Locomotive Mule

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

Q Why is Fallujah and Najaf under siege? Why are they – and is the President willing to see them go into a Waco or Guernica?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry, where are you getting that from, Helen?

Q That if they are under siege, and we decide to go in, and there is that kind of resistance, there will be tremendous bloodshed.

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, that is a highly speculative characterization that you are making there.

Q Well, we do have them under siege, both towns, don’t we?

MR. McCLELLAN: And I would not describe it that way. First of all, we have been working very closely with Iraqi officials in those areas to bring about a peaceful resolution to the situation. The coalition has been working to partner with Iraqi security forces to improve the security situation. There are a lot of developments going on, on the ground. Certainly, if coalition forces are fired upon, namely our Marines, in the case of Fallujah, they will defend themselves.

Now there are some thugs and terrorists that continue to exist in areas of Fallujah.

Q – maybe they’re just Iraqis.

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, all you have to have to do is look at the types of attacks that they carried out on innocent Americans recently to know that these are thugs and terrorists. They have no regard for human life.

Q Are we doing the same thing?

MR. McCLELLAN: We will not let them prevail. However, as I said, we are working to improve the security situation there. We’re working with Iraqi leaders. You’re seeing a partnering with Iraqi security forces to begin patrols in Fallujah and to bring about a peaceful resolution to the situation. They’ve been working with civilian leaders there. But there is a difference between civilian leaders and thugs and terrorists who seek to derail the transition to democracy for the Iraqi people. And they have no place in Iraq.

Q Maybe they’re defending their own country against an occupation.

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, we have liberated the Iraqi people, and we’re moving forward to transfer sovereignty back to the Iraqi people, so that they can realize a free and peaceful future. As I said, this is critical to winning the war on terrorism. There are thugs and terrorists who are trying to carry out innocent attacks on innocent men, women and children. Look at what they’ve done, look at the attacks they’ve carried out that have led to the deaths of school children. Look at the attacks that they have carried out that have led to the deaths of their fellow Iraqi citizens.

Q And we haven’t we killed any civilians? Have we killed any civilians?

MR. McCLELLAN: The United States military and coalition forces go out of their way to make sure that civilians are not targeted and not killed.

Q Have we killed any?

MR. McCLELLAN: We target those who seek to carry out their evil acts and seek to return to the oppressive regime of the past – and that’s not going to happen.

Mr. McClellan is very good at what he does - which is obviously to not answer anything. If you read this excerpt carefully you’ll note that he’s slyly linking the current resistance in Iraq with al Qaeda (or at least international terrorists).

If the administration was being honest and practicing a modicum of introspection they’d have answers to questions like “Maybe they’re defending their own country” but the impression is that they truly believe the crap they’re trying to feed us - it’s as if the very idea that we’re “invaders” is foreign.

Sure it can be argued that such thoughts would be a sign of weakness, of lack of resolve but in reality it would show that they’re real leaders with real ideas and actually contemplate what they’re doing.

Sigh…

Q As of July 1st, who will hold the ultimate decision-making authority in Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sovereignty will be transferred to the Iraqi people. You have to separate out the political side and the security side –

Q Right, but you said that their authority will be limited.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that’s at the wishes of the Iraqi people. They will oversee the day-to-day responsibilities, and they will work to transition or oversee efforts during the transition to move toward the elections to be held in January of 2005.

Q Who will be the ultimate authority? If they make a decision that you don’t like –

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the helicopter is landing and I’m traveling with the President. I would be glad to stay, and I will be here tomorrow if you want to follow up on this. Or this afternoon.

Unprecedented - indeed.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let’s separate out sovereignty and let’s separate out authority and let’s keep this in context. This is an interim represented body that we are talking about. The precise structure and composition of the interim government are being worked about among Iraqi leaders and Mr. Brahimi, in consultation with the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Now, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist come June 30th. But the law and rules that define the authorities of that interim government will be contained in an annex to the transitional administrative law that was signed by the Iraqi Governing Council in early March.

Iraqis have made it very clear that they want limits on the authority of the interim government. The annex to the transitional administrative law will define in precise ways the interim government’s authorities. And in the view of the Iraqi people, the interim government has two basic functions that it will undertake. Remember, it will only be in place for approximately six months before elections are held. And its two basic functions are to assume the day-to-day responsibility for the administration of Iraq and to prepare the country for the holding of direct, national elections no later than January 31, 2005.

But I think that there are certainly ample precedent for self-imposed limits on authority of interim, caretaker governments such as likely to be the case here, in this first phase of Iraq’s transition to democracy.

"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"

Sovereignty Sov"er*eign*ty, n.; pl. Sovereignties. OE.

   soverainetee, OF. sovrainet'e, F. souverainet'e.

   The quality or state of being sovereign, or of being a

   sovereign; the exercise of, or right to exercise, supreme

   power; dominion; sway; supremacy; independence; also, that

   which is sovereign; a sovereign state; as, Italy was formerly

   divided into many sovereignties.

“Transfer of sovereignty”??
This is just another meaningless buzzphrase they can bandy about for election purposes. Meaningless.

If the Democrats had any balls they could run a long way with this one, but as usual they’ll assume the electorate is stupid and bovine - willing only to accept soundbites as reality.

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.

In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else” - Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States

‘Security’ Tops the Plastic Heap of War’s Euphemism Surplus

The reigning king of euphemisms in the current war surplus is the word security. The word has been warmed up for battle in the most familiar places. We have “security” in schools, in malls, at the county fair, at public meetings, in theme parks, in corporate lobbies. So when we hear of security companies helping out there, we think in terms of those benign adjuncts of safety who greet us at the door and tell jokes along the way. We don’t think of them as a force of 20,000 mercenaries, militias unto themselves armed with the latest weaponry, but without the discipline, the oversight or the accountability of GIs, at up to 20 times the pay of regular soldiers (some make $500 to $1,500 a day), and all at taxpayers’ expense. We don’t think of them as exactly the sort of vigilantes we would not want greeting us at the door. Why should Iraqis?

The four men who got killed and dismembered in Fallujah were soldiers of fortune who died gruesome deaths as soldiers, and have provoked the most gruesome acts of American revenge to date. (The bloodletting against civilians in Fallujah is an atrocious story that has yet to make it into the mainstream press.) The casualties among “security” contractors, of which there’s been hundreds, aren’t tallied among military casualties any more than Iraqi casualties have ever been tallied, thus camouflaging the slaughter and outsourcing the cost of the war itself: It is being privatized, taken off the books. When you no longer have to mask what’s already hidden, euphemisms become superfluous. And that may be the greatest achievement of this war. Reality is irrelevant. It has been subcontracted to a Name Change Task Force. So yes, sure, we’re “staying the course.” But anyone who claims to know what that means anymore, the president included, is full of nutri-cake.

Here’s what the first President Bush wrote about that in his memoirs:

Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.

My brothers and sisters, it is just too darn bad his son can’t read!

Here is the truth that we proclaim. This war has nothing to do with national security or freedom or democracy or human rights or protecting our allies or weapons of mass destruction or defeating terrorism or disarming Iraq. It has to do with money. It has to do with oil. And it has to do with raw imperial power. It is based on a pack of lies. And it is wrong. Those who forced this war on an unwilling world are guilty of flagrantly violating the US Constitution, the UN Charter, and international law. What they have done is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and TREASON.

The cabal of neoconservatives at the Project For a New American Century who planned this war (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Perle, Jeb Bush) even before W became president, knew the American people would not stand for it unless there was a new Pearl Harbor. 9/11 supplied that. Our government was warned. They were warned by the Clinton Administration. They were warned by 11 other countries. And they were specifically warned by an FBI agent that one of them was planning on flying a hijacked airliner into the World Trade Center.

They not only ignored the warnings, they made sure no fighter jets were scrambled to stop it. If they had just done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to be followed, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. This is not stupidity, it is TREASON.

Recommended reading: Some Dare Call It Treason: Wake Up America!

From Fox News Sunday’s roundtable during a discussion about showing pictures of coffins of soldiers killed in Iraq:

JUAN WILLIAMS: But let me say this. I noticed you won’t show pictures - don’t want to show pictures of troops, people coming back dead from Iraq. But there doesn’t seem to be any hesitency about using images of 9/11 and the World Trade Center. And we’re going to see more of those images shortly in the course of the Republican convention. Why not use some restraint there, as opposed to where you have people …

CHRIS WALLACE: Alright Fred, you get the last word.

FRED BARNES: Juan, 9/11 was a public event. And if anybody thinks …

JUAN WILLIAMS: And what is war? What is war, Fred?

FRED BARNES: And if anybody thinks … Well, the war is also a public event. But the coffins are not.

As I understand this, watching people die in collapsing buildings is okay but being reminded that people are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan is not okay. Baffling.

My take is this: The Republicans will show (repeatedly) the collapse of the World Trade Center because that’s the only thing they’ve got with which to whip up nationalism and fervor for their agenda. They refuse to show the coffins and wounded because it has the opposite effect. They know a majority of the American public is not with them and if they let their own base stop and think for a few minutes they’ll lose them.

Scott McClellan Press Gaggle:

Q Brahimi injected himself into the Fallujah and Najaf issue on whether the U.S. troops should go into those cities, and he said, no, they shouldn’t. Does the President have any reaction to Brahimi’s –

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, look, this – I think the United Nations spokesman – the spokesman for the Secretary General has since spoken to that, as well. But, you know, I would just say that the coalition is continuing to work closely with Iraqis to find an Iraqi-centered solution, and the coalition is working to partner with Iraqi security forces to improve the security situation in Fallujah.

Q Are you getting – there was more fighting today. How much hope do you have of maintaining this truce?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think, you know, there are a lot of developments going on in the area. I think that those are questions best directed to the coalition, to give you the latest updates about where things stand.

Q Didn’t the President discuss it over the weekend with his advisors?

MR. McCLELLAN: He participated in a conference call on Saturday with his National Security Council.

Q What was the conclusion of that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, I’m not going to get into discussing any military operations. We leave those matters to the military to discuss.

Q Is time running out for the rebels that are –

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, I’ll leave it to the military to discuss those matters, and to the coalition to discuss the latest developments on the ground in Fallujah.

Q What was the conference call about, I’m sorry?

MR. McCLELLAN: Saturday? Oh, he participated in a conference call with his National Security Council, talk about Iraq.

So president Bush has no response to the U.N. special envoy saying “Don’t go into Fallujah or Najaf” (which of course we’re doing). Seems to me he should have some kind of response other than “you’ll have to talk to the U.N. about that”.

And did you notice when asked about the “truce” in Fallujah, the immediate response is “talk to the military about that”. Ummm, this indicates to me that

1. The administration is trying to disassociate itself from the military (as if it’s a different branch, as if McClellan wasn’t the spokesman for the Commander In Chief) And “talk to the coalition”?? Isn’t Bush the head of the “coalition”?
2. There seems to be no thought to a politcal solution. When the immediate response is “talk to the military” there’s nothing else going on. Sad.

It must be mightily frustrating to ask this guy questions day after day and get non-answers.

Q Scott, over the weekend and earlier last week there were some coordinated attacks on oil installations in Iraq and offshore. Is the President concerned that the terrorists may be escalating this, to really go after the lifeline of the Iraqi people in their rebuilding efforts?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, the terrorists and thugs and Saddam loyalists will not prevail. The resolve of the coalition is firm. And our will cannot be shaken. We will continue to go after those thugs and terrorists and bring them to justice. They are enemies of a free and peaceful future for the Iraqi people. They realize the stakes are high in Iraq. Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism. And we will prevail.

Even the reporters are buying it - ”…the terrorists may be…” Are we sure they’re actually terrorists or are they Iraqi insurgents battiling the “occupiers”? Anyway, it’d sure be nice to see a straight answer to simple questions rather than just cheer leading and the same old propganda BS over and over again.

Q I don’t know if you saw, before we got on the plane, John Kerry was on Good Morning America answering to some charges as to some –

MR. McCLELLAN: One of your all’s network.

Q – there you go – that he said some inconsistent statements, to say the least, on whether or not he threw his medals in protest. But in his defense, he kept turning it to the President, saying, I’m not going to take this from them, especially when the President hasn’t accounted for his National Guard service.

MR. McCLELLAN: Senator Kerry has a record of commendable service in the military. And I’ll leave it to him to address those inconsistencies in his comments that you mentioned.

Once again, not an answer. It seems the Bush campaign can sure dish it out but refuses to rebut even the simplest of questions.

Read TPM’s take in this issue.

Article Published: Tuesday, April 27, 2004

U.S. gives penalized companies Iraq contracts

	
Firms convicted of fraud, bid rigging
	
By Matt Kelley

The Associated Press
	
WASHINGTON - Ten companies with billions of dollars in U.S. contracts for Iraq reconstruction

 have paid more than $300 million in penalties since 2000 to resolve allegations of bid rigging,

fraud, delivery of faulty military parts and environmental damage.
	
The United States is paying more than $780 million to one British firm that was convicted of fraud

on three federal construction projects and banned from U.S. government work during 2002, according

to an Associated Press review of government documents.
	
A Virginia company convicted of rigging bids for American-funded projects in Egypt also has been

awarded Iraq contracts worth hundreds of millions. And a third firm found guilty of environmental

violations and bid rigging won U.S. Army approval for a subcontract to clean up an Iraqi harbor.
	
Seven other companies with Iraq reconstruction contracts have agreed to pay financial penalties

without admitting wrongdoing.
	
Together, the 10 companies have paid to resolve 30 alleged violations in the past four years. Six

paid penalties more than once. But the companies have been awarded $7 billion in Iraq reconstruction contracts.
	
"We have not made firms pay the price when they screw up," said Peter Singer, a former Pentagon

official who worked on a task force overseeing military and contract work in the Balkans.
	
"But it's not the company's fault if it has a dumb client. I'm not blaming the companies, I'm blaming

the government," said Singer, now a fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
	
The contracts are legal because the Bush administration repealed regulations put in place by the

Clinton administration that would have allowed officials to bar new government work for companies

convicted or penalized during the previous three years.
	
Spokesmen for the companies defended the contracts, saying the penalties often were for violations

committed years ago or by subsidiaries unrelated to the ones working in Iraq. Spokeswoman Pamela

Blossom said AMEC, the convicted British firm, wrote new company ethics rules after its punishment.
	
"None of the people involved are with the company any more," said Blossom, whose firm paid $1.2 million

in fines for contract fraud on projects in California and Missouri. "We're a much better company now."
	
Federal regulations require government contractors to have a "satisfactory record of integrity and business

ethics." The government can ban unethical companies from getting new contracts through a process called

debarment.
	
Companies often avoid debarment by agreeing to settle misconduct cases and pay penalties without

admitting guilt. AMEC was the only one of the 10 punished Iraq contractors ever debarred, and it was banned

for one year.

No Protection To Any Mosque If Used For Storing Arms: US

Washington, April 27 (NNN): A mosque will not have any protection and was likely to come under attack as per the Geneva Convention if used to store weapons, the United States-led coalition authority in Iraq has warned.

I saw this announcement on CSPAN yesterday. There are two troubling things:

1. I can’t find any US news sources that picked it up. I didn’t spend a lot of time looking but generally current news stories are relatively easy to find.
2. From a military standpoint I understand that churches and mosques are valid targets if the enemy is hiding in ‘em. But, politically this doesn’t make sense. Obviously we’ve decided that we’re going to crush any opposition regardless of the concequences. And in this case I believe the consequences may be more than we want.

Bush&Co. either don’t have a clue at how pissed off the Muslims are or they don’t care. Either way tremendous mistakes are being made by our side.

Maybe we don’t view this as a religious war but I’ll bet a growing number of Muslims are seeing it that way. Can’t our leadership see that a society that’s as religious as the middle east is going to filter all our actions and words through their religion?

We shouldn’t have started this - granted - but now we’re stuck with it. I feel the worst thing we can do is to continue to exacerbate the situation by pressuring the Iraqis to do things “our way or no way”. As hideous as it is to us, the burning and defilement of the bodies of their enemy is a religiously driven act. We need to start understanding that their ways are not our ways and we’ll never force them to be us (why would they want to be us anyway?).

We began this whole adventure for supposed noble reasons - and now we’re scarificing hundreds of lives for simple vengance. Vengance is why they defiled the bodies in the first place. How can we hold the moral high ground if our actions are at the same level as the opposition but multiplied by 1000 fold? “Because we can” is a lousy answer.

There are 4 billion Muslims watching us and I s’pose a vast majority are not fighting mad about our actions but I also suspect that vast majority of getting more than a little nervous at the oh-so thinly veiled religiosity of our leadership.

The fact that an Indian news agency appears to be the only one running a story on this small policy shift is telling. They’re watching - closely.

The Bandar Oil Deal Gaggle…

If it smells like BS, sounds like BS, looks like BS then it must be….

A blog entry: Issues with Objectivity

John Kerry thinks he’s found a friend in Colin Powell. Woodward’s new book portrays the secretary of state as having misgivings about occupying Iraq because of the complications – the complications, Kerry’s ilk believes, we are now facing.

Gee - maybe Secratary Powell had a bit of foresight? Maybe the Secratary had a small understanding of what we were getting in to. It is his job after all, to understand and advise on international issues.

And Steve Murphy, who managed the presidential campaign of Representative Richard A. Gephardt, said: “The strongest criticism of Bush is that he did not have a plan for the aftermath of the war. And that was exactly what Powell was pointing out to him. He is a credible source. This intensifies the backdrop between Bush and Kerry.”
The logic that liberals want you to follow is that (a) Bush didn’t have a plan for the occupation of Iraq once it was conquered and therefore (b) we are facing problems because we weren’t prepared. Okay. There is no doubt that is a possibility.

A possibility? Let’s assume that there was a plan: it was horribly ill-conceived. It may have been executed perfectly, but its underlying concepts were obviously wrong. So either way, no plan or a well defined plan - this administration has completely blown the job. Either way, their gross incompetance is on display for all to see. As an American, I’m embarrassed.

On the other hand, it is just as likely that the logic is as follows: (a) seeking UN approval, and being denied, established official dissension in the international community and therefore (b) we are facing problems because terrorists are emboldened by their de facto ally the “international community.”

We are not facing problems because the terrorists are emboldened by the “official dissension in the international community”. We are facing problems (nice euphemism by the way) because we unilaterally and illegally invaded a sovereign nation against the advice and consent of the international community. And the people in that country are really pissed off about it. By not aligning ourselves with the international community we’ve shown ourselves to be a rogue, imperialistic nation. Blaming the current problems in Iraq on the “terrorists and their de facto allies” is far too simplistic and naive. We are occupying a nation in the guise of saving it - that’s why we’re having problems.

Which is more likely? Well, that’s up to you to decide, but the way it’s being reported in the media, you would think that only the liberal logic existed. I’m shocked. Really. However, considering both that, by any historical or objective standards, the Iraq war and occupation has been expertly executed and that the international community has recently been offered an olive branch by al Qaeda (which would not have happened had al Qaeda not seen potential allies in the nations of Europe), it seems that the international community is more of a liability than an asset. That is, if we had universal international support (or a “plan") before going into Iraq as liberals wanted, we would no doubt still be facing the same problems we are now in Iraq. However, if international support had not turned into international condemnation, we might be not be facing problems of such Islamist fury. The lesson that should be learned from Iraq is that the international community can hurt us more than it can help us.

Yes the war may have been executed flawlessly - I would expect nothing less from our military. That fact does not make it any more right or just.

In offering an olive branch, al Qaeda has simply shown its guile. Before condemning the international community as an ally of al Qaeda or a “liability”, you must acknowledge the fact the the “offer” was unanimously rejected. To characterize the Europeans as “allies of terrorists” simply because the offer was made is disingenuous at best.

The international community decided that invading Iraq was not the right thing to do at this time and so stated and acted. We, in deciding to reject the international community in an adventure of such magnitude, have shown ourselves to be outside of the international community. WE, not they, are not playing well with others. WE are the ones that are not being respectful of our friends and allies, not them. WE are the ones that arrogantly delivered the ultimatums, not them.

Yes, WE were attacked on our own soil. But we are not alone in that. There are many nations in the international community that have been attacked in similar fashion, and yet we don’t support any one else in preemptively attacking “terrorist states” (except for Isreal, but that’s another discussion).

But the media have already decided that anything that goes wrong in Iraq is due to lack of international support, and so that’s what they’ll report—even though it is not the lack of international support on our side but rather the presence of international support on the side of terror that is most troublesome.

I seriously doubt that any thinking person would believe that the international community supports terrorism. This is simply the “you’re with us or against us” mentality. By condemning the rest of the world simply because they do not agree with us is as wrong as supporting this administration simply because “he’s the President”. Dogma in any form is always unflattering.

If you were to think this through a bit, I believe you’ll find that terrorism is an international problem and needs to be dealt with at that level. We cannot do it alone, we cannot do it without the help of friends and allies. If we anger them and isolate ourselves, then the terrorists have won that all important first step of “divide and conquer”. The world must stand united against the terrorists (regardless of their motives) and work together. And as we learned in kindergarten, working together sometimes means not getting your own way.

Most conservatives (yourself included) have a simplistic and knee-jerk reaction to liberals. If you’re true to the conservative ideals, then you owe the opposition the respect of investigating their issues, arguments and ideas with an open mind. And if you were to do so, rather than blindly swallowing the party swill, I believe you’d find that your “conservative president” has failed you miserably.

UPDATE : several hours later

But the media have already decided that anything that goes wrong in Iraq is due to lack of international support, and so that’s what they’ll report—even though it is not the lack of international support on our side but rather the presence of international support on the side of terror that is most troublesome.

Is it possible that the current problems in Iraq just might be our own damn fault? We all (Americans) need to look in the mirror and see if we’re as innocent as we’d like to believe. The fact that we don’t is what’s most troublesome. The fact that Mom, The Flag & Apple Pie are all that’s needed to justify the killing of thousands of innocents is what’s most troublesome. The fact that the President of The United States is allowed to mislead the world and send AMERICAN boys to their deaths on a personal crusade - that’s what should be most troublesome.

Chase, you can blow me off as a linguinni spined liberal, that’s your prerogative (ha! if you only knew). But I strongly recommend that you do some investigation into what the Bush administration has done to this country. From shredding the remnants of the Constitution to their hubris in dealing with the American people and our representatives (Congress that is). It’s shameful and any thinking American should be horrified and extremely embarrassed about the things that have been done in our name.

Saudi Envoy Promised Bush a Drop in Oil Prices Ahead of Election

WASHINGTON - Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.S. has promised President George W. Bush the Saudis will reduce oil prices before this November’s election to help the U.S. economy, according to Bob Woodward, author of a new book about the Iraq war.

Oil prices are “high, and they could go down very quickly,'’ Woodward said last night in an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes.'’

“That’s the Saudi pledge,'’ said Woodward. “Certainly over the summer or as we get closer to the election they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.'’

If this is true then the campaign issue should not be the price of oil, but the blatant manipulation of the economy for personal political gain. If Bush is making deals with the Saudis he should be in jail.

The Terror of Bush’s War on America

There stand Messrs Bush and Blair on the White House lawn, vowing eternal devotion to the “historic struggle” for democratic victory in Iraq. They’ve been there before. Last time Bush declared that “every nation in every region has a decision to make - either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”. But now we’re beyond nations and shadowy forces lurking in Tom Clancy’s dreams. Who are these unwelcome, individual Iraqis on our TV screens, protesting, rampaging, shooting and often dying? Why, says George, they’re terrorists. Yes indeed, echoes Tony. He who is not for us is a terrorist. He can and will be killed unless he falls silent. He can and may be locked up indefinitely (like the 762 aliens in US jails) so that silence enfolds him.

Those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty” while criticizing the Bush administration’s methods of fighting terror at home and abroad provide “aid to terrorists”. That’s attorney general John Ashcroft testifying to the Senate after 9/11. “See how dissent terrorizes democracy while political quiescence promotes peace and security,” says Ivie dryly. “Democratic dissent has turned oxymoronic.”

But that is exactly what George Bush says. Crisis means mute obedience. To protest is to betray the master rhetorician reading Dick Cheney’s script. He is a leader defined and protected by “war”. He must not be troubled by voters protesting in Ashcroft’s “free speech zones”. Nuance is his enemy. He dare not stop to think.

Read it and weep.

Voting for Bush II will support and perpetuate what amounts to a full-blown, political cult -a fanatical political predator with fundamentalist religious fangs and moneyed, special interest claws. The religious right’s cult mind set has corrupted our country’s current leadership, which has, in turn, further deformed an already dysfunctional foreign policy into an empire-building rogue state.

With characteristic religious cult missionizing, Bush II and his inner group of fundamentalist crusaders, who have commandeered Republican minds, are intent upon “blessing” the Moslem world with “Almighty God’s gift of freedom” while fundamentalist Islam is equally intent on “blessing” the West with Allah’s Islamic theocracy. Two ideological cults at war with each other-two sides of the same coin: lethal groupthink-outmoded, medieval, brutal and dehumanizing cult behaviors that could easily drag the civilized world back into the dark ages.

Mr. Goldhammer precisely and succinctly defines what we’re seeing - he gives it a name:

Here’s the whole piece: Blood Vote - The Consequences of Voting for George W. Bush

Here are a couple pieces that refute recent administration claims:

What you can say if you run into Condi Rice.

Claim vs. Fact: Rice’s Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission

U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past

A long piece which shows some of the events and “thinking” that led to our current Iraq dilemma. Worth the time.

Tenn. County Officials Seek to Ban Gays

“We need to keep them out of here,” said Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who introduced the motion.

Bet this is a real nice place to live.

Rhea County, about 30 miles north of Chattanooga, is among the most conservative in Tennessee. It holds an annual festival commemorating the 1925 trial that convicted John T. Scopes on charges of teaching evolution, a verdict thrown out by the Tennessee Supreme Court on a technicality. The trial later became the subject of the play and movie, “Inherit the Wind.”

Newsflash: Evolution found to have halted in Tenn.
No evidence of change or deviation from the 1920’s mind set can be found in Rhea County, Tennesse.
“Nope. Nuthin’s changed here since my great grandpappy was mayor - and that’s the way it’s agonna stay.”, said County Commisioner J.C. Fugate as he climbed into his dusty Ford pickup with a “Bush BY GOD” bumper sticker.

In 2002, a federal judge ruled unconstitutional the Rhea County school board’s Bible Education Ministry, a class taught in the public schools by students from a Christian college.

I wonder if Catholics are welcomed to the Fourth of July barbeques.

Will the 2004 Election Be Called Off? Why Three Out of Four Experts Predict a Terrorist Attack by November

And, of course, what usurpation of democracy would be complete without Rush Limbaugh weighing in? “Do [the terrorists] bide their time and wait, or do they try to replicate their success in Spain here in America before our election?” Limbaugh asked, before revealing how “titans of industry,” and “international business people (who do not outsource, by the way)” were “very, very, very concerned” that one true party forever rule the Fatherland.

“They all were seeking from me reassurance that the White House was safe this year, that John Kerry would not win,” Limbaugh said. “Who do you think the terrorists would rather have in office in this country – socialists like those in Spain as personified by John Kerry and his friends in the Democratic Party, or George W. Bush?”

Saying that a pre-election terrorist attack is not a question of “if” but “when,” Limbaugh concluded that should anyone but Bush occupy the White House, the terrorists will have won.

I’ve really gotta stop reading this stuff.

Despite U.S. promise, soldiers in Iraq still buying their own body armor

Soldiers headed for Iraq are still buying their own body armor – and in many cases, their families are buying it for them – despite assurances from the military that the gear will be in hand before they’re in harm’s way.

And some would have the balls to call me “unpatriotic”.

“No one that I know of has been truly held accountable.”

“A president and his advisers, including his adviser for national security affairs, must be able to communicate freely and privately, without being compelled to reveal those communications to the legislative branch.” – George W. Bush

Can someone explain this to me? Why can’t an adviser communicate freely with the boss if that communication is honest and above board? If there are dark motives or nefarious secrets I can see where they would not want to share them, but if what they’re about is morally defensible and supported by facts and/or law, then what’s the issue?

Is this the ol’ “national secrets” thing again? After reading the infamous Aug. 6th PDB, I’m left wondering just how important these “secrets” are.

It could be argued that as these people work for us, we’re entitled to know what they’re doing and saying.

U.S. troops learn caution in Afghanistan

In recent weeks the United States has been beefing up its forces in Afghanistan, with 2,000 Marines being deployed to bolster the 11,000 troops already there.

The first of many more deplyments I’m sure.

As the weather warms and the snow melts, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters are becoming more active, with U.S. troops reporting an increase in firefights and rocket attacks on their bases.

I fear that the Afghanistan situation is going to become more a topic of news in the near future.

This Afghanistan adventure is, I suppose, justifiable. But it seems to be kind of forgotten behind the Iraq mess. We can’t let that happen. Vigilance is required.

Report from Fallujah

It’s very disturbing. The common thread that runs through virtually all reports eminating from Fallujah (other than the U.S. press that is).

American Snipers. Shooting ambulances. Bombs during a cease-fire. If we take these reports at face value, we’re left with the realization that 1) our government is lying to us and 2) our press is also lying to us.

That our government would lie is bad enough, but when the press lies to us we must assume that it has become nothing more than a propoganda organ of the “party” in charge.

Propoganda - organ - party. Thses are scary words when they come to mind describing the U.S.

A New Meaning for ‘Bully Pulpit’

Comparing Iraq and Vietnam

War Rhetoric’s Toll on Democracy

Nader tells youths to brace for draft

I heard on TV this morning that our generals in Iraq have asked for two more brigades (10,000 people) to “provide additional security”. That’ll take our deployment to 140,000 troops. Some of our National Guard troops have been over there for over a year already. Rotations are being canceled. Bonuses offered to NCOs to not retire. Can conscription be far behind?

Whispers abound. Nothing concrete, just whispers. Methinks that if we continue to enlarge our presence in Iraq, there may be no choice.

CBS/New York Times Poll Story: What Was Missed

There’s those bullets again. It must be a Republican thing.

The President’s job approval is rising. A majority of Americans, 51%, approve, while 42% disapprove, a net increase of 6 points from the 47% that approved and 44% that disapproved in the late February CBS News poll.

Completely ignoring the fact that Bush’s numbers are down nearly 20% from their peak.

The President now leads Kerry by 3 points among registered voters, 46% to 43%. This is a net increase of 4 points since mid-February, when Kerry led by a point.

Three points? THREE POINTS? Rove has gotta be shittin’ bricks right now. Three percentage points is well within any statistical margin - a 4 point rise or fall on either side is just noise. These guys know this and throw these numbers at us knowing that the vast majority of people think it’s relevant. Everbody loves a winner - especially when they have a FOUR point lead! If Bush wins again, he’ll take a -0.02% popular vote margin and again call it a mandate.

The President’s support is also more intense than Kerry’s. 76% of the President’s supporters say that there mind is made up, while just 70% of Kerry’s say the same.

More intense? Dogmatic and shrill is more like it. (And who proof reads this stuff? Spelling errors indicate sloppy work - sloppy.)

President Bush is viewed more favorably by Americans. 43% of Americans view the President favorably, an increase of 3 points since mid-February. 39% view him unfavorably and 17% have no opinion of him.

A majority of Americans now see Kerry as a man who only says what people want to hear. Just 33% say that Kerry says what he believes, while 57% say that he does not. On the other hand, a majority of Americans, 51%, see President Bush as a man who says what he believes.

I believed at one point that Clinton was wrong to so obviously react to polling numbers - wishy/washy it was. But I now realize that in a democracy this large, our leaders cannot blithely go on their merry way without checking in with their constituents. Yes we need strong leadership. Yes we need decisive action - sometimes. What we don’t need is a self righteous cowboy who thinks it’s “my way or no way”. If a President were elected with a 90% popular vote, I s’pose he could assume that whatever promises and plans were laid out in the campaign were just fine with the people - full speed ahead. But with such clear divisions in the electorate, any responsible leader would recognize the opposition and accord them accomodation (and respect).

Our representatives are just that: our representatives. They’re supposed to represent our beliefs and ideas, not necessarily their own. Hopefully we elect people that fundamentally agree with us but in lieu this, I’d expect them to vote in accordance with the majority of their constituents - not their own personal beliefs.

So spin on dudes, you’re 1) showing how tenuous your position is and 2) making your average Joe think. (Unintended consequences?)

Just Like in the Bad Old Days, the Government Is Cracking Down on Dissent

Ever since 9/11 the Bush White House has created a sense of urgency that has led many voters to believe that spying on American citizens aids the war against terror. Coupled with the restrictive measures in the Patriot Act passed in 2001, this is a perilous threat to a free citizenry.

The administration quarantines dissent.

On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty … your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.” Some commentators feared that Ashcroft’s statement, which was vetted beforehand by top lawyers at the Justice Department, signaled that this White House would take a far more hostile view towards opponents than did recent presidents. And indeed, some Bush administration policies indicate that Ashcroft’s comment was not a mere throwaway line.

When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

Free Speech Zones and John Ashcroft

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The United States Government now makes the use of so-called “Free Speech Zones” to restrict the peaceable assembly and petitioning of American citizens.

Mr. Ashcroft would have us believe that dissent is unpatriotic - antithetic to “American” ideals. Dissent is not only truly an American trait, it’s our responsibilty, our duty as citizens to disagree with the government when necessary. Whether in print, at the water cooler or on the street corner, Americans have always been able to express their opinions on matters of public import (or private triviality for that matter). To label this as subversive (aiding terrorists) or unpatriotic (erode national unity) is not only subversive but patently unpatriotic.

Rush must be getting desparate. I’ve listened to Limbaugh off and on over the last (well, far too many) years. A long time ago I even agreed with most of what he espoused. Maybe it was the drugs or maybe it was me, but he started to get boring so I left him behind.

Now unfortunately I’m exposed to him several times a week at work. And besides angering me, I’m starting to wonder if he isn’t more than a little worried about what “his side” is up to.

Today a (obviously young) caller was inquiring as to Rush’s thoughts on the draft: was it going to happen? Would it include college students? Of course Rush pooh poohed the whole idea, “It’ll take seven to eight years to get a draft working again”. “There’s no need for the draft, we have more than enough personnel.” And on and on and on….

Still in the context of the draft he declared that “rich, privileged elitists like Kerry would never serve anyway”. Apoplectic describes my reaction. How dare he!

The insinuation was that John Kerry (being rich and privileged) was “like a draft dodger” and that George Bush was just a regular Joe who did the right and moral thing.

Well, Rush you’re just flat out lying to your audience. We all know that Kerry served and that George W. Bush did not. That the draft is setup to begin delivering cannon fodder in under 120 days. That he draft boards are being staffed as I write.

Rush has fallen into the same trap into which his hero boy fell long ago: a position so indefensible that only by lying can the position be made to sound remotely logical.

I believe (with no small satisfaction) that Rush and his ilk are seeing that they’re on the wrong side and they’re floundering for a way to get out of it. Unfortunately the only obvious thing they can do is to help ram the whole sorry mess down our throats. And that’s exactly what the right wing is starting to do, shrilly.

Rush: All I can say to you is that you, buddy, don’t fucking matter. Unfortunately your hero boy does.

This is the same kind of hubris that President Bush displays when he tells us that his every move is authorized by the Political Consultant in the Sky. I have no reason to believe Bush’s faith isn’t genuine. But frankly, I’d be more comfortable if it was just an act, because if you listen to him talk, you begin to think that he truly believes that to oppose him is to oppose God. There’s a big difference between saying that your faith and your reading of scriptures demands that you act in a certain way, and saying that your decisions have the divine seal of approval. If God wanted Bush to run for president and God wanted him to invade Iraq, then if you support his opponent or believe the war was misguided you must be doing the work of Satan. This kind of megalomania is truly terrifying. When we find it in leaders, we usually see that they do things like…oh I don’t know, lie to their people and start wars.

Read the rest here.

If Charlie Chaplin and Mel Brooks were to collaborate on a dark comedy, they surely couldn’t concieve of anything as sinister as the current state of politics in this country. With the willing help of the so called “journalists”, both parties have drug us right into the sewer and appear to be digging even lower.

The lack of respect shown the American people by both the major parties is appalling. Is it a reflection of the respect we show ourselves? That we show to others in our daily lives? I think not - we’re a fundamentally good people. The vast majority of us obey the law and get along with our neightbors - that is, we show some basic respect for both society and the system. There’s more to paying our taxes than fear of the tax man - down deep we know it has to done, so we do it.

Why do we allow our “leaders” to show us (and the world) such blatant disrespect? We allow them to steal our money, our land and air, our time and energy along with our children and their future. Sure we bitch about ‘em, but we seem incapable of doing anything about it. Why is that?

We’ve allowed our government to impose “free speech zones” around political rallies - dissenters are segragated from those they disagree with so the headlines are nice and tidy with just the sound bites they want. Where are the reporters showing these “free speech zones” filled with dissention and anger? Where is the honesty and unbiased reporting?

We have reporters being fired for trying to publish stories detremental to Bush’s election. We’ve got top bureaucrat being black mailed with their jobs if they say the wrong thing (which may just happen to be the truth). Richard Clarke will end up as a lying, gambling, alchoholic pedophile before the GOP thugs are done with him. Rice will lie while looking us in the eye…

And fully half of us think this is the way it should be. Americans actually buying into the concept that dissension is “bad” - that the administration can and should keep us in the dark to “protect us”. There are actually people in this country that believe the 9/11 Commission is a witch hunt to tarnish the President’s good name! How can so many people be so blind?

I see a religious war coming to this country - fundamentalist Christians in league with large corporations are gaining power and control of this country. Already our unelected king has stated: “You’re either with us or against us”. At the time I doubt many of us understood that we Americans were included in that warning.

As I’ve stated before, comparing Bush to Hitler is not right. But comparing our current political climate to that of the Nazis in the late 1930’s is more and more right on the mark. The question becomes, when do we stand up and point out the thugs? Do we act before there’s no one left to point?

I do not now nor have I ever considered myself to be a radical - but times are getting weirder and the fear is growing.

Walter Cronkite writes in Secrets and Lies Becoming Commonplace:

Take the recent flap over Richard Foster, the Medicare official whose boss threatened to fire him if he revealed to Congress that the prescription-drug bill would be a lot more expensive than the administration claimed. The White House tried to pass it all off as the excessive and unauthorized action of Foster’s supervisor (who shortly after the threatened firing left the government).

Maybe. But the point is that the administration had the newer, higher numbers, and Congress had been misled. This was a clear case of secrecy being used to protect a lie. I can’t help but wonder how many other faulty estimates by this administration have actually been misinformation explained as error.

I just want to point out that Congress knows it was misled on this - and yet they do nothing to repeal/revoke the legislation. They are ultimately complicit in these lies to the taxpayers.

One sometimes gets the impression that this administration believes that how it runs the government is its business and no one else’s. It is certainly not the business of Congress. And if it’s not the business of the people’s representatives, it’s certainly no business of yours or mine.

Our whole form of government is being hijacked by thugs - and their lackeys are just sitting by and watching it happen (whilst growing their bank accounts no doubt). We must use our remaining tools to unseat this growing tyranny.

The good Doctor speaks:

About 13 minutes into the first half, I got so bored and disgusted that I flipped over to watch a George Bush speech about freedom and democracy in Iraq. But that, too, was sickening. I FELT THE FEAR COMING ON. How long, O lord, How long? This blizzard of shame is getting a little old, isn’t it? Just how low do we have to fall, before the voters catch on?

Indeed. How many times can a man be robbed – on the same street, by the same people – before they call him a man? Bob Dylan said something much like that in a tattered old song called “Blowin’ In The Wind.” Read it and weep, you poor bastards – because Dylan was yesterday, and George Bush is now.

That is a morbid observation, at best, and we are all stuck with it. The 2004 presidential election will be a matter of life or death for the whole nation. We are sick today, and we will be even sicker tomorrow if this wretched half-bright swine of a president gets re-elected in November. Take my word for it. Mahalo. HST

Whistleblower the White House wants to silence speaks to The Independent

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission’s investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used “state secrets privilege”. (emphasis added)

Unprecedented cooperation, huh? Less than a month ago, at a press conference:

McCLELLAN: I’m glad you brought this up. This administration has provided unprecedented cooperation to a legislative body in the 9/11 Commission. We have worked closely with the commission in a spirit of cooperation. And you only have to go back – and I would appreciate it if you would report some of the facts of the type of access we have provided to the commission. We have provided the commission access to every bit of information that they have requested, including our most sensitive national security documents. (emphasis added)

Unprecedented? Undeniably.

Check this and then starting asking the question.