Be sure to click on the featured video on the upper right. It’s a clip from Errol Morris‘ film “The Fog of War” featuring Robert McNamara going over the finer points of waging war on a foreign people, and interestingly, points which were pretty much ignored/forgotten/unknown /not applied to the run up to the current war in Iraq.
And, people doubt that we evolved from monkeys. Here’s your proof.Read More
There was a time when we could do anything. Walking on the moon wasn’t a fantasy, it was a reality. Alas, the past seven years we’ve seen the bar lowered by a two term Bush White House compliant to politics and arrogance rather than the difficult choices and compromises that foster real solutions. The result has been the acquiescence of a stronger, more confident American policy and popular consensus of the role of America, both here and abroad. This malaise in leadership nurtures a perception amongst the domestic and global populace that expects nothing more than the usual level of brilliant incompetence. “Our leadership is incapable of anything more” is the general common belief, our leaders aim to please.
Expectations are so low that when an inferior candidate for placement as the top cop in the land is presented, the general response from our leaders is “we can’t expect to do any better, so this will have to do.” Logic has been turned on it’s head. We settle for less, because shooting for better isn’t a an option any more. Better is the new bad. Up is down, down is up. Torture isn’t torture (because they say so and it’s something they truly believe in) when to any sane person, waterboarding is clearly torture.
In the real world, whilst American’s argue about whether the so-called surge in Iraq is working or not working, those human beings whose lives are hanging by a thread because of the war in Iraq and the destabilization of the entire Middle East are experiencing a reality that has nothing to do with the politics of how the US military campaign is perceived or even whether the surge is a success or a failure and everything to do with staying alive. The contrast is striking, and embarrassing.
And, it is costing us dearly. Not to mention the higher cost on the ground in Iraq. Which is the reality check.Read More
Watch the video, my comments are below. (hat tip: bizbuzz)
Been reading about the North American Union for awhile, and the new currency the “Amero”, it’s been on television, on Lou Dobbs and elsewhere. And, as the dollar slides into oblivion, it seems more and more plausible, and the appearance of a dastardly plan seems more and more obvious at first glance. But, there are other things to consider. If it uses fear to motivate, then beware.
First of all, I have strong opinions on unified conspiracy theories, which the video proffers. It assumes that there is a group of rich people sitting in a room, who are connected in some way, who share holiday meals together or go to the same church or to the same club, who are all colluding towards a “one world government” and doing all these things behind the scenes to end our lives of liberty, control us all and keep us happy with reruns of American Idol and truck loads of Twinkies. And, it doesn’t work like that. It’s more about social movements and media than about conspiring in groups.
Endeavors such as the NAU function like a movement, a mob of like minded people who are working towards common goals, in this case the creation of a unified finacial system. (Whether you agree with the concept of a unified world financial system or not is up for debate.) It works more like how people decide all at once to start using the internet, or go to YouTube. One person to one person and on and on. Like a mob. That’s how the one world government thing is working. Like a focused flash mob. Because that is how media and the transference of ideas works, and the NAU is an idea, while it isn’t being promoted via the mass media, is still a form of media, an idea, that is conveyed from person to person, and has a genesis that goes back to World War 1. It is primarily a financial movement, not a political one. The two are intertwined by their incestuous relationship, there is no doubt. Which is a very important distinction.
The banking movement has always been more of a mob than a group of white guys sitting in a room smoking Cubans and having sex with underage homeless teens while carving up the roles of the workers and deciding how to spend the workers pensions.
Look at how the EU went down over the course of three decades. It was a movement, but it was primarily financial. It was all about establishing the Euro in member countries.. And, where was all the totalitarianism that the unified conspiracy theorists predicted would occur when the EU was instituted? Where is it? Did the constitutions of nations fall because of it? Did the people of Europe lose their liberties because of the establishment of the EU? No. They didn’t.
The NAU, like the EU, is essentially solidifying financial arrangements that already exist anyway. It’s making them official and sanctioned by a government, in this case one it creates itself, which gives it the ability to establish legal sovereignty and thus protection under certain international laws.
But, the ratification of new constitutions which would override established constitutions and thereby scuttle the rights of the people is not something easily done. Look at what happened with the attempted ratification of the EU constitution. It failed because so many nations felt it infringed (either too liberal or too conservatively) upon their national sovereignty and constitutional independence and the rights of the people. Another mob arose to confront the first mob. And, they did battle. It’s a form of democracy, open source, and sometimes unruly.
The video above dives into the paranoid fantasy that there is a group of privileged people in a dark smoky room that has decided to scuttle the US constitution and bill of rights (which is being hammered at by the Bush Administration anyway) and it’s a done deal. And, the reality is: like what occurred in the EU, the scuttling of the US Constitution is an event that would require more than the establishment of the NAU and a new currency. It’s tacit fear mongering in the video. It’s propaganda meant to use fear as it’s primary tool of conversion of thought. It’s a media virus meant to scare.
Fear is a powerful force used to propel emotional reactions in favor of intellectual ideas. Fear alters the media landscape in ways that aren’t apparent to those who watch media without
a critical eye. Fear fosters an emotional response first and foremost and that means that any real consideration of the issues involved – from the presentation of the propaganda (what’s it’s primary motivation? are the facts correct? is it presented in a logical manner or a fallacious manner?) to the discussion and debate of the ideas within- is left forgotten in the dust of the initial emotional reaction.
That’s the primary function of propaganda. To disrupt the thoughtful consideration and discussion of ideas and media and replace it with an emotional response that squelches discussion and consideration.
From this view point, the primary movement that is afoot in the world today is a corporate financed right wing Christian based extremist movement that wants to establish an American Empire.
The primary mistake in the video that I see is that it attempts to connect this movement to the One World Government one, as if they are one and the same, and that is incorrect. They are two movements that are vehemently opposed to each other on a number of fronts but work together out of necessity.
The video assumes that when David Rockefeller (who is a member of the banking establishment) tells Aaron Russo about an “event” that will occur (9/11) that Rockefeller knew this because of his involvement in the banking “one world government” movement. And, that assumption is erroneous. It’s incorrect. Like many people, Rockefeller was aware of the extremist movement that had been ballooning under the surface – of right wing corporate based pro-war, pro-American Empire movement. Hardcore extremist believers in the privatization of the military forces of the USA and it’s allies, who wished to solidify their power and economic reach by the creation of a situation that is irreversible, one that creates the inevitable need for the US and it’s corporate military personal to be in the Middle East for the foreseeable future. A permanent private corporate military presence in the Middle East to replace the lost US military bases which were abandoned in Saudi Arabia due to internal pressures within that totalitarian regime. (Not to mention the fact that the Saudi Arabian oil reserves are nearing the end of their long term usefulness.)
Does the banking and one world government stand to gain from the establishment of a permanent US presence in the Middle East? Of course. Money creates strange bedfellows to be sure.
Think for a moment what type of reaction would occur in the USA – on the left and the right – if the NAU were established and it was even perceived – whether it was true or not- that the establishment of the NAU would scuttle and US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Can you imagine the popular uproar?
The assumption that this information is being kept under raps in order to foment a totalitarian regime is a bit over the top. Like most things of this nature, the press is asked to not react and not assist information until it is more documented and understood. The same thing was done in the establishment of the EU.
Informed citizens around the world understood in the early 80’s that the EU was going to be established. It wasn’t an issue that was widely understood or seen in the media worldwide until the early 90’s. Was there a conspiracy there to take away the rights of Europeans and control their lives? Doesn’t appear to be does it?
It’s easy to see conspiracy in emotional contexts based in fear. What we don’t know can hurt us. At least in our minds.
The real issue here is how much control do we want banks to have in our world? Is the creation of economic unions in our best interests?
And, as far as liberties are concerned: As long as we remain vigilant and fight for what we believe in, and stay informed and aware, our rights should remain secure.
Any and all affronts to our rights will be met and challenged. That much is clear.Read More
And, no one seemed to notice that acclaimed Iraqi blogger Riverbend of Baghdad Burning announced that she and her family were leaving Iraq for reasons she is best suited to explain.
After all that has gone down stateside in the past month – the surge is working, the surge isn’t working – the reality of what is going on “over there” says it all.
And, does anyone remember Afghanistan? It’s up against the wall..
Yet, there are those who want the US to attack Iran. (Well, what it comes down to is they are not going to be the ones in danger now are they? No. They. Are. Not.)Read More
The plan is deceptively simple: Hide the unpopular Bush behind the military uniform. What’s old is new again.
It’s always been a brilliant move, and this time it’s likely Karl Rove’s parting gift to the faltering Bush Administration. For weeks we patiently waited for General David Petraeus’ testimony before Congress as to whether the surge in Iraq was a success or a failure. It mattered not that it was already a forgone conclusion that the General was to state that the surge was indeed a success, even if there was information that said it was mixed at best, major programs need to be scrapped entirely, or worse, and the war proper was an ongoing financial disaster.
But, truth be told, that’s not where the real action was for the public relations obsessed Bush White House and the noise machine. For, it was also a forgone conclusion that many on the left would react against the surge being proclaimed a success. They would do this vocally and in public and were deeply preparing to do so, as John Edwards did when buying ads to counter Bush’s speech, and as Move On did with it’s “betray us” ad in the New York Times.
Since the very first days in office the public relations m.o. for the Bush White House has always been to wrap Dubya in the military uniform, and to surround him with members of the military whenever possible. But, never have they used a member of the military in uniform to take their political hits and then used that uniform to deflect those hits by saying: “You’re attacking a man in uniform! How unpatriotic!”
It’s important at this moment to remember that it was the Bush White House that placed General David Petraeus into the political waters in the first place and then had the unmitigated gall to yell “shark!” and point fingers. Of course, the plan was always to meld Petraeus into Bush. As Mark Silva put it:
Tonight, the Petraeus plan becomes the Bush plan.
Alas, the Bush speech was met with mostly disdain for its lack of stating anything new, its predictability and its total obviousness in the face of expectation. Everyone knew exactly what Bush was going to say, and he said it. Disappointing to say the least. Why? Because it was all a ruse. The hopes of the White House marketing mavens were dashed upon the rocks, their expectations of the public rallying around the man in uniform and transferring that warm and fuzzy moment onto the president lost in the smoke of the all too political atmosphere that permeated the situation once the conservative noise machine got wind of the Move On ad.
It took the White House a week to actually respond to it themselves, their minions doing such a good job of diversion, disinformation and distortion. But, in the end, when the president did speak upon it, lowering himself to do so, the true nature of it all became clear. And, as all fascists do, they pushed the fear button, and the cowards stood up to be counted, fearful of criticizing the man in uniform who is speaking for the president.
It was brilliant in that regard. A beautiful ruse. Because in the end, we’re not talking about how the Republicans in the US Congress blocked legislation that would give overworked and outstretched US soldiers a bit more leave, or how democratically elected Parliament of Iraq has asked the US to set a timetable to leave Iraq, to not occupy Iraq indefinitely, but the US has refused, or how the Prime Minister of Iraq has asked the US to remove Blackwater operatives from his country, the White House plays deaf and dumb, because the law doesn’t apply to everyone and the dispute rages on and on. We’re not talking about those issues are we?
Democracy struggles at home and abroad because democracy is not the plan. It’s a ruse.
Keith Obermann has the last word on this.Read More
The great legacy of the Bush presidency will be how they fought so hard for a war and then had no clue how to fight the war. New from the past few days…
Don’t forget to Sign the Open Letter and Tell the networks not to follow FOX down the road to war.Read More
…behind the scenes, however, the president’s top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to iran’s support for shiite muslim groups in iraq and its nuclear program. vice president dick cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in iraq run by the quds force, a special unit of the iranian revolutionary guard corps, according to two u.s. officials who are involved in iran policy.
the debate has been accompanied by a growing drumbeat of allegations about iranian meddling in iraq from u.s. military officers, administration officials and administration allies outside government and in the news media. it isn’t clear whether the media campaign is intended to build support for limited military action against iran, to pressure the iranians to curb their support for shiite groups in iraq or both. […..]
cheney, who’s long been skeptical of diplomacy with iran, argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of iran’s complicity in supporting anti-american forces in iraq; for example, catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into iraq from iran, one official said.
Meanwhile, from Reuter’s… a picture speaks a thousand words.
Makes me wonder what the wingut faithful think about the antichrist holding hands with the Prime Minister of Iraq. Can’t you just feel the love?Read More
Barack Obama gave a speech in which he said the following:
Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.
Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.
This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It’s a tough place.
But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.
As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
There is actually nothing in those words that have not been said or intimated prior: Bush would send troops inside Pakistan to catch bin Laden
The Voice of America put Obama’s speech in the proper context: US Democratic Presidential Hopeful Obama Vows to Pursue Terrorists in Pakistan. Again, nothing that the Bush Administration hasn’t said: Bush: al Qaeda Haven in Pakistan ‘Troubling’.
It’s a complicated situation to be sure. The US finds itself dealing with and giving lots of money to a country ruled by a military dictator who is facing a vocal and ever increasingly viable democratic movement at home. It’s touchy business dealing with a dictator who is threatened with a democratic uprising. He’s a busy man.
Reported last week in regard to striking at terrorist “safe havens” in Pakistan:
White House adviser Frances Townsend was asked Sunday on Fox News why the U.S. isn’t sending in special operations forces, pilotless drones and “everything we can to take out al-Qaida’s safe haven.”
“Well, just because we don’t speak about things publicly doesn’t mean we’re not doing many of the things you’re talking about,” Townsend said.
She wouldn’t go into details, but both U.S. and Pakistani officials confirm privately that U.S. intelligence teams are operating inside Pakistan — as are unmanned Predator planes. As to whether the U.S. might contemplate military force, Townsend delivered the administration’s new message:
“The president’s been clear: Job No. 1 is to protect the American people, and there are no options that are off the table,” she said.
So, how does the ever predictable and never right wing bozosphere react to Obama’s speech? With lies and nonsense. A sampling:
(“It must be true, I read it at Connecticut Yankee.”)
Stellar fabrications fit only for the truly misbegotten of soul and lovers of lies.
One of the great problem we as a society face is our inability to be honest with not only ourselves, but each other. Dishonesty permeates our political and social lives. It infects the information we hear and view every day and how it is transmitted. It reaches such heights that it becomes mythical fact. Dishonesty is the engine of spin. Bad news and facts are dismissed in favor of lies and obfuscation. Better to be a false winner than a true loser. All in an effort to promote one-sided ideologically driven perspectives. We lie to prove that we are right, that our beliefs are right. We equate our self image with our ideology. Well, some of us do, it is clear. What else can explain the sheer level of complete lack of honesty and embracing of lies? Stupidity? Perhaps. But, it goes deeper.
At the heart of it is an emotional adherence to our ideological identity and our inability to see beyond it. We need to believe in something, identify with it, and consider it to be infallible. It gives us a false sense of power and conviction. It gives us hope, even when it’s misguided, because we look around and there are so many others who think the same way, they can’t all be wrong, can they?
Well, yes. They can.
It’s become so prevailant and accepted that one can literally go to two dozen different right wing blogs and anticipate, based on an understanding of those bloggers attitudes and favorite angles of spin, pretty much that they will provide disinformation of a given type on any given issue. They are as predictable as the sunrinse and sunset. Today’s spin on Barack Obama’s speech are an example of this backwards thinking and just how low it can delve into the depths of dishonestly and complete foolishness.
It’s utterly and patently pathetic. What else can you say? (Well, you could say they are vapid, ignorant douchebag lying sacks of shit, but that would be pretty obvious. Dogpile on the rabbit.)
Do I expect the right wing clown posse to fess up and admit their error of ways and stop the bullshit? No. Of course not. It would be like teaching a pig to sing. It’s funny at first but then it’s just plain annoying.Read More
It’s always interesting to me how the right wing reacts to certain articles that espouse ideas that are so close to their own. Most especially when those ideas are from the most hated of enemies, the despised New York Times. Catapulting the propaganda via the right wing blogsphere. From Memeorandum:
Discussion: Power Line, Times of London, Townhall.com, The Atlantic Online, Think Progress, Reuters, The Belmont Club, NewsBusters.org, Villainous Company, rubber hose, No More Mister Nice Blog, TigerHawk, Election Central, Commentary, Wake up America, Althouse, Hot Air, Thomas P.M. Barnett, Lawyers, Guns and Money, Eschaton, The Moderate Voice, BBC, USS Neverdock, Informed Comment, Gateway Pundit, Donklephant, National Review, Connecting.the.Dots, Taylor Marsh, The Carpetbagger Report, BLACKFIVE, The Strata-Sphere, The Sundries Shack, Balloon Juice, JustOneMinute, Weekly Standard, Neptunus Lex, Captain’s Quarters, Flopping Aces, Jules Crittenden, Right Wing News, Betsy’s Page, UrbanGrounds, WILLisms.com, Clayton Cramer’s BLOG, QandO, PrairiePundit, Macsmind, Comments From Left Field, Transterrestrial Musings, Dean’s World, Blue Crab Boulevard, TIME, The Young Turks, Telegraph, Sister Toldjah and INDCJournal
You’ll notice a few similar points repeated over and over: The two writers are “liberals” from a “liberal think tank”, Brookings Institution. Neither is really true. Anyone who thinks that Brookings is liberal hasn’t been paying attention.
This smells of a well organized propaganda campaign if ever there was one. “Liberals say the war in Iraq can be won.” Good headline that. And, it’s great fodder for the spinning masses, who can reverse the direction and turn it into something like: The War The Dems May Lose. Brilliant. But, ultimately misguided. Lies come apart. A lesson that these clowns can’t seem to quite comprehend.
And, this isn’t the first time that Kenneth Pollack, the co-writer of the NY Times article above, has carried water for the Bush White House. He did so in August of 2006 in the Washington Post:
Much as Americans may want to believe that the United States can just walk away from Iraq should it slide into all-out civil war, the threat of spillover from such a conflict throughout the Middle East means it can’t. Instead, Washington will have to devise strategies to deal with refugees, minimize terrorist attacks emanating from Iraq, dampen the anger in neighboring populations caused by the conflict, prevent secession fever and keep Iraq’s neighbors from intervening. The odds of success are poor, but, nonetheless, we have to try.
In essence: “Stay the coarse.”, which was the Cheney Administration mantra, and remains so today. I wonder who sent the e-mail to all of the right wing shills above alerting them to the NY Times article this morning? Nicely done. But, pretty obvious.
Of particular note is how the wingnuts swallow this fish whole. No calls for confirmation of the points in the article, as they’ve done with Scott Thomas Beachamp. Considering that the article is in the evil librul traitorous New York Times, you’d think that would neuter the credibility of the article, right?
Yet, there it is, in black and white and they love it. LOVE IT.
Food for thought. There’s a reason behind it all.
Update 2: Think Progress looks at some of the inconsistent facts from O’Hanlon and Pollack’s article.
Update 3: McQ at The Qando Blog steps up and begins the spin when he writes :
The SNAFU Principle has decided reaction to this particular article today smacks of a conspiracy. The proof?
“You’ll notice a few similar points repeated over and over: The two writers are “liberals” from a “liberal think tank”, Brookings Institution.”
Huh. We’re listed with the conspiratorial cabal, but as I scan the post, the words “liberal” and “Brookings Institution” are nowhere to be found. What, did I miss the memo?
And to seal the deal, to make the conspiracy claim irrefutable, he declares breathlessly in an update:Update: Atrios agrees. So does John Cole, and Glenn Greenwald.
Oh, well run up the white flag, the big three have spoken.
The name of the post? Uh, “The right wing echo chamber has a party”. Yeah, I know … irony impaired. At least the blog lives up to its name.
Of course no mention of the substance of the article, not that any was expected.
Interesting for a couple of reasons.
First, McQ seems to think that simply because the words “liberal” and “Brookings Institution” aren’t in HIS posting, that I am wrong, because, you know, I MUST have been talking specifically about HIS blog. Well, no. Sorry, I don’t read it. But, if one is to, oh I don’t know, think about it for a moment, the liberal New York Times, the liberal think tank Brookings… Not a great jump in logic or facts there McQ. Click on some of the dozens of other links I provide, well, it’s pretty obvious. And, it’s quite clear that the word “Liberal” and “Brookings” and “liberal” and “New York Times” go together in the minds of many on the right. Playing childish games doesn’t alter that. But, I’ll give McQ a A for effort. A C- for execution since he falls onto the tried and true “tin foil” hat offensive attack. Poke that puppy with a stick.
Second, I never said it was a conspiracy. I simply said it was a good example of how the echo chamber worked. And, one way it works is via e-mail to a few of the bigger bloggers and it rolls from there. Same thing happens on the left. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s how propaganda is catapulted. Give it a nice kick, and the masses of true believers, like McQ, will eat it up and do all the work. The blogsphere is fantastic in this regard. But, it also shows a level of informational organization (and ideological group think) when so many link to a single article so quickly. Especially when that article is an Op-Ed in the NY Times, it being one of those places that the right loves to link to so frequently, the hub of extremist right wing thought that it is…
My further point was also quite clear: the massive linking was an example of how the right has no compunction about dismissing liberals, except when when fake liberals spout right wing talking points. (See Joe Lieberman) They get pretty gold stars when they can call people who espouse conservative ideas liberals, in some twisted exercise in proving that all liberals were wrong because a select few from the ranks disagree. The Times functions in that way as well. “Read what it says in the New York Times, of all places” is crowed. Add to it the little bit of cognitive dissonance about the NY Times being the citadel of hated liberalism except when it’s spouting right wing talking points… It’s an important observation that is shared by many.
McQ doesn’t address the fact that neither O’Hanlon or Pollack, or Brookings for that matter, are not actually liberal. It’s a misrepresentation that is used to the advantage of the right. Nor does he address the selectiveness of the right in embracing the hated NY Times when it suits their agenda. A clarly propagandistic practice in both instances.
Third, I didn’t address the “facts” in the O’Hanlon and Pollack article simply because I felt that three of the links I provided, Greenwald’s, Think Progress, and Media Matters had already covered that ground more than adequately. Perhaps McQ didn’t click on them or read them, so he was ill informed.
Finally, McQ seems to not understand exactly what the SNAFU Principle is… and gets hung
up on that first word. Pretty typical. It’s a lot of syllables to be sure, and literary. Here’s a clue, McQ. Maybe you should read the book.
So, in the end, it’s rather telling that McQ decides to invoke the tinfoil hat attack, and the condescending attack, when it is plainly clear what I was saying. It must have hit pretty close to the mark to get him all riled up like that, don’t ya think? Maybe he’s just upset cause he never got an invite to the party.
(Correction: For some reason, the WaPo quote that I placed in the final draft reverted back to one I had in a prior draft. The blockquote code in the Memeorandum quote seems to be the culprit. I’ve corrected it.)Read More
– Asserted Presidential power to create military commissions, which combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the trial of war crimes.
– Claimed authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay on the President’s say-so alone.
– Initiated kidnappings, secret detentions, and torture in Eastern European prisons of suspected international terrorists.
– Championed a Presidential power to torture in contravention of federal statutes and treaties.
– Engineered the National Security Agency’s warrantless domestic surveillance program targeting American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
– Orchestrated the invocation of executive privilege to conceal from Congress secret spying programs to gather foreign intelligence, and their legal justifications.
– Summoned the privilege to refuse to disclose his consulting of business executives in conjunction with his Energy Task Force.
– Retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, through chief of staff Scooter Libby, for questioning the administration’s evidence of weapons of mass destruction as justification for invading Iraq. (Read Fein’s SLATE article)
File under ‘obvious” but worth noting…
Over at Liberal Oasis, Bill Scher takes notice of the recent approval polls for President Bush and Congress ,which are abysmally low, as strong indicators of the complete lack of leadership in the US government. Seems NYC Michael Bloomberg agrees.
It’s been a long time coming. Now that the old news that Congress eschewed its responsibility in regard to legislative oversight in the run up to the Iraq War is “new” news once again, perhaps people will begin to realize that the reason that Iraq, which the Conservatives swore they were invading in order to save it from Hussein, is now at the brink of total collapse is because of very specific reasons, and not just the folly of events or bad luck.
Personally, it’s been like watching a three legged dog try to sit down without falling over and never quite realizing that it can’t if it doesn’t relearn what it has learned.Read More
People can not understand how great armed forces, like the U.S.army and marines, can not help restoring electricity, water not even cell phones so people can cooperate with the authorities at least.
Please don’t let the people remember your country in this way; making cities full with cemeteries more than it is already (some people in Fallujah buried their sons in their home gardens in 2004).
It is unfair to my people in Fallujah. It is unfair thing to do to the mothers of the soldiers who thought that they are sending their beloved sons to help millions of Iraqis. It is unfair thing to do to the good American citizens that I knew and met.
Please help not to change the name of Fallujah to the city of cemeteries.
Nuff said.Read More
…4.5 million votes will be shoplifted in 2008, thanks largely to the “Rove-bots” that have been placed in the Justice Department following the U.S. Attorney firings. Being the guy who uncovered the voter “purge lists” of 2000 that disenfranchised black voters, he’s (Greg Palast) worth listening to, even if the mainstream press chooses not to.
This time around, he claims to have 500 emails that the House subpoenaed and Karl Rove claims were deleted forever. They prove definitively, says Palast, that the Justice Department is infested with operatives taking orders from Rove to steal upcoming elections for Republicans and permanently alter the Department.
The current wisdom: The Gonzales DOJ scandal, which is getting good, is likely connected to the plan to steal the election in 2008. For starters. Yup.Read More