Silence is Consent

Ron Paul Talks About Blowback

2007-05-16T13:14:00.000-07:00

On Fox Noise Channel much less.

Chalmers Johnson wrote a book about it, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. Here's a Nation article he wrote on it, Blowback. A recent article by Chalmers Johnson, Chalmers Johnson, Ending the Empire.

Strange Bedfellows?

2006-01-18T07:18:00.000-08:00

There are several stories about the suits filed against the NSA that include the words strange bedfellows. This one, Strange Bedfellows v. Bush and Cheney from Salon says this:

A motley crew that includes Christopher Hitchens, Larry Diamond and Greenpeace is suing the NSA, claiming that Bush's wiretap program is inhibiting free speech.

I say fighting for your civil liberties is an American thing to do and to me, these people joining forces to protect there rights, there's nothing strange about it.

Cheney falls flat in Iraq

2005-12-19T11:27:00.000-08:00

Cheney Fields Tough Questions From Troops:

Facing tough questions from battle-weary troops, Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday cited signs of progress in Iraq and signaled that force changes could come in 2006.

[...]

"From our perspective, we don't see much as far as gains," said Marine Cpl. Bradley Warren, the first to question Cheney in a round-table discussion with about 30 military members. "We're looking at small-picture stuff, not many gains. I was wondering what it looks like from the big side of the mountain - how Iraq's looking."

Cheney replied that remarkable progress has been made in the last year and a half.

"I think when we look back from 10 years hence, we'll see that the year '05 was in fact a watershed year here in Iraq," the vice president said. "We're getting the job done. It's hard to tell that from watching the news. But I guess we don't pay that much attention to the news."

Another Marine, Cpl. R.P. Zapella, asked, "Sir, what are the benefits of doing all this work to get Iraq on its feet?"

Cheney said the result could be a democratically elected Iraq that is unified, capable of defending itself and no longer a base for terrorists or a threat to its neighbors. "We believe all that's possible," he said.

Although he said that any decision about troop levels will be made by military commanders, Cheney told the troops, "I think you will see changes in our deployment patterns probably within this next year."

About 160,000 troops are in Iraq. The administration has said that troop levels are expected to return to a baseline of 138,000 after the elections, but critics of the war have called for a significant drawdown.

More than 2,100 troops have died in Iraq since the U.S. invaded in March 2003.

The round-table with the vice president came after hundreds of troops had gathered in an aircraft hangar to hear from a mystery guest. When Cheney emerged at the podium, he drew laughs when he deadpanned, "I'm not Jessica Simpson."

Shouts of "hooah!" from the audience interrupted Cheney a few times, but mostly the service members listened intently. When he delivered the applause line, "We're in this fight to win. These colors don't run," the only sound was a lone whistle.

If at this date the troops still don't know what the benefits of all this work in Iraq will be, that's a failure of leadership, at every level.

Congress Never Declared War

2005-12-19T09:44:00.000-08:00

The sick thing on this story is that Bob Barr is making sense on this issue. You can read and view it at the two links below. Here is the point I want to make though:

BARR: Bob, during wartime, you give some powers to the presidency you wouldn't give in peace time. BARR: Do we have a declaration of war, Dana?

ROHRABACHER: You don't have to do that.

BARR: We don't? That makes it even much easier for a president.

ROHRABACHER: No, you just have to make sure that the people of the United States understand that we are at war. They understand that al Qaeda slaughtered 3,000 of our citizens -- more people than the Japanese slaughtered at Pearl Harbor.

I've said this many times before but I'm going to say it again. If the President is such a "man" why doesn't he go to the Congress and make his case and have them declare war, on terror. Maybe then the American people would see how inane all of this is. When will terror be defeated and the President cede these powers. Read the whole transcript, this Rohrabacher is an idiot.

Crooks and Liars has the video, Bob Barr: The president violated the law

Barr via Atrios.

More On The Katrina Disaster

2005-10-03T13:43:00.000-07:00

Has anyone heard how the President's investigation into the problems with hurricane Katrina are going?

Last week Atrios posted an editorial by Rick Perlstein that no other media would publish. He never had this problem before:

Rick Perlstein wrote this in the second week of September, and sent it to various major newspapers for submission. Rick has had great success in placing such things. It was rejected or simply ignored everywhere he sent it, including one major newspaper he's never been rejected from. There are times when being wrong gives your more credibility than being right, apparently.

Here is the editorial. It's about rumor, fear mongering and paranoia. After you read that, read this, No evidence backs up reports of rescue helicopters being fired upon. People's lives were at stake and this kind of crap was going on. I'm sure the President's investigation will be informing all about this soon. Who's on that commission looking into that?

The Guardian Nails It!

2005-09-12T14:21:00.000-07:00

The war of unintended consequences :

During the past century the United States has faced two brutal assaults. Within four years of the first, on December 7 1941, the US and its allies had mobilised, taken on and defeated two powerful enemies, Japan and Germany. Four years after the second, on September 11 2001, what real progress can the US and its allies honestly claim for the war on terror?

What a great comparison.

I Don't Think Daddy And Bill Can Bail Him Out Of This One

2005-09-01T14:51:00.000-07:00

There are many things that happen when tragedy strikes but when times get tough a separation occurs. Some rise to the occasion and other's shrivel. When the President read off of his grocery list yesterday all I could think was that this man is an empty vessel. This time there is no one to invade and no one to blame. It is a situation that screams for leadership which this man incapable of providing. It seems simple enough to me, GET THE PEOPLE OUT OF NEW ORLEANS! NOW!

The New York Times says it all, Waiting for a Leader:

George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end.

Our President has been in over his head for a long time now and it's really starting to show now.

E-Mail This Article

2005-08-24T08:11:00.000-07:00

Just so we don't have to go through this again I want everybody to see this:

Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.

"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.

Oh yeah, and this is good too, My Private Idaho:

"We owe them something," he told veterans in Salt Lake City (even though his administration tried to shortchange the veterans agency by $1.5 billion). "We will finish the task that they gave their lives for."

What twisted logic: with no W.M.D., no link to 9/11 and no democracy, now we have to keep killing people and have our kids killed because so many of our kids have been killed already? Talk about a vicious circle: the killing keeps justifying itself.

I Know, I Know, I Know, It's Been Too Long

2005-08-12T11:38:00.000-07:00

I'm still gathering my thoughts about how to balance my new local focus and Silence Is Consent. Till then check out War Blogs, The New Ernie Pyles: Sgtlizzie and 67cshdocs

What's Been Going On?

2005-07-14T07:35:00.000-07:00

Where have I been? Well to everyone and anyone who reads this blog I've been concentrating my efforts locally lately. I'm trying to reform my little corner of the world first as opposed to the whole world. NO I didn't get swooped up and taken to Gitmo.

Today I saw this, Big Shift in China's Oil Policy and just had to post. It's amazing stuff. When you look at this and think back to when your President was lying us into war it sheds a little more light on it. Check this our:

Until recently, China's view of the global energy map focused narrowly on the Middle East, which holds roughly two-thirds of the world's oil. Special attention was directed toward one well-supplied country: Iraq.

Through cultivation of Saddam Hussein's government, China sought to develop some of Iraq's more promising reserves. Beijing advocated lifting the United Nations sanctions that prevented investment in Iraq's oil patch and limited sales of its production.

Then the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003, wiping out China's stakes. The war and its aftermath have reshaped China's basic conception of the geopolitics of oil and added urgency to its mission to lessen dependence on Middle East supplies. It has reinforced China's fears that it is locked in a zero-sum contest for energy with the world's lone superpower, prompting Beijing to intensify its search for new sources, international relations and energy experts say.

But when the world's only superpower moves to conquer all the oil on the earth what does China do you ask? Build up it's army? Sit and pout? NO! They start to innovate:

Throughout China's modern history, and particularly under Communist Party rule, the country's leaders have sought self-sufficiency -- a drive fueled by nationalist pride and the experience of colonialism, which fed notions that the outside world wants to prevent China's rise as a great power.

[and]

Many energy experts say owning oil fields provides no real energy security. It does not cushion against a rising cost of energy because no one country is large enough to determine the market price. Neither does it ensure access, because getting oil where it is needed depends largely upon shipping lanes policed by the U.S. Navy.

[and]

For China's leaders, however, buying foreign oil and gas fields in the name of energy security has become a central mission. Throughout the 1990s, China made deals to lock in long-term supplies and buy installations from Africa to Latin America. In 2002, Cnooc became the largest offshore oil producer in Indonesia when it bought a field from the Spanish firm Repsol YPF SA.

The Iraq war substantially intensified the foreign push. Most immediately, it destroyed China's hopes of developing large assets in Iraq. China had been waiting for the end of sanctions to begin work on the Al-Ahdab field in central Iraq, under a $1.3 billion contract signed in 1997 by its largest state-owned firm, China National Petroleum Corp. The field's production potential has been estimated at 90,000 barrels a day. China was also pursuing rights to a far bigger prize -- the Halfayah field, which could produce 300,000 barrels a day. Together, those two fields might have delivered quantities equivalent to 13 percent of China's current domestic production.

But the larger impact of the war was on China's understanding of the rules of the global energy game.

[and]

"No matter if it's rogue's oil or a friend's oil, we don't care," said an energy adviser to the central government who spoke on the condition he not be identified, citing the threat of government disciplinary action. "Human rights? We don't care. We care about oil. Whether Iran would have nuclear weapons or not is not our business. America cares, but Iran is not our neighbor. Anyone who helps China with energy is a friend."

Just another reward for taking our country to war for business reasons. I will be posting at least once a week in the future. Thanks for reading and drop me a line.

What Would The Founding Father's Say About This?

2005-06-23T08:13:00.000-07:00

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.

Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

[and]

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

I can't imagine Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc.. being in favor of this.

Not A Coincidence

2005-06-22T10:05:00.000-07:00

The last time our current president's poll numbers were this low and his domestic agenda was tanking something horrible happened. Most Americans don't remember that part of the pre-9/11 Bush Administration. The "s"elected president was having problems until then. It's hard to remember what life was like back then, right? But we probably wouldn't have had tax cuts and more tax cuts, and definitely not the Patriot Act without it. As far as most Americans were concerned it was all just a coincidence.

Well it's almost four years later, the beginning of a new term, our president's poll numbers are low and his domestic agenda is tanking. That's deja-vu all over again as far as I'm concerned. If the American people bought it once they'll buy it again. What Batman are we up to now? I've lost count. I will not be surprised if something horrible happens again, will you? I'm not predicting something here, I'm just saying I won't be surprised if something does happen. As Thom Hartmann recently pointed out, this administration is out for one thing, raw political power. They currently have lost that political power, I even saw Karl Rove on TV yesterday it's gotten so bad. The only question, I believe, is to what length will they go to get it back? So before the new product roll out in September keep all of this in mind:

Why did the Administration wait until September to make its case against Iraq? White House chief of staff Andrew Card told The New York Times last week, ``From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.''

If it happens again, it's definitely not a coincidence.

Plant A Tree

2005-06-09T12:35:00.000-07:00

You've heard of the Downing Street Memo, haven't you? Well, it turns out Knight Ridder had been reporting this all along. This was my favorite Bush has decided to overthrow Hussein:

President Bush has decided to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power and ordered the CIA, the Pentagon and other agencies to devise a combination of military, diplomatic and covert steps to achieve that goal, senior U.S. officials said Tuesday.

The date on this article is Wed, Feb. 13, 2002. It's time to Nixon this administration and the only way to do that is to take bake both houses of Congress in 2006! If you haven't started the process of taking back you local Democratic Party, start today. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the next best time is Today.

Here We Go Again!?

2005-06-02T11:35:00.000-07:00

Last summer we refought the Vietnam War this summer we will relive Watergate. What the hell is going on in the country? Nixon and everyone with him were criminals. For Liddy and Colson - convicted felons - to take shots at Mr. Felt for assisting in exposing their crimes is just ludicrous. We need a current day Mr. Felt. The only problem is that who at the Washington Post would print it?

The End Of The Filibuster? (PBU21)

2005-05-23T07:06:00.000-07:00

The Democrats main problem in this fight is the same problem they have with most things. The American public by and large are ignorant of how their government has worked over the past 225 years. The Republicans take every issue and dumb-it-down to a sound bite, i.e., "No judge that has ever had majority support on the Senate floor has ever been denied an up or down vote." First of all there is no way to know that for sure. Second, most Americans, let's assume that statement is true, don't know why that's the case. Like most things in life it can't be reduced to a sound bite or a catchy one word phrase. To steal from the '04 campaign, it's nuanced.

Why has a court nominee that has majority support never been denied a vote on the floor? A little thing call ADVISE and consent. Now the consent part we all know about, they vote for the nominee giving their consent. But the advise part is the other half of this and these previous committee checks were a major part of the advise. The president used to actually go talk to the senators and see if not only could the nominee make it through the committee but also could he pass the vote on the floor, avoid a filibuster. If the answer to those questions were no the president didn't nominate that person. In the Clinton and H. W. Bush administrations the nominees were held up in committee and never allowed to proceed to the floor. Now with one party rule and the changes to committee rules the only check left on the Republicans is the filibuster. The Republicans say that they are only going to remove the filibuster for judges. Well, once it's removed for this how hard will it be for them to remove on legislation as well? Not very, and then you can kiss your Social Security goodbye!

Here are two more items to read on this subject:

Apparently, You Can't Filibuster Incompetence

NUCLEAR CHICKEN

Poor Charlie Rose

2005-05-18T06:44:00.000-07:00

Last night as I passed by two shows while George Galloway were on TV I thought I had entered the twilight zone. First it was Hardball and then it was The Charlie Rose Show.

When I flipped on Hardball Chris Matthews was already interviewing Sen. Norm Coleman about what he has accused Mr. Galloway of doing. He would never answer the question if Mr. Galloway had ever profited personally from the Oil For Food program. Then having Mr. Galloway on right after and to answer all questions directly to refute everything the Senator said was incredible. Just because the MSM will never, in this day and age, allow many people like that on TV. It ended like this and it was beautiful:

MATTHEWS: So you didn't make a thin dime, to repeat your defense.

GALLOWAY: Not one thin dime.

MATTHEWS: Then why is Coleman going after you?

GALLOWAY: Because he is the most pro-war, pro-Israel, neocon hawk on the Hill.

MATTHEWS: But why is he going after you, because you're antiwar?

GALLOWAY: Well, I'm coming to that. And by the way, there's a lot of competition for that title, a lot of competition for that title. And he is smearing in a smokescreen: Kofi Annan, whose dismissal he demanded; me;

President Chirac; anybody that stood against the United States policy on the war, partly for revenge and partly because it is a useful diversion.

That you and I are talking now about this instead of talking about the big

disaster that people like Norman Coleman has taken the whole world into

MATTHEWS: Iraq.

GALLOWAY: Iraq.

MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. George Galloway of the British Parliament. Back with more HARDBALL in a moment.

Hopefully this will go a long way to end Sen. Coleman's career.

Charlie Rose does not post transcripts of his show and last nights show is probably the reason. Mr. Galloway put him to shame. My most memorable part was during the discussion of whether we should just leave Iraq. Mr. Galloway said yes. Charlie started in about what will happen if we just leave. Mr. Galloway said something to the effect of the same thing that happened in other countries when their governments fall, he gave examples, they will work it out. He said why should we think that Iraqis won't do the same things we did, they're just as good as us. Then Charlie rambled about how all the guests he has on say well we may have made a mistake going to Iraq but we can't leave until we rebuild and secure Iraq. I can't remember what Mr. Galloway said in response but all I could think was, Charlie, you need to get a wider variety of guests. There is a little more on this here.

All this shows is just how pathetic the media in this country has become.

A Few For The Weekend

2005-05-13T15:18:00.000-07:00

I've been cracking jokes with my family for a couple of years about how things will be in Jeb's second term. Chris Floyd makes that not look so funny anymore, Miami Vice.

This is very funny, McClellan Spars With Press, Says No Need to Notify Bush. See if you can count how many times Scottie says protocol.

Demise of a Hard-Fighting Squad

2005-05-11T06:56:00.000-07:00

US courts reveal the future of Social Security.

As Congress approves more spending for the War on Terror (WOT), Congress Approves $82 Billion for Wars, Halliburton gets a bonus, Halliburton Is Awarded $72 Million in Bonuses:

"It is outrageous that the Bush administration would give Halliburton a bonus after we have seen its overcharges, sloppy accounting and kickback schemes in Iraq," Lautenberg said. "Giving Halliburton a bonus is like giving your worst employee a raise."

Personally I consider it to be corruption. This is the Vice President's former company.

Check out the opening line to this article on reconstruction in Iraq:

Major reconstruction has not yet got off the ground in Iraq...

They're not saying that it's going slow, or that it's not proceeding as planned, no they're saying it "hasn't got off the ground"! This is truly an amazing article and if you're not against the war on moral grounds you certainly will because War is a Racket. They also point to the fact that security has cost so much that's why the reconstruction is "behind". What security?

As if the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) wasn't stealing enough taxpayer money in Iraq. Now the PIC (Prison Industrial Complex) is getting in on the act, U.S. to Expand Prison Facilities in Iraq.

No Child Left Behind? (PBU19)

2005-05-09T11:52:00.000-07:00

This administration has brought forth many dishonest, shall we say "Orwellian", propositions but none more so than No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB is nothing more than the planned destruction of national public education. Looking for information on this I found this site, NoChilldLeft.com, and it's list of NCLB Problems. As I look at the problems and statistics related to NCLB and where my state, Texas, stands. I can't help but believe that George W. Bush is trying to do to the National schools what he did to schools in Texas.

I think the biggest problem my wife and I have with NCLB is it's reliance on standardized tests, which are ineffective. A standardized test is an attempt to get everyone to attain a minimum standard, not an attempt to have every child reach their full potential. Standardized tests cause teacher's to teach to the test - they have to build the curriculum around the test - instead of teaching what needs to learned. This is one reason that we are seriously thinking of home schooling our children. I was educated in public schools and always thought my children would be too. That was before the Republicans got control of them.

1603, Lies and Idiocy

2005-05-09T06:48:00.000-07:00

1603 (or at least it was when I posted this)

Memo disputes Bush Iraq claims

A highly classified British memo, leaked during Britain's just-concluded election campaign, claims President Bush decided by summer 2002 to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

You say Al-Libbi, I say al-Liby
Captured Al-Qaeda kingpin is case of ‘mistaken identity’

THE capture of a supposed Al-Qaeda kingpin by Pakistani agents last week was hailed by President George W Bush as “a critical victory in the war on terror”. According to European intelligence experts, however, Abu Faraj al-Libbi was not the terrorists’ third in command, as claimed, but a middle-ranker derided by one source as “among the flotsam and jetsam” of the organisation.

Doomed To Repeat It?

2005-05-05T13:11:00.000-07:00

We can learn quite a bit from history, What the American Civil War can inform us about Iraq

What lessons does this dismal history convey for American forces in Iraq? First, what you do immediately after the end of hostilities is crucial, and mistakes made then may be impossible to undo. Don't attempt a wholesale transformation of another society unless you have the troops and political will to impose it. Above all, don't let racial or religious hatred destroy democratic political institutions as in the post-bellum South. Giving up on Reconstruction spawned a social and economic disaster that lasted nearly a century. That's a history nobody should want to repeat, least of all the Iraqi insurgents.

Hmmmm?

2005-05-05T07:35:00.000-07:00

Impeachment Time: "Facts Were Fixed."

Proof Bush Fixed The Facts

Pentagon Analyst Charged With Disclosing Military Secrets

Senate Probes Bolton's Pro-Israel Efforts

U.S. Can't Account for $100M Spent in Iraq

Moore says God 'basis' of GOP's philosophy

What's Really Going On, The Filibuster Debate

2005-05-04T13:42:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking now for several weeks that this whole filibuster debate is not only a setup for Supreme Court nominations down the line but for every type of action in the Senate. Especially Social Security. Then today while I was reading this, These Five Senators Know Better Than to Go Nuclear. Don't They?, it became crystal clear that's what the plan is:

The precedent set--a majority ignoring its own rules to override longstanding practice in one area--would almost inexorably make the Senate a mirror image of the House, moving the American system several steps closer to a plebiscitary model of government, and the Senate closer to the unfortunate House model of a cesspool of partisan rancor.

They can pass ANYTHING they want if all they need is 50 Senators. This is an excellent read because it tells exactly how wrong it is.

Social Security, A Fundamental Question?

2005-05-04T07:28:00.000-07:00

Over the last seventy years many things have occurred in the country. We have shifted our society in many ways. Black people can now vote, mostly, without being harassed. Segregation is over. And major attempts were made to help those that need it the most, i.e., Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Head Start. Some have worked and some haven't. I understand people's complaints about wasting their money on social programs that do not work. But Social Security is different. Ask anybody and they will tell you that it one of, if no the most, successful social program ever created, EVER!

The vast majority of people in America, no matter what party they are from, do not have a problem paying for, or even paying more money for, a program that works. So my question is:

Why is this administration so opposed to asking Americans, particularly
wealthier Americans, to give back their needless tax cuts of the last four years
to help insure the solvency of such a vital and well run social program?

Maybe it's because they never liked it. They don't believe in people working together for the common good. Why else would they be working so hard to dismantle something that has worked so well?

Everbody Knows Your Name

2005-05-03T08:37:00.000-07:00

Their worst nightmare is coming true:

And one national poll, by Democrat Stan Greenberg, shows DeLay's name recognition at 77% - making him more famous than any other House member in modern history, except Newt Gingrich.

And you know what happened to him. See ya on Fox Snooze Tom.