum
Meet the Poor Republicans - New York Times: "May 15, 2005
Meet the Poor Republicans
By DAVID BROOKS
Last week the Pew Research Center came out with a study of the American electorate that crystallized something I've been sensing for a long time: rich people are boring, but poor people are interesting."
BG: I had no idea where Brooks was going with this, but I was fairly sure I would find his discussion putrid. I was not disappointed.
Meet the Poor Republicans - New York Times: "May 15, 2005
Meet the Poor Republicans
By DAVID BROOKS
Last week the Pew Research Center came out with a study of the American electorate that crystallized something I've been sensing for a long time: rich people are boring, but poor people are interesting."
BG: I had no idea where Brooks was going with this, but I was fairly sure I would find his discussion putrid. I was not disappointed.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Don't give in to sweet temptations - Nutrition Notes - MSNBC.com
Don't give in to sweet temptations - Nutrition Notes - MSNBC.com
Moderation can be difficult when it comes to sugary treatsBy Karen Collins, R.D.
Registered Dietitian
Special to MSNBC.com
Updated: 11:49 a.m. ET May 13, 2005Chocolate, bakery, soft drinks and other sweets are available around the clock. Their constant availability can make eating moderate amounts of them difficult.
advertisement
Although complete avoidance of sweets is unnecessary for good health, the calories in sweets add up quickly, making weight control more difficult. Sweets can also replace nutritious foods that have vitamins, fiber, phytochemicals and other substances vital to our well-being.
Part of the problem with sweets is that setting reasonable limits can be confusing. Some experts suggest that no more than ten percent of our calories should come from added sugars. Added sugars means sweeteners like table sugar, high fructose corn syrup and honey, not the natural sugars in fruits and milk, for example.
According to these experts, a reasonable amount of added sugars would vary with a person�s calorie needs. Adults who are sedentary or trying to lose weight might limit themselves to 160 to 180 calories of added sugar (40�45 grams) per day.
This amount could be a 12-ounce regular soft drink or 2 cookies and a cup of ice cream, as long as few other sweetened foods, like jelly or sugary cereals were not eaten during the day. Moderately active people who want to maintain their weight, might have 200�240 calories of added sugar (50�60 grams). These people could enjoy a small candy bar and six small cookies, for instance, but sugar in a 12-ounce regular soft drink adds up quickly and leaves room for little else.
Watch the snacking
Moderation can be difficult when it comes to sugary treatsBy Karen Collins, R.D.
Registered Dietitian
Special to MSNBC.com
Updated: 11:49 a.m. ET May 13, 2005Chocolate, bakery, soft drinks and other sweets are available around the clock. Their constant availability can make eating moderate amounts of them difficult.
advertisement
Although complete avoidance of sweets is unnecessary for good health, the calories in sweets add up quickly, making weight control more difficult. Sweets can also replace nutritious foods that have vitamins, fiber, phytochemicals and other substances vital to our well-being.
Part of the problem with sweets is that setting reasonable limits can be confusing. Some experts suggest that no more than ten percent of our calories should come from added sugars. Added sugars means sweeteners like table sugar, high fructose corn syrup and honey, not the natural sugars in fruits and milk, for example.
According to these experts, a reasonable amount of added sugars would vary with a person�s calorie needs. Adults who are sedentary or trying to lose weight might limit themselves to 160 to 180 calories of added sugar (40�45 grams) per day.
This amount could be a 12-ounce regular soft drink or 2 cookies and a cup of ice cream, as long as few other sweetened foods, like jelly or sugary cereals were not eaten during the day. Moderately active people who want to maintain their weight, might have 200�240 calories of added sugar (50�60 grams). These people could enjoy a small candy bar and six small cookies, for instance, but sugar in a 12-ounce regular soft drink adds up quickly and leaves room for little else.
Watch the snacking
WING - Trashing The Truth
WING - Trashing The Truth
BG: These postings are terribly confused (intentionally?) and off-base I think. Wingtv is subject to vendettas for sure, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water....
BG: These postings are terribly confused (intentionally?) and off-base I think. Wingtv is subject to vendettas for sure, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water....
Email that I received from Veterans Support Group
News on Veterans for Common Sense today:
Afghanistan riddled with drug tiesThe case of an Afghan village police chief, named Inayatullah, is a small example of a much larger problem. Is Commander Inayatullah a courageous law-and-order crusader responsible for smashing the drug mafia in his hamlet? Or, is he an opium smuggler? Or, as his bosses say, is he both?
Lawless Iraq is 'key drug route'Drug smugglers exploiting internal chaos in Iraq have turned the country into a transit route for Afghan heroin, an influential drug agency says.
U.S. Soldiers, Law Officers Snared in Border Drug StingA brazen conspiracy among U.S. law enforcement officers and soldiers to smuggle cocaine from Mexico was disclosed Thursday by the Justice Department, adding to concerns that public corruption north of the border was growing.
Law Protecting Soldiers Undermines War on TerrorWhat happens to U.S. soldiers who are charged with aiding and abetting an international terrorist organization?
U.S. army probes why troops go wild in ColombiaThe U.S. military is investigating what has gone wrong with its operations in Colombia, where troops have been arrested on suspicion of smuggling drugs and selling arms to far-right militias, a senior U.S. officer said on Wednesday.
Pentagon's war stories leave a legacy of doubtGiven that we now know what really happened in the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, is it any wonder the Italians dispute the U.S. government's version of how Nicola Calipari died in Iraq?
Veterans for Common Sense needs your supportConsider making a gift today. Every dollar helps support our work on national securty, civil liberties and human rights, veterans issues and U.S. energy independence. Click here to make a gift today. Please visit Veterans for Common Sense at www.veteransforcommonsense.org
Afghanistan riddled with drug tiesThe case of an Afghan village police chief, named Inayatullah, is a small example of a much larger problem. Is Commander Inayatullah a courageous law-and-order crusader responsible for smashing the drug mafia in his hamlet? Or, is he an opium smuggler? Or, as his bosses say, is he both?
Lawless Iraq is 'key drug route'Drug smugglers exploiting internal chaos in Iraq have turned the country into a transit route for Afghan heroin, an influential drug agency says.
U.S. Soldiers, Law Officers Snared in Border Drug StingA brazen conspiracy among U.S. law enforcement officers and soldiers to smuggle cocaine from Mexico was disclosed Thursday by the Justice Department, adding to concerns that public corruption north of the border was growing.
Law Protecting Soldiers Undermines War on TerrorWhat happens to U.S. soldiers who are charged with aiding and abetting an international terrorist organization?
U.S. army probes why troops go wild in ColombiaThe U.S. military is investigating what has gone wrong with its operations in Colombia, where troops have been arrested on suspicion of smuggling drugs and selling arms to far-right militias, a senior U.S. officer said on Wednesday.
Pentagon's war stories leave a legacy of doubtGiven that we now know what really happened in the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, is it any wonder the Italians dispute the U.S. government's version of how Nicola Calipari died in Iraq?
Veterans for Common Sense needs your supportConsider making a gift today. Every dollar helps support our work on national securty, civil liberties and human rights, veterans issues and U.S. energy independence. Click here to make a gift today. Please visit Veterans for Common Sense at www.veteransforcommonsense.org
Gagged, But Not Dead
Technorati Tags: sept11 sibel edmonds Ashcroft DOJ FBI translation coverup
Gagged, But Not Dead
By Sibel Edmonds
The Appeal Court’s decision on Sibel Edmonds’ Case is out: ‘Case Dismissed;’ no opinion cited; no reason provided. The Court’s decision, issued on Friday, May 6, has generated a string of obituaries; “another major blow, maybe the last one, to Sibel Edmonds, a woman who has faced an unprecedented level of government secrecy, gag orders, and classification.” Well, dear friends and supporters, Sibel Edmonds may be gagged, but she’s not dead.
On October 18, 2002; three months after I filed my suit against the Department of Justice for unlawful termination of my employment caused by my reporting criminal activities committed by government officials and employees, John Ashcroft, the then Attorney General, invoked a rarely invoked privilege, the State Secrets Privilege. According to Ashcroft, everything involving my case and my allegations were considered state secrets, and whether or not I was right in my allegations, the United States District Court had to dismiss my entire case without any questions, hearings or oral argument; period. According to Ashcroft, the court had to grant his order and dismiss the entire case with no hearings solely based on the fact that he, Ashcroft, said so. After all, our government knew best. As of that day, my case came to be gagged; but I continued on.
In April 2004, after attorneys for a large group of 9/11 family members subpoenaed my deposition, the then Attorney General, John Ashcroft, made his next move: He invoked the state secrets privilege for the second time, and this time, he designated my place of birth, date of birth, my mother tongue, my father tongue, my university background, and my previous employments all State Secrets, Top Secret Classified, and matters of the highest level national security. Let’s see, based on this new ruling and designation by our ironically named Justice Department, my passport w"
Gagged, But Not Dead
By Sibel Edmonds
The Appeal Court’s decision on Sibel Edmonds’ Case is out: ‘Case Dismissed;’ no opinion cited; no reason provided. The Court’s decision, issued on Friday, May 6, has generated a string of obituaries; “another major blow, maybe the last one, to Sibel Edmonds, a woman who has faced an unprecedented level of government secrecy, gag orders, and classification.” Well, dear friends and supporters, Sibel Edmonds may be gagged, but she’s not dead.
On October 18, 2002; three months after I filed my suit against the Department of Justice for unlawful termination of my employment caused by my reporting criminal activities committed by government officials and employees, John Ashcroft, the then Attorney General, invoked a rarely invoked privilege, the State Secrets Privilege. According to Ashcroft, everything involving my case and my allegations were considered state secrets, and whether or not I was right in my allegations, the United States District Court had to dismiss my entire case without any questions, hearings or oral argument; period. According to Ashcroft, the court had to grant his order and dismiss the entire case with no hearings solely based on the fact that he, Ashcroft, said so. After all, our government knew best. As of that day, my case came to be gagged; but I continued on.
In April 2004, after attorneys for a large group of 9/11 family members subpoenaed my deposition, the then Attorney General, John Ashcroft, made his next move: He invoked the state secrets privilege for the second time, and this time, he designated my place of birth, date of birth, my mother tongue, my father tongue, my university background, and my previous employments all State Secrets, Top Secret Classified, and matters of the highest level national security. Let’s see, based on this new ruling and designation by our ironically named Justice Department, my passport w"
KRT Wire | 05/12/2005 | So much for national security in the public interest
KRT Wire | 05/12/2005 | So much for national security in the public interest: "Posted on Thu, May. 12, 2005
Click here to find out more!
So much for national security in the public interest"
Click here to find out more!
So much for national security in the public interest"
Galloway hounded by AIPAC cell within U.S. Congress; Bolton tied to same cell
Galloway hounded by AIPAC cell within U.S. Congress; Bolton tied to same cell: "Bolton had on his staff a 'special adviser' named Matthew Freedman who pulled down a $110,000 per annum salary. Freedman is also a lobbyist who represents 'private clients.' He refused to tell the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who those clients were. However, it has been discovered that Freedman, a long time GOP operative like Bolton, is tied to the same oil industry network that once used Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as agents of influence."
Teens seek debate vs. Limbaugh
Teens seek debate vs. LimbaughBG: Limbaugh hot air rarely gets called out for what it is... this is great!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)