Radar Contact

Can Americans Stop Bush/Cheney From Attacking Iran? The Answer is Yes! - says William Cormier. WHAT SAY YOU!?

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:49:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><><>

I took a break. I should not be doing that while the bush/cheney War on America rages on. The dictatorship isn't in time-out. Corporate/State fascism rolls on 24/7.

I salve my conscience with many reasons to just stop. But there's really only one. Despair. Utter despair. Total despair. "They" haven't yet threatened to drag me off to the Boxcar Caravan to Leavenworth as yet, so why bother? Just wallow in despair.

Shame on me.

Is a general strike the answer? Interesting. Intriguing. Possible? Worth a shot? Sure... but convince me. Convince me that the "Reality Show" numbed and dumbed-down general populace of what used to be America could EVER be convinced, after listening to lie upon lie from their "leaders" for the last 7 years, that anything "needs" to be done, never mind "should" be done.

Yeah, I guess if we ALL (or at least MOST) of us stopped buying the crap from China-Mart for a few days, and called in sick every day to the few jobs left in Amerika worth the time to labor at, and stopped driving ANYWHERE except maybe to a doctor's office or a hospital to be treated for the illnesses the corporate fascists have polluted our bodies and minds with over decades of being allowed to "police themselves"... but hey - don't get me started...

Read Mr. Cormier's urgent treatise below. Do something, especially bombard your Congresscritter's office with phone calls, letters and e-mails, demanding they impeach the war criminals and start listening to common sense and reasoning for once. Good luck to us all, but only if we make our own luck.

Oh, and don't forget to remind our largest corporate enablers, (because they 'are one') the so-called "Main Stream" Media, that we really don't need their stupid catering to the lowest common denominator junk "news." We need them to do the job they're supposed to be doing, holding liars and war-mongers' feet to the fire... --DN

**************************************

Tag(s): American Facism; American Foreign Policy; American Peoples Congress; Congress; Courage; Democracy; Democracy; Future; Impeachment; Lies; Politicians; Solidarity; Strike
Add to My Group
April 13, 2008 at 03:00:55

Headlined on 4/13/08:
Can Americans Stop Bush/Cheney From Attacking Iran? The Answer is Yes!

by William Cormier Page 1 of 1 page

http://www.opednews.com

Tell A Friend

The above may seem like a bold statement, but I believe it�??s true. The United States of America is operated and kept alive by the American people, not the politicians that rape, pillage, and spend our money and our most precious resource, America�??s brave soldiers that fight these illegal wars. Many of our �??volunteer military�?? are not in the fight because of patriotism - but to support their families and seek GI benefits that will allow them to attend college when they leave the armed services.

Our economy is already in ruins, food and gas are becoming luxuries to the poorest families in America, and the middle-class is disappearing faster than Bush�??s approval ratings. Millions of us are facing foreclosure, while the oil companies post profits that are obscene - and still receive huge government subsidies. The average American is now becoming aware that Bush and Cheney are war criminals, yet Congress refuses to impeach them, even though there is a mountain of evidence that supports their immediate impeachment, indictment, and incarceration for breaking our own and international laws. Congress is worthless, and as bad as Bush�??s ratings are, Congress rates worse, symptoms that the public has lost respect and hope that any of them will find the courage to do what�??s right! The only thing left to stop the destruction of our country and another war is the people themselves - but first, they have to know what to do. As we stated over a year ago, its time that America�??s premier alternative news sites, Blogs, and every individual on the Internet get busy and come together in solidarity to take back our country.

Why, as we face the utter destruction of our economy and the American way of life do we refuse to come together in solidarity? We have witnessed other countries fighting bloody wars to seek democracy, yet we, who used to have it all, refuse to lift a finger in a meaningful way that would bring about change? Have we forgotten who we are - or how powerful we are when we speak as one? I am not a radical; I don�??t believe that it takes violence to retrieve our democracy - but it does take all of us to work together, and the only way that it can be accomplished is if those that disseminate the news and commentary on the Internet band together and tell the people �??how�?? we can force Congress to take action. Yes, I said force Congress to impeach Bush, Cheney, and Pelosi, a triple impeachment - and one that will send a message to the next President that believes that his will is more important than that of the people he is supposed to serve.!

It is vital that we understand what a war with Iran would mean to our country; Gas would likely reach five dollars or more per gallon, raising our food prices even more and would cause unimaginable suffering to the American people. Food will become scarce, and the food riots we hear of in other countries would surely visit us with a vengeance. The draft would likely be reinstated, and even more of America�??s sons and daughters will die in a war that is the desire of Bush, Cheney, and Israel, not the American people. The Iraq War and mismanagement by the Bush administration has already brought us to our knees; what would another war with Iran bring to the American people? What if Bush�??s folly escalates to World War III? What then? There has never been a time in the history of this nation when America has been in this much danger, all brought on by Neo-conservatives that have infiltrated our government - and still, Congress refuses to protect the people. There is a time for talk and there is a time for action, and now it�??s time that �??we the people�?? take the action necessary to force Congress to impeach all three that were named above, among several others - and then, if we want to regain any semblance of respect throughout the global community, hand all of them over to The Hague to be judged by the international community as the war criminals they are! Be sure of one fact; The Hague has cells awaiting all of them, and all it takes is for the American people to act in unison to make it a reality instead of a dream! Remember, only a dreamer can have a dream come true!

How do we accomplish this seemingly impossible feat that Congress can�??t do themselves? Actually, it�??s relatively easy; however it will take the courage and tenacity of those whom we look to for our news and commentary - and if they refuse to help, then, like Congress, their words and actions ring hollow as well�?�

Imagine The Huffington Post, BuzzFlash, Op-Ed News, Capitol Hill Blue, Raw Story, AfterDowningStreet.org, Rense.com, The BRAD BLOG, The Daily KOS, The Smirking Chimp, TV News and Lies, Alex Jones, Michael Moore, and the huge amount of Hollywood celebrities that could contribute to this cause! What if they all published editorials in unison calling for a general strike that would effectively halt all commerce and services throughout the United States? How would Congress react then? What choice would they have? This country cannot operate without you and me, the �??average people�?? who don�??t have a voice in government - but who could effectively, in a non-violent manner, shut-down this country until Congress is forced to do their damn jobs!

We could configure the strike to keep emergency services operating as usual, but non-essential transportation, stores, you name it - could all be shut-down IF all of the above sites would come together in a show of solidarity to save the American way of life. We have the ability to force Congress to do their jobs, but in order to do so, those who are constantly going off in different directions would have to agree that our future is more important than each of their private concerns, which do nothing to stave-off this war which appears to be approaching sometime before the November elections. I have heard on numerous occasions how cowardly the French are, and I�??ve also heard the nasty jokes that state the French never fight, but always surrender - just as our Congress has done! Reality tells another story, one of protests, strikes and civil disobedience, traits that once were the hallmark of our democracy, yet seem to have been forgotten as we slide into fascism and complacency.

I wrote about this subject two years ago and was ignored; in fact, it actually angered some of the sites in question; why I don�??t know, except that none were willing to agree on anything of substance - mirroring Congress in their indecision and abdication of their sworn duty to serve the people who voted them into office. I love my country and consider myself to be a patriot, and witnessing the country you love sliding into a police state is heartbreaking as well as frightening - but if we would only stop the partisan bickering for this one moment, we could make history, and with a little luck, survive the Bush administration, and we may actually live to see justice being served as it should.

All of you who are reading this post can make a difference. Paste and copy this article and send it to your favorite site and ask them to participate in organizing a general strike - not two months from now, but as quickly a it can be organized. If the majority of the Liberal/Progressive community would participate and urge all of the sites to join-in in solidarity, Bush and Cheney could be facing impeachment as soon as a couple of weeks from now, if not sooner. This is our country, and it doesn�??t belong to the lobbyists, the politicians, or the corporations who believe they have the right to control our lives. This is a fight for our freedom as well as our children�??s future.

It�??s also important to remember that paid government propagandists have infiltrated the Digg Community, Reddit, and almost all of the social networking sites to spread disinformation and propaganda. Pay them no attention. They are liars and traitors, each and every one of them who support this illegal government - and believe me, they will attempt to lead you in another direction, one that will guarantee that Bush and Cheney succeed in destroying the country that most of us love and cherish.

William Cormier

http://justanothercoverup.com/

I am nothing more than a patriotic American that is doing whatever I can to further the cause of democracy, the rule of law, and am absolutely outraged on how the Bush administration is defying our Congress, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights! Footnote: I write in a style that I believe is appropriate in today's world where we can't trust the Mainstream News Media, and rather than concentrating on one article alone, which may or may not receive the exposure and emphasis it should, I prefer to meld several relevant stories together, that each taken alone may not expose the entire situation, but when taken-in as a whole, tend to give the reader a better understanding of the subject. One article or story alone does not represent the "Big Picture" - but when several are effectively tied-together it often reveals a trend or broader view of the subject matter that is important to completely understand any given situation. http://justanothercoverup.com/

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Other Articles by Author

Can Anything BushCo and His Corporate Masters Illegally Do Be Stopped?

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:25:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><><>

Maybe - BIG maybe. Let's see... --DN

***************************************

Dear DFA Member,

Today, there is a genuine opportunity -- the first in a long time -- for Senate Democrats to take a meaningful stand against the lawlessness of the Bush administration. Whether they are willing to take this stand largely depends upon how much citizen demand they hear from Americans like you and me.

The Bush administration has been trying to bully Congress into passing a law that would legalize vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers for the President to spy on Americans. The law also provides full immunity to telecommunications companies which enabled the Bush administration to spy on you without the warrants required by law.

Worse, if telecom amnesty were granted, it would result in the immediate dismissal of numerous lawsuits against the telecoms, thus extinguishing the only remaining means for discovering what our Government really was doing over the last seven years as it illegally spied on our telephone conversations and emails.

Last week, it looked as though enough Senate Democrats were going to vote in favor of the Bush plan in order to pass this radical bill. But a funny thing happened on the way to the latest Democratic capitulation: Republicans tried to block the Senate from voting on ANY of the Democrats' proposed amendments and are trying to force a quick vote on the bill.

Now, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats are vowing to filibuster and block the Senate from voting on Monday. If the Democrats can sustain a filibuster and prevent passage of this bill, this would be a major defeat for Bush and the Senate Republicans. But because there are numerous Democratic Senators still wavering, it is unclear if a filibuster can be sustained. That's where you come in.

Please call your senators and demand they filibuster to stop telecom immunity right now:

(If, like me, you live in Paradise-slip-sliding-away, call these guys... --DN)

Senator Mel Martinez
(202) 224-3041

Senator Bill Nelson
(202) 224-5274

After you call, please report how it went here:
www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/FisaCallReport

The more people who call the wavering Democratic Senators -- and even potential pro-filibuster Republicans -- and urge them to support a filibuster of the new FISA bill, the higher the likelihood is that the filibuster will be sustained. Let them hear your opposition to new warrantless eavesdropping powers and amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms.

I will be live-blogging the proceedings on Monday at my blog on Salon.com and you can follow developments there. It has been a long, long time since Senate Democrats won anything and a victory on Monday could be a critically important win for real accountability and the rule of law.

Thank you for taking action today.

Glenn Greenwald
www.Salon.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE FROM HQ:

Great news! Our campaign is working. Senators Clinton and Obama both announced last night that they WILL show up to the Senate today and FIGHT to stop immunity for telecommunication companies who spied on Americans. Now we need to make sure we back them up. Please call your senators right now!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this email:
Tell-a-friend!

If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Democracy for America.

Paid for by Democracy for America, www.DemocracyforAmerica.com and not authorized by any candidate. Contributions to Democracy for America are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

...And Another Plea: "Senators set to cave on accountability - don't let them!"

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:00:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><>

Forward this e-mail | Subscribe to PFAW Action Alerts
PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY January 28, 2008

Dear Don,

Our timeline's been accelerated -- an important vote is happening in the Senate TODAY that could end debate on the Intelligence Committee version of FISA Amendments Act (S. 2248) and send this terrible bill toward passage.

After several days of debate, the bill still includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies and undermines due process rights by not guaranteeing individualized warrants.

A cloture vote (requiring 60 votes to pass) on a "managers' amendment" is coming up and will decide if S. 2248 is to move forward. Your senator may be a critical swing vote and that one vote could make a difference.

Tell your Senator to vote against cloture on the managers' amendment and stop S. 2248.

Please call NOW. In a few hours it might be too late.

Find your senator on the target list below and call now:

Arkansas - Sen. Mark Pryor: 202-224-2353
Colorado - Sen. Ken Salazar: 202-224-5852
Connecticut - Sen. Joe Lieberman: 202-224-4041
Delaware - Sen. Tom Carper: 202-224-2441
Florida - Sen. Bill Nelson: 202-224-5274
Hawaii - Sen. Daniel Inouye: 202-224-3934
Indiana - Sen. Evan Bayh: 202-224-5623
Louisiana - Sen. Mary Landrieu: 202-224-5824
Maryland - Sen. Barbara Mikulski: 202-224-4654
Missouri - Sen. Claire McCaskill: 202-224-6154
Nebraska - Sen. Ben Nelson: 202-224-6551
South Dakota - Sen. Tim Johnson: 202-224-5842
West Virginia - Sen. Jay Rockefeller: 202-224-5323
(If you have trouble with any of these numbers, try the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.)

Here's some extra talking points that may be of use:

By authorizing government spies to bypass the process mandated by FISA, President Bush told them to break the law.
The so-called "Protect America Act," which passed in August, made the situation worse by sanctioning a legal infrastructure under which American citizens might unwittingly be subject to daily, repeated invasions of privacy or violations of other constitutional rights.
All parties involved must be held accountable for any illegal activity, including telecommunications companies (telecoms) that satisfied government requests for information about private communications.
It is unacceptable that the FISA reform being debated now seeks blanket immunity for the telecoms' alleged complicity in the administration's actions.
In protecting the telecoms, the Bush administration is protecting itself.
Immunity compromises will not serve the interests of the American people.
Congress should err on the side of our Constitution and not bow to political pressure by signing off on telecom immunity.
Thank you for your activism!

-- Your Allies at People For the American Way

Bob Wexler's Doing His Part...

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:24:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><><>

...but he can't do it alone in the House. Please write YOUR Congressperson and let them know how much the concept of democracy and the rule of law means to YOU. Thanks!

Impeach cheney... --DN

*******************************

Dear Don

Last night, I took to the floor of the House of Representatives and outlined our case as to why this Congress must hold immediate hearings on Rep. Kucinich�??s Articles of Impeachment.

I didn�??t do it alone: I was armed with nearly 200,000 signatures of support from you and so many others. Please watch the video of this speech and forward it to as many people as possible. I've posted it on the front page of www.WexlerWantsHearings.com

This morning, I delivered letters to all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, urging them to support Cheney Impeachment Hearings. You can read a copy of both the letter to my colleagues as well as the letter to Chairman Conyers I am asking them to sign at:
http://www.wexlerforcongress.com/news.asp?ItemID=230

Additionally, I have delivered to my colleagues in the Judiciary Committee a list of names who have signed up at www.WexlerWantsHearings.com. We now have almost 200,000 patriotic Americans dedicated to this cause.

We are beginning to make some progress. I have urged the Democratic Leadership to enforce the subpoenas being ignored by Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten by holding them in contempt of Congress.

This fight is not over. You must continue the pressure on your representatives and the media, or Congress will take no notice. That would be a historic mistake �?? one we must prevent Congress from making.

We stand at a critical juncture in our efforts. Forget all of those arguments that it is too late or that we have run out of time. You can�??t run the clock out on our Constitution. Those of us dedicated to this fight �?? Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the online community, and millions of patriotic Americans �?? will keep the pressure on.

I will be furiously lobbying my fellow members of Congress to get behind these efforts and sign onto my letter to Chairman Conyers.

Please continue to spread the word and help deliver accountability to the corrupt Bush-Cheney administration.

With great respect,

Congressman Robert Wexler

Paid for by "Wexler for Congress"

PO Box 810669
Boca Raton, FL 33481

Shame on Rep. John Conyers, Jr. - His Bluff Has Been Called

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:27:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><><>

From The Politico, via CBS News

Wexler Calls For Cheney's Impeachment

Jan 15, 2008

(The Politico) Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) is urging the House Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment hearings against Vice President Dick Cheney, despite opposition from House Democratic leaders.

Wexler, who first gained national attention for defending former President Bill Clinton during his impeachment in 1998, said Cheney has to be ousted in order to restore the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, which in his view, has been eroded by an ever-expanding claim of authority under Cheney and President Bush.

"There's a litany of issues that need to be heard," Wexler said. "This administration has abused the power of executive privilege. This administration has completely avoided testifying before Congress on any one of a host of six, seven, eight issues.

�??Whether we are talking about the manipulation of intelligence on Iraq,�?? he went on, �??whether we are talking about the outing of a covert CIA agent, whether we're talking about the illegal use of torture, whether we're talking about the potentially unlawful firing of U.S. prosecutors - on all of these issues, the administration has thus far successfully used the power of executive privilege."

But impeachment hearings would be different, Wexler said, since the White House could not raise a privilege claim in order to avoid answering questions from lawmakers.

"In an impeachment hearing, the administration does not have the power of executive privilege," Wexler said, noting that the secret tapes that helped bring down President Richard Nixon did not surface until the House Judiciary Committee began impeachment hearings.

The House voted on Nov. 6 on a resolution by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) to bring articles of impeachment against Cheney for pushing for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, repeatedly suggesting that there ties between al Qaeda and the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and advocating military action to overthrow Iran.

When Republicans, in a bid to embarrass House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, voted for the measure, the House was thrown into a brief deadlock. The measure was eventually approved and sent to the Judiciary Committee, where Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) has declined to take action, despite pressure from Wexler and liberal activists outside Congress.

Scott McClellan: "There was one problem. It was not true."

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:00:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><><>

The "it" in this instance was "Scotty" swearing up and down and sideways (especially sideways) that no one he supposedly talked to had anything to do with breaking the law and publicly identifying a CIA undercover operative. Namely one of America's unknown (until the motley crew of thugs and thieves and liars at the very top of this illegal, immoral maladministration decided to break yet another law), unsung, patriotic heroes who happened to be married to another true patriot. Her husband had witnessed yet another lie from the administration, on a subject he knew quite a bit about.

cheney, et. al., couldn't stand being outed so he did what all sophomoric, snotty schoolyard bullies do: he got even. And didn't care what damage he might do to careers, the safety of all Americans, or the very life or death of our other covert operatives and their contacts/informants around the world.

So, yet another former lying insider from the Court of St. George attempts to cover HIS ass and blow whatever whistles he hopes will make his tarnished legacy shine like a brand-new spittoon.

The Washington Stenographer's Pool, euphemistically referred to as the W. Press Corps, and that "W" doesn't necessarily stand for "Washington," will probably ignore Scotty and his revelations, since they depend on treating power obsequiously so as to be able to continue to "have contacts" within The Palace who will feed them lies, which they will dutifully write and have printed as if the lies came from honest and truthful and credible higher forms of homo sapiens. And GE and Hallibuton and the whole military-industrial coterie of warmongers, war profiteers and arms merchants to the world will roll merrily along and continue to buy ads in the Murdoch Empire newspapers and radio and TV stations around the planet. And the poor and not-connected and powerless denizens of countries bushco/cheneyinc are destroying will continue to have limbs blown off and eyes and brains horribly mangled and die in obscene ways and numbers, mostly unknown and unremarked upon by... WHO!?

So the hypocrisy and deceit that has become the norm for the Fourth Reich will continue to roll on. No one will take to the streets with torches and pitchforks and demand to do what Jefferson said must be done periodically.

The establishment mass media (with the almost-singular exception of Our National Treasure: Keith Olbermann) will do what it does best: dumb down and confuse the too-busy-to-pay-real-attention sheeple with the latest important exploits of our 'other' ruling class - the "Entertainment World."

Speaking of that - does anyone know when the NEW SEASON! of Amerikanner Idol starts?

I'm all a-tingle... --DN

FROM: The Washington Post

Former Aide Blames Bush for Leak Deceit

By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press
Wednesday, November 21, 2007; 2:15 AM

WASHINGTON -- Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.

In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.

"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."

Bush's chief of staff at the time was Andrew Card.

The excerpt, posted on the Web site of publisher PublicAffairs, renews questions about what went on in the West Wing and how much Bush and Cheney knew about the leak. For years, it was McClellan's job to field _ and often duck _ those types of questions.

Now that he's spurring them, answers are equally hard to come by.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said it wasn't clear what McClellan meant in the excerpt. "The president has not and would not ask his spokespeople to pass on false information," she said.

Plame issued a statement saying the opposite.

"I am outraged to learn that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan confirms that he was sent out to lie to the press corps," Plame said. "Even more shocking, McClellan confirms that not only Karl Rove and Scooter Libby told him to lie but Vice President Cheney, presidential Chief of Staff Andrew Card and President Bush also ordered McClellan to issue his misleading statement."

McClellan turned down interview requests Tuesday.

Plame maintains the White House quietly outed her to reporters. Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, said the leak was retribution for his public criticism of the Iraq war. The accusation dogged the administration and made Plame a cause celebre among many Democrats.

McClellan's book, "What Happened," isn't due out until April, and the excerpt released Monday was merely a teaser. It doesn't get into detail about how Bush and Cheney were involved or reveal what happened behind the scenes.

Yet the teaser provided enough fodder for administration critics.

"Just when you think the credibility of this White House can't get any lower, another shoe drops," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "If the Bush administration won't even tell the truth to its official spokesman, how can the American people expect to be told the truth either?"

In the fall of 2003, after authorities began investigating the leak, McClellan told reporters that he'd personally spoken to Rove, who was Bush's top political adviser, and Libby, who was Cheney's chief of staff.

"They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved," McClellan said at the time.

Both men, however, were involved. Rove was one of the original sources for the newspaper column that identified Plame. Libby also spoke to reporters about the CIA officer and was convicted of lying about those discussions. He is the only person to be charged in the case.

Since that news conference, however, the official White House stance has shifted and it has been difficult to get a clear picture of what happened behind closed doors around the time of the leak.

McClellan's flat denials gave way to a steady drumbeat of "no comment." And Bush's original pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak became a promise to fire anyone who "committed a crime."

In a CNN interview earlier this year, McClellan made no suggestion that Bush knew either Libby or Rove was involved in the leak. McClellan said his statements to reporters were what he and the president "believed to be true at the time based on assurances that we were both given."

Bush most recently addressed the issue in July after commuting Libby's 30-month prison term. He acknowledged that some in the White House were involved in the leak. Then, after repeatedly declining to discuss the ongoing investigation, he said the case was closed and it was time to move on.

___

Associated Press writer Jennifer Loven contributed to this report.

George McGovern, the Absolute Antithesis of Our "Other" George, Urges Impeachment For bush & cheney

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:40:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><><>

From - Truthout.com

Go to Original

Why I Believe Bush Must Go
By George McGovern
The Washington Post

Sunday 06 January 2008

Nixon was bad. These guys are worse.

As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.

After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.

Today I have made a different choice.

Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.

But what are the facts?

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.

From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged - perhaps even by a congressional investigation.

In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion - by far the highest in our national history.

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?

How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness?

It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks - another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson's observation: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

The basic strategy of the administration has been to encourage a climate of fear, letting it exploit the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks not only to justify the invasion of Iraq but also to excuse such dangerous misbehavior as the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents. The same fear-mongering has led government spokesmen and cooperative members of the press to imply that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world - more than a billion people.

Another shocking perversion has been the shipping of prisoners scooped off the streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries without benefit of our time-tested laws of habeas corpus.

Although the president was advised by the intelligence agencies last August that Iran had no program to develop nuclear weapons, he continued to lie to the country and the world. This is the same strategy of deception that brought us into war in the Arabian Desert and could lead us into an unjustified invasion of Iran. I can say with some professional knowledge and experience that if Bush invades yet another Muslim oil state, it would mark the end of U.S. influence in the crucial Middle East for decades.

Ironically, while Bush and Cheney made counterterrorism the battle cry of their administration, their policies - especially the war in Iraq - have increased the terrorist threat and reduced the security of the United States. Consider the difference between the policies of the first President Bush and those of his son. When the Iraqi army marched into Kuwait in August 1990, President George H.W. Bush gathered the support of the entire world, including the United Nations, the European Union and most of the Arab League, to quickly expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Saudis and Japanese paid most of the cost. Instead of getting bogged down in a costly occupation, the administration established a policy of containing the Baathist regime with international arms inspectors, no-fly zones and economic sanctions. Iraq was left as a stable country with little or no capacity to threaten others.

Today, after five years of clumsy, mistaken policies and U.S. military occupation, Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism and bloody civil strife. It is no secret that former president Bush, his secretary of state, James A. Baker III, and his national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, all opposed the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.

In addition to the shocking breakdown of presidential legal and moral responsibility, there is the scandalous neglect and mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. The veteran CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condenses it to a sentence: "I have never ever seen anything as badly bungled and poorly handled as this situation in New Orleans." Any impeachment proceeding must include a careful and critical look at the collapse of presidential leadership in response to perhaps the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.

Impeachment is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act. Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot.

As former representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the Nixon impeachment proceedings, wrote two years ago, "it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) - and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country's laws - that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate... . A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law - and repeatedly violates the law - thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors."

I believe we have a chance to heal the wounds the nation has suffered in the opening decade of the 21st century. This recovery may take a generation and will depend on the election of a series of rational presidents and Congresses. At age 85, I won't be around to witness the completion of the difficult rebuilding of our sorely damaged country, but I'd like to hold on long enough to see the healing begin.

There has never been a day in my adult life when I would not have sacrificed that life to save the United States from genuine danger, such as the ones we faced when I served as a bomber pilot in World War II. We must be a great nation because from time to time, we make gigantic blunders, but so far, we have survived and recovered.

If Not Kucinich, Then Edwards. If Not Edwards, Then Who Cares...

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:56:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><><>

...'cause then we'll just get the same old crowd of compromisers who still think that'll work with the NPS. (Nazi Party Scum.)

Why hasn't it yet dawned on the Dumb (Reid/Hillary) and Dumber (Pelosi/Obama) Dems that their "good friends across the aisle" will never take prisoners in their war against all that's good and right? Will never give a sucker, or anyone else not of their species, an even break. Will happily maintain their Siamese Twin, fascistic relationship with the ICC (International Corporate Crooks) who are destroying America for their own greedy ends. Will never apologize. Will never admit a mistake. Will never give up lying. Will never give a crap for the working person. Or the poor. Or women. Or anyone not in a position to provide them with more money or more power.

They sleep well at night. Those without a conscience have no concept of the meaning of insomnia, doubt, or self-reflection, or the ability to change course in the face of imminent and total failure. As long as it's not a failure of their net worth or power over those not as fortunate as themselves. As Einstein is said to have opined: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

The more Moore thoughts and ideas I see and hear, the more I love the guy. To answer his question below, YES, I DO FEEL THE SAME AS YOU!

Here's his latest newsletter received today:

****************************************

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008
Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore

Friends,

A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.

Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."

So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there's John Edwards.

It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil -- including the root of global warming -- is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Yours,

Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

Put Impeachment Back on the Table, Nancy

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:47:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

From today's newsletter:

Cheney Impeachment Cracks Corporate Media

Congressman Robert Wexler writes:

"The mainstream media has awakened to this movement and to the extraordinary support you have given it. Your calls, letters, and emails have clearly made a difference. Already 140,000 people have joined us in demanding impeachment hearings for Vice President Dick Cheney."

Congress is watching, so... Add your name!
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com

The op-ed posted at that site was originally rejected by corporate newspapers. Now, the Philadelphia Inquirer has published it, the Miami Herald has published an edited version, and numerous newspapers have reported on the growing push for impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee.

Listen to Rep. Wexler, Bob Fertik, David Swanson, and Dave Lindorff on a recent online radio show HERE .

Let the Speaker of the House and members of the Judiciary Committee know you want the Cheney impeachment to begin:
http://democrats.com/topelosiandjudiciary

Ask your local newspapers to publish the op-ed, and ask the national media to cover impeachment:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/1084

Learn and do more:
http://impeachcheney.org

Start a Cheney Chain E letter by forwarding this Email to everyone you know and asking them to do the same!

_______________________

Calling All Lawyers

Are you a lawyer, or do you know one?

The American Freedom Campaign wants 1,000 lawyers to co-sign a letter to House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy to launch hearings into the possibility that crimes have been committed by this administration in violation of the Constitution, federal statutes, and international treaties.

The letter does not explicitly call for impeachment hearings, but says: "We call for the investigations to go where they must, including into the offices of the President and the Vice President. Should these hearings demonstrate that laws have in fact been broken by this administration, we support all such legal and congressional actions necessary to ensure the survival of our Constitution and the nation we love ."

The first 70 signers include Nan Aron, Marjorie Cohn, Bruce Fein, Eva Paterson, Michael Ratner, Vince Warren, Derrick Bell, John Bonifaz, Erwin Chemerinsky, Mario Cuomo, Elizabeth de la Vega, Aziz Huq, Jamin Raskin, Herman Schwartz, and Lawrence Velvel.

Lawyers please add your name here:
http://tinyurl.com/2wanxq

_______________________

Join Gore Vidal, Dennis Kucinich, and David Swanson

On Sunday, January 6, from 8-10 p.m. ET, you can participate in a forum on "Separation and Balance of Power" live video streamed at http://www.kucinichtv.com

The Panelists are:
* Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, Candidate for President of the United States.
* David Swanson, Co-founder of www.afterdowningstreet.org
* Gore Vidal, World renowned author, playright and peace activist.

This program will will feature live audience participation along with questions received by email from the viewing audience. If you are in New Hampshire, please join us live at 540 N. Commercial Street in Manchester.

_______________________

Cries for Justice Will Converge on DC on 1/11

On December 1st, a former college professor named John Nirenberg left Boston, Massachusetts, to begin a one-man march to Nancy Pelosi's office in Washington, D.C., to demand that she restore our Constitution and lift her ban on the use of its most central check on abuses of power: impeachment. John plans to arrive in Washington, D.C., on January 11th, and we should all be there to welcome him:

Learn More:
http://www.marchinmyname.org

Friday, January 11, 2008, is also the day for actions in Washington, D.C., and around the country aimed at closing the illegal U.S. prison in Guantánamo. January 11th will be the 6-year anniversary of the first prisoners being brought to Guantánamo.

Last year on the same date, 500 people marched, 150 risked arrest, and 88 were arrested in Washington, many of them refusing to provide their names and instead using the names of men held in Guantánamo. This year, events will begin with a rally on the National Mall co-sponsored with Amnesty International and the National Religious Campaign Against Torture followed by a �??prisoner procession�?? to the Supreme Court.

Learn more and find out how to hold an event in your town on 1/11:
http://www.witnesstorture.org

_______________________

What People Are Saying About "Impeach Bush and Cheney" Bracelets

Katherine B. writes: "I just wanted to let you know that I was thrilled I got the bracelets in time for the Springsteen show in DC. We (the members of a popular website for Springsteen fans) had a big pre-party before the show I used the bracelets to help raise money for our charity, HUNGRY FOR MUSIC which was founded by ESB guitar player, Nils Lofgren. I had no problem selling them and I probably could have sold another 25 of them. We ended up raising $500 for the charity. They were a hit and I hope to get one to The Boss himself when he returns to the US. I wear mine proudly. Thanks again."

GET YOURS:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/bracelet

#####

Forward this message to everyone you know!

To subscribe, create a free Democrats.com account here:
http://www.democrats.com/user/register

Mark Morford - Reminding the World Why We Should Never Stop Trying to do Something With Our Anger

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:46:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><>

Mark - with a large dollop from our National Treasure, Keith Olbermann - putting our helpless outrage into words, for the majority of the world, and two thirds of Americans. The other third - the neocon worshipers who will go to their hellish graves thinking (they can THINK??) everything's OK - what's to be done about them?

Nothing - they are past hopeless. They will march to polls and facilitate the "election" fraudulence of our Dear Nazi Leaders into not enough votes for anyone else to try to put a meaningful stop to our slide into Romanesque decay, decadence and destruction... --DN
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

===== Mark Morford's Notes & Errata ===== SFGate.com - Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Outrage fatigue? Get over it

Are you sick of being sick? Suffering way too much Bush-induced nausea? Well, tough.
By Mark Morford

I know how it is. You've had it up to here. There are only so many stories about blood and death and pain you can take, only so many times you can hear about random shootings and corporate malfeasance and how BushCo's squad of scabrous flying monkeys have, say, supported torture or endorsed wiretapping or gouged the nation for another $200 billion to pay for a failed war. Your nerves are raw and your heart is tired and the media will just not shut the hell up already about the sadness and the war and the mayhem and the Cheney and the doom doom doom.

It is outrage fatigue, and it is epidemic. It's that feeling that we are being hammered unlike any time in recent history with so many appalling and disgusting and violently un-American incidents and scandals and manipulations that our b.s.-detectors are smoking like an old V-8 engine on a hot summer's day and it's all we can do to get up every day without screaming.

What's more, it's not the mere quantity of moral insults, either. It's the bizarre absurdity of the subject matter, the things we are being forced to consider, or reconsider, that seem to make it all so horrific.

Torture? Are you kidding? Allegedly the most civilized, the most morally aware nation on the planet and we are still debating, in the highest courts and government offices in the land, about whether the United States should strap human beings to gnarled metal benches in rancid foreign bunkers and inflict such inexplicable terror and fear upon them that they confess to things they didn't even do just to get us to stop? Is this the Middle Ages? Are we regressing back to the goddamn cave? ...

(click here to read the rest)

Happy Halloween!

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:26:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><>

FROM: pfaw.org

***************

Need a scary last-minute costume idea? Terrify your friends and family by dressing up as a member of the Right Wing this Halloween.

Choose [...] from one of five right-winger masks: click on the small version of a mask to download and print out your full-sized Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O�??Reilly, or Ann Coulter mask. Alongside each preview pic you'll find some scary quotes each of these people have actually uttered -- they'll serve you as talking points for when you�??re in character.

Happy Halloween!

Another bushrat Running From Justice

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:09:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><>

France helped save our ass during our War for Independence, they tried to save our ass before bushco's terrible adventure, and they're still trying to save our self-proclaimed "we do not torture" reputation around the world by trying to bring our torturing war criminals to justice. Despite the "Freedom Fries" bleatings of our Amerikan sheep... --DN

******************************************

FROM: firedoglake, through alternet.org

*****************************************

Rumsfeld On the Run From French Torture Charges

Posted by Siun at 6:48 AM on October 29, 2007.

Siun: While Rumsfeld has gotten out of France before an arrest, the case can still be prosecuted since he was in the country when it was filed.

Post Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
9 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

PEEK RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

Also in PEEK

US Consciously Kills Civilians In Afghanistan
Scarecrow

Colbert and Edwards Spar Over Doritos, Who's South Carolina's "Favorite Son"
GottaLaff

Is The Religious Right On Its Last Legs?
Christy Hardin Smith

This post, written by Siun, originally appeared on FireDogLake

On Friday Donald Rumsfeld arrived in France to give a speech - but he had to leave via a back door that went directly into the US Embassy and then quickly scampered out of the country. Why? He was afraid French prosecutors would act on an indictment brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the International Federation for Human Rights and several other NGOs.

The criminal complaint states that because of the failure of authorities in the United States and Iraq to launch any independent investigation into the responsibility of Rumsfeld and other high-level U.S. officials for torture despite a documented paper trail and government memos implicating them in direct as well as command responsibility for torture - and because the U.S. has refused to join the International Criminal Court - it is the legal obligation of states such as France to take up the case.

In this case, charges are brought under the 1984 Convention against Torture, ratified by both the United States and France, which has been used in France in previous torture cases.

While Rumsfeld had apparently gotten out of France before an arrest, the case can be prosecuted since he was in the country when it was filed. As Larry Johnson notes:

One thing is certain, Rummy is now part of an exclusive but growing club of Amcits who face legal peril in foreign lands because they participated (allegedly) in some kind of torture, disappearance, or other violation of international human rights. That means he won't be going on any foreign junkets. Once outside the safe confines of the United States he can be snatched up and hauled off to France to face questioning.

You can listen to an interview with the attorney's bringing the charge at Democracy Now and follow the case at the site for the International Federation for Human Rights. CCR is asking everyone to fax or call the French prosecutors and ask them to bring Rummy to justice - please take a minute to do so.

While Rumsfeld was playing hide and seek with French law, children in Iraq are not playing at all - in fact, this week the UN news service IRIN reported that children are being held in Iraqi prisons - and they too are being tortured:

"Children are being treated as adults in Iraqi prisons and our investigations have shown that they are being abused and tortured," said Khalid Rabia'a, a spokesman for the Prisoners' Association for Justice (PAJ).

"Our investigation started after families brought their five sons to our organisation looking for psychological help for their children who were recently released from prison, and what we found out was shocking," Rabia'a added.

(snip)

"The five children showed signs of torture all over their bodies. Three had marks of cigarettes burns over their legs and one couldn't speak as the shock sessions affected his conversation," Rabia'a said. "It is against international law that protects children and we call for interventions in all Iraqi prisons to save the lives of these children."

(snip)

However, another senior official from the ministry, who requested anonymity and who has been supplying the NGO with daily updates, told IRIN that every Iraqi prison is holding at least 20 children and they are all suffering abuse.

Rabia'a said the NGO had informants in many Iraqi prisons but since they did not want to be named, they could not go to court and prove the abuses were taking place.

At least 220 children are believed to be held in Iraqi prisons. IRIN requested permission to visit the prisons said to be holding child prisoners but the request was denied.

Along with ongoing coverage of this horror, GorillasGuides has links to a new and important book, Administration of Torture: A Documentary Record from Washington to Abu Ghraib and Beyond scheduled for publication in early November.

Our country's use of torture - in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and hidden secret rendition sites has given the lie to claims that we wanted to save the Iraqi people from the crimes of Saddam. It is vital that we join Michael Ratner of the CCR in calling for international prosecutions of those responsible:

"We will only stop once the American authorities involved in the torture program are brought to justice. Donald Rumsfeld must understand that he has nowhere to hide. A torturer is an enemy of humanity."

Image from the International Federation for Human Rights.

UPDATE: Several firepups suggested calling French Consulates in the US to urge prosecution of Rummy. A full list can be found here.

Tagged as: france, torture, rumsfeld

Siun is a regular blogger for FireDogLake.

Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:22:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><>

The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, by Naomi Wolf

In case anyone missed reading the book, published last month, or seeing Ms. Wolf on TV, most especially on C-SPAN, 'interviewed' by that stuttering professor from Georgetown who helped write the first "Patriot" Act, (ugh) or read some of my related earlier postings on my blog (in particular, this one), here's the warning, taken from her book, published in The Guardian last April.

I know, I don't always get around to some matters in what might be considered a timely matter but, leapin' lizards, Sandy, how can I keep up with O.J. in Vegas, or American Idol's latest and next biggest STAR! - not to mention the excitement of Paris, Lindsey and Britney's bush-like, spoiled brat, self-indulgent exploits - and save democracy too? Gotta' set priorities, ya' know, just like the REAL media does. Yeah. Right... --DN

Oh yes, all the links (too many? ... I quit after step #5:) were inserted by your humble scribe. Hope Chelsea Green, or The Guardian, or Ms. Wolf don't sue me. Note to them: He who [sues for] my purse, [sues for] trash. Sorry, Will - Iago...

**************************************

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all.

Naomi Wolf
Tuesday April 24, 2007

Guardian

Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The leaders of the coup took a number of steps, rather systematically, as if they had a shopping list. In a sense, they did. Within a matter of days, democracy had been closed down: the coup leaders declared martial law, sent armed soldiers into residential areas, took over radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press, tightened some limits on travel, and took certain activists into custody.

They were not figuring these things out as they went along. If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy - but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.

As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States by the Bush administration.

Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree - domestically - as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government - the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors - we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of "homeland" security - remember who else was keen on the word "homeland" - didn't raise the alarm bells it might have.

It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable - as the author and political journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here. And that we are further along than we realise.

Conason eloquently warned of the danger of American authoritarianism. I am arguing that we need also to look at the lessons of European and other kinds of fascism to understand the potential seriousness of the events we see unfolding in the US.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a "global war" against a "global caliphate" intending to "wipe out civilisation". There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battlefield. "This time," Fein says, "there will be no defined end."

Creating a terrifying threat - hydra-like, secretive, evil - is an old trick. It can, like Hitler's invocation of a communist threat to the nation's security, be based on actual events (one Wisconsin academic has faced calls for his dismissal because he noted, among other things, that the alleged communist arson, the Reichstag fire of February 1933, was swiftly followed in Nazi Germany by passage of the Enabling Act, which replaced constitutional law with an open-ended state of emergency). Or the terrifying threat can be based, like the National Socialist evocation of the "global conspiracy of world Jewry", on myth.

It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is. I am arguing rather that the language used to convey the nature of the threat is different in a country such as Spain - which has also suffered violent terrorist attacks - than it is in America. Spanish citizens know that they face a grave security threat; what we as American citizens believe is that we are potentially threatened with the end of civilisation as we know it. Of course, this makes us more willing to accept restrictions on our freedoms.

2. Create a gulag

Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") - where torture takes place.

At first, the people who are sent there are seen by citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, "enemies of the people" or "criminals". Initially, citizens tend to support the secret prison system; it makes them feel safer and they do not identify with the prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders - opposition members, labour activists, clergy and journalists - are arrested and sent there as well.

This process took place in fascist shifts or anti-democracy crackdowns ranging from Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to the Latin American coups of the 1970s and beyond. It is standard practice for closing down an open society or crushing a pro-democracy uprising.

With its jails in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, of course, Guantánamo in Cuba, where detainees are abused, and kept indefinitely without trial and without access to the due process of the law, America certainly has its gulag now. Bush and his allies in Congress recently announced they would issue no information about the secret CIA "black site" prisons throughout the world, which are used to incarcerate people who have been seized off the street.

Gulags in history tend to metastasise, becoming ever larger and more secretive, ever more deadly and formalised. We know from first-hand accounts, photographs, videos and government documents that people, innocent and guilty, have been tortured in the US-run prisons we are aware of and those we can't investigate adequately.

But Americans still assume this system and detainee abuses involve only scary brown people with whom they don't generally identify. It was brave of the conservative pundit William Safire to quote the anti-Nazi pastor Martin Niemöller, who had been seized as a political prisoner: "First they came for the Jews." Most Americans don't understand yet that the destruction of the rule of law at Guantánamo set a dangerous precedent for them, too.

By the way, the establishment of military tribunals that deny prisoners due process tends to come early on in a fascist shift. Mussolini and Stalin set up such tribunals. On April 24 1934, the Nazis, too, set up the People's Court, which also bypassed the judicial system: prisoners were held indefinitely, often in isolation, and tortured, without being charged with offences, and were subjected to show trials. Eventually, the Special Courts became a parallel system that put pressure on the regular courts to abandon the rule of law in favour of Nazi ideology when making decisions.

3. Develop a thug caste

When leaders who seek what I call a "fascist shift" want to close down an open society, they send paramilitary groups of scary young men out to terrorise citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian countryside beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary force is especially important in a democracy: you need citizens to fear thug violence and so you need thugs who are free from prosecution.

The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for America's security contractors, with the Bush administration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally fell to the US military. In the process, contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for security work by mercenaries at home and abroad. In Iraq, some of these contract operatives have been accused of involvement in torturing prisoners, harassing journalists and firing on Iraqi civilians. Under Order 17, issued to regulate contractors in Iraq by the one-time US administrator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, these contractors are immune from prosecution

Yes, but that is in Iraq, you could argue; however, after Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security hired and deployed hundreds of armed private security guards in New Orleans. The investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill interviewed one unnamed guard who reported having fired on unarmed civilians in the city. It was a natural disaster that underlay that episode - but the administration's endless war on terror means ongoing scope for what are in effect privately contracted armies to take on crisis and emergency management at home in US cities.

Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000. If you are reading history, you can imagine that there can be a need for "public order" on the next election day. Say there are protests, or a threat, on the day of an election; history would not rule out the presence of a private security firm at a polling station "to restore public order".

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

In Mussolini's Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist East Germany, in communist China - in every closed society - secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours. The Stasi needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under surveillance to convince a majority that they themselves were being watched.

In 2005 and 2006, when James Risen and Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times about a secret state programme to wiretap citizens' phones, read their emails and follow international financial transactions, it became clear to ordinary Americans that they, too, could be under state scrutiny.

In closed societies, this surveillance is cast as being about "national security"; the true function is to keep citizens docile and inhibit their activism and dissent.

5. Harass citizens' groups

The fifth thing you do is related to step four - you infiltrate and harass citizens' groups. It can be trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, found itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, while churches that got Republicans out to vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law, have been left alone.

Other harassment is more serious: the American Civil Liberties Union reports that thousands of ordinary American anti-war, environmental and other groups have been infiltrated by agents: a secret Pentagon database includes more than four dozen peaceful anti-war meetings, rallies or marches by American citizens in its category of 1,500 "suspicious incidents". The equally secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (Cifa) agency of the Department of Defense has been gathering information about domestic organisations engaged in peaceful political activities: Cifa is supposed to track "potential terrorist threats" as it watches ordinary US citizen activists. A little-noticed new law has redefined activism such as animal rights protests as "terrorism". So the definition of "terrorist" slowly expands to include the opposition.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse game. Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, the investigative reporters who wrote China Wakes: the Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power, describe pro-democracy activists in China, such as Wei Jingsheng, being arrested and released many times. In a closing or closed society there is a "list" of dissidents and opposition leaders: you are targeted in this way once you are on the list, and it is hard to get off the list.

In 2004, America's Transportation Security Administration confirmed that it had a list of passengers who were targeted for security searches or worse if they tried to fly. People who have found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged women peace activists in San Francisco; liberal Senator Edward Kennedy; a member of Venezuela's government - after Venezuela's president had criticised Bush; and thousands of ordinary US citizens.

Professor Walter F Murphy is emeritus of Princeton University; he is one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the nation and author of the classic Constitutional Democracy. Murphy is also a decorated former marine, and he is not even especially politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he was denied a boarding pass at Newark, "because I was on the Terrorist Watch list".

"Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," asked the airline employee.

"I explained," said Murphy, "that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution."

"That'll do it," the man said.

Anti-war marcher? Potential terrorist. Support the constitution? Potential terrorist. History shows that the categories of "enemy of the people" tend to expand ever deeper into civil life.

James Yee, a US citizen, was the Muslim chaplain at Guantánamo who was accused of mishandling classified documents. He was harassed by the US military before the charges against him were dropped. Yee has been detained and released several times. He is still of interest.

Brandon Mayfield, a US citizen and lawyer in Oregon, was mistakenly identified as a possible terrorist. His house was secretly broken into and his computer seized. Though he is innocent of the accusation against him, he is still on the list.

It is a standard practice of fascist societies that once you are on the list, you can't get off.

7. Target key individuals

Threaten civil servants, artists and academics with job loss if they don't toe the line. Mussolini went after the rectors of state universities who did not conform to the fascist line; so did Joseph Goebbels, who purged academics who were not pro-Nazi; so did Chile's Augusto Pinochet; so does the Chinese communist Politburo in punishing pro-democracy students and professors.

Academe is a tinderbox of activism, so those seeking a fascist shift punish academics and students with professional loss if they do not "coordinate", in Goebbels' term, ideologically. Since civil servants are the sector of society most vulnerable to being fired by a given regime, they are also a group that fascists typically "coordinate" early on: the Reich Law for the Re-establishment of a Professional Civil Service was passed on April 7 1933.

Bush supporters in state legislatures in several states put pressure on regents at state universities to penalise or fire academics who have been critical of the administration. As for civil servants, the Bush administration has derailed the career of one military lawyer who spoke up for fair trials for detainees, while an administration official publicly intimidated the law firms that represent detainees pro bono by threatening to call for their major corporate clients to boycott them.

Elsewhere, a CIA contract worker who said in a closed blog that "waterboarding is torture" was stripped of the security clearance she needed in order to do her job.

Most recently, the administration purged eight US attorneys for what looks like insufficient political loyalty. When Goebbels purged the civil service in April 1933, attorneys were "coordinated" too, a step that eased the way of the increasingly brutal laws to follow.

8. Control the press

Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s, the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s, China in the 80s and 90s - all dictatorships and would-be dictators target newspapers and journalists. They threaten and harass them in more open societies that they are seeking to close, and they arrest them and worse in societies that have been closed already.

The Committee to Protect Journalists says arrests of US journalists are at an all-time high: Josh Wolf (no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn over video of an anti-war demonstration; Homeland Security brought a criminal complaint against reporter Greg Palast, claiming he threatened "critical infrastructure" when he and a TV producer were filming victims of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. Palast had written a bestseller critical of the Bush administration.

Other reporters and writers have been punished in other ways. Joseph C Wilson accused Bush, in a New York Times op-ed, of leading the country to war on the basis of a false charge that Saddam Hussein had acquired yellowcake uranium in Niger. His wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA spy - a form of retaliation that ended her career.

Prosecution and job loss are nothing, though, compared with how the US is treating journalists seeking to cover the conflict in Iraq in an unbiased way. The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented multiple accounts of the US military in Iraq firing upon or threatening to fire upon unembedded (meaning independent) reporters and camera operators from organisations ranging from al-Jazeera to the BBC. While westerners may question the accounts by al-Jazeera, they should pay attention to the accounts of reporters such as the BBC's Kate Adie. In some cases reporters have been wounded or killed, including ITN's Terry Lloyd in 2003. Both CBS and the Associated Press in Iraq had staff members seized by the US military and taken to violent prisons; the news organisations were unable to see the evidence against their staffers.

Over time in closing societies, real news is supplanted by fake news and false documents. Pinochet showed Chilean citizens falsified documents to back up his claim that terrorists had been about to attack the nation. The yellowcake charge, too, was based on forged papers.

You won't have a shutdown of news in modern America - it is not possible. But you can have, as Frank Rich and Sidney Blumenthal have pointed out, a steady stream of lies polluting the news well. What you already have is a White House directing a stream of false information that is so relentless that it is increasingly hard to sort out truth from untruth. In a fascist system, it's not the lies that count but the muddying. When citizens can't tell real news from fake, they give up their demands for accountability bit by bit.

9. Dissent equals treason

Cast dissent as "treason" and criticism as "espionage'. Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of speech and expand the definition of "spy" and "traitor". When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times, ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times' leaking of classified information "disgraceful", while Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged with treason, and rightwing commentators and news outlets kept up the "treason" drumbeat. Some commentators, as Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that one penalty for violating the Espionage Act is execution.

Conason is right to note how serious a threat that attack represented. It is also important to recall that the 1938 Moscow show trial accused the editor of Izvestia, Nikolai Bukharin, of treason; Bukharin was, in fact, executed. And it is important to remind Americans that when the 1917 Espionage Act was last widely invoked, during the infamous 1919 Palmer Raids, leftist activists were arrested without warrants in sweeping roundups, kept in jail for up to five months, and "beaten, starved, suffocated, tortured and threatened with death", according to the historian Myra MacPherson. After that, dissent was muted in America for a decade.

In Stalin's Soviet Union, dissidents were "enemies of the people". National Socialists called those who supported Weimar democracy "November traitors".

And here is where the circle closes: most Americans do not realise that since September of last year - when Congress wrongly, foolishly, passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 - the president has the power to call any US citizen an "enemy combatant". He has the power to define what "enemy combatant" means. The president can also delegate to anyone he chooses in the executive branch the right to define "enemy combatant" any way he or she wants and then seize Americans accordingly.

Even if you or I are American citizens, even if we turn out to be completely innocent of what he has accused us of doing, he has the power to have us seized as we are changing planes at Newark tomorrow, or have us taken with a knock on the door; ship you or me to a navy brig; and keep you or me in isolation, possibly for months, while awaiting trial. (Prolonged isolation, as psychiatrists know, triggers psychosis in otherwise mentally healthy prisoners. That is why Stalin's gulag had an isolation cell, like Guantánamo's, in every satellite prison. Camp 6, the newest, most brutal facility at Guantánamo, is all isolation cells.)

We US citizens will get a trial eventually - for now. But legal rights activists at the Center for Constitutional Rights say that the Bush administration is trying increasingly aggressively to find ways to get around giving even US citizens fair trials. "Enemy combatant" is a status offence - it is not even something you have to have done. "We have absolutely moved over into a preventive detention model - you look like you could do something bad, you might do something bad, so we're going to hold you," says a spokeswoman of the CCR.

Most Americans surely do not get this yet. No wonder: it is hard to believe, even though it is true. In every closing society, at a certain point there are some high-profile arrests - usually of opposition leaders, clergy and journalists. Then everything goes quiet. After those arrests, there are still newspapers, courts, TV and radio, and the facades of a civil society. There just isn't real dissent. There just isn't freedom. If you look at history, just before those arrests is where we are now.

10. Suspend the rule of law

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This means that in a national emergency - which the president now has enhanced powers to declare - he can send Michigan's militia to enforce a state of emergency that he has declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state's governor and its citizens.

Even as Americans were focused on Britney Spears's meltdown and the question of who fathered Anna Nicole's baby, the New York Times editorialised about this shift: "A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night ... Beyond actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or any 'other condition'."

Critics see this as a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act - which was meant to restrain the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. The Democratic senator Patrick Leahy says the bill encourages a president to declare federal martial law. It also violates the very reason the founders set up our system of government as they did: having seen citizens bullied by a monarch's soldiers, the founders were terrified of exactly this kind of concentration of militias' power over American people in the hands of an oppressive executive or faction.

Of course, the United States is not vulnerable to the violent, total closing-down of the system that followed Mussolini's march on Rome or Hitler's roundup of political prisoners. Our democratic habits are too resilient, and our military and judiciary too independent, for any kind of scenario like that.

Rather, as other critics are noting, our experiment in democracy could be closed down by a process of erosion.

It is a mistake to think that early in a fascist shift you see the profile of barbed wire against the sky. In the early days, things look normal on the surface; peasants were celebrating harvest festivals in Calabria in 1922; people were shopping and going to the movies in Berlin in 1931. Early on, as WH Auden put it, the horror is always elsewhere - while someone is being tortured, children are skating, ships are sailing: "dogs go on with their doggy life ... How everything turns away/ Quite leisurely from the disaster."

As Americans turn away quite leisurely, keeping tuned to internet shopping and American Idol, the foundations of democracy are being fatally corroded. Something has changed profoundly that weakens us unprecedentedly: our democratic traditions, independent judiciary and free press do their work today in a context in which we are "at war" in a "long war" - a war without end, on a battlefield described as the globe, in a context that gives the president - without US citizens realising it yet - the power over US citizens of freedom or long solitary incarceration, on his say-so alone.

That means a hollowness has been expanding under the foundation of all these still- free-looking institutions - and this foundation can give way under certain kinds of pressure. To prevent such an outcome, we have to think about the "what ifs".

What if, in a year and a half, there is another attack - say, God forbid, a dirty bomb? The executive can declare a state of emergency. History shows that any leader, of any party, will be tempted to maintain emergency powers after the crisis has passed. With the gutting of traditional checks and balances, we are no less endangered by a President Hillary than by a President Giuliani - because any executive will be tempted to enforce his or her will through edict rather than the arduous, uncertain process of democratic negotiation and compromise.

What if the publisher of a major US newspaper were charged with treason or espionage, as a rightwing effort seemed to threaten Keller with last year? What if he or she got 10 years in jail? What would the newspapers look like the next day? Judging from history, they would not cease publishing; but they would suddenly be very polite.

Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us - staff at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who faced death threats for representing the detainees yet persisted all the way to the Supreme Court; activists at the American Civil Liberties Union; and prominent conservatives trying to roll back the corrosive new laws, under the banner of a new group called the American Freedom Agenda. This small, disparate collection of people needs everybody's help, including that of Europeans and others internationally who are willing to put pressure on the administration because they can see what a US unrestrained by real democracy at home can mean for the rest of the world.

We need to look at history and face the "what ifs". For if we keep going down this road, the "end of America" could come for each of us in a different way, at a different moment; each of us might have a different moment when we feel forced to look back and think: that is how it was before - and this is the way it is now.

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... is the definition of tyranny," wrote James Madison. We still have the choice to stop going down this road; we can stand our ground and fight for our nation, and take up the banner the founders asked us to carry.

· Naomi Wolf's The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, was published by Chelsea Green in September.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

Blackshirts, Brownshirts, Stasi, Gestapo, U. S. Capitol Police...

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:47:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><>

...which one of these is not like the others?

ANSWER: None, that was a trick question... --DN

*********************************************

EXCERPT:

Although video of Wednesday's hearing shows only one protester getting in Rice's face, Capitol Police quickly removed several members of the anti-war group Code Pink who appeared to have caused no disturbance. (Code Pink members have disrupted administration officials' testimony in the past.)
********
For good reason, and in the name of democracy. But they were "protesting" silently here, until they were blitzkrieged by the rent-a-cops. Guess they would have been OK if they had worn no pink whatsoever... --DN

Full account, from: rawstory.com

(Click here to watch the video)

Iraqi blood is 'on your hands,' anti-war protester tells Condi

David Edwards and Nick Juliano
Published: Wednesday October 24, 2007

del.icio.us

Print This Email This

Condoleezza Rice appeared agitated but generally unfazed when an anti-war protester waved blood-red hands in her face, accusing the secretary of state of being a "war criminal."

"Blood of millions of Iraqis is on your hands," the protester told Rice, who was President Bush's national security adviser when he decided to invade Iraq.

"War criminal! ... War Criminal!" the black-clad, "blood"-soaked protester screamed as authorities dragged her from a hearing room on Capitol Hill. "Take her to the Hague."

Rice was testifying to the House Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday, where she continued what some critics see as the Bush administration's drumbeat to war with Iran.

"We are very concerned that the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world," Rice said.

Although video of Wednesday's hearing shows only one protester getting in Rice's face, Capitol Police quickly removed several members of the anti-war group Code Pink who appeared to have caused no disturbance. (Code Pink members have disrupted administration officials' testimony in the past.)

"Stop, you're hurting me, what are you doing," one of the women yelled as she was forced from the Congressional hearing.

Is a Presidential Coup (Well) Under Way?

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:56:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><>

This piece also seems to go hand-in-hand with Naomi Wolf's new book, The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. (I'm working on the posting for that - the delay being I'm adding a fair amount of links within it. Also not feeling too well lately. Sorry.)

When will the greater American public, and the Congress, and the Fourth Estate, at least temporarily suspend its fascination with "celebrities" and the hairdo's and/or cleavage of presidential candidates and pay serious attention to what's happening in our totalitarian administration? Unfortunately, I've come to the sad conclusion that it will not be in my lifetime. Somebody please prove me wrong...

Amerika is rapidly going the way of Ancient Rome and the Third Reich, and the monied and powerful One World corporate fascists, and their "elected" lackeys are facilitating our demise as a Democratic Republic... --DN

*****************************************

By Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown.
Excerpted from alternet.org

EXCERPT:

...This time is different

Now, however, come two arrogant autocrats like we've never seen in the White House. George W and his snarling enabler, Dick Cheney, are making a power grab so unprecedented, so audacious, so broad and deep, so secretive, so stupefying, and so un-American that it has not yet been comprehended by the media, Congress, or the public. The dictionary defines "coup" not just as an armed takeover in some Third World country, but as "a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one affecting a change of government illegally or by force."

Constantly waving the bloody flag of 9/11 and swaggering around in commander-in-chief garb, the BushCheney duo are usurping authority from Congress, the courts, and the people, while also asserting arbitrary power that does not belong to the presidency. Their coup is changing our form of government, rewriting the genius of the founders by imposing a supreme executive that functions in secret and insists that it is above the law, unaccountable either to congressional oversight or to judicial review.

As Al Gore pointed out in a powerful speech he gave last year (read it here), the BushCheney push for imperial power is much more dangerous and far-reaching than other presidential excesses for a couple of big reasons. First, the Bushites make no pretension that they want these powers only temporarily, instead contending that a super-powerful presidency is necessary to cope with a terrorist threat that they say will last "for the rest of our lives." Second, they are not merely pushing executive supremacy as a response to an outside threat, but as an ideological, right-wing theory of what they allege the Constitution actually meant to say.

Called the "unitary executive theory," this perverse, antidemocratic construct begs us to believe that the president has inherent executive powers that cannot be reviewed, questioned, or altered by the other branches. Bush himself has asserted that his executive power "must be unilateral and unchecked." Must? Extremist theorists aside, this effectively establishes an executive with arbitrary power over us. It creates the anti-America.

The list of Bushite excesses is long...and growing:

Click here for the the entire, very disturbing account... --DN

"The Truth is That Bush Just Likes to Blow Things Up"

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:24:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><>
**********************************************
**********************************************
UPDATE:
Yeah, we were afraid of this. Apparently, Stark was intimidated with a threat he couldn't ignore, and he folded like a cheap lawn chair. It was painful to listen to his craven mea culpa. Another hero with feet of clay and a devotion to truth made of mush... --DN
***********************************************
***********************************************

My Email to Congressman Pete Stark earlier this morning:

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

Finally, a Democrat with a real spine.

What you said yesterday - the truth - should ring out across "The Homeland." (God, how I hate that, reminds me so much of "der Fatherland", from the lips of another fascist, many years ago.)

Don't you dare ruin this, as others have done, by saying you were quoted out of context, or you mis-spoke, or you want to apologize for saying something you didn't mean to say, or whatever. Don't you dare...

My hope is this will prompt others in positions such as yours to finally step up and also say what needs to be said about this moronic monster who blew up frogs as a snot-nosed kid and now blows up innocents as a snotty frat-boy posing as the leader of the free world.

I'd be proud to share a boxcar with you on our way to Amerika's concentration camps. But, hopefully, the generals will put a stop to this idiot's war mongering before he blows up the rest of our little planet.

Ms. Pelosi needs to put impeachment back on the table. If not both at once, then Cheney FIRST, then our Dear Leader for Life... Then start cleaning house with the rest of the neocon nitwits.

I know I'm not a constituent and will not get an answer. I don't need an answer - I need you to stand by your words and, hopefully, others will join you.

You are my new hero.

With sincere appreciation,

[signed]

Related material:

http://www.wingsofjustice.com/07/10/woj07043.html

http://www.correntewire.com/stark_truths

http://www.hillbillyreport.com/blog/2007/10/rep-pete-stark-.html
**********
From legitgov.org :

Democrat: Soldiers dying for Bush's 'amusement' [Well, for Exxon Mobil and KBR, too.] 18 Oct 2007 Rep. Pete Stark, D-California, is facing fire from Republicans for comments on the House floor Thursday suggesting Americans are dying in Iraq for President [sic] Bush's amusement. Sharply critical of Bush�??s veto of the children's health insurance legislation, Stark said Republicans are spending money "to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough �?� to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement." [The only error in Stark's statement is that he referred to Bush as 'the president.']

*****

From dailykos.com :

Pete Stark Thanks Daily Kos

by BarbinMD

Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 01:29:24 PM PDT

Earlier today I made a post about Rep. Pete Stark's comments during the House debate on the SCHIP override vote. He said, in part:

You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement. This bill would provide healthcare for 10 million children and unlike the President's own kids, these children can't see a doctor or receive necessary care. [...]
But President Bush's statements about children's health shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up. In Iraq, in the United States and in Congress.

Naturally, the Congressman's remarks received overwhelming support here, and I thought you'd like to know that he stopped by to thank everyone:

Hey folks. I wanted to drop by, say hello, and thank you for your kind words of support.
We've got to provide health care to children -- and we've got to end this war!

No, thank you, Rep. Stark!

Permalink ::
Discuss (175 comments)

**************************************

Yeah, Why Not?

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:39:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><>

Newsletter today from: http://www.consortiumnews.com.

After the new disclosure that the Bush administration misled Congress and the public about its secret torture policies, one question that begs to be asked is: why not impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, finally?

For the past year, Democratic leaders have ruled the question "off the table," but their strategy of seeking bipartisanship to end the Iraq War obviously has failed. So, the hard choice may be either to start impeachment proceedings or accept that the United States is no longer a Republic governed by the rule of law.

For the full story, go to http://www.consortiumnews.com.

There are two easy ways you can help Consortiumnews.com continue to produce independent investigative journalism:

If you buy a copy of our new book, "Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush," through the publisher's Web site, http://www.neckdeepbook.com, $5 per book will go to help pay the bills at Consortiumnews.com.

Or you can help by making a tax-deductible donation either by credit card at the Web site or by sending a check to: Consortium for Independent Journalism (CIJ); 2200 Wilson Blvd.; Suite 102-231; Arlington, VA 22201.

For donations of $100, we'll send you an autographed gift copy of Neck Deep in paperback; for donations of $150 or more, we'll send a gift copy of the hard-cover version. Thanks for your support.

Just When You Think There Can't Possibly Be Yet ANOTHER Republican Pedophile, Heeeeerz John David Roy Atchison!

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:58:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><>

Alert Charon the Boatman and Cerberus, this DOJ minion can't die soon enough, and we need him delivered across the Styx ASAP.

This especially egregious little scumbag is an assistant U.S. attorney, no less. Guess, as the saying goes, it takes all kinds. All kinds of mostly Repukians, as it turns out. (See earlier posts, and the URL below.)

Yes, Virginia, they ARE wired differently from normal folk. And if Santa turns out to be a Repuke, kiddies (and parents), I'd keep a sharp eye on HIM, too.. --DN

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

UPDATE @ 6:36am ET, Sat. Oct. 6, 2007 -- CNN Headline News says this slimeball killed himself while in jail, after asking for and receiving permission to take himself off a suicide watch. So much for a responsible penal system in this instance. EXCERPT FROM transworldnews.com:

John David R. Atchison Taken Off of Suicide Watch

Atlanta, GA 9/18/2007 09:54 PM GMT (FINDITT)

At his own request, John David Roy Atchison, the indicted federal prosecutor from Pensacola, FL, was taken off of suicide watch.

Atchison waived his detention hearing and stood mute to multiple charges. A not guilty plea was entered on his behalf.

Thanks, John, for saving some taxpayer money... --DN

***********************************************

FROM: http://www.republicansexoffenders.com/

Friday, October 05, 2007
Republican U.S. Justice Department official John David R. Atchison, 53, an assistant U.S. attorney from the northern district of Florida, has been arrested on suspicion of traveling to Detroit over the weekend to have sex with a 5 year old child. An undercover officer posed as a mother offering her child to Atchison for sex, according to police. In deposition, detectives said Atchison suggested the mother tell her daughter that "you found her a sweet boyfriend who will bring her presents." The undercover detective expressed concern about physical injury to the 5-year-old girl as a result of the sexual activity. Detectives said Atchison responded, " I am always gentle and loving; not to worry, no damage ever, no rough stuff ever. I only like it soft and nice." The undercover detective asked how Atchison can be certain of no injury. He responded, "Just gotta go slow and very easy. I've done it plenty," according to detectives.

Yeah, But He's Bush's "Ass-Kissing Little Chickenshit"

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:51:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><>

FROM:

Inter Press Service News Agency

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 19:45 GMT

U.S.-IRAQ:
Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge

Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".

Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go to McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Click here for the rest of his great article...

No More Money Except for a One-Way Ticket Home

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:16:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><>

FROM: pdamerica.org

Personal Appeal from Congressman Jim McGovern

First, thank you for being there in support of my efforts to end the horrific Iraq occupation and bring our troops home safely.

Today, I write you about the latest and most important peace initiative. Please sign the Pledge for Peace petition, and send this email to five friends.

The Peace Pledge says that you support the 70 members of Congress who sent an open letter to President Bush this summer stating that they �??will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq.�?? Debate over Iraq appropriations begins in a matter of days.

I�??m proud to be one of the members of Congress who signed the letter pledging that we will use our �??power of the purse�?? to end this disastrous occupation.

I�??m also proud to be a member of the advisory board of Progressive Democrats of America. But, please, let�??s reach beyond the ranks of PDA. The public is with us on this; we need to let them know that the occupation can be ended!

Some of you may be rightfully discouraged about previous efforts on Capitol Hill to wind down the occupation. You should take credit for changing pubic opinion about Iraq.

So let�??s not give up hope. Please forward this email to others, after you sign the new petition.

Sincerely,

Rep. Jim McGovern

PS. Learn how you can become part of PDA�??s Peace Pledge campaign.

Progressive Democrats of America is a grassroots PAC that works both inside the Democratic Party and outside in movements for peace and justice. Our goal: Extend the victory of Nov. 2006 into a permanent, progressive majority. PDA's advisory board includes seven members of Congress and activist leaders such as Tom Hayden, Medea Benjamin, Cindy Sheehan and Rev. Lennox Yearwood. More info: http://pdamerica.org/

Authorized and Paid for by Progressive Democrats of America.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

Invite friends to subscribe:
http://pdamerica.org/join-ind.php

Oh, If Only We Could Impeach, Convict and Imprison Rupert Murdoch

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:07:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><>

FROM: thinkprogress.org

Fox censors Sally Field�??s anti-war speech at Emmy�??s.

At tonight�??s Emmy Awards show, the audience cheered Sally Field�??s acceptance speech, which recognized the mothers of U.S. troops.

�??Surely this [award] belongs to all the mothers of the world,�?? she stated. �??May they be seen, may their work be valued and raised. Especially to the mothers who stand with an open heart and wait. Wait for their children to come home from danger, from harm�??s way, and from war. I am proud to be one of those women.�??

Field then continued, �??If mothers ruled the world, there would be no �??�?? But the Fox Emmycast cut off her sound and pointed the camera away from the stage, silencing the rest of her sentence: �??god-damned wars in the first place.�?? Watch it here:

Digg It! September 16, 2007 11:30 pm | Comment (285)

Krugman Weighs In On Back-Pedaling-As-Fast-As-He-Can Greenspan

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:00:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><>

FROM: select.nytimes.com (go ahead and sign up for times select - I found it to be worth it, though I decry the Times' decision to require it in the first place. There still ain't no free lunch... --DN)

UPDATE: Whoops, from our lips to the gods at the NY Times. They just now decided to do away with the required subscription fee for Times Select and issue a refund for the remainder. Would Murdoch ever do that for us?

********************************

September 17, 2007

Op-Ed Columnist

Sad Alan�??s Lament

By PAUL KRUGMAN

When President Bush first took office, it seemed unlikely that he would succeed in getting his proposed tax cuts enacted. The questionable nature of his installation in the White House seemed to leave him in a weak political position, while the Senate was evenly balanced between the parties. It was hard to see how a huge, controversial tax cut, which delivered most of its benefits to a wealthy elite, could get through Congress.

Then Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, testified before the Senate Budget Committee.

Until then Mr. Greenspan had presented himself as the voice of fiscal responsibility, warning the Clinton administration not to endanger its hard-won budget surpluses. But now Republicans held the White House, and the Greenspan who appeared before the Budget Committee was a very different man.

Suddenly, his greatest concern �?? the �??emerging key fiscal policy need,�?? he told Congress �?? was to avert the threat that the federal government might actually pay off all its debt. To avoid this awful outcome, he advocated tax cuts. And the floodgates were opened.

As it turns out, Mr. Greenspan�??s fears that the federal government would quickly pay off its debt were, shall we say, exaggerated. And Mr. Greenspan has just published a book in which he castigates the Bush administration for its fiscal irresponsibility.

Well, I�??m sorry, but that criticism comes six years late and a trillion dollars short.

Mr. Greenspan now says that he didn�??t mean to give the Bush tax cuts a green light, and that he was surprised at the political reaction to his remarks. There were, indeed, rumors at the time �?? which Mr. Greenspan now says were true �?? that the Fed chairman was upset about the response to his initial statement.

But the fact is that if Mr. Greenspan wasn�??t intending to lend crucial support to the Bush tax cuts, he had ample opportunity to set the record straight when it could have made a difference.

His first big chance to clarify himself came a few weeks after that initial testimony, when he appeared before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

Here�??s what I wrote following that appearance: �??Mr. Greenspan�??s performance yesterday, in his first official testimony since he let the genie out of the bottle, was a profile in cowardice. Again and again he was offered the opportunity to say something that would help rein in runaway tax-cutting; each time he evaded the question, often replying by reading from his own previous testimony. He declared once again that he was speaking only for himself, thus granting himself leeway to pronounce on subjects far afield of his role as Federal Reserve chairman. But when pressed on the crucial question of whether the huge tax cuts that now seem inevitable are too large, he said it was inappropriate for him to comment on particular proposals.

�??In short, Mr. Greenspan defined the rules of the game in a way that allows him to intervene as he likes in the political debate, but to retreat behind the veil of his office whenever anyone tries to hold him accountable for the results of those interventions.�??

I received an irate phone call from Mr. Greenspan after that article, in which he demanded to know what he had said that was wrong. In his book, he claims that Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, was stumped by that question. That�??s hard to believe, because I certainly wasn�??t: Mr. Greenspan�??s argument for tax cuts was contorted and in places self-contradictory, not to mention based on budget projections that everyone knew, even then, were wildly overoptimistic.

If anyone had doubts about Mr. Greenspan�??s determination not to inconvenience the Bush administration, those doubts were resolved two years later, when the administration proposed another round of tax cuts, even though the budget was now deep in deficit. And guess what? The former high priest of fiscal responsibility did not object.

And in 2004 he expressed support for making the Bush tax cuts permanent �?? remember, these are the tax cuts he now says he didn�??t endorse �?? and argued that the budget should be balanced with cuts in entitlement spending, including Social Security benefits, instead. Of course, back in 2001 he specifically assured Congress that cutting taxes would not threaten Social Security.

In retrospect, Mr. Greenspan�??s moral collapse in 2001 was a portent. It foreshadowed the way many people in the foreign policy community would put their critical faculties on hold and support the invasion of Iraq, despite ample evidence that it was a really bad idea.

And like enthusiastic war supporters who have started describing themselves as war critics now that the Iraq venture has gone wrong, Mr. Greenspan has started portraying himself as a critic of administration fiscal irresponsibility now that President Bush has become deeply unpopular and Democrats control Congress.

Corruption �?ber Alles

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:02:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><>

Continuing news of the most corrupt, base, bent, bribable, crooked, debauched, double-dealing, exploiting, extortionate, faithless, fixed, foul, fraudulent, inconstant, iniquitous, knavish, mercenary, nefarious, open, padded*, perfidious, praetorian, profiteering, racket up*, reprobate, rotten, shady, snide, tainted, treacherous, two-faced, underhanded, unethical, unfaithful, unprincipled, unscrupulous, untrustworthy... AND, venal administration EVER, in today's newsletter from the excellent truthout.org

Did we mention 'dishonest?' OK, now we did... --DN

t r u t h o u t | 09.15

The Spoils of War: Billions Over Baghdad
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091507A.shtml
Vanity Fair contributing editors Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele report in the magazine's October issue that "between April 2003 and June 2004, $12 billion in US currency, much of it belonging to the Iraqi people, was shipped from the Federal Reserve to Baghdad, where it was dispensed by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Some of the cash went to pay for projects and keep ministries afloat, but, incredibly, at least $9 billion has gone missing, unaccounted for, in a frenzy of mismanagement and greed."

Lawyer Testifies About Rove's Alleged Role in Governor's Case
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091507B.shtml
The Associated Press's Ben Evans reports that "a Republican lawyer who says Karl Rove may have been involved in the prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman emerged without comment Friday from four hours of questioning at the House Judiciary Committee."

Fed's Ex-Chief Attacks Bush on Fiscal Role
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091507D.shtml
Edmund L. Sanders and David E. Sanger report in the New York Times that "Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, in a long-awaited memoir, is harshly critical of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning their party's principles on spending and deficits."

Widespread Accounting Failures Discovered at Pentagon
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091507E.shtml
The Associated Press reports that a review the news agency conducted has determined that the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security's "financial records are so disorganized and inconsistent that they have repeatedly earned 'disclaimer' opinions, meaning that they simply cannot be fully audited."

Bob Herbert | The Nightmare Is Here
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091507F.shtml
The New York Times columnist Bob Herbert writes that more than four years into the war in Iraq, huge numbers of Iraqi children are finding themselves orphaned, homeless and malnourished.

Oil Exec Admits to Bribing GOP Lawmaker
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091507G.shtml
Dan Joling of The Associated Press writes, "In the latest sign of corruption problems for Republicans, a corporate executive testified Friday that his employees worked for months to remodel the Alaska home of Sen. Ted Stevens. Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator, is under scrutiny in a corruption investigation that also is targeting Alaska state officials."

"Libertarian-Republican" Guru Alan Greenspan Comes Clean - NOW He Tells Us!!

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:28:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><>

...and, of course, he's telling those of us who were paying attention all along something we already knew - in spades. Too bad those other "Libertarian-Republicans" had (have) such a short attention span. And a disregard for reality.

Beware of anyone, like Alan, who thinks Ayn Rand's crap was just swell. Sorry Mr. Gekko, but greed is NOT good. Repukians, if nothing else (and there's plenty else), are indeed the GOP - the Greed Old Party.

This illegal, despicable, war-mongering, oil-lusting Administration of Cockroach Assholes has, and will, cost real Americans dearly. Greenspan's enabling posture didn't help. He, like the rest of the Repugnants, was not there for America when we needed him... --DN

$+$+$+$+$+$+$+$+$+$+$+$+$+$+$+$

FROM amazon.com:

The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World (Hardcover)
by Alan Greenspan (Author)

List Price:	$35.00
Price:	$23.10 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.

$$$$$$$$

FROM the Wall St. Journal:

In a withering critique of his fellow Republicans, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoir that the party to which he has belonged all his life deserved to lose power last year for forsaking its small-government principles.

In "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," published by Penguin Press, Mr. Greenspan criticizes both congressional Republicans and President George W. Bush for abandoning fiscal discipline.

The book is scheduled for public release Monday. The Wall Street Journal bought a copy at a bookstore in the New York area.

Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

Read the rest at wsj.com...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FROM time-blog.com

September 15, 2007 8:29

The Greenspan Book

Posted by Karen Tumulty | Comments (10) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is the latest into the bookstores with a revealing book that takes a sharp look at the Bush Administration. In the Washington Post, Bob Woodward (himself the author of a book about Greenspan), cites this criticism by The Maestro:

"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes. "Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency. . . . To my mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront approach was a major mistake."

On the other hand, Greenspan gives high praise to former President Clinton, whom he says had an extraordinary interest in and grasp of economic data.

However, it is worth remembering the central role that Greenspan played in enabling the Bush economic program to happen. In the first days after the 2001 inauguration, Greenspan warned of a danger that the budget surplus (remember the surplus?) could actually become too big and drag down the economy. And thus, Greenspan gave the green light to Bush's tax cuts.

In his book, the NY Times says, Greenspan acknowledges that he was cautioned not to make such an endorsement, by none other than Robert Rubin, the head of that Clinton economic team that he regarded so highly:

Though Mr. Greenspan does not admit he made a mistake, he shows remorse about how Republicans jumped on his endorsement of the 2001 tax cuts to push through unconditional cuts without any safeguards against surprises. He recounts how Mr. Rubin and Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, begged him to hold off on an endorsement because of how it would be perceived.
�??It turned out that Conrad and Rubin were right,�?? he acknowledges glumly. He says Republican leaders in Congress made a grievous error in spending whatever it took to ensure a permanent Republican majority.

But Greenspan presided over the Fed for another five years. So it seems fair to ask: Why did he wait until he had an $8.5-million book deal to tell us this?

Greenspan Is Critical Of Bush in Memoir

Former Fed Chairman Has Praise for Clinton

By Bob Woodward

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 15, 2007; Page A01

While condemning Democrats, too, for rampant federal spending, he offers Bill Clinton an exemption. The former president emerges as the political hero of "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan's 531-page memoir, which is being published Monday.

[...]

Greenspan, who had an eight-year alliance with Clinton and Democratic Treasury secretaries in the 1990s, praises Clinton's mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president's 1993 economic plan "an act of political courage."

But he expresses deep disappointment with Bush. "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes. "Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency. . . . To my mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront approach was a major mistake."

[...]

He singles out J. Dennis Hastert, the Illinois Republican who was House speaker until January, and Tom DeLay, the Texan who was majority leader until he resigned after being indicted for violating campaign finance laws in his home state.

"House Speaker Hastert and House majority leader Tom DeLay seemed readily inclined to loosen the federal purse strings any time it might help add a few more seats to the Republican majority," he writes.

[...]

Greenspan, 81, indirectly criticizes his friend and colleague from the Ford administration, Vice President Cheney. Former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill has quoted Cheney as once saying, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Greenspan says, " 'Deficits don't matter,' to my chagrin became part of the Republicans' rhetoric."

He argues that "deficits must matter" and that uncontrolled government spending and borrowing can produce high inflation "and economic devastation."

When Bush and Cheney won the 2000 election, Greenspan writes, "I thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets. . . . I was soon to see my old friends veer off to unexpected directions."

[...]

By the end of last year, Greenspan writes with some bitterness, Washington was "harboring a dysfunctional government. . . . Governance has become dangerously dysfunctional."

However, he calls Clinton a "risk taker" who had shown a "preference for dealing in facts," and presents Clinton and himself almost as soul mates. "Here was a fellow information hound. . . . We both read books and were curious and thoughtful about the world. . . . I never ceased to be surprised by his fascination with economic detail: the effect of Canadian lumber on housing prices and inflation. . . . He had an eye for the big picture too."

Read all of this critique here...

I can't wait for Krugman's take on this, although he's had plenty to say about Greenspan over the years... --DN ---for instance:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/08/krugman_pops_gr.html
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2004/03/krugman-on-greenspans-remarks-in.html
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/030504.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012605C.shtml

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Join the Crowd, Rep. Gillmor, and R.I.P.

noreply@blogger.com (DN) — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:44:00 +0000

<><><><><><><><><>

FROM: alternet.org

9-11-2007- WHAT'S GOING ON?

By Carol Wolman

Going into Labor Day weekend, there were lots of rumors anticipating a
false flag operation, another 9-11. Trainloads of armored vehicles
rolled into Houston. The San Francisco Bay bridge closed for three days.
Suspicious activity was reported on ferries in Puget Sound. Ominous
civil defense exercises are being held in Oregon, as part of Operation
Noble Resolve, which also involves military jets flying over New York.
An antiaircraft division is ordered to Washington DC.

We made it through the holiday safely.

Then last Wednesday, Congressman Paul Gillmor (R-OH) was found dead in
his home. This was reported as a heart attack, until word leaked out
that he had blunt trauma to the head and neck.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20649320/ Now we're being told he fell down
the stairs. Gillmor was investigating a series of option trades that are
suspicious- someone is betting billions of dollars that the market will
fall 50% by September 21st. Even with the housing crisis, it would take
a major catastrophe, like a "terrorist" attack, to precipitate such a
plunge. As part of his job on the House Finance Committee, Gillmor was
investigating this deal. Was he murdered because he was about to reveal
something?

Would this death, on top of the deaths of Senators Wellstone and
Carnahan, and the anthraxing of Senators Daschle and Leahy, have a
chilling effect on people in Congress? Maybe that's why they're
"spineless".

Read the rest here, (on the comments section)... it gets even more interesting, Conspiracy Realists, including the news that the USAF is standing down tomorrow, as reported by the Air Force Times. Except when I go to the web site, "The story you are looking for cannot be found"... --DN