Tuesday, July 03, 2007
George W. Bush commutes Scooter Libby's sentence. No jail time. What luck! It happened over a weekend, while the news was all over this developing story in London about car bombs and burning airports and Mercedes and doctors from foreign countries. These events are being touted as attacks but it is hard to find any damage.
Noone has been charged with anything yet in these "attacks." And the car bombs were not really bombs, they were "potentially viable explosive devices." One car was towed to a storage lot for bad parking, and only afterwards was it said to contain dangerous materials. The first car sat shrouded under a blue tarp before being loaded into a van and taken to a secret laboratory.
Like many anti-terror activities before today, this scare in England seems to be just that -- another boondoggle to frighten people and take their attention away from something else.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
I confess to holding a few assumptions. (1) The current administration is lying and has been lying about nearly everything. (2) Questioning the "official line" about what happened on (and who caused) 9/11 is verboten.
Actually, point 2 is indisputable. If you don't believe me, just try to raise a question, out loud, about how Tower 7 fell... or any other anomaly that day. Like how in the hell our national defense system failed us so badly that no planes were scrambled to confront the airplanes that turned off their transponders. Or why the members of the 9/11 commission just failed to include testimony from Norman Minetta that raised definite questions about just which orders Cheney wanted to stand as a plane approached the Pentagon.
Point 1 is obvious to anyone who learns about the world outside of Fox News [sic] channel. The lies are endless. Not only are they proven lies, they go unchallenged by the "MSM" ... who apparently have better things to do than source their stories and seek the truth.
The root of all current evil is 9/11. Once we shine the light on what really happened (and what DIDN'T happen) on that day, the remainder of our current issues and their solutions ... will come into focus.
That's why 9/11 is so important. If we leave those stones unturned, we are only trying to plug the hole in the dike when what we really need to address is why the seas have breached the dikes in the first place.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
When we can no longer trust our government, our elected representatives and those they appoint, to protect and defend us, where can we go? What can we do?
The event that created the current climate we live in is referred to as "9/11." Everyone has heard, "9/11 changed everything," declared from every major media outlet for the last 5-1/2 years.
Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that what we've been told by those same major media outlets about 9/11 is a made-up story. (I've researched plenty of information that suggests just that.) Yet, maybe you don't want to spend the time to look at it because there are so many other important issues that need dealing with, such as the occupation of Iraq, the state of our health care, the imminent disaster posed by climate change, the ongoing nemesis of HIV, or overpopulation or genetically engineered foods or colony collapse disorder or Somalia or Iran or the Israeli-Palestinian situation or $4.00 a gallon gas or ... the list could go on for a long damn time.
However, who do we look to for solutions to the problems in this increasingly long list? Can we alone fix any one of these crises? No. Can we lend our voices and our money to try to help? Sure, but it's a drop in the bucket. We look to our elected representatives and their appointees to deal with local, national and international issues.
But if they fail us, where do we go?
I guess what I'm trying to say is until we solve the many mysteries surrounding 9/11, we will not be able to move forward on any other issue. If certain powerful forces within our government are complicit in 9/11, we can't very well expect them to work for the common good on any other issue. In fact, think of a common issue we've seen progress on in the last 6-7 years. I can't think of any. Why not? Compassionate conservatives seem to care only about granting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And supporting an illegal invasion of a sovereign country, and assassinating the leadership of that country... and setting up a puppet government who will agree to granting 80% of profits from that country's oil fields to multi-national corporations for the next 30 years.
If we don't address the root cause of our invasion of Iraq, the root cause of the stripping of our civil liberties with the Patriot Act and various other bills that have gone into law since 9/11, we soon will find ourselves bereft of any of the promises made in the Declaration of Independence: including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And we'll also be bereft of our Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of press, assembly, and the right to confront our accusers and have a speedy trial. Habeus Corpus is already a thing of the past.
I move that there is no more important issue than delving into what really happened on 9/11. That's even more important than impeachment, because it involves a larger group of people than the current [mis]administration. If we cannot have a proper, impartial and objective investigation of the biggest crime in our recent history, we are destined to become slaves to those who carried it out.
The FBI has insufficient evidence to charge Osama Bin Laden with the crime. So who did commit it?
Believe the mainstream media at your own peril, about anything.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Even though I doubt she'll ever read it, I think I write this blog as if I were talking to my sister. She's four years younger than I; we have different fathers; and our mother (who died a dyed-in-the-wool dittohead) favored her over me. We correspond by e-mail now and then, and in a recent message she suggested I should listen to Rush (as in Limbaugh) to get my head straight. Needless to say, we grew up to be very different in our world views and politics.
Anyway, the ongoing saga of extreme politicization at the DOJ brings us a new chapter this week. Former DAG James Comey's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee was so powerful that I fail to see how Congress can put off taking action on impeachment for one more day. Impeachment not only for Mr. Weaselwords Gonzales, but impeachment for those in the White House who tried to get an ailing AG "Let the Eagles Soar" Ashcroft to sign off on a super-secret program to spy on US citizens, and failing to gain DOJ authority, went ahead with the program anyway.
The law that created the FISA court has never been challenged. But this administration didn't want to have to go to the FISA court for some of its spying plans, so they simply ignored that law and carried on as if they had impunity from prosecution or accountability. And so far, those who are in a position to hold him accountable have so far let Bush act with impunity.
My sister says that Bush has a good soul and that he's made a few mistakes here and there but he means well and we really ought to stop being pinko traitors and just let him run the country the way he sees fit. Foreign policy disasters be damned, she knows those terrorists would be planting IEDs in her driveway if we left Iraq. Katrina victims should've listened to the warnings and fled before they drowned. And whose to say Bush broke the law anyway? Maybe it was a bad law. Maybe he needed to break it to protect us!
Maybe this administration has broken so many laws by now, using the same 9/11 excuse, that another one is meaningless. Let's think about this a minute.
- The folks at Bushco have brought us a war of aggression, clearly banned by international law.
- They've also sponsored in-house and outsourced torture, in Afghanistan and Iraqi prisons, at Guantanamo, and secret CIA outposts in other countries -- again, clearly banned by international treaty which is the same as the law of our land.
- They've instituted (and are still carrying out) illegal wiretapping on US citizens.
- They've failed to follow the laws that Congress has written requiring them to report on their activities and they've failed to respond to legal subpoenas to boot.
- They've changed the meaning of the laws Congress has written by adding "signing statements" claiming they read the laws but don't necessarily intend to follow or enforce them.
- They've tried to fix elections by using the DOJ as one of Karl Rove's personal political tools.
- There's simply not enough room to list all the intentional lies they told, from "the air in NYC (3 days after 9/11) is fine to breathe" to "there's disagreement about whether human activity is causing global warming" to "We know where they are(WMD)..."
One thing I'd like to ask my sister -- what about if a Hillary Clinton took any of these actions? Or a Ted Kennedy? Or a Harry Reid? Is it only Bush who should be immune from accountability? Or does this new impunity also apply to anyone who holds the title of President of the United States?
And I keep writing and calling members of Congress -- why aren't we impeaching them already?
Saturday, May 12, 2007
He says he listens to the "generals on the ground." But according to a general, an Iraq war general who led the troops on the ground, "You didn't listen." I'm talking about General John Batiste, but there's plenty more where he's coming from. General Shinseke was the first to be ignored. Sadly, I think General Batiste is not going to be the last. One can form the fairly safe opinion that Bush listens to "generals on the ground" only when those generals say what he wants to hear.
Colin Powel said we'd only be in Iraq as long as the [sic] sovereign Iraqi government wanted us to stay. But it seems as if a majority of the government wants us to leave! And, in fact, a majority of Iraq's civilian population wants us to leave too!
Then there's the walls we are constructing, separating Sunni neighborhoods from Shia and vice versa. Iraq's leader, Prime Minister Maliki, demanded (after a massive demonstration against the wall) that construction halt. But uhmmmm... no, construction continued and has morphed to other walls in Baghdad as well.
Bush never did say he listened to polls (even though we know that is a lie) so I suppose even when a large majority think our country is moving in the wrong direction, well, we can't very well expect Bush to listen.
Bush must have his headphones tuned in to another place. Let me guess, it's either Karl Rove or the Almighty. I've got $20 on Rove. For anyone who thinks God is talking directly to Dubya, I've got a nice rubber room and suit for you to wear.
Mister total-failure Bush must not realize that the better part of being a politician is listening to constituents, allies, one's military leaders, and even .. dare I say it, one's conscience. Although, once the greed gene has seated itself deeply, one's conscience loses a foothold. That's when a person is truly lost.
I know what torture is, Mr. Bush. I know what murder is, for economic gain. I know what Jesus would do. I doubt you do.
There is only one recourse. Our Congress must demand impeachment of Cheney and Bush.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
George Tenet, CIA chief from July 1997 to June 2004, is making the rounds to promote his memoir, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA. He's particularly concerned about his "slam dunk" comment (aren't we all?) and how he claims it was used out of context to prove that he stood behind all the (phony) intelligence indicating Saddam Hussein had WMD and was a grave and gathering threat to us, our allies, and the rest of the world.
However, his convoluted explanation for when and how he used the "slam dunk" phrase sounds to me like an overt confession that he participated in creating the snow job, no, the avalanche of propaganda disseminated to frighten us all into supporting an invasion of Iraq. Here's what it sounds like Tenet is telling us now:
|[Scene - the Oval Office]|
Tenet: Mr. President, my assistants here have prepared a few plans on how best to prepare the American people for your planned invasion in Iraq.
Assistant1: [coughs] As usual, Mr. President, we have Rupert and the others ready to put up the flag all over the place.
Assistant2: We've been working on Kofi for weeks, but it's not easy to get our wording in a UN resolution. We'll keep trying.
Tenet: Listen, we've got other things in mind too. Like keeping Judy Miller fed with information. Is there anything you've got anywhere you can leak? [glances at Cheney]
Assistant1: We thought about using Hill and Knowlton to promote another phony story... you remember in your Dad's time, about the Iraqis taking babies out of incubators? Still working on something along that line, sir.
Rice: I think the "smoking gun mushroom cloud" thing we worked up would be a great talking point.
Bush: [scratches head, then winks slyly at Condi] Well listen up, what I wanna know is, are you fudgesticks gonna be able to come up with enough hoopla so the people get behind this here takeover in Iraq? I mean, y'all have had years to think up some good ways to smoke a screen, err, blow smoke... err, fobskugater things, right?
Tenet: We can do it, Mr. President. I know our presentation today wasn't up to snuff, but just give us a little more time.
Bush: You sure you can make this lie fly, cia-guy?
Tenet: It's a slam-dunk, Mr. President.
I don't think George Tenet has helped himself much. Instead of being guilty of promoting what turned out to be faulty intelligence, he's just confessed to being guilty of participating in the rollout of the propaganda used to sell the war.
ThinkProgress reports on Representive John Murtha's Sunday, April 29 appearance on CBS's Face the Nation.
There’s three ways or four ways to influence a president. One is popular opinion, the election, third is impeachment and fourth is the purse.
It's relatively clear that popular opinion has little if any effect on the Decider-in-Chief. And I don't think the world can wait for another election. Since it seems highly unlikely that the Democrats in Congress pull the plug on funding the occupation outright, our only real recourse is impeachment.
After participating, albeit in a modest way, in Impeachment Day on April 28, I thought a word of encouragement to the good Representative may be in order. I mailed the letter below to John Murtha today.
The Honorable John P. Murtha
United States House of Representatives
2423 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3812
Dear Representative Murtha,
I am not a resident of your district in Pennsylvania, although I do live nearby in West Virginia.
I hope you don't mind that I write to urge you to support HR 333, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich's bill to begin impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney.
Just your mention to various news outlets this weekend of impeachment as a possible course of action has animated many of us in this country who believe the time for accountability is long overdue. You may not be aware, but April 28th was dubbed "National Impeachment Day" and all across the country people spelled out I-M-P-E-A-C-H in many ways. Perhaps your staff has run across reports. You can visit A28.org for details on the hundreds of events.
I firmly think that we owe it to future generations to call a liar and a lawbreaker just that, no matter if they run the corner grocery store or the country. No man (or woman) is above the law. What will our silence on the subject of impeachment and trial for high crimes and misdemeanors say to those who follow us? That we were too afraid of doing the right thing? That we lacked the will to stand up for what we believe in -- justice, liberty, fairness, the rule of law, the Constitution!?
Thank you for taking the time to read this. There are likely many constituents in your district who feel similarly to me -- the last serious poll done on the topic of impeachment showed that 51% of Americans would support impeachment if it could be shown that Bush and Cheney lied us into war with Iraq. Let this letter give voice to someone in your district who is unable, for one reason or another, to speak with you directly.
Please urge your fellow members in the House, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to remember that the people of this country want impeachment back on the table, now.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
I've been looking for MSM articles on this story, which surely deserves attention... it isn't every day that a Congressman brings Articles of Impeachment against a Vice President, after all! But where are they? I haven't even heard this news on NPR. What an amazing pity!
PoliticalAffairs.net nicely summarizes the three Articles of Impeachment here.
During the press conference announcing this resolution, reporters asked Representative Kucinich if he had co-sponsors for HR 333. Dennis responded that he did not stand alone, and as anyone outside the beltway knows, the courageous Kucinich is indeed supported by hundreds of thousands of people who are damn tired and awful angry about the lies and illegal actions of many members of Bush's inner circle.
Dana Milbank, in his washingtonpost.com video-story about the impeachment filing, stated with certainty that it was 'going nowhere.' I feel sorry for fellows like Dana Milbank. They are slimy, obsequious, full-of-themselves people who pretend to be news reporters but whose real vocation is a Bush boot-licker. Mr. Milbank, Dennis Kucinich is much more a man than you ever will be.
And in case any of my readers wonder just what Richard Cheney, VP, has done to deserve impeachment, The Nation article by John Nichols is a good read.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Kudos to all the state legislatures and city governments that are passing resolutions in favor of impeaching Cheney and Bush.
That is our remedy, my friends. And it is the only way we can start to make things right, absent a full blown insurrection and help from the other nations in the world.
We have, on our hands, an abysmal, decadent, wholly illegal leadership. We have to give it a shot at removing these criminals in the way prescribed. If we fail, I truly hope our friends outside this country give us a hand... either fiscally... or worse comes to worse, militarily.
Help now. Thank you. We, the people of the United States are sick and tired of being used in the name of torture and death. Honest to god, we do not want this legacy like a dead seagull draped over our neck and shoulders.
We DO NOT SUPPORT GW Bush and his minions.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Today's Senate hearing with Alberto Gonzales was really sad. He didn't know anything, was not in the loop, could not recall a meeting he attended, and frankly, he couldn't tell us anything about HOW the 8 attorneys made it onto the now-infamous list.
Alberto kept trying to convince us that really, nothing he did was improper even if it was ill-advised and ill-executed. Reminded me of heck-of-a-job Brownie actually. If he really takes responsibility for this mess he'd step down. But like other appointees in over his head (think BUSH, who was appointed President by the Supremes) he thinks even though he f'd up he should be able to continue to lead the DOJ.
He also reminded me of a cornered weasel, snarling at times, interrupting the Senate questioners a lot, contradicting them and lecturing them. He almost makes me feel sorry for him but then I remember he's the one who told Bush it was okay to torture.
Real weasels are cuter.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
We've got George (aka would-be-king) Bush sucking up TV time by commiserating with (and creating photo-ops with) the bereaved fellow students, faculty, staff and family members of Virginia Tech as a result of a very odd shooting on that campus.
So many other blogs have detailed the abysmal record of Dick and George's administration, that I hardly feel it is worth repeating the record here. I recently heard a phrase, I think a suggestion for a bumper sticker, that said: "Can we impeach them for blowing the job?"
I am very dismayed that "impeachment is off the table." Why? For God's sake, why? How else do we demonstrate in deed that we do not approve of the lawbreaking, arrogant politicians who have the nerve to tell us that we have no say in what happens in our country?
Anyway, in keeping with my thought process that every word posted on the 'net adds to the sum total of the words that represent how we, the people, really feel, let me say it again. IMPEACH. IMPEACH GW BUSH, IMPEACH DICK CHENEY.
I've submitted impeachment papers to members of Congress. Dennis Kucinich is ready to begin impeachment proceedings but he needs to know we support that. Please let Dennis Kucinich know we do support that.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is off the hook today and tomorrow, and won't have to testify until Thursday. The shootings at Virginia Tech are taking top billing in the media and Senator Leahy has determined that holding the hearing today is "inappropriate."
On Friday, Gonzales' office released a prepared statement [PDF] in advance of his long-awaited appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In it, Gonzales says he is "committed to assuring the Congress and the American public that nothing improper occurred here."
TheBlueState takes a look at some excerpts here. It seems Mr. Gonzales cares more about convincing us that nothing improper happened than providing full and complete information about what did happen, who made it happen, and why.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
If a cabal inside our government sponsored a false flag event on 9-11, what then? Would weaselly Alberto Gonzalez and John Yoo still try to legally justify using waterboarding, humiliation, attack dogs, pissing on holy books, hanging by wrists or ankles, isolation, extreme temperatures, eardrum-piercing music for hours on end, on prime suspects?
If the vile and vicious persons -- the ones whose plans ended up destroying the entire World Trade Center complex, a wing of the Pentagon, a few planes and almost 3000 lives -- include some white Americans, will it be okay to torture them to find out who all was in on it?
There's more evidence that Cheney was involved in state-sponsored terrorism than there is for hundreds of detainees still held in Gitmo. Let's torture Dick for a few years and see what he'll confess to.
If it is okay to torture even one person, we are no better than anyone else who tortures.
Monday, April 09, 2007
My take is, cleverly disguised think tanks planted the seeds during the Bill Clinton presidency. Some people became real Clinton-haters. I remember thinking at the time, how rude and cruel and crazy the voices sounded -- calling Clinton a murderer and rapist, a thief and a fraud. Hillary called it a "vast right-wing conspiracy." But eight years ago the words liberal and conservative weren't dirty words. Right-wing and left-wing were both valid political stances. Neo-conservatives did not sit at the main table.
Fast forward to today. So many aspects of our lives are weighed and measured and judged based on whether one calls oneself a Democrat or a Republican. When you testify in a Congressional committee, some lawmaker just has to ask, "Are you a Democrat?" Nevermind that you honorably served a Republican Administration. If you question a GW Bush appointee, or oppose US foreign policy, you deserve to be discounted, swift-boated, and discredited. You get to be called a traitor who deserves public humiliation and there are even some who will call for your hanging.
The US is more divided today than I can ever remember. The right doesn't trust the left any more than the left trusts the right. If you aren't with "them" you're against "them." Evil vs. good. Black vs. white. Dirty liberal pinko-commie hippie weaklings who want peace which equals surrender, vs. strong gun-toting smoke-em-out or just nuke the crap out of 'em, real Amurikans who won't settle for anything but victory.
It is as if GW Bush has the hands of a neo-conservative version of Midas. Everything he touches splits into opposing camps. Here in the US, it's rich vs. poor, corporations vs. workers, right vs. left, business vs. the environment. Iraq used to be united, but now... We have Sunni vs. Shia, Shia vs. Shia, Kurdistan vs. the rest of Iraq, Iraqi people vs. the puppet government that is trying to privatize Iraqi treasure.
Divide and conquer. It works the same at home as it does abroad.
Meet George W. Bush: the man with the D'vidus Touch.
Friday, April 06, 2007
I swear to God, if this were a Democratic president with a Republican congress, there is no way in hell he'd be allowed to continue. Impeachment would BE the subject of the day. This administration has gone beyond pushing the envelope in so many ways, and yet why ... WHY ???? .. are do our elected representatives look like they are pussyfooting around King George's throne?
The only reason I can imagine is that our so-called Democrats have been neutered somehow.
Give it up, Dems! State here and now why you cannot/will not impeach, let us know what you are being threatened with. Else, we have no recourse but to presume you are part and parcel of the despicable, greedy, propaganda-furthering war machine that GWB contributes to (with or without his conscious consent).
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Television is a fantastic propoganda machine. Talking heads on US "news" channels frequently appear in succession using the same key words or phrases to describe a situation. It's almost as if someone wrote a script for them.
It is plain for me to see that the latest churnings of the propaganda machine we Americans are exposed to daily seek to incite distrust and even hatred against Iran. With that in mind, here's a little background information concerning the most often repeated phrase attributed to Iran's President Ahmadinejad, that he wants to see Israel wiped off the map.
If you don't know how to read or speak Iranian, and you know the media lies to us about everything else, wouldn't it be prudent to get a second or third opinion on this kind of contagious rhetoric?
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Alberto Gonzales claimed he had no knowledge about the firings of the US attorneys. No meetings. No discussion. No participation in the decision. But voila! Documents released from the DOJ put the lie to his mealy-mouthed denials.
Yet again, one of GW Bush's closest has been proven to have obstructed justice. What a fucking sad irony that this man is (and hopefully soon WAS) the head of the Department of Justice.
Nearly every single department of our government now stands for its OPPOSITE. Justice? ROFL! Can you say lies and injustice? Interior now stands for finding ways to let the polluters pollute. State now stands for siding with Israel, to hell with Palestinians, suck up to Korea now that we know they have a nuclear bomb, threaten and posture Iran because we KNOW they don't... yet.
Why has no one stepped up yet to IMPEACH this president and vice-president? I swear to God, had any previous president been as outrageous and duplicitous and low-down and scurrilous... he'd have been outta here long ago.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
It's obvious the folks at the AG's office and the White House shared concern over how these firings would be perceived. From the e-mails published 3-19-2007 at the House Judiciary Committee Web site, we can see that a good deal of effort went into concealing the political motivation for these firings. And then we have AG Gonzales himself, under oath and in front of the cameras, protesting that, "I think I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it."
Let's see, what is the meaning of "I think I would never..." ? Does he mean he would not do it again? Or does he mean he would not do it if he thought he'd be caught at it? Or perhaps he means that he personally wouldn't do it, but would have no hesitation to okay such a thing for a subordinate to do?
To listen to the damage control squad including WH Press Secretary Tony Snow, all of Fox News and a bevy of other paid propagandists, you'd think this sort of thing is not illegal at all. Firing the attorneys that is. They'll tell you that every President cleans house at the beginning of the term. It's only natural! Well, if it is justifiable and routine, why protest so loudly? Oh, I know. To distract from what IS illegal and unethical. Lying under oath.
I remember well that lying under oath (about a private sexual dalliance) was enough to start the impeachment ball rolling. How about lying under oath about turning the Justice Department into an army of personal yes-men for a unitary executive with a god complex?
Is it any wonder that the Bushies are fighting tooth and nail to testify under oath about what they knew and when they knew it? Do they really think we are buying the line that if we want the "truth" we'd do well to take what they tell us behind closed doors, without a record and not under oath?
Since when is the "truth" so fearful of being overheard or repeated or sworn to?
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Think back to the secreted interview with Bush and Cheney holding hands before the 9-11 Commission (hint: whitewash, and we WILL uncover it). Think back to the Bush Administration's assertions that Saddam Hussein and his imagined WMDs were an immediate threat to the US (hint: intentional misrepresentation). Think back to W's protestation that no citizen in our country was being wiretapped without the FISA court approval (hint: LIE). Think back to W's declaration that we do not torture anyone (well, extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, and a host of other abominable practices excluded, and therefore, a LIE). Think back to the White House Press Secretary insisting that Karl Rove didn't know nuthin' about the Valerie Plame leak, and W's phony promise that anyone in the White House who participated in this egregious leak would no longer have employment there (hint: another flat-out lie).
Enough? Have you had enough yet?
Answer: No, the Bush Administration does not deserve to respond to Congressional inquiries behind closed doors, not sworn in, and with no transcript provided. If the firing of the US attorneys was all okay and up front and legit, there is NO reason in hell not to testify, sworn in, and have statements recorded.
I found it most difficult to listen to Tony Snow today, trying to paint Karl Rove et al as honorable people. Don't you?
Friday, March 16, 2007
I suspect an even more despicable motive. Ms. Plame Wilson was involved in a division of the CIA dedicated to intelligence discovery regarding Iraq's WMD. Doesn't this ring any bells for anyone? Valerie is running a very covert op posing as someone else, in the effort to gather intel regarding Iraq's WMD for God's sake!
What better message to send to the CIA than "BACK THE F*** OFF" besides outing one of its premier assets involved in exactly the task of finding out IF Saddam really had WMD? I mean, do you recall.... please say you remember..!!! that the main REASONS we were given for the impetuous invasion and occupation of Iraq had everything to do with that nation's ability to create, distribute and deliver smoking mushroom clouds!!
So.. not only attempt to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson's honest but naked-making op-ed, but at the same time send a message to those in the CIA, who are trying to do a good job, by exposing one of the main channels of intelligence... honest intelligence... we had concerning Iraq!
Bastards. I hope their limbs are slowly eaten away in Hell.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
To read forums and blog comments, some people believe that 19 incredibly lucky Arabs with boxcutters pulled off the total destruction of the entire World Trade Center complex, plus the destruction of a plane with passengers and crew in Shanksville, PA, plus heavy damage all the way through several rings on one side of the Pentagon.
I'd say that's fairly outlandish.
But if you suggest there's more to the story, or a different story, all of a sudden it's impossible because it would take the assent, aid and continuing silence of thousands of people!
This, my friends, is a straw man argument. There is no mainstream 9/11 Truth theory that calls for a cast of thousands.
I mean, if all it took was 19 mostly Saudi Arabs, then surely another group of 19 could do it too. Especially if the event was planned in advance and the mechanisms put in place over time.
I do not believe now, nor have I ever taken seriously, the motive ascribed to Osama bin Laden and his followers, that, "they hate our freedoms." Did Osama benefit? Did Islam benefit? Did the Taliban benefit? Just who did benefit? And who might have had the means and a motive?
If we are looking for motive, we find one right here -- the implementation of the PNAC's hegemonic plan simply could not have happened absent our "new Pearl Harbor." The neo-cons seem to have been ready for 9/11/2001.
[Tunick photo found here, fair use]
Monday, March 05, 2007
This powerful video says it well.
To the United States House of Representatives: it's past time you listened. We know your game. Either do the people's work or share the blame earned by the corrupt Bush administration and the prior rubber-stamp Republican Congress.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
read more | digg story
Saturday, March 03, 2007
"9/11 Changed Everything"
Can you remember when and who first spoke the phrase, "9/11 Changed Everything"? Within a day or two of 9-11-2001, pundits began this curious chant. The phrase persisted through the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report where, on page 328, you'll find:
However, the attacks of 9/11 changed everything. Less than one week after September 11, an early version of what was to become the Patriot Act (officially, the USA PATRIOT Act) began to take shape.
But who seeded that phrase into media consciousness? I surely thought it odd at the time. 9/11 didn't change everything for me.
Someone Planted a Story for the Media
Who seeded the media with the notion that WTC7 collapsed because of fire and damage? The same entity responsible for releasing the soon-to-be news a tad too early, that's who. That's why the recently unearthed BBC video is so important. You know, the footage where Jane Standley reports that the Salomon building (aka WTC7) has collapsed, only it is quite uncollapsed in the view out the window behind her.
At about 5:10 in the video linked above, Jane makes a rather honest observation: "It looks like the aftermath of a huge Atom bomb or something..."
How Perceptions are Formed
This video is called The911Solution. Watch how the news was massaged from the very beginning. After all, if we see it on TV, it must be true, right?
To All the Debunkers...
...who suggest that it would be perfectly ridiculous for bad guys to pre-announce their dirty deeds: you must not be astute or educated enough to grasp the fact that the television is a tool to brainwash the masses. The purpose of the news feed that made it on air too early was not to pre-announce a crime. Its purpose was to provide an explanation (fire and damage) for WTC7's collapse to replace the only other conclusion people could have reached had they been left to their own observations (that WTC7 was imploded in some sort of pre-planned demolition).
Friday, March 02, 2007
read more | digg story
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Or so it says at the bottom of many of the pages at Buzzflash. The motto should read, Fight Ignorance: Be Sure to Read Things Not Allowed Here.
I have doubts whether Buzzflash will print my contribution to their Mailbag, so I reproduce here what I wrote them today.
There are a handful of alternative news compilation sites I've frequented—and supported, financially—over the last several years. Every site has its particular bias or focus, naturally, because there is a human on the other side of a site and we each wear our own spectacles, right?
I have been visiting Buzzflash almost every day for the last few years since the site presents a good cross-section of stories from major and not-so-major news publications around the country. Buzzflash's obvious bias, like many other sites these days, is anti-establishment, and in particular, anti-Republican. Not unlike DailyKos in this regard, Buzz tends to promote Dems while harping on Repubs. Fair enough, the ruling party deserved it.
Another site I've frequented is WhatReallyHappened. Michael Rivero's bias is plain to see—Zionism in its extreme form can be quite ugly, and computer hackers (the bad kind) do deserve to be strung up.
Yet another site I've spent much time perusing is InformationClearinghouse. You'll find some of the more graphic images and videos of the "war on terror" here. The site owner has some pretty strong opinions about neocons and torture and globalism.
I think it is fine if you run a site and make your biases known. But I've run into a problem with Buzzflash in this regard. The site owner has biases he or she keeps hidden. Thus, you think you understand the scope of the content and don't realize the filtering that goes on behind the scenes.
I should have guessed this about Buzzflash, given a recent guest contribution from one Peter Michaelson.
Mr. Michaelson wrote a piece for Buzzflash where he, with true Frist-like audacity, remotely diagnoses everyone associated with what is called the 9/11 Truth Movement. I'll blog about his piece separately. The bottom line is, it was a hit piece disguised as a plea to those folks who dare question the Official Rendition of Events on that "day that changed everything"—a plea to leave their pointless questions behind and join with the true progressives to fight for the issues that really matter. Mr. Michaelson derided and belittled and talked down to and insulted all those who ask questions about what really did happen on 9/11/2001. So, do we assume just because Buzz invites this guest to contribute an article (which was nearly universally repudiated by its own readers) that Buzz itself subscribes to the "you are a nutcase if you disbelieve the government line about 9/11" belief?
Well, I didn't. Until yesterday that is.
Buzzflash offers an alternative .net site that solicits news from users—sort of a toned down Digg. You post something, users "buzz" it or not and if it makes the grade the story is supposed to go on Buzzflash's main page.
So okay, there is a new story this week about someone who uncovered a piece of video aired by the BBC back on 9/11/2001. The video shows a female reporter, standing in front of windows that let on to a view of the World Trade Center complex from a pretty good vantage point, blithely repeating some information she'd been given that the Salomon Brothers building, aka WTC 7, had collapsed. The problem is the building is visible over her shoulder and out the window. She reports the story about 23 minutes before it actually happens.
This is no small bit of news and, at least in my mind, it should raise a few very troubling questions, to wit: Who provided this breaking news to the BBC that had yet to break? And why did her live feed suddenly go black a couple minutes before the building actually fell? Shouldn't we ask some questions of the BBC, this reporter, and possibly the news service that provided that feed? How did someone know ahead of time, for sure, that WTC 7 would collapse?
Shortly after posting the item on Buzzflash.net, and after it had been 'buzzed' a few times, the posting was removed.
A subsequent posting of a similar story, this one bringing to light the CNN broadcast of Aaron Brown saying that WTC 7 had fallen down, or was falling down (when it obviously wasn't since you could see it in the video behind Aaron) more than an hour before it actually DID crumble, well.. this posting was also duly removed from the pending items. It isn't as if the stories were voted down and rejected. They were simply removed from consideration. I'd wager that the majority of Buzzflash.net readers never got a shot at viewing and rating the stories.
So what we are left with is the knowledge that Buzz has a hidden bias. Talk about government lies, fine, unless it's lies about 9/11. Talk about corruption and evilness and lack of compassion in Katrina-handling or veterans' health care or Iraq profiteering, but don't mention the possibility of corruption or evilness or lack of compassion regarding the government's handling of 9/11. Talk about National Intelligence Estimates and Government Accountability Office reports and secret Pentagon briefings, but don't talk about the 9/11 Commission Report. Whatever you do, don't post a newly unearthed video of a live news broadcast from 9/11/2001 that indicates foreknowledge of at least part of the tragedy that day.
I'm more than a little disappointed that the Buzz folks, whoever they are, have a phobia about this topic. I'm also quite sure that I won't purchase anything from the Buzz store or financially support this site anymore.
You may well be behind the curve, Buzz. There is a growing understanding that the Official Rendition of Events simply doesn't add up. This is not a wild-eyed kook-generated conspiracy. The perpetrators left too many loose ends, and we the People want to know the truth. I wish you were there with us, but either you are a left gatekeeper or simply too afraid of being accused of wearing a tin foil hat. Either way, you'll never earn a place in your own hall of fame for courage in the face of adversity.
Maybe one day you'll be honest with your readers that you are scared to death about 9/11 questions. At least that way progressives like me won't waste a few years and a few hundred dollars on your site, thinking that we are hearing about all the important issues of the day. Or maybe you'll catch on and catch up. But first you'll have to pull your head out of the sand and join the people who care not only about the Iraq War but about the event that "changed everything" that got us in there in the first place.