So wrong he should be ashamed:
And WHO was Correct? Mike Moore
Showing posts with label Ministry of Truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ministry of Truth. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Monday, August 06, 2007
Dear Diane Rehm
When book flogger Novak said Valerie Plame was NOT covert, all you needed were 2 words:
Brewster Jennings.
Thanks for nothin' Diane.
Brewster Jennings.
Thanks for nothin' Diane.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Dear Bill Moyers, on "Buying the War"
...as opposed to "selling" the war.
You seem to "think" our main stream media was gullible. That seems to be the point of your program tonight on PBS.
I think many in the MSM were complicit.
(Probably paid off in one way or the other.
Elite, Privileged Americans, especially in D.C., are such brazen whores.)
President Bush freely has spoken of his role as a "propaganda catapult" so I don't think I'm spilling any beans here, neither am I a Conspiracy Theorist, as the folks on National Propaganda Radio used to say repeatedly, as if by mantra.
As a flyover midwestern housefrau who reads, I was aware of the avowed goals of the PNAC Neocons, the boldfaced lies of Colin Powell, Condoleeeza, Rumsey, Dick Cheney, and Dubya, Judith Miller's lying and the discrepancy between the front page and the interior pages of the New York Times, the influence of media ownership on reporting and editorial content, the idiocy of the pundits, the truth of Scott Ritter's, and Hans Blix' and Ray McGovern's professional testimony, and the odd juxtaposition of your pal, Dan Rather's complicity in the Bush National Guard records papers fiasco with his part in the Niger yellowcake paper's scandal.
Do you remember how "boldly" Dan Rather revealed those phony papers - obviously fraudulent - and then the War Party administration... as if scripted for a serial weekly television show ... was able to say the LIBRUL MEDIA was phonying up papers to smear the noble Bush, and thus they got a free ride on the truly phony Niger papers?
This is from Media Matters, to jog your memory...
"Power Line's Johnson falsely claimed CBS panel found Bush Air National Guard documents were forged"
On the November 13 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Scott Johnson, a fellow at the conservative Claremont Institute and a contributor to the right-wing weblog Power Line, falsely claimed that the independent panel hired by CBS to investigate the reporting of a September 8, 2004, 60 Minutes Wednesday segment questioning President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service found that documents cited in the 60 Minutes Wednesday story were forgeries. But contrary to Johnson's assertion, the independent panel's report reached no conclusion as to whether the documents were forged.
Johnson appeared on Reliable Sources opposite Eric Boehlert, a former senior writer at the online magazine Salon and a contributor to The Huffington Post website. During the segment, Boehlert asked rhetorically, "[I]f the documents [upon which the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment was based] were forgery [sic], why didn't Republican Richard Thornburgh [co-chairman of the panel investigating the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment] make that conclusion in his report? He couldn't. And he wouldn't." Johnson responded, "It's on Page 175 [of the report]."
In fact, Page 175 of the independent panel report contains no conclusions about the authenticity of the documents. Page 175 contains the panel's assessment of testimony provided by typography expert Peter Tytell (whose testimony Johnson cited during the Reliable Sources segment). The report states that the panel "found [Tytell's] analysis sound in terms of why he believed the documents were not authentic," but adds, "[t]he [p]anel reaches no conclusion as to whether Tytell was correct in all respects." Moreover, in its executive summary, the report states that although the panel "identified a number of issues that raise serious questions about the authenticity of the documents and their content," it "has not been able to conclude with absolute certainty whether the ... documents are authentic or forgeries."
In the executive summary, the report states that the September 8, 2004, 60 Minutes Wednesday story on Bush's Texas Air National Guard service "failed to meet" CBS' standards of "accuracy and fairness." The panel found that "with better reporting ... questions [about the authenticity of the documents] should have been raised before the September 8 [s]egment aired." The panel's report, made public on January 10, prompted the ouster of four CBS News employees, including Mary Mapes, the producer of the faulted segment, who also appeared on the November 13 edition of Reliable Sources. CBS News' Dan Rather, who reported the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment on Bush's Texas Air National Guard service, also announced his retirement as anchor of CBS' Evening News November 23, 2004, following the flap over the story. Rather claimed he made the decision to resign during the summer of 2004, and he continued to host the Evening News until March 9, 2005.
From the November 23 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
JOHNSON: Well, I just go back to the fact that the substance of the story was a hoax without those documents, which were absolutely forgeries. Look at -- look at the Thornburgh report has the testimony of Peter Tytell, who indicates that this Times New Roman type that those four documents were prepared in didn't exist on typewriters. And he concludes that those were word-processed documents.
HOWARD KURTZ (host): Right.
JOHNSON: Without the documents, there was no story.
KURTZ: In fairness, there were different experts, although many experts do agree with the expert hired by the commission. But you just used the word "hoax." That's a very strong word, because that suggests that CBS and Mary Mapes and Dan Rather did this deliberately, as opposed to perhaps not being careful enough. Do you believe they actually tried to mislead viewers?
JOHNSON: Well, all I would say is the evidence in the report of coordination with the Kerry campaign is substantial. But I will say, now, for Mary Mapes to come on this show this morning and reiterate these fraudulent charges, is a hoax, is a deliberate fraud. Whatever was the status of the story on September 8, 2004, in November 2005, it is a knowing fraud.
KURTZ: Eric Boehlert, you've got the last 20 seconds.
BOEHLERT: Well, that's the problem with this. You know, I think the bloggers got -- hit a home run with this, and their arrogance is now out of control. They're saying the whole Bush National Guard story is a joke. And if the documents were forgery [sic], why didn't Republican Richard Thornburgh make that conclusion in his report? He couldn't. And he wouldn't.
KURTZ: All right.
JOHNSON: It's on Page 175.
Now Bill, Juxtapose that report with this, from Jefferson Morley, in the WaPost:
The Niger Papers: Obstacles to Coverage
Could a media scandal from the 2004 election wind up hindering a major U.S. media organization from following up on the Bush administration's alleged use of forged documents to justify the Iraq war?
The Los Angeles Times is one of several U.S. papers to pick up on the La Repubblica series, focusing on the travails of Elizabeth Burba, the writer for the Italian weekly Panorama who was one of the first journalists to receive the bogus papers on Iraq's alleged attempts to acquire nuclear materials in Africa.Burba told the LAT "she wanted to press ahead with efforts to investigate the case further and determine who forged the documents, but her magazine never published any additional reports."
Panorama is owned by the family of Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. The Italian leader was a strong supporter of the U.S. effort to topple Saddam Hussein.
Burba "has also been interviewed by the CBS investigative show '60 Minutes' for a piece on the documents that was pulled in the wake of the problems that brought down Dan Rather," according to the LAT.
But after suffering a major black eye last year for relying on forged documents for a story about President Bush's National Guard service, CBS would risk controversy if it aired a story about how the Bush administration allegedly relied on doctored intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. CBS's coverage would seem to be handcuffed, at least temporarily, by Rather's 2004 election mistake.
So Bill, Bill, Bill, I must ask you. Why did you feature Dan Rather so prominently now, in 2007, in this package, "Buying the War" that you are selling as a fundraiser for PBS? Are we fogging history in order to rewrite it? Are we packaging the truth for insertion in the Memory Hole?
Dan Rather was a schill who helped Dubya get re-elected and helped him lead us to war.
I, a nobody, knew Dan Rather personally shared a Western ranch property with his personal pal Don Rumsfield. Didn't it occur to you that when Dan Rather brought out the obviously phony documents that he was playing the crucial role that he was groomed for all these years? Why bring that dirty mole back out of the wormy woodwork?
I learned in the nursery that birds of a feather flock together.
Let Dan Rather rot on Rumsey's Ranch.
I mix metphors when I'm mad. Deal with it.
Post script... and now Charley Rose is interviewing the fabulist Robert Novak, telling twisted tales from his bent perspective.
Hope dies last. PBS has drunk the Koolaide.
You seem to "think" our main stream media was gullible. That seems to be the point of your program tonight on PBS.
I think many in the MSM were complicit.
(Probably paid off in one way or the other.
Elite, Privileged Americans, especially in D.C., are such brazen whores.)
President Bush freely has spoken of his role as a "propaganda catapult" so I don't think I'm spilling any beans here, neither am I a Conspiracy Theorist, as the folks on National Propaganda Radio used to say repeatedly, as if by mantra.
As a flyover midwestern housefrau who reads, I was aware of the avowed goals of the PNAC Neocons, the boldfaced lies of Colin Powell, Condoleeeza, Rumsey, Dick Cheney, and Dubya, Judith Miller's lying and the discrepancy between the front page and the interior pages of the New York Times, the influence of media ownership on reporting and editorial content, the idiocy of the pundits, the truth of Scott Ritter's, and Hans Blix' and Ray McGovern's professional testimony, and the odd juxtaposition of your pal, Dan Rather's complicity in the Bush National Guard records papers fiasco with his part in the Niger yellowcake paper's scandal.
Do you remember how "boldly" Dan Rather revealed those phony papers - obviously fraudulent - and then the War Party administration... as if scripted for a serial weekly television show ... was able to say the LIBRUL MEDIA was phonying up papers to smear the noble Bush, and thus they got a free ride on the truly phony Niger papers?
This is from Media Matters, to jog your memory...
"Power Line's Johnson falsely claimed CBS panel found Bush Air National Guard documents were forged"
On the November 13 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Scott Johnson, a fellow at the conservative Claremont Institute and a contributor to the right-wing weblog Power Line, falsely claimed that the independent panel hired by CBS to investigate the reporting of a September 8, 2004, 60 Minutes Wednesday segment questioning President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service found that documents cited in the 60 Minutes Wednesday story were forgeries. But contrary to Johnson's assertion, the independent panel's report reached no conclusion as to whether the documents were forged.
Johnson appeared on Reliable Sources opposite Eric Boehlert, a former senior writer at the online magazine Salon and a contributor to The Huffington Post website. During the segment, Boehlert asked rhetorically, "[I]f the documents [upon which the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment was based] were forgery [sic], why didn't Republican Richard Thornburgh [co-chairman of the panel investigating the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment] make that conclusion in his report? He couldn't. And he wouldn't." Johnson responded, "It's on Page 175 [of the report]."
In fact, Page 175 of the independent panel report contains no conclusions about the authenticity of the documents. Page 175 contains the panel's assessment of testimony provided by typography expert Peter Tytell (whose testimony Johnson cited during the Reliable Sources segment). The report states that the panel "found [Tytell's] analysis sound in terms of why he believed the documents were not authentic," but adds, "[t]he [p]anel reaches no conclusion as to whether Tytell was correct in all respects." Moreover, in its executive summary, the report states that although the panel "identified a number of issues that raise serious questions about the authenticity of the documents and their content," it "has not been able to conclude with absolute certainty whether the ... documents are authentic or forgeries."
In the executive summary, the report states that the September 8, 2004, 60 Minutes Wednesday story on Bush's Texas Air National Guard service "failed to meet" CBS' standards of "accuracy and fairness." The panel found that "with better reporting ... questions [about the authenticity of the documents] should have been raised before the September 8 [s]egment aired." The panel's report, made public on January 10, prompted the ouster of four CBS News employees, including Mary Mapes, the producer of the faulted segment, who also appeared on the November 13 edition of Reliable Sources. CBS News' Dan Rather, who reported the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment on Bush's Texas Air National Guard service, also announced his retirement as anchor of CBS' Evening News November 23, 2004, following the flap over the story. Rather claimed he made the decision to resign during the summer of 2004, and he continued to host the Evening News until March 9, 2005.
From the November 23 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
JOHNSON: Well, I just go back to the fact that the substance of the story was a hoax without those documents, which were absolutely forgeries. Look at -- look at the Thornburgh report has the testimony of Peter Tytell, who indicates that this Times New Roman type that those four documents were prepared in didn't exist on typewriters. And he concludes that those were word-processed documents.
HOWARD KURTZ (host): Right.
JOHNSON: Without the documents, there was no story.
KURTZ: In fairness, there were different experts, although many experts do agree with the expert hired by the commission. But you just used the word "hoax." That's a very strong word, because that suggests that CBS and Mary Mapes and Dan Rather did this deliberately, as opposed to perhaps not being careful enough. Do you believe they actually tried to mislead viewers?
JOHNSON: Well, all I would say is the evidence in the report of coordination with the Kerry campaign is substantial. But I will say, now, for Mary Mapes to come on this show this morning and reiterate these fraudulent charges, is a hoax, is a deliberate fraud. Whatever was the status of the story on September 8, 2004, in November 2005, it is a knowing fraud.
KURTZ: Eric Boehlert, you've got the last 20 seconds.
BOEHLERT: Well, that's the problem with this. You know, I think the bloggers got -- hit a home run with this, and their arrogance is now out of control. They're saying the whole Bush National Guard story is a joke. And if the documents were forgery [sic], why didn't Republican Richard Thornburgh make that conclusion in his report? He couldn't. And he wouldn't.
KURTZ: All right.
JOHNSON: It's on Page 175.
Now Bill, Juxtapose that report with this, from Jefferson Morley, in the WaPost:
The Niger Papers: Obstacles to Coverage
Could a media scandal from the 2004 election wind up hindering a major U.S. media organization from following up on the Bush administration's alleged use of forged documents to justify the Iraq war?
The Los Angeles Times is one of several U.S. papers to pick up on the La Repubblica series, focusing on the travails of Elizabeth Burba, the writer for the Italian weekly Panorama who was one of the first journalists to receive the bogus papers on Iraq's alleged attempts to acquire nuclear materials in Africa.Burba told the LAT "she wanted to press ahead with efforts to investigate the case further and determine who forged the documents, but her magazine never published any additional reports."
Panorama is owned by the family of Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. The Italian leader was a strong supporter of the U.S. effort to topple Saddam Hussein.
Burba "has also been interviewed by the CBS investigative show '60 Minutes' for a piece on the documents that was pulled in the wake of the problems that brought down Dan Rather," according to the LAT.
But after suffering a major black eye last year for relying on forged documents for a story about President Bush's National Guard service, CBS would risk controversy if it aired a story about how the Bush administration allegedly relied on doctored intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. CBS's coverage would seem to be handcuffed, at least temporarily, by Rather's 2004 election mistake.
So Bill, Bill, Bill, I must ask you. Why did you feature Dan Rather so prominently now, in 2007, in this package, "Buying the War" that you are selling as a fundraiser for PBS? Are we fogging history in order to rewrite it? Are we packaging the truth for insertion in the Memory Hole?
Dan Rather was a schill who helped Dubya get re-elected and helped him lead us to war.
I, a nobody, knew Dan Rather personally shared a Western ranch property with his personal pal Don Rumsfield. Didn't it occur to you that when Dan Rather brought out the obviously phony documents that he was playing the crucial role that he was groomed for all these years? Why bring that dirty mole back out of the wormy woodwork?
I learned in the nursery that birds of a feather flock together.
Let Dan Rather rot on Rumsey's Ranch.
I mix metphors when I'm mad. Deal with it.
Post script... and now Charley Rose is interviewing the fabulist Robert Novak, telling twisted tales from his bent perspective.
Hope dies last. PBS has drunk the Koolaide.
Dear Mainstream Media
I wake up a few days ago to hear on the radio that Condoleeeza is offering 44 Billion of my taxpayer dollar bills worth of arms to countries in the Mideast.
Then I hear the figure 20 Billion, Today it is 60 Billion. What the hell are you doing with this reporting? What figure can I quote when I'm painting my signs and writing my letters? What the hell figure can I quote when I'm expressing my rage?
I'm having some "cognitive dissonance" here, folks. Help me out.
Seize the Day is a British group, but the sentiment is the same.
We have 60 Billion taxpayer dollars to supply more carnage, but we don't have money to insure our children, or fix our bridges, or pay our fruit pickers a living wage...
in this great moral self proclaimed Christian nation.
Then I hear the figure 20 Billion, Today it is 60 Billion. What the hell are you doing with this reporting? What figure can I quote when I'm painting my signs and writing my letters? What the hell figure can I quote when I'm expressing my rage?
I'm having some "cognitive dissonance" here, folks. Help me out.
Seize the Day is a British group, but the sentiment is the same.
We have 60 Billion taxpayer dollars to supply more carnage, but we don't have money to insure our children, or fix our bridges, or pay our fruit pickers a living wage...
in this great moral self proclaimed Christian nation.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
a pause for some kulture
Gingsberg on amerika - ballad of skeletons
bomb
his letter to america, 1956
and a living artist, Coby Batty
bomb
his letter to america, 1956
and a living artist, Coby Batty
Monday, July 09, 2007
why I love Michael Moore
a hometown boy does good, damn good
How many people can you name in the mainstream media who have been as correct, right, prescient, and humane as Michael Moore?
How many people can you name in the mainstream media who have been as correct, right, prescient, and humane as Michael Moore?
bang the pots and pans
ECFS Received your Submission/Request at Mon Jul 9 14:54:42 EDT 2007
Eastern Time.
Your filing will be available for viewing online one (1) business day after the receipt of this confirmation. Filers are encouraged to retrieve and view their filing by going to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs and clicking on the "Search for Filed Comments" link.
My Comment:
the final frontier for full information supression
Net Neutrality is essential to free speech, equal opportunity and economic innovation in America. Since the FCC removed this basic protection in 2005, the top executives of phone and cable companies have stated their intention to become the Internet's gatekeepers and to discriminate against Web sites that don't pay their added tolls.
This fundamental change would end the open Internet as we know it. It would damage my ability to connect with others, share information and participate in our 21st century democracy and economy. The FCC must ensure that broadband providers do not block, interfere with or discriminate against any lawful Internet traffic based on its ownership, source or destination.
Now it's your turn...
Eastern Time.
Your filing will be available for viewing online one (1) business day after the receipt of this confirmation. Filers are encouraged to retrieve and view their filing by going to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs and clicking on the "Search for Filed Comments" link.
My Comment:
the final frontier for full information supression
Net Neutrality is essential to free speech, equal opportunity and economic innovation in America. Since the FCC removed this basic protection in 2005, the top executives of phone and cable companies have stated their intention to become the Internet's gatekeepers and to discriminate against Web sites that don't pay their added tolls.
This fundamental change would end the open Internet as we know it. It would damage my ability to connect with others, share information and participate in our 21st century democracy and economy. The FCC must ensure that broadband providers do not block, interfere with or discriminate against any lawful Internet traffic based on its ownership, source or destination.
Now it's your turn...
Why I love Buzzflash.com
...editorials like these, that make me think!
Nobody Marched To Impeach Bill Clinton!
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Linda Milazzo
NOBODY marched to impeach Bill Clinton. Angry citizens DIDN'T fill the streets, carry signs, and beg a non-responsive Congress to do its Constitutional duty and remove Bill Clinton from his job. Panels WEREN'T held across the nation, moderated by Constitutional scholars who loved their country so much that they traversed its full span to inform packed audiences of the high crimes Bill Clinton had done.
Nope. That DIDN'T happen.
In 1998, thousands upon thousands of Americans DIDN'T call, write, fax, and visit their elected leaders every day imploring them to impeach Bill Clinton. Millions of citizens DIDN'T believe the rest of the world wanted Bill Clinton impeached. Groups of citizen activists DIDN'T band together to camp out at their Representatives' homes and district offices for days, sometimes weeks, holding "Impeach Bill Clinton" signs and wearing "Impeach Bill Clinton" T-shirts. Thousands of cars DIDN'T bear "Impeach Bill Clinton" bumper stickers.
Nope. That DIDN'T happen.
Average citizens DIDN'T travel to Washington, DC to walk the halls of Congress and seek audiences with their elected officials demanding to have Bill Clinton impeached.
Nuh-uh!
"Impeachment Centers" WEREN'T opened dedicated to impeaching Bill Clinton like the one in Los Angeles that opened on the Fourth of July, dedicated to impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Hundreds of people DIDN'T join together in a park on a national holiday for an impeach-Bill-Clinton-rally the way they joined together in a park in Los Angeles on Wednesday for an impeach-Bush-and-Cheney-rally.
In 1998, the people DIDN'T need to inspire Congress to impeach Bill Clinton. The 105th Congress couldn't wait to throw the popular President out of his job. In fact they impeached Bill Clinton even though we-the-people implored them not to.
Of course, there were some Americans in 1998 who bought the smear and destroy campaign by the rabid Republican spin-machine and rabid Republican legislators to impeach Bill Clinton under the guise of restoring the Presidency. These duped citizens were conned by mainstream media's daily theatrics, directed by then-adulterer Congressman Henry Hyde, then-adulterer Speaker Newt Gingrich, then drug-addict Rush Limbaugh, future-indicted Congressman Tom Delay, and Special Pornographer Kenneth Starr. (My apologies to Larry Flynt).
How ironic for Gingrich and Hyde that Clinton was caught with his pants down just as they were dropping theirs. How further ironic that the lynchpin asserting the case for Clinton's impeachment was Ken Starr's obsessively compiled pornographic tome, whereas Americans today have a virtual library of scholarly books on the Constitutional merits of impeaching Bush and Cheney. Thanks to Mr. Starr's salacious expose, it is likely his lurid accounting of a private consensual affair will be his singular most powerful climax.
The fact is, during the 105th Congress's impeachment of Bill Clinton, Clinton's public APPROVAL rating was a positive 73%. Conversely, as the current 110th Congress takes NO action to impeach George W. Bush, Bush's public APPROVAL ratings range between 28% and 36%.
This means the people's well-liked President Clinton was penalized, while the people's despised President Bush is allowed to stay on. If this isn't a failure of democracy of, for, and by the people, then what is?
link for rest of article
A chorus of hypocrites, that's what the right is.
On ANOTHER DAY Buzz flashed this one...
Smartest thing I read all day.
Subject: How Do You Do It BuzzFlashers?
How do you all keep up the faith? In early May I returned from a trip to Vegas with a girlfriend. My husband asked if I had heard the news that week. No, says I because we never turned on a TV or read a newspaper. He then informed me of the vote wherein congress gave Bush a blank check. I went immediately to my computer and deleted ALL my political sites, have hardly watched the news, changed from our best newspaper to the fluff one and turned a deaf ear to anything political. The news of Scooter Libby tempeted me to return to Buzz. I will vote in 2008 because I have always done so and because women fought and won a difficult battle to get the vote. What I will not do is vote for a Republican or a Democrat. Members of congress will do or say anything to get elected or re-elected. I still believe in our democtatic principles but can not find the words to express the contempt I feel for congress!
Sandra Boynton
Rathdrum, Idaho
To All:
This was sent to President Bush yesterday.
King George the First: 3 July 2007
Delighted to know you commuted the jail portion of Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence for perjury. He does not deserve jail for covering your and Cheney's part in a felony, the leak of classified CIA information. Now, American people know Libby was the fall guy for both of you.
Along with this, they also know, as long as you are President, the Executive Branch of government will not be held accountable for any crimes. After all you have executed near 1000 Presidential Signing Statements into law which only pertain to "We The People"' and not you or your Executive Branch. This truly earns you the title of King George the First, of the USA since our representative form of government with true justice for all is null and void.
Disgusted,
Colonel Colin J. N. Chauret,
USAF Retired Fighter Pilot 31 Years Active Service, 1942-1973
Universal City, TX
Subject: Impeachment
Of commutation, executive privilege & impeachment
The commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter Libby was the last straw!
The Bush Administration has constantly ignored the rule of law and the constitution. While the commutation is within the guidelines of the law it is a direct affront to the citizens of the the jury comprised of "Scooter's" peers, the legal system and the citizens of the United States. Following a lengthy trail, the jury and the judge found the sentence to be impartial and fair. President Bush -- please excuse "President" and "Bush" in the same phrase -- have never recognized a cognizant or a fair and impartial decision. Because of that philosophy, Bush still decided to commute the 2-1/2 year sentence. To minimize the impact of the commuted sentence he agreed to impose the $250,000 fine and two-year probation ... what he thinks is a politically viable solution. IT'S NOT!
It is time for American citizens to say enough is enough. Commutation, executive privilege and impeachment are no longer "off the table." It is time to take "corrective action!" And it is time to begin articles of impeachment for the "ring leader" -- George W Bush -- as well as Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and "Condosleezza" Rice.
This has to happen in order for the USA to regain its reputation -- not only with its citizens, but with the world community.
It is time to act now! IMPEACH ' EM ALL!
AL Ainsworth
Portland, Oregon
Subject: David Brooks: A kinder, gentler bastard
BuzzFlash,
I have long wondered whether the pundit David Brooks was just stupid or an extremely clever master of deception. He projects a kind image by two means; a soft and gentle apologetic persona, and admitting mistakes were made by the extreme right. However, the mistakes are always admitted long after it can do any good. For example, he was a big supporter of the war with Iraq when it mattered. When public opinion needed to be swayed. Now, years later, he admits, that there is a slight possibility it might have been a mistake. That shows, of course, how reasonable he is.
He is oh so gentle, in supporting things like torture, with his gestures and quiet voice, struggling to find a "middle ground." The article he wrote on the Bush pardon of Libby leaves no doubt that he is just a gentler, kinder gentler bastard not at all naive.
Here the facts are well known, at the time of the event. All the evil of the outing of Valerie Plame appears in numerous reports and the sworn testimony during the Libby trial. For him to toe the party line has to be an extremely deliberate and evil act. I am sure a few years from now his rhetoric will soften, when it doesn't matter anymore. But there will be no new facts. He will just use the change in tone to show again how reasonable he is.
A Memo for David Brooks (davidcorn.com)
The soft-on-torture liberal
Subject: The Pledge, The Turn, The Prestige
If you saw the movie “The Prestige,” you have an inkling of the magic act George W. Bush just performed by commuting I. “Scooter” Libby’s legally derived, appealed and reaffirmed jail sentence imposed by a court of law and a jury of his peers.
According to the movie, a magic act consists of three parts. The “Pledge” is the part of a magic act where the magician shows the audience a common object or person and then promises they will see something special happen on stage. In the case of the United States vs. “Scooter” Libby, Mr. Cheney, Bush's stagehand, took Mr. Libby and either convinced him to lie to a Federal Grand Jury or, at the very least, turned the other way while Rove and Libby conspired to block a special investigation of the Valerie Plame national security leak.
The “Turn” is the part where the magician distracts his audience and then proceeds to involve his subject in an amazing feat of magic. In the case of Mr. Libby, the audience was fed a continual stream of disinformation about prosecutor Fitzgerald, Valerie Plame, and Joe Wilson while the affable looking Libby wove a fabric of lies to protect himself and his superiors from spending time in jail. Magically, he claimed his hitherto well-documented keen memory failed him while testifying. He was just confused, his attorneys said. Given his years of service in which he used that very same memory to execute the complexities of his job at the highest levels of government, the loss of memory has become a legendary piece of Houdini history.
The “Prestige” is the final part of the trick, where the magician asks his audience to suspend their disbelief and accept that the magic and reality are one in the same. The willing subject mysteriously escapes one box and appears in another. The audience claps and scratches their heads’ as they leave the theater wondering how it was done.
In three carefully crafted acts our magician, our President, executed his well planned trick. First, he allowed his Vice President and staff to conspire to leak highly classified information. Second, he denied he or any member of his staff participated in the Plame affair and assured us if they did they would be punished according to the law. Third, our President waved his magic pen, ignored the law he told us he would abide by and commuted the jail sentence of his willing subject, I. “Scooter” Libby, who slipped quietly out the back door.
In the end, the “Prestige” had been executed perfectly. But as in any magic act, the reality is always hiding behind the curtain. Everyone knows it. Everyone has come to expect it. Everyone accepts it.
And so we are left wondering, when will George W. Bush and his stage hands be back in town for another performance? Will it be today, tomorrow or perhaps during the next Presidential election? Will the tricks and the tricksters ever leave the stage? Only the magician has the answer and it is unlikely he will ever reveal the secret. Poof!
George Gerber
Doylestown, PA
Nobody Marched To Impeach Bill Clinton!
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Linda Milazzo
NOBODY marched to impeach Bill Clinton. Angry citizens DIDN'T fill the streets, carry signs, and beg a non-responsive Congress to do its Constitutional duty and remove Bill Clinton from his job. Panels WEREN'T held across the nation, moderated by Constitutional scholars who loved their country so much that they traversed its full span to inform packed audiences of the high crimes Bill Clinton had done.
Nope. That DIDN'T happen.
In 1998, thousands upon thousands of Americans DIDN'T call, write, fax, and visit their elected leaders every day imploring them to impeach Bill Clinton. Millions of citizens DIDN'T believe the rest of the world wanted Bill Clinton impeached. Groups of citizen activists DIDN'T band together to camp out at their Representatives' homes and district offices for days, sometimes weeks, holding "Impeach Bill Clinton" signs and wearing "Impeach Bill Clinton" T-shirts. Thousands of cars DIDN'T bear "Impeach Bill Clinton" bumper stickers.
Nope. That DIDN'T happen.
Average citizens DIDN'T travel to Washington, DC to walk the halls of Congress and seek audiences with their elected officials demanding to have Bill Clinton impeached.
Nuh-uh!
"Impeachment Centers" WEREN'T opened dedicated to impeaching Bill Clinton like the one in Los Angeles that opened on the Fourth of July, dedicated to impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Hundreds of people DIDN'T join together in a park on a national holiday for an impeach-Bill-Clinton-rally the way they joined together in a park in Los Angeles on Wednesday for an impeach-Bush-and-Cheney-rally.
In 1998, the people DIDN'T need to inspire Congress to impeach Bill Clinton. The 105th Congress couldn't wait to throw the popular President out of his job. In fact they impeached Bill Clinton even though we-the-people implored them not to.
Of course, there were some Americans in 1998 who bought the smear and destroy campaign by the rabid Republican spin-machine and rabid Republican legislators to impeach Bill Clinton under the guise of restoring the Presidency. These duped citizens were conned by mainstream media's daily theatrics, directed by then-adulterer Congressman Henry Hyde, then-adulterer Speaker Newt Gingrich, then drug-addict Rush Limbaugh, future-indicted Congressman Tom Delay, and Special Pornographer Kenneth Starr. (My apologies to Larry Flynt).
How ironic for Gingrich and Hyde that Clinton was caught with his pants down just as they were dropping theirs. How further ironic that the lynchpin asserting the case for Clinton's impeachment was Ken Starr's obsessively compiled pornographic tome, whereas Americans today have a virtual library of scholarly books on the Constitutional merits of impeaching Bush and Cheney. Thanks to Mr. Starr's salacious expose, it is likely his lurid accounting of a private consensual affair will be his singular most powerful climax.
The fact is, during the 105th Congress's impeachment of Bill Clinton, Clinton's public APPROVAL rating was a positive 73%. Conversely, as the current 110th Congress takes NO action to impeach George W. Bush, Bush's public APPROVAL ratings range between 28% and 36%.
This means the people's well-liked President Clinton was penalized, while the people's despised President Bush is allowed to stay on. If this isn't a failure of democracy of, for, and by the people, then what is?
link for rest of article
A chorus of hypocrites, that's what the right is.
On ANOTHER DAY Buzz flashed this one...
Smartest thing I read all day.
Subject: How Do You Do It BuzzFlashers?
How do you all keep up the faith? In early May I returned from a trip to Vegas with a girlfriend. My husband asked if I had heard the news that week. No, says I because we never turned on a TV or read a newspaper. He then informed me of the vote wherein congress gave Bush a blank check. I went immediately to my computer and deleted ALL my political sites, have hardly watched the news, changed from our best newspaper to the fluff one and turned a deaf ear to anything political. The news of Scooter Libby tempeted me to return to Buzz. I will vote in 2008 because I have always done so and because women fought and won a difficult battle to get the vote. What I will not do is vote for a Republican or a Democrat. Members of congress will do or say anything to get elected or re-elected. I still believe in our democtatic principles but can not find the words to express the contempt I feel for congress!
Sandra Boynton
Rathdrum, Idaho
To All:
This was sent to President Bush yesterday.
King George the First: 3 July 2007
Delighted to know you commuted the jail portion of Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence for perjury. He does not deserve jail for covering your and Cheney's part in a felony, the leak of classified CIA information. Now, American people know Libby was the fall guy for both of you.
Along with this, they also know, as long as you are President, the Executive Branch of government will not be held accountable for any crimes. After all you have executed near 1000 Presidential Signing Statements into law which only pertain to "We The People"' and not you or your Executive Branch. This truly earns you the title of King George the First, of the USA since our representative form of government with true justice for all is null and void.
Disgusted,
Colonel Colin J. N. Chauret,
USAF Retired Fighter Pilot 31 Years Active Service, 1942-1973
Universal City, TX
Subject: Impeachment
Of commutation, executive privilege & impeachment
The commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter Libby was the last straw!
The Bush Administration has constantly ignored the rule of law and the constitution. While the commutation is within the guidelines of the law it is a direct affront to the citizens of the the jury comprised of "Scooter's" peers, the legal system and the citizens of the United States. Following a lengthy trail, the jury and the judge found the sentence to be impartial and fair. President Bush -- please excuse "President" and "Bush" in the same phrase -- have never recognized a cognizant or a fair and impartial decision. Because of that philosophy, Bush still decided to commute the 2-1/2 year sentence. To minimize the impact of the commuted sentence he agreed to impose the $250,000 fine and two-year probation ... what he thinks is a politically viable solution. IT'S NOT!
It is time for American citizens to say enough is enough. Commutation, executive privilege and impeachment are no longer "off the table." It is time to take "corrective action!" And it is time to begin articles of impeachment for the "ring leader" -- George W Bush -- as well as Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and "Condosleezza" Rice.
This has to happen in order for the USA to regain its reputation -- not only with its citizens, but with the world community.
It is time to act now! IMPEACH ' EM ALL!
AL Ainsworth
Portland, Oregon
Subject: David Brooks: A kinder, gentler bastard
BuzzFlash,
I have long wondered whether the pundit David Brooks was just stupid or an extremely clever master of deception. He projects a kind image by two means; a soft and gentle apologetic persona, and admitting mistakes were made by the extreme right. However, the mistakes are always admitted long after it can do any good. For example, he was a big supporter of the war with Iraq when it mattered. When public opinion needed to be swayed. Now, years later, he admits, that there is a slight possibility it might have been a mistake. That shows, of course, how reasonable he is.
He is oh so gentle, in supporting things like torture, with his gestures and quiet voice, struggling to find a "middle ground." The article he wrote on the Bush pardon of Libby leaves no doubt that he is just a gentler, kinder gentler bastard not at all naive.
Here the facts are well known, at the time of the event. All the evil of the outing of Valerie Plame appears in numerous reports and the sworn testimony during the Libby trial. For him to toe the party line has to be an extremely deliberate and evil act. I am sure a few years from now his rhetoric will soften, when it doesn't matter anymore. But there will be no new facts. He will just use the change in tone to show again how reasonable he is.
A Memo for David Brooks (davidcorn.com)
The soft-on-torture liberal
Subject: The Pledge, The Turn, The Prestige
If you saw the movie “The Prestige,” you have an inkling of the magic act George W. Bush just performed by commuting I. “Scooter” Libby’s legally derived, appealed and reaffirmed jail sentence imposed by a court of law and a jury of his peers.
According to the movie, a magic act consists of three parts. The “Pledge” is the part of a magic act where the magician shows the audience a common object or person and then promises they will see something special happen on stage. In the case of the United States vs. “Scooter” Libby, Mr. Cheney, Bush's stagehand, took Mr. Libby and either convinced him to lie to a Federal Grand Jury or, at the very least, turned the other way while Rove and Libby conspired to block a special investigation of the Valerie Plame national security leak.
The “Turn” is the part where the magician distracts his audience and then proceeds to involve his subject in an amazing feat of magic. In the case of Mr. Libby, the audience was fed a continual stream of disinformation about prosecutor Fitzgerald, Valerie Plame, and Joe Wilson while the affable looking Libby wove a fabric of lies to protect himself and his superiors from spending time in jail. Magically, he claimed his hitherto well-documented keen memory failed him while testifying. He was just confused, his attorneys said. Given his years of service in which he used that very same memory to execute the complexities of his job at the highest levels of government, the loss of memory has become a legendary piece of Houdini history.
The “Prestige” is the final part of the trick, where the magician asks his audience to suspend their disbelief and accept that the magic and reality are one in the same. The willing subject mysteriously escapes one box and appears in another. The audience claps and scratches their heads’ as they leave the theater wondering how it was done.
In three carefully crafted acts our magician, our President, executed his well planned trick. First, he allowed his Vice President and staff to conspire to leak highly classified information. Second, he denied he or any member of his staff participated in the Plame affair and assured us if they did they would be punished according to the law. Third, our President waved his magic pen, ignored the law he told us he would abide by and commuted the jail sentence of his willing subject, I. “Scooter” Libby, who slipped quietly out the back door.
In the end, the “Prestige” had been executed perfectly. But as in any magic act, the reality is always hiding behind the curtain. Everyone knows it. Everyone has come to expect it. Everyone accepts it.
And so we are left wondering, when will George W. Bush and his stage hands be back in town for another performance? Will it be today, tomorrow or perhaps during the next Presidential election? Will the tricks and the tricksters ever leave the stage? Only the magician has the answer and it is unlikely he will ever reveal the secret. Poof!
George Gerber
Doylestown, PA
Friday, June 22, 2007
the smartest guy I've heard all day...
and I listened to NPR this morning. Kat Williams calls our gov't. a bunch of pimps.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
a little alarm clock music
Rage against the machine singing a little American history.
Wake up.
Antiflag reminds you why you gotta go to work to pay them bills.
One trillion dollars.
Dedicated to the NeoCons, the Neolibs, and the MIC.
I actually heard the meme change from a mouthpiece on NPR- we are now fighting in Iraq to protect our way of life.
So ... we're being bled dry so we can have our stuff.
There is an alternative, you know.
Wake up. Get up and go to work, people, but work for something else.
There is an alternative.
Wake up.
Antiflag reminds you why you gotta go to work to pay them bills.
One trillion dollars.
Dedicated to the NeoCons, the Neolibs, and the MIC.
I actually heard the meme change from a mouthpiece on NPR- we are now fighting in Iraq to protect our way of life.
So ... we're being bled dry so we can have our stuff.
There is an alternative, you know.
Wake up. Get up and go to work, people, but work for something else.
There is an alternative.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Crafting a new story for the attention deficit nation
Iraq
- q + n= Iran
- n= IRA
The news of the Iranian roadside bombs in Iraq that kill our troops you are being innundated with is just another new BS story.
I predict is another Jessica Lynch- Pat Tillman Potemkin type propaganda story, crafted to rouse the Attention Deficit Nation.
Don't trust anything the War Party says on the War Media.
Don't you remember, the story has been hinted around for months now.
I recall hearing it mentioned briefly by the ABC writer- embedded reporter on Diane Rheme's show last week.
But the REAL story is that it is another covert provication to war on Iran.
Dubya is spending millions on propaganda aimed at you and me. Are you awake enough to catch it?
Just Google it for yourself... IRA and IED. These are the same bombs that covert Brit and US spooks taught the IRA to use in their violence, as reported in the Guardian newspaper.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Dear Diane Rehm - a big lie repeated, and you just sat there
Your guest, a reporter for ABC News, repeated a "big lie".
Of course, she's a corporate, imbedded reporter. Take those with a grain of salt.
The Big Lie your guest repeated, discussed by Dr. Les Roberts in the following interview, is that the new British study of the famous John-Hopkins study on civilian Iraqi deaths found that the original study may have been too conservative in its numbers.
The big lie she mouthed was that yes, the Brit scientists (of whom nobody could question their expertise) said the numbers were determined to be "wrong".
Some propaganda is easy - lie by ommission.
Not that the numbers were conservative, but that they were wrong... implying they were perhaps excessive or done sloppily.
The study of the study said the numbers were too small.
Dr. Roberts was in Rwanda after the genocide. He said the numbers of dead innocent people in Iraq equal or exceed the numbers of dead in the Rwandan genocide.
Chew on that.
Antiwar Radio: Charles Goyette Interviews Les Roberts
Thursday, March 29th, 2007 in News, War crimes, Antiwar Radio, Iraq by Charles Goyette (link listen)
Dr. Les Roberts from Columbia University discusses the famous Johns Hopkins/Lancet studies of “excess civilian deaths” in Iraq since 2003, the UK government scientists who told Tony Blair that Lancet had, if anything, underestimated the dead at 655,000 (more than the Rwandan genocide of 1994), the deliberate efforts of the U.S. government to suppress numbers of the dead.
MP3 here. (16:49)
Les Roberts, PhD, holds has a Masters degree in public health from Tulane University and a Ph.D. in environmental engineering from Johns Hopkins. He did a post-doctorate fellowship in epidemiology at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where he worked for 4 years. In 1994, he worked as an epidemiologist for the World Health Organization in Rwanda during their civil war. He previously served as the Director of Health Policy at the International Rescue Committee. He is a lecturer at the Johns Hopkins University Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering where he teaches each fall. He teaches a class entitled Water and Sanitation in Complex Emergencies and the 7-week quantitative component of the Program’s Investigative Methods in Complex Emergencies course.
Of course, she's a corporate, imbedded reporter. Take those with a grain of salt.
The Big Lie your guest repeated, discussed by Dr. Les Roberts in the following interview, is that the new British study of the famous John-Hopkins study on civilian Iraqi deaths found that the original study may have been too conservative in its numbers.
The big lie she mouthed was that yes, the Brit scientists (of whom nobody could question their expertise) said the numbers were determined to be "wrong".
Some propaganda is easy - lie by ommission.
Not that the numbers were conservative, but that they were wrong... implying they were perhaps excessive or done sloppily.
The study of the study said the numbers were too small.
Dr. Roberts was in Rwanda after the genocide. He said the numbers of dead innocent people in Iraq equal or exceed the numbers of dead in the Rwandan genocide.
Chew on that.
Antiwar Radio: Charles Goyette Interviews Les Roberts
Thursday, March 29th, 2007 in News, War crimes, Antiwar Radio, Iraq by Charles Goyette (link listen)
Dr. Les Roberts from Columbia University discusses the famous Johns Hopkins/Lancet studies of “excess civilian deaths” in Iraq since 2003, the UK government scientists who told Tony Blair that Lancet had, if anything, underestimated the dead at 655,000 (more than the Rwandan genocide of 1994), the deliberate efforts of the U.S. government to suppress numbers of the dead.
MP3 here. (16:49)
Les Roberts, PhD, holds has a Masters degree in public health from Tulane University and a Ph.D. in environmental engineering from Johns Hopkins. He did a post-doctorate fellowship in epidemiology at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where he worked for 4 years. In 1994, he worked as an epidemiologist for the World Health Organization in Rwanda during their civil war. He previously served as the Director of Health Policy at the International Rescue Committee. He is a lecturer at the Johns Hopkins University Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering where he teaches each fall. He teaches a class entitled Water and Sanitation in Complex Emergencies and the 7-week quantitative component of the Program’s Investigative Methods in Complex Emergencies course.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
kool stuff
neocon wall chart 1 and neocon wall chart 2, theocrat edition from http://oddlots.digitalspace.net/ARX/downloads/neoconned.html
For lots of info to elucidate the charts, check out the accompanying downloads.
For lots of info to elucidate the charts, check out the accompanying downloads.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Okay, NPR, here's what I wanna know
I can understand this shite from Bill O'Reilly, the schmuck.
But why are you reporting so persistently on the fifteen Brit sailors?
We can see them eating, speaking, clothed.
They are not being tortured, no scars, no organ failure.
Can you say that for the unknown number of people our secret police swept off the streets of other countries and "extrodinarily renditioned" since the Clinton administration.
How many of those people were able to confirm to their families that they are still alive or in good condition?
Read about Ghost Prisoners.
http://hrw.org/reports/2007/us0207/2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_detainee
We both have broken the rules of the Geneva Conventions. Iran by crossing a few minor points such as showing prisoners on tape...
But my America, overwhelmingly so.... so many treaties Dubya has smashed.
We, my fellow Americans are the war criminals, by any standard.
You saw the GPS points in the dispute, didn't you. How the story changed and then the GPS supposedly was "proof" that the sailors were picked up in Iraqi territory.
Did you fall for it?
Here is a little "tell" that illustrates the propaganda technique of what you are seeing on the MSM, gang.
The maps we see on for instance FOX show the American propaganda version of where the 12 mile limit in the border dispute. The American map is taken by the American press as a "given".
Have you seen the GPS dots explained using an Iranian propaganda map? No.
You are supposed to believe the high technology of GPS marks, but they don't mention the the map you are being shown is what is actually the dispute, NOT the place where the sailors were picked up!
Sometimes we believe thing that aren't true, just because they are artfully presented as "given".
Here's an idea! maybe Iran should fly the fifteen British to Syria, after all, Damascus is one of Dubya's prisoner handoffs of choice.
But why are you reporting so persistently on the fifteen Brit sailors?
We can see them eating, speaking, clothed.
They are not being tortured, no scars, no organ failure.
Can you say that for the unknown number of people our secret police swept off the streets of other countries and "extrodinarily renditioned" since the Clinton administration.
How many of those people were able to confirm to their families that they are still alive or in good condition?
Read about Ghost Prisoners.
http://hrw.org/reports/2007/us0207/2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_detainee
We both have broken the rules of the Geneva Conventions. Iran by crossing a few minor points such as showing prisoners on tape...
But my America, overwhelmingly so.... so many treaties Dubya has smashed.
We, my fellow Americans are the war criminals, by any standard.
You saw the GPS points in the dispute, didn't you. How the story changed and then the GPS supposedly was "proof" that the sailors were picked up in Iraqi territory.
Did you fall for it?
Here is a little "tell" that illustrates the propaganda technique of what you are seeing on the MSM, gang.
The maps we see on for instance FOX show the American propaganda version of where the 12 mile limit in the border dispute. The American map is taken by the American press as a "given".
Have you seen the GPS dots explained using an Iranian propaganda map? No.
You are supposed to believe the high technology of GPS marks, but they don't mention the the map you are being shown is what is actually the dispute, NOT the place where the sailors were picked up!
Sometimes we believe thing that aren't true, just because they are artfully presented as "given".
Here's an idea! maybe Iran should fly the fifteen British to Syria, after all, Damascus is one of Dubya's prisoner handoffs of choice.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
deja vu all over again
Sy Hersh, the guy who has always been right in the past. Unless Congress impeaches Bush and Cheney, Iran will be the new Iraq.
And Michael Klare connects all the dots for us...
Tomgram: Michael Klare, Talking Points for the Next War
posted February 25, 2007 on www.tomdispatch.com
a project of the Nation Institute
compiled and edited by Tom Engelhardt
This post can be found at http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=169271
At 10:16 PM on March 19, 2003, after copious military preparations in the Persian Gulf region and beyond, after months of diplomatic maneuvers at the United Nations, after a drumbeat of leaked intelligence warnings and hair-raising statements by top U.S. officials and the President about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and how close Saddam Hussein might be to developing a nuclear weapon, after declaring Saddam's regime a major threat to Americans, after countless insinuations that it was somehow connected to the 9/11 attacks on our country, after endless denials that war with Iraq was necessarily on the administration's agenda, President George W. Bush addressed the nation from the Oval Office. "My fellow citizens," he began, "at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger…"
Almost four years later, all the above elements are again in place, this time in relation to Iran -- with Iranian responsibility for the deaths of Americans in Iraq replacing Iraqi responsibility for the deaths of Americans in New York and Washington. On a careful reading of our President's latest speeches and statements, Michael Klare has noted that an actual list of charges against Iran, a case for war, has already essentially been drawn up, making it easy enough to imagine that at 10:16 PM on some night not so very distant from this one, from that same desk in the Oval Office, the President of the United States might again begin, "My fellow citizens, at this hour…" But read on for yourself. Tom
Bush's Future Iran War Speech
Three Charges in the Case for War
By Michael T. Klare
Sometime this spring or summer, barring an unexpected turnaround by Tehran, President Bush is likely to go on national television and announce that he has ordered American ships and aircraft to strike at military targets inside Iran. We must still sit through several months of soap opera at the United Nations in New York and assorted foreign capitals before this comes to pass, and it is always possible that a diplomatic breakthrough will occur -- let it be so! -- but I am convinced that Bush has already decided an attack is his only option and the rest is a charade he must go through to satisfy his European allies. The proof of this, I believe, lies half-hidden in recent public statements of his, which, if pieced together, provide a casus belli, or formal list of justifications, for going to war.
Three of his statements, in particular, contained the essence of this justification: his January 10 televised speech on his plan for a troop "surge" in Iraq, his State of the Union Address of January 23, and his first televised press conference of the year on February 14. None of these was primarily focused on Iran, but the President used each of them to warn of the extraordinary dangers that country poses to the United States and to hint at severe U.S. reprisals if the Iranians did not desist from "harming U.S. troops." In each, moreover, he laid out various parts of the overall argument he will certainly use to justify an attack on Iran. String these together in one place and you can almost anticipate what Bush's speechwriters will concoct before he addresses the American people from the Oval Office sometime later this year. Think of them as talking points for the next war.
The first of these revealing statements was Bush's January 10th televised address on Iraq. This speech was supposedly intended to rally public and Congressional support behind his plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops into the Iraqi capital and al-Anbar Province, the heartland of the Sunni insurgency. But his presentation that night was so uninspired, so lacking in conviction, that -- according to media commentary and polling data -- few, if any, Americans were persuaded by his arguments. Only once that evening did Bush visibly come alive: When he spoke about the threat to Iraq supposedly posed by Iran.
"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges," he declared, which meant, he assured his audience, addressing the problem of Iran. That country, he asserted, "is providing material support for attacks on American troops." (This support was later identified as advanced improvised explosive devices -- IEDs or roadside bombs -- given to anti-American Shiite militias.) Then followed an unambiguous warning: "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces... And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
Consider this item one in his casus belli: Because Iran is aiding and abetting our enemies in Iraq, we are justified in attacking Iran as a matter of self-defense.
Bush put it this way in an interview with Juan Williams of National Public Radio on January 29: "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly… It makes common sense for the commander-in-chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people -- and the Iraqi government -- that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm."
In his January 10 address, the President went on to fill in a second item in any future casus belli: Iran is seeking nuclear weapons in order to dominate the Middle East to the detriment of our friends in the region -- a goal that it simply cannot be allowed to achieve.
In response to such a possibility, the President declared, "We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East." These included deploying a second U.S. aircraft carrier battle group to the Gulf region, consisting of the USS John C. Stennis and a flotilla of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines (presumably to provide additional air and missile assets for strikes on Iran), along with additional Patriot anti-missile batteries (presumably to shoot down any Iranian missiles that might be fired in retaliation for an air attack on the country and its nuclear facilities). "And," Bush added, "we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region."
Bush added a third item to the casus belli in his State of the Union Address on January 23. After years of describing Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda as the greatest threats to U.S. interests in the Middle East, he now introduced a new menace: the resurgent Shia branch of Islam led by Iran.
Aside from al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremists, he explained, "it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East." Many of these extremists, he noted, "are known to take direction from the regime in Iran," including the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon.
As if to nail down this point, he offered some hair-raising imagery right out of the Left Behind bestselling book series so beloved of Christian evangelicals and their neoconservative allies: "If American forces step back [from Iraq] before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists backed by Al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill across the country, and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict. For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective."
As refined by Bush speechwriters, this, then, is the third item in his casus belli for attacking Iran: to prevent a "nightmare scenario" in which the Shia leaders of Iran might emerge as the grandmasters of regional instability, using proxies like Hezbollah to imperil Israel and pro-American regimes in Jordan, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia -- with potentially catastrophic consequences for the safety of Middle Eastern oil supplies. You can be sure of what Bush will say to this in his future address: No American president would ever allow such a scenario to come to pass.
Many of these themes were reiterated in the president's White House Valentine's Day press conference. Once again, Iraq was meant to be the main story, but Iran captured all the headlines.
Bush's most widely cited comments on Iran focused on claims of Iranian involvement in the delivery of sophisticated versions of the roadside IEDs that have been responsible for many of the U.S. casualties in recent months. Just a few days earlier, unidentified American military officials in Baghdad had declared that elements of the Iranian military -- specifically, the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards -- were supplying the deadly devices to Shiite militias in Iraq, and that high-ranking Iranian government officials were aware of the deliveries. These claims were contested by other U.S. officials and members of Congress who expressed doubt about the reliability of the evidence and the intelligence work behind it, but Bush evinced no such uncertainty:
"What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known."
What is not known, he continued, is just how high up in the Iranian government went the decision-making that led such IEDs to be delivered to the Shia militias in Iraq. But that doesn't matter, he explained. "What matters is, is that they're there... [W]e know they're there, and we're going to protect our troops." As Commander-in-Chief, he insisted, he would "do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way."
He then went on to indicate that "the biggest problem I see is the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon." He expressed his wish that this problem can be "dealt with" in a peaceful way -- by the Iranians voluntarily agreeing to cease their program to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels. But he also made it clear that the onus was purely on Tehran to take the necessary action to avoid unspecified harm: "I would like to be at the -- have been given a chance for us to explain that we have no desire to harm the Iranian people."
No reporters at the press conference asked him to explain this odd twist of phrase, delivered in the past tense, about his regret that he was unable to explain to the Iranian people why he had meant them no harm -- presumably after the fact. However, if you view this as the Bush version of a Freudian slip, one obvious conclusion can be drawn: that the President has already made the decision to begin the countdown for an attack on Iran, and only total capitulation by the Iranians could possibly bring the process to a halt.
Further evidence for this conclusion is provided by Bush's repeated reference to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. On three separate occasions during the press conference he praised Russia, China, and the "EU3" -- Britain, France, and Germany -- for framing the December 23 Security Council resolution condemning Iran's nuclear activities and imposing economic sanctions on Iran in the context of Chapter 7 -- that is, of "Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression."
This sets the stage for the international community, under UN leadership, to take such steps as may be deemed necessary "to maintain or restore international peace and stability," ranging from mild economic sanctions to full-scale war (steps that are described in Articles 39 to 51). But the December 23 resolution was specifically framed under Article 41, which entails "measures not involving the use of armed force," a stipulation demanded by China and Russia, which have categorically ruled out the use of military force to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran.
One suspects that President Bush has Chapter 7 on the brain because he now intends to ask for a new resolution under Article 42, which allows the use of military force to restore international peace and stability. But it is nearly inconceivable that Russia and China would approve such a resolution. Such approval would also be tantamount to acknowledging American hegemony worldwide, and this is something they are simply unwilling to do.
So we can expect several months of fruitless diplomacy at the United Nations in which the United States may achieve slightly more severe economic sanctions under Chapter 41 but not approval for military action under Chapter 42. Bush knows that this is the inevitable outcome, and so I am convinced that, in his various speeches and meetings with reporters, he is already preparing the way for a future address to the nation. In it, he will speak somberly of a tireless American effort to secure a meaningful resolution from the United Nations on Iran with real teeth in it and his deep disappointment that no such resolution has been not forthcoming. He will also point out that, despite the heroic efforts of American diplomats as well as military commanders in Iraq, Iran continues to pose a vital and unchecked threat to American security in Iraq, in the region, and even -- via its nuclear program -- in the wider world.
Further diplomacy, he will insist, appears futile and yet Iran must be stopped. Hence, he will say, "I have made the unavoidable decision to eliminate this vital threat through direct military action," and will announce -- in language eerily reminiscent of his address to the nation on March 19, 2003 -- that a massive air offensive against Iran has already been underway for several hours.
Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the defense correspondent of the Nation magazine. He is the author, most recently, of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum (Owl Books).
Copyright 2007 Michael T. Klare
And Michael Klare connects all the dots for us...
Tomgram: Michael Klare, Talking Points for the Next War
posted February 25, 2007 on www.tomdispatch.com
a project of the Nation Institute
compiled and edited by Tom Engelhardt
This post can be found at http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=169271
At 10:16 PM on March 19, 2003, after copious military preparations in the Persian Gulf region and beyond, after months of diplomatic maneuvers at the United Nations, after a drumbeat of leaked intelligence warnings and hair-raising statements by top U.S. officials and the President about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and how close Saddam Hussein might be to developing a nuclear weapon, after declaring Saddam's regime a major threat to Americans, after countless insinuations that it was somehow connected to the 9/11 attacks on our country, after endless denials that war with Iraq was necessarily on the administration's agenda, President George W. Bush addressed the nation from the Oval Office. "My fellow citizens," he began, "at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger…"
Almost four years later, all the above elements are again in place, this time in relation to Iran -- with Iranian responsibility for the deaths of Americans in Iraq replacing Iraqi responsibility for the deaths of Americans in New York and Washington. On a careful reading of our President's latest speeches and statements, Michael Klare has noted that an actual list of charges against Iran, a case for war, has already essentially been drawn up, making it easy enough to imagine that at 10:16 PM on some night not so very distant from this one, from that same desk in the Oval Office, the President of the United States might again begin, "My fellow citizens, at this hour…" But read on for yourself. Tom
Bush's Future Iran War Speech
Three Charges in the Case for War
By Michael T. Klare
Sometime this spring or summer, barring an unexpected turnaround by Tehran, President Bush is likely to go on national television and announce that he has ordered American ships and aircraft to strike at military targets inside Iran. We must still sit through several months of soap opera at the United Nations in New York and assorted foreign capitals before this comes to pass, and it is always possible that a diplomatic breakthrough will occur -- let it be so! -- but I am convinced that Bush has already decided an attack is his only option and the rest is a charade he must go through to satisfy his European allies. The proof of this, I believe, lies half-hidden in recent public statements of his, which, if pieced together, provide a casus belli, or formal list of justifications, for going to war.
Three of his statements, in particular, contained the essence of this justification: his January 10 televised speech on his plan for a troop "surge" in Iraq, his State of the Union Address of January 23, and his first televised press conference of the year on February 14. None of these was primarily focused on Iran, but the President used each of them to warn of the extraordinary dangers that country poses to the United States and to hint at severe U.S. reprisals if the Iranians did not desist from "harming U.S. troops." In each, moreover, he laid out various parts of the overall argument he will certainly use to justify an attack on Iran. String these together in one place and you can almost anticipate what Bush's speechwriters will concoct before he addresses the American people from the Oval Office sometime later this year. Think of them as talking points for the next war.
The first of these revealing statements was Bush's January 10th televised address on Iraq. This speech was supposedly intended to rally public and Congressional support behind his plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops into the Iraqi capital and al-Anbar Province, the heartland of the Sunni insurgency. But his presentation that night was so uninspired, so lacking in conviction, that -- according to media commentary and polling data -- few, if any, Americans were persuaded by his arguments. Only once that evening did Bush visibly come alive: When he spoke about the threat to Iraq supposedly posed by Iran.
"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges," he declared, which meant, he assured his audience, addressing the problem of Iran. That country, he asserted, "is providing material support for attacks on American troops." (This support was later identified as advanced improvised explosive devices -- IEDs or roadside bombs -- given to anti-American Shiite militias.) Then followed an unambiguous warning: "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces... And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
Consider this item one in his casus belli: Because Iran is aiding and abetting our enemies in Iraq, we are justified in attacking Iran as a matter of self-defense.
Bush put it this way in an interview with Juan Williams of National Public Radio on January 29: "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly… It makes common sense for the commander-in-chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people -- and the Iraqi government -- that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm."
In his January 10 address, the President went on to fill in a second item in any future casus belli: Iran is seeking nuclear weapons in order to dominate the Middle East to the detriment of our friends in the region -- a goal that it simply cannot be allowed to achieve.
In response to such a possibility, the President declared, "We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East." These included deploying a second U.S. aircraft carrier battle group to the Gulf region, consisting of the USS John C. Stennis and a flotilla of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines (presumably to provide additional air and missile assets for strikes on Iran), along with additional Patriot anti-missile batteries (presumably to shoot down any Iranian missiles that might be fired in retaliation for an air attack on the country and its nuclear facilities). "And," Bush added, "we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region."
Bush added a third item to the casus belli in his State of the Union Address on January 23. After years of describing Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda as the greatest threats to U.S. interests in the Middle East, he now introduced a new menace: the resurgent Shia branch of Islam led by Iran.
Aside from al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremists, he explained, "it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East." Many of these extremists, he noted, "are known to take direction from the regime in Iran," including the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon.
As if to nail down this point, he offered some hair-raising imagery right out of the Left Behind bestselling book series so beloved of Christian evangelicals and their neoconservative allies: "If American forces step back [from Iraq] before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists backed by Al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill across the country, and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict. For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective."
As refined by Bush speechwriters, this, then, is the third item in his casus belli for attacking Iran: to prevent a "nightmare scenario" in which the Shia leaders of Iran might emerge as the grandmasters of regional instability, using proxies like Hezbollah to imperil Israel and pro-American regimes in Jordan, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia -- with potentially catastrophic consequences for the safety of Middle Eastern oil supplies. You can be sure of what Bush will say to this in his future address: No American president would ever allow such a scenario to come to pass.
Many of these themes were reiterated in the president's White House Valentine's Day press conference. Once again, Iraq was meant to be the main story, but Iran captured all the headlines.
Bush's most widely cited comments on Iran focused on claims of Iranian involvement in the delivery of sophisticated versions of the roadside IEDs that have been responsible for many of the U.S. casualties in recent months. Just a few days earlier, unidentified American military officials in Baghdad had declared that elements of the Iranian military -- specifically, the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards -- were supplying the deadly devices to Shiite militias in Iraq, and that high-ranking Iranian government officials were aware of the deliveries. These claims were contested by other U.S. officials and members of Congress who expressed doubt about the reliability of the evidence and the intelligence work behind it, but Bush evinced no such uncertainty:
"What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known."
What is not known, he continued, is just how high up in the Iranian government went the decision-making that led such IEDs to be delivered to the Shia militias in Iraq. But that doesn't matter, he explained. "What matters is, is that they're there... [W]e know they're there, and we're going to protect our troops." As Commander-in-Chief, he insisted, he would "do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way."
He then went on to indicate that "the biggest problem I see is the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon." He expressed his wish that this problem can be "dealt with" in a peaceful way -- by the Iranians voluntarily agreeing to cease their program to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels. But he also made it clear that the onus was purely on Tehran to take the necessary action to avoid unspecified harm: "I would like to be at the -- have been given a chance for us to explain that we have no desire to harm the Iranian people."
No reporters at the press conference asked him to explain this odd twist of phrase, delivered in the past tense, about his regret that he was unable to explain to the Iranian people why he had meant them no harm -- presumably after the fact. However, if you view this as the Bush version of a Freudian slip, one obvious conclusion can be drawn: that the President has already made the decision to begin the countdown for an attack on Iran, and only total capitulation by the Iranians could possibly bring the process to a halt.
Further evidence for this conclusion is provided by Bush's repeated reference to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. On three separate occasions during the press conference he praised Russia, China, and the "EU3" -- Britain, France, and Germany -- for framing the December 23 Security Council resolution condemning Iran's nuclear activities and imposing economic sanctions on Iran in the context of Chapter 7 -- that is, of "Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression."
This sets the stage for the international community, under UN leadership, to take such steps as may be deemed necessary "to maintain or restore international peace and stability," ranging from mild economic sanctions to full-scale war (steps that are described in Articles 39 to 51). But the December 23 resolution was specifically framed under Article 41, which entails "measures not involving the use of armed force," a stipulation demanded by China and Russia, which have categorically ruled out the use of military force to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran.
One suspects that President Bush has Chapter 7 on the brain because he now intends to ask for a new resolution under Article 42, which allows the use of military force to restore international peace and stability. But it is nearly inconceivable that Russia and China would approve such a resolution. Such approval would also be tantamount to acknowledging American hegemony worldwide, and this is something they are simply unwilling to do.
So we can expect several months of fruitless diplomacy at the United Nations in which the United States may achieve slightly more severe economic sanctions under Chapter 41 but not approval for military action under Chapter 42. Bush knows that this is the inevitable outcome, and so I am convinced that, in his various speeches and meetings with reporters, he is already preparing the way for a future address to the nation. In it, he will speak somberly of a tireless American effort to secure a meaningful resolution from the United Nations on Iran with real teeth in it and his deep disappointment that no such resolution has been not forthcoming. He will also point out that, despite the heroic efforts of American diplomats as well as military commanders in Iraq, Iran continues to pose a vital and unchecked threat to American security in Iraq, in the region, and even -- via its nuclear program -- in the wider world.
Further diplomacy, he will insist, appears futile and yet Iran must be stopped. Hence, he will say, "I have made the unavoidable decision to eliminate this vital threat through direct military action," and will announce -- in language eerily reminiscent of his address to the nation on March 19, 2003 -- that a massive air offensive against Iran has already been underway for several hours.
Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the defense correspondent of the Nation magazine. He is the author, most recently, of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum (Owl Books).
Copyright 2007 Michael T. Klare
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
coincidences
first coincidence:
After I posted this Gil Scott Heron rap on the MIC below, someone gave me a relevant DVD to watch. Lord of War is a panned Nick Cage movie that tells the story of the proliferation of weapons after the end of the cold war, historical fact as the basis for a semifictional story supposedly told by a playa in the military-industrial complex, a weapons dealer.
Sure Cage is stone faced throughout, but the story is the star. It's in the video store now, for your edification.
second coincidence:
The television is on in the middle of the night to soothe a guest, and who is on CSPAN2 book notes but Joseph Cirincione, flogging his new book on nuclear proliferation.
This guy is so smart, he is someone who can hold up his history and say, "I was right about Iraq".
I understood from day one that the Bush Administration was lying about Iraq harboring WMDs, and it was because of a few great individuals: Seymour Hersh,
Scott Ritter, Joe Cirincione. And the bloggers who pointed them out to me, especially the writers on Anti-War.com.
You should realize, the same guys who lied about Iraq are lying about Iran. Go back and Google the facts. Who said what.
The same guys who tried to save us before, and are on record as being right, are trying to save us now.
Try to catch him in a rerun, or online.
Antiwar.com has been doing a great favor for us .mp3 listeners, with its interview show, now called (link) AntiWar Radio. Scott Horton and Charles Goyette have been doing some great and important interviews lately, so go, listen.NOTHING will freeze your blood like hearing Helen Caldicott in the middle of the night describe the devistation of a single H-bomb dropped on a city, and what would follow. She is concise...
...and the Imperial Warlord Bush has dropped us out of all those international treaties based on his takeover of of all three branches that once governed our late Republic, including the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
After I posted this Gil Scott Heron rap on the MIC below, someone gave me a relevant DVD to watch. Lord of War is a panned Nick Cage movie that tells the story of the proliferation of weapons after the end of the cold war, historical fact as the basis for a semifictional story supposedly told by a playa in the military-industrial complex, a weapons dealer.
Sure Cage is stone faced throughout, but the story is the star. It's in the video store now, for your edification.
second coincidence:
The television is on in the middle of the night to soothe a guest, and who is on CSPAN2 book notes but Joseph Cirincione, flogging his new book on nuclear proliferation.
This guy is so smart, he is someone who can hold up his history and say, "I was right about Iraq".
I understood from day one that the Bush Administration was lying about Iraq harboring WMDs, and it was because of a few great individuals: Seymour Hersh,
Scott Ritter, Joe Cirincione. And the bloggers who pointed them out to me, especially the writers on Anti-War.com.
You should realize, the same guys who lied about Iraq are lying about Iran. Go back and Google the facts. Who said what.
The same guys who tried to save us before, and are on record as being right, are trying to save us now.
Try to catch him in a rerun, or online.
Antiwar.com has been doing a great favor for us .mp3 listeners, with its interview show, now called (link) AntiWar Radio. Scott Horton and Charles Goyette have been doing some great and important interviews lately, so go, listen.NOTHING will freeze your blood like hearing Helen Caldicott in the middle of the night describe the devistation of a single H-bomb dropped on a city, and what would follow. She is concise...
...and the Imperial Warlord Bush has dropped us out of all those international treaties based on his takeover of of all three branches that once governed our late Republic, including the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
