Locomotive Mule

Castro responds to Bush’s prostitution charges

Speaking to Florida law enforcement officials on July 16, Bush claimed the Cuban leader shamelessly promotes sex tourism.

“The dictator welcomes sex tourism. Here’s how he bragged about the industry,” said Bush. “This is his quote — ‘Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world’ and ‘sex tourism is a vital source of hard currency.’”

Three days after Bush’s remarks, the Los Angeles Times reported that the White House found the comments in a Dartmouth undergraduate paper posted on the Internet and lifted them out of context. “It shows they didn’t read much of the article,” commented Charlie Trumbull, the author.

Speaking in 1992 to the Cuban parliament, Castro actually said, “There are prostitutes, but prostitution is not allowed in our country. There are no women forced to sell themselves to a man, to a foreigner, to a tourist.”

The man is shameless - and it’s on display for all to see. Could this be an honest mistake? I doubt it. I think they know exactly what they’re doing: pandering to the electorate by pissing off anyone that can’t vote.

I can see it now:

GWB: My fellow Americans, today we invaded the island of Cuba in order to save their children from the sick and ruthless exploitation by Japanese pedophiles. Next week we will begin operations in Japan because they have been unwilling to publicly execute their pedophiles in an Old Testament fashion.

Convention Protesters Upset With Site

BOSTON - As thousands of delegates, journalists and dignitaries stream into the FleetCenter, protesters for the next few days will be enclosed in a shadowy, closed-off piece of urban streetscape just over a block away.

The maze of overhead netting, chain link fencing and razor wire couldn’t be further in comfort from the high-tech confines of the arena stage where John Kerry (news - web sites) is to accept the Democratic nomination for president during the four-day convention that kicks off Monday.

Abandoned, elevated rail lines and green girders loom over most of the official demonstration zone that slopes down to a subway station closed for the duration. To avoid hitting girders, tall protesters will have to duck at one end of the 28,000-square-foot zone. Train tracks obscure the line of sight to much of the FleetCenter. Concrete blocks were set around streets in the area, a transportation hub on the north side of downtown.

Protesters likened the site Saturday to a concentration camp as they complained it is too far from the FleetCenter to get their messages across, even though the site is next to a parking lot where many delegates will pass on foot en route to the arena.

Authorities say — and a judge agreed — the discomforts are needed for security in the post-Sept. 11 era.

On a rainy morning made darker by overhead girders, protest leaders held a news conference at the demonstration zone Saturday to object to the site. Some called it a violation of their free-speech rights. As they spoke, pools of rainwater collected on pavement.

“We don’t deserve to be put in a detention center, a concentration camp,” said Medea Benjamin of San Francisco. “It’s tragic that here in Boston, the birthplace of democracy, our First Amendment rights are being trampled on.”

Two fellow protesters from the anti-war group Code Pink, who dressed in pink Statue of Liberty garb, taped their mouths shut. Some activists said while they understand the need for security, organizers went overboard.

“We are on high, high red alert for the protection of our civil liberties,” said Claryce Evans, national coordinator for United Peace and Justice. American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) and National Lawyers Guild attorneys asked a federal judge to open up or move the zone.

U.S. District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock this past week called the conditions “an affront to free expression” and a “festering boil.” He refused to order changes, but is letting protesters march past the site Sunday. A coalition of protesters appealed to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites).

Authorities said they were lowering the maximum number of protesters to 1,000, from a previous 4,000, because of concerns of overcrowding.

Judge upholds ‘free speech zone’ but permits march on FleetCenter

By THEO EMERY

Associated Press Writer

BOSTON (AP) — Protesters will be allowed to march directly past the site of the Democratic National Convention, but a federal judge refused to change a nearby protest zone, despite calling the fenced-in area “an affront to free expression.”

Judge Douglas P. Woodlock ruled Thursday on two separate lawsuits filed earlier in the week by protest groups that challenged the city’s denial of their request to march past the FleetCenter on the eve of the convention as well as the conditions of the designated demonstration zone.

Woodlock ruled that the coalition of protesters made a “very powerful argument” that there is a symbolic importance to marching directly past the convention site. They plan to march past the site on Sunday, the night before the four-day convention begins.

But he rejected arguments over the conditions of the official demonstration zone — a 28,000-square-foot area that features overhead netting, chain link fencing and razor wire — saying a post-9/11 era and increasingly violent protests required certain precautions to prevent violence.

Woodlock described the area as a “festering boil,” but refused to make any of the changes protesters sought.

“I at first thought, before taking a view (of the protest zone), that the characterization of the space being like an internment camp was litigation hyperbole,” he said. “Now I believe it’s an understatement.”

“One cannot conceive of other elements put in place to create a space that is more of an affront to the idea of free expression than the designated demonstration zone.”

Dustin Langley, a spokesman for the ANSWER coalition, one of the groups that sued over a permit to march by the FleetCenter, claimed victory.

“We were confident all along that we were going to march on Causeway Street,” he said. “We’re obviously pleased.”

Jonathan Shapiro, an attorney for the National Lawyers Guild, called the decision on the protest zone “outrageous.”

“In the same breath, the judge calls this a festering boil that is an affront to first amendment values and then at the same time said it’s OK … based upon what’s happened in other times and other places,” he said.

Ironically, the site was actually given a new restriction because of the lawsuit. After Woodlock asked city legal adviser Mary Jo Harris about capacity of the site and whether its two exits were enough, she said in court Thursday that another exit was being added, and that only 1,000 protesters would be allowed inside. The city had previously said 4,000 could enter the area.

This is so outrageous that I’m left without words, other than I was really hoping that Kerry would make it to office before I had any serious bitches. If this is the way the Democrats are treating citizens then we are truly lost.

Vote Green.

18 Dec 2000 George W Bush, still waiting on the Florida recount: “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier… just so long as I’m the dictator.”

May 27, 2003

The Honorable John Ashcroft
Attorney General
Department Of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Mr. Attorney General,

Respecting as we do the roles assigned to the Legislative and Executive Branches by the Constitution, we do not usually comment on pending individual prosecutions. But where important national policy issues are directly implicated in decisions to prosecute, we believe it is our responsibility to express our views. And we feel very strongly that the decision by your department to charge Brett Bursey under Section 1752 (a)(1)(ii) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code is greatly mistaken, and is in fact a threat to the freedom of expression we should all be defending.

Of course it is a primary duty of the Secret Service to protect the President, but there is no plausible argument that can be made that Mr. Bursey was threatening the President by holding a sign which the President found politically offensive. Mr. Bursey reports that he was told that he had to either put down his sign or leave the area – in other words, it was not his presence in the area but his presence holding a sign that was expressing a political viewpoint critical of the President that caused his arrest. The fact that Mr. Bursey was told to go to the “free speech zone” demonstrates how mistaken the Justice Department’s position is in this regard.

As we read the First Amendment to the Constitution, the United States is a “free speech zone”. In the United States, free speech is the rule, not the exception, and citizens’ rights to express it do not depend on their doing it in a way that the President finds politically amenable. It is extremely relevant that the State dropped the trespassing charges, and that the U.S. Attorney, Mr. Thurmond, then brought this serious charge. Perhaps the problem was trying to convict Mr. Bursey of trespassing when he was standing on public property and doing nothing unlawful. But the State’s decision to drop the charge should have been a model for the federal government, rather than an occasion for the federal government instituting a serious criminal prosecution of an individual whose “crime” was engaging in free speech outside of what law enforcement officials decided was the appropriate “zone”. We ask that you make it clear that we have no interest as a government in “zoning” Constitutional freedoms, and that being politically annoying to the President of the United States is not a criminal offense. This prosecution smacks of the use of the Sedition Acts two hundred years ago to protect the President from political discomfort. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. We urge you to drop this prosecution based so clearly on the political views being expressed by the individual who is being prosecuted.

Barney Frank
Ron Paul
John Conyers
James R. Langevin
Loretta Sanchez
Zoe Lofgren
Edward J. Markey
Howard L. Berman
Jerrold Nadler
Melvin L. Watt
William D. Delahunt

verbatim from here

It must have been a great shock to ol’ George when his limo was pelted by eggs on inauguration day. He wasn’t used to protest being so obvious.

Why are those in power so adverse to seeing (and thereby having to acknowledge) that they’re not universally loved? Are their egos so fragile that they can’t possibly survive the reality of others disagreeing with them? Or is it that they’re just too small and narrow to allow others to express themselves.

I believe, in Bush’s case, that he knows he’s over the edge - beyond that point where any elected official in this country should be - that if the people knew and understood just a smidgen of what he’s really up to, he’d be tarred and feathered, relegated to the historical shit pile. That’s why he (and by he I mean he and his cronies) so vigorously guards the fact that there are indeed people protesting his ascension, and have been from day 1.

The very fact that these “free speech zones” exist is indicative of one thing: they’ve something to hide. They’re hiding the protesters from the press (and therefore the rest of the people). They’re hiding the protesters from themselves. They’ve effectively disappeared the vocal opposition in this country.

These ‘men’ are traitorous, cowardly little bastards that wrap themselves in the flag and God and pronounce to themselves and the world what great men they are.

May history piss on them as they’ve pissed on our country.

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” – Theodore Roosevelt

Trespass charges dropped against Bush protesters

By JENNIFER BUNDY - The Associated Press

CHARLESTON, W.Va. – Trespassing charges against two people who wore anti-Bush T-shirts to the president’s July 4 rally at the West Virginia Capitol were dropped Thursday because a city ordinance did not cover trespassing on Statehouse grounds.

Nicole and Jeff Rank of Corpus Christi, Texas, were removed from the event in restraints after taking off an outer layer of clothes to reveal homemade T-shirts that had President Bush’s name with a slash through it and the words “Love America, Hate Bush” on the back.

Did I miss something? When did the First Amendment get repealed? Where was the discussion about its demise? When do I get to vote out the evil little bastards that decided it no longer applied to them?

Nicole Rank, 30, who was doing environmental work for the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the wake of Memorial Day flooding in the state, was released from her position after her arrest without getting another assignment. She remains employed with FEMA.

Did I transmogrify into a parallel universe last night? A federal employee can no longer express a political opinion on their own time without fear of reprisal?

He said they were not protesting in any other way than simply wearing the shirts and did not said anything.

Law enforcement officers told the couple to take the shirts off, cover them or get out. When they refused and sat down, they were arrested. They then stood and accompanied the police, said Charleston Mayor Danny Jones.

The Ranks said they have not protested at other political events and do not have any immediate plans to do so again.

“We’ll continue to exercise our right to free expression when we see fit. We’re not professional protesters,” Jeff Rank said. “We’re going to get on with our lives and go back to Texas and get jobs.”

Jones said, “I don’t think this was just about a T-shirt issue. There were other things going on there. The officers, quite frankly, feared for the safety of the Ranks.”

Jones said the city officers who filed the trespassing charges were acting under the direction of the Secret Service.

“The officers are in a bind here,” Jones said.

“I think we need some guidance. Perhaps the Secret Service should have been called and let the Secret Service do with them what they want,” Jones said.

The officers “feared for the safety of the Ranks”??? Then it should be the people that would assault them that get arrested and mercilessly prosecuted, not those that are expressing an opinion, which is legal and should be encouraged in this country. These civil servants, sworn to preserve, protect and uphold the “law of the land” should have formed a shield around these people, to ensure their rights - not arrest them.

“The city of Charleston does not engage in violating people’s rights. We want everybody to come here,” said Jones, a Republican.

Um, Mr. Jones - Yes you do violate people’s rights, demonstrably.

Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU’s West Virginia chapter, said the organization has been monitoring a pattern of similar cases in other states. The ACLU in September filed a federal lawsuit against the Secret Service, seeking an injunction against the Bush administration for segregating protesters at his public appearances.

The Secret Service agreed to stop the practice, ACLU attorney Witold Walczak told The Charleston Gazette.

Schneider said, “This case demonstrates we will be out there watching and monitoring to make sure free speech rights are not violated regardless of political affiliation.”

So let me see if I have this right: The ACLU has filed a law suit against the Secret Service for segregating those who would openly protest the President of the United States. The Secret Service, that band of selfless men and women who have a long and distinguished career as protectors of the flag and the leaders of our nation. These are the men and women who have been vilolating the most fundamental right of all persons in this country?

I can see it now, at a press brifing, Scott McClellan before a small group of selected reporters:

Q: So Sott, how’s that case going against the Secret Service for segregating protesters?
Mr. McClellan: You should speak with the Secret Service about that.
Q: But, aren’t they directly answerable to the President?
Mr. McClellan: You’ll have to ask the Justice Department about that.
Q: How does the President feel about protesters being arrested for peacefully protesting at his appearances.
Mr. McClellan: The President has never seen protesters at his appearances, he feels that everyone in this country loves him.
Q: Scott, what was the President’s golf score this past Sunday?
Mr. McClellan: He got three holes in one and finished the 18 holes at 27 under par.

One more point: If the Secret Service agreed to stop the practice, then they’re admitting that they have been doing so. Their boss is guily of gross violation of US citizen’s civil rights.

And I thought Nixon was a crook - Bush&Co make Nixon look like a rank amature.

Used without permission from UggaBugga

Fake voter sign-ups increasing

Nevada’s position as a battleground state in the presidential election has sparked a surge in fake voter registrations, Clark County’s top election official said.

“We’ve never seen anything close to this,” said Larry Lomax, registrar of voters.

So far, the office has flagged several hundred suspicious registration forms, but Lomax believes many more escaped detection among the 5,000 forms coming through his office every week.

Makes me wonder what’s happening in Florida.

Destroying Democracy

Anyone watching C-SPAN on July 8th, when Congressman Bernie Sanders I-VT and a bipartisan coalition took to the floor to protect the privacy of what Americans are reading and viewing on the internet, got one hell of a civics lesson. In an extraordinary display, the usually placid floor of the United States House of Representatives erupted as the Republic majority demonstrated once again that winning is their only goal. And democracy shouldn’t be allowed to stand in the way.

Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act - a law hastily passed in the wake of the horrendous 9/11 attacks - greatly expanded the government’s authority to seize “business records” without any showing that the person whose records are being seized is involved in any kind of wrongdoing. These “business records” include files about what books innocent Americans are borrowing from libraries and buying from booksellers.

So, the amendment would have prevented the government from using section 215 to go to the federal secret court to get an order - which the court is essentially powerless to deny - requiring the disclosure of Americans’ reading records. The amendment was supported by a broad cross section of members - from progressives like Congressman Sanders, John Conyers (D-MI) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) to conservatives like Butch Otter (R-ID) and Ron Paul (R-TX).

But the day before the vote, the White House significantly upped the ante when the Administration issued a rare veto threat against the bill in our amendment to protect readers’ privacy passed. This was Bush throwing down the gauntlet and his foot soldiers in the House Republican leadership got the message. This was a must win.

When the vote finally occurred on the amendment, the typical 17 minute time limit expired and the amendment had won 219-201, with almost 30 Republicans voting for the amendment. But wait! The Republican presiding over the House didn’t end the vote. Then the House Republican leaders began the process of “persuading” errant Republicans that supporting the President is more important than supporting our most fundamental Constitutional rights. A couple of votes changed. Then supporters of the amendment took to their feet demanding that the vote be closed.

Shouts of “Shame, Shame, Shame” echoed through the House Chamber as scores of angry members on the Democratic side took to their feet. But the Republicans are apparently immune to such public shaming, having become experienced at overturning fair votes in Florida and on the floor of the House last year during the Medicare vote after keeping that vote open for three hours.

Finally, after keeping the vote open twice as long as scheduled the Tom DeLay and company had threatened, cajoled, and enticed enough Republicans to tie the vote at 210-210. To the jeers of the amendments supporters the presiding Republican let the gavel fall and the amendment was defeated on a tie vote.

Ironically, the Republicans had subverted the most basic underlying principle of a democracy - that the will of the majority as evidenced by a fairly taken vote should prevail - in order to protect the Bush Administration’s abridgement of American civil liberties under section 215 of the Patriot Act.

Win at any cost. What a sad civics lesson for America’s children and for foreign countries who are supposed to look to America as an example of democracy.

Joel Barkin (joel.barkin@mail.house.gov) is the Communications Director for Congressman Bernie Sanders I-VT.

I’ve been wrong for a long time. It’s not GW Bush that’s deserving of scorn and spittle. It’s the Republican Party - all of ‘em. From the dupe in his pickup to the President of The United States. They should all burn. (Not that the Democrats are any better mind you.)

The War Built On A Lie

Why mince words? These are the facts:

1) President George W. Bush is a liar.

2) Secretary of State Colin Powell is a liar.

3) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a liar.

4) National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice is a liar.

To the above facts we might add these: There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, none were there when our war against Iraq began, and none will be found unless we plant them there.

These are the conclusions one could reasonably reach after reading California Congressman Henry Waxman’s web site, the section about forged documents used as a justification for war.

After reading press conference transcripts, this is refreshingly direct. Love it or hate it, you should read it.

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

And with that, I’ll go to your questions.

Q Does the President think that the violence in Iraq has affected the alerts in this country, raised the antipathy and hostility?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t know that I would look at it that way, Helen. Certainly, in terms of the situation in Iraq, you’re seeing that Iraq is moving forward and making great progress toward building a free and peaceful future. And we’ve always said that as they move forward on the elections and move forward on sovereignty, that you would see the terrorists in the country and others who are opposed to freedom and democracy seek to derail that process. And there are certainly challenges and difficulties that remain in Iraq when it comes to addressing the security situation.

But I think you see strong commitments and statements from the leadership in Iraq. The Prime Minister and others have made strong statements that they are determined to crack down on those who are seeking to derail a better future for the Iraqi people. And you’re seeing action by the security forces there, the Iraqi security forces, to go after those who seek to spread violence in their country.

Q But there are indications, though, that the Islamics now have bigger cause, because of Iraq, and it has endangered our country more.

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, the terrorist threat has been building for quite some time. All you need to do is go back and look at the attacks that have taken place over the past decade. This was a threat that was emerging and building well before we came into office.

S’cuse me, I can’t resist: Scott, do you mean to look at the official reports before or after the numbers have been revised? One more thing Scott: Does the President now acknowledge that he considered the terrorist threat to be real prior to 9/11 or is Richard Clarke a liar?

And then September 11th came, and it changed the whole equation, when on that day, as the President said, war was declared on the United States. And the best way to win the war on terrorism and defeat the terrorists is to go after them, where they are, so that we prevent them from carrying out their attacks in the first place. This President will continue waging the war on terrorism on the offensive. And maybe there’s a fundamental disagreement here about how you carry out that war on terrorism. Some would argue it’s primarily a law enforcement matter. The President disagrees. It’s being fought on many fronts, and you win it by going on the offensive. That’s exactly what we are doing.

Q Do you think you’re winning?

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, we’re making tremendous progress, but there is much more to do to win the war on terrorism and defeat terrorism. We are dismantling and disrupting the al Qaeda network. We have certainly brought top leaders to justice. There are more that we continue to pursue.

And when I talk about the war on terrorism, I’m talking about how this is fought on many different fronts. Look at what we’ve accomplished in Libya. That was a significant development that makes the world a safer place. Libya has renounced its weapons of mass destruction program and dismantled and disrupted – and dismantled its weapons programs. That’s a significant development.

September 11th taught us that we must confront threats before it’s too late and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

Scott, if you’re disrupting and dismantling alQaeda then why is Ridge saying an attack is imminent? Where is your focus? Is it on Iraq or is it on the terrorist threat to THIS country?

Helen is asking the right questions (I’m surprised they let her in the door) but as usual, the answers are not answers. The words are getting boring.

Q A number of Democrats since the announcement this morning have come out screaming “politics.” They say since there’s no specific information about a threat, that the administration is doing this to distract attention away from the pick of Senator Edwards –

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I don’t know that I’d describe it as no specific information about a threat, because you heard directly from Governor Ridge how we have continued to receive credible reporting of intelligence over the last several weeks, and certainly since the last time Governor Ridge went to the public and informed them about what the current threat status is, which was just prior to the Memorial Day weekend. But –

What really pisses me off about these guys is that no matter what they say (or don’t say) I can’t beleive it. It’s as obvious to me now as it was on Tuesday that this “warning” is timed to steal some of the press from Kerry.

Q Scott, you say you’re making progress against the war on terrorism and you’re arresting members of al Qaeda. Why is it that al Qaeda seems – continues to be a great threat for the U.S., even when President Bush says this country is more secure than ever?

MR. McCLELLAN: Because that’s the nature of the terrorists. They have no regard for innocent human life. They want to – they fear freedom. They fear what is going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. They hate what the United States of America stands for, which is freedom and liberties for all. And they want to continue to harm innocent civilians. They want to – this is a, as the President talked about, a struggle of ideologies. Theirs is based on oppression and tyranny; ours is based on freedom and hope. They thrive where there is hatred and fear. And we are making great progress, but it is a war that continues. They declared war on us September 11th when they killed some 3,000 innocent American men and women, and children even. And the way to win the war on terrorism is to continue going after them and continue staying after them, on the offensive. And that’s what we’re doing.

But we know that they seek to reconstitute themselves and continue to seek to carry out attacks on innocent civilians and on Americans. And the intelligence that we’re receiving is credible information that points to this activity.

Boring or not, it’s fascinating in a way that only a true cynic could appreciate

I’m pissed off. Can anyone show me that someone in Washington has the balls to save this nation? Lord knows we citizens can no longer do it (short of armed revolution). Shit, we can’t even demonstrate our opposition at a political rally anymore - we’re confined to “free speech zones”.

When I met J ’bout a year ago she would spout things like “we need to nuke US rather than them - we’re the problem, not them”. Well I can assure you that my white, midwestern sensibilities were more than a little offended at these statements. But after watching, listening and cogitating on the issues at hand, I’m coming around to that very same conclusion.

America in and of itself is not bad nor evil. The people running it certainly are - demonstrably so. We have a long history of fucking the rest of the world so that a few of us can live in gross luxury - so that a very few of us can wake up in the morning and say “I control the world - fuckin’ A!”

We’re s’posed to get more conservative as we get older - leave the liberalism and compassion to the youngsters. When we start leaving such a perverted world to our kids, it’s time to look around and try a little liberalism, a little basic human compassion and most of all, a lot of introspection.

We Americans seem loath to to do that. We attacked a sovereign nation (seems funny to use that word right now) with little provocation and no legal basis and yet the very discussion of these issues is deemed to be unpatriotic and not worthy of discussion. The greatest decision this country has made in the last 50 years and we won’t even discuss the moral basis of that decision. We send our children to their deaths and refuse to talk about the morality of our acts in anything more than whispers - labeling the whisperers as extremists, or worse, fat.

That our leadership is amoral, narcissistic and paid for is obvious. Is this a reflection of us? Or are we a reflection of them? We the citizenry have obviously been asleep at the switch for a very long time - electing the likes of Nixon, Reagan and TWO Bushs. Is it our wealth, sloth and inattention that’s to blame? Or have we been taken advantage of by amoral men that will use any means to garner power. And if the latter, what’s the use of the power? To what end does the accumulation of such power lead?

If we’re overtly to blame for the current leadership (which ultimately we are) then yes, we deserve to fall. Not because individually we’re corrupt or evil, but because as a society we’re sick, very sick to allow things to happen in our name that we would not personally do or allow in our own homes. We let others do “whatever is necessary” to preserve our ignorance - all the while refusing to even discuss alternate ideas or allow that maybe, just maybe, others are right and we’re wrong.

If our only blame is be that we’re naive and inattentive, then yes, we still deserve to fall. Our forefathers (and serendipity) have allowed us to be the richest and most influential society ever seen. And yet we choose to ignore the responibilty involved in maintaining that status. Most of us will keep our houses trim and neat, the lawns mowed and green. Whatever the motivations; keeping up with the neighbors, resale value or just plain pride of ownership, we don’t apply the same standards to our national interests. We’ve let our house become very shoddy indeed - and just like the hermit down the street, it takes an external view to see just how badly deteriorated our own home has become.

I don’t know what to do about any of this. The ex-wife wouldn’t see Fahrenheit 9/11 because she “just doesn’t want to know”. My buddy L wouldn’t see it ‘cause “Moore’s just a fat blowhard”. How can one person battle against this type of apathy and childish, deliberate ignorance.

We’re a nation of children that stick their fingers in their ears and yell “LA LA LA….” when reality rears its ugly head. Our parents are labeled “the greatest generation” ‘cause they fought the bad guys and won. And now, we’re pissing it all away - it was all for naught.

Those of us that have watched 5 or 6 presidential election cycles have gotten exactly what we deserve - a big bag o’ shit and the reputation that goes with it.

Our kids deserve better.

This from Senate Select Intelligence committee vice-chair John Rockefeller:

We’ve done a little bit of work on the number three guy in the Defense Department, Douglas Feith, part of his alleged efforts to run intelligence past the intelligence community altogether, his relationship with the INC and Chalabi, who was very much in favor with the administration wanting them to come on in. And was he running a private intelligence failure, which is not lawful. As a result, the committee’s report fails to fully explain the environment of intense pressure in which the intelligence community officials were asked to render judgments on matters relating to Iraq when the most senior officials in the Bush administration had already forcefully and repeatedly stated their conclusions publicly.

The bamboozle continues…..

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. Hope everybody had a good July 4th weekend. And with that, I will go straight to your questions today. Helen.

Q Does the President feel that he had enough information about weapons to take this nation to war?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you heard directly from the President earlier today in the Oval Office, following his meeting with Prime Minister Oddsson. The President talked about how Saddam Hussein was a threat. It was a threat that was real –

Q – was a threat how?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we have learned since going into Iraq and removing that regime from power that the regime certainly had the intent and capability when it comes to weapons of mass destruction –

Q What do you mean by intent?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the Iraq Survey Group, that was previously headed by David Kay and is now headed by Charles Duelfer, has looked into the issues and showed that Saddam Hussein was in serious and clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. That resolution, you’ll recall, called for serious consequences if Saddam Hussein –

Q It didn’t call for war.

MR. McCLELLAN: It gave him one final opportunity to comply, or face serious consequences if he continued to defy the international community. And the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

Q Do you know how vague you sound on that?

I’d really like to see Helen and GWB in a one-on-one. Live. Now that would be entertainment.

Q Can I follow in that vein? Has the President ever had a word with the Vice President about his use of profanity in the United States Senate?

MR. McCLELLAN: Ed, I’ve previously discussed this issue. This issue came up while we were, I believe, in Ireland, and I addressed it at that point. And that’s where it stands.

Q So the answer is, no, the President has not –

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President has regular conversations with the Vice President.

Q But about that issue?

I can see it now:

Rove: #&!#dammit Dick! Can’t you keep your %#%*ing mouth shut when the @$%^@&ing cameras are rolling?
Cheney: Well s^%t - it just freakin’ popped out
Rove: Well from this %$#@ing point on, keep your mouth shut - they’ve already got enough f&^$ing ammo to f$#@&ing sink us
Cheney: He deserved it!
Bush: F@&%ing A!

Q Scott, does the White House have any comment about the incident between Mexican army soldiers and Marines during the burial ceremony of Juan Lopez, who was killed in Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that Ambassador Garza made some remarks, put out a statement regarding that incident, and he talked about how the family had requested that he be buried in his town of birth with full military honors. And I would leave it where Ambassador Garza stated it.

Q And you have nothing to add?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he’s the Ambassador for us in Mexico, and he has commented on that very matter.

Q Do you think this will affect the relation between Mexico and the U.S.?

MR. McCLELLAN: We have good relations with Mexico, and the President certainly views President Fox as a friend. But this particular incident, I would refer you to Ambassador Garza over the weekend.

Do you see a pattern here? The White House will not answer questions, it will not vocalize a stand on anything. It’s always “you’ll have to talk to those guys”.

Q So let me see if I’ve got this straight. The President will continue to talk about the issues and the record. And the RNC and the campaign will continue to put out statements about Kerry’s disingenuousness and liberal tendencies?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that –

Q You’ll have sort of a two-track thing going here, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t – I don’t think I agree with your characterization. I think that it’s, like I said, perfectly legitimate to point out the differences and to discuss the record. And that’s what campaigns are about. The voters deserve to know what the choices are, and they deserve to have an honest discussion of the differences and an honest discussion of the records.

Q What about the rhetoric? What about the rhetoric and the changing of the tone?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just don’t agree with the way you characterized – the way you characterize it.

Q But the moment you called a person disingenuous, Scott, you’re no longer talking about the record. You’re talking about their personality, aren’t you, when you call him, disingenuous?

MR. McCLELLAN: As I said –

Q That’s a personal –

MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, James, we’ve been through this issue. I think I’ve addressed it. The President is going to continue to focus on the issues and the differences and the choices that voters face. And he’ll continue to talk about his vision and his leadership for the future of America.

Here it is again. Prediction: As the campaign winds up to feverish levels in the next few months, the official White House line will be “you’ll have to talk to the RNC about that.” The administration will disassociate itself from the actual campaign and the nastiness of it all.

It doesn’t matter that the President is the head of the Republican Party, just as it doesn’t matter that the President is the Commander In Chief.

"You'll have to talk to the Pentagon about that" = "You'll have to talk to the RNC about that".

Bush&Co seem quite happy to deflect any and all possible criticism to others. This is but a small view into their personalities.

The rabid right always make the point that Bush is a “man of character and vision”. That he is “steadfast and unwavering”. Integrity is a word I often here in association with that little bastard. But they’re wrong. Deadly wrong. A man of character and integrity would answer the questions in a straight forward manner. He would accept the responsibilty of his subordinate’s actions - not deflect, dissemble and act (it is an act isn’t it?) stupidly.

Daschle denies hugging Moore

There was no hug between “Fahrenheit 9/11″ director Michael Moore and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle at the film’s June 23 premiere in Washington, D.C., Daschle said Thursday.

When asked about Moore’s account of a hug after the premiere and the criticism Daschle has received for it, the South Dakota Democrat said he and Moore did not embrace. Daschle said his schedule forced him to arrive late and leave early.

“I know we senators all tend to look alike. But I arrived late, and I had to leave early for Senate votes. I didn’t meet Mr. Moore,” Daschle said.

In a lengthy Time magazine piece about the movie and its political effects, Richard Corliss reported Moore’s criticism of Daschle’s leadership and the filmmaker’s account of a hug with Daschle.

“At the Washington premiere, Moore sat a few rows behind Daschle. Afterward, says Moore, ‘He gave me a hug and said he felt bad and that we were all gonna fight from now on. I thanked him for being a good sport,’” Corliss wrote.

Daschle, who was at the premiere at the invitation of producer/distributor Harvey Weinstein, said he and Moore have never met.

Moore has the balls to publish his films. Daschle has the balls to cover his ass. Gee - I wonder which one is lying?

M.P.’s Received Orders to Strip Iraqi Detainees

“Foreign fighters could fall into the category of unlawful combatants,” Colonel Goetze said. He said he expected that only a small percentage of the prisoners in Iraq would be designated “unlawful combatants,” but he said, “These are the individuals who raised up, took arms, not carrying them in an open manner, not wearing uniforms; in other words, engaging in tactics and techniques that were not in accordance with the law of armed combat.”

an unlawful combatant is a fighter who does not play by the accepted rules of war, and therefore does not qualify for the Convention’s protections

Let me see here, AK-47s against SAWs. Toyota pickups against M1 Abrahms battle tanks. Several thousand insurgents against the might of the US Military.

How can it be expected that such an underdog force would conform to the “rules of war”. I seem to remember a rag-tag force under the command of one George Washington taking on the world power that was Great Britain - and winning. Not through superior fire power or remarkable tactics or even overwhelming manpower. No the insurgents that were the colonists used tactics which were far outside the “rules of war” and the British couldn’t/wouldn’t/didn’t adapt.

Bush makes 30th Pennsylvania trip

WASHINGTON (AP) – Playing to his strength, President Bush is campaigning in the small-town Republican heart of Pennsylvania, trying to win a state that Democratic presidential candidates have captured in each of the last three elections.

Bush is taking a bus tour in a battleground state that has drawn more personal attention from the president than any other. He has averaged a trip a month to Pennsylvania this year and Friday’s visit was to be the 30th of his presidency to the state.

Isn’t this guy s’posed to be fighting a war? Isn’t he a “war time president?” Oh, silly me - Cheney’s still in D.C. no doubt.

When asked about his copious vacation time in Texas, Bush responded that phones and faxes worked “really well for keeping in touch” , so no doubt he can use that excuse while he’s on the campaign trail. But his performance on 9/11/01 belies his ability to do so - while safely ensconced in one of the most sophisticated communications platforms in the world (Air Force 1), Bush let Cheney run the show presumably because he was “there”.

Report: CIA Gave False Info on Iraq

WASHINGTON (AP) - The key U.S. assertions leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq - that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was working to make nuclear weapons - were wrong and based on false or overstated CIA analyses, a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report asserted Friday.

Intelligence analysts fell victim to “group think” assumptions that Iraq had weapons that it did not, the bipartisan report concluded. Many factors contributing to those failures are ongoing problems within the U.S. intelligence community - which cannot be fixed with more money alone, it said.

Call me paranoid but I just can’t believe these guys anymore. Both the House and the Senate have some serious ass covering to do in this matter, Bush may have been the front man in the mass deception but Congress is just as culpable as they ‘approved’ the whole deal.

Nope, I just can’t buy this one. The CIA is just too easy a target in this case - Tenet was just ousted (I know, “retiired") in disgrace leaving no real target - no person or small group at which to heap the blame. Better an amorphous cloud is to blame than (god forbid!) someone that actually has to explain themselve to their constituents. Is the sworn testimony of Richard Clarke so quickly forgotten? This doesn’t exactly mesh with what he and O’Neill had to say.

The worst part of this is that both Congress and the Administration are trying to justify this stupid and immoral war by shifting blame to a disembodied organization (which is impenetrable for ‘national security’ reasons). Instead of discussing what fuck ups lead us down this road, they’re once again saving their own asses.

Who’re they gonna blame in a couple years when we’ve totally failed to “bring democracy” to Iraq? Will they blame the Iraqis? Or maybe the Iranians? OH! OH! I know! Let’s blame the Syrians and Jordanians thereby giving us a reason to “bring the seeds of democracy” to those states too.