Saturday, June 28, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
As weazl has suspected, we might be in for a long and wild ride, as those intoxicated by power face cold turkey
Former Clinton Whitehouse aide: We're in for a "cataclysmic" Bush endgame
Sidney Blumenthal says Bush feels "unconstrained."
Sidney Blumenthal, journalist, former Clinton White House aide and senior advisor to Hillary Clinton, today spoke at Third Way to promote his new book "The Strange Death of Republican America".
He said that the US faces a "cataclysmic" final few months of the Bush term, and that Bush is determined to leave a lasting mark on the world regardless of who is elected the next president.
"Bush feels unconstrained right now, and a sense of urgency," Blumenthal said, later referring to a Jerusalem Post story that warns Bush plans to attack Iran before his term ends in January.
On the battle for the 2008 election, Blumenthal said the Democrats are mistaken in their effort to define John McCain as offering a third Bush term. He said that's inaccurate and the public won't buy it. "It's a hard sell," he said. McCain has other weaknesses the Dems should press harder, Blumenthal said.
Original article posted here.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Surprise! We're not loved.
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Apr 14 (IPS) - Despite renewed U.S. efforts to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement this year, popular views of the United States in the Arab world have actually worsened since 2006, according to a major new survey of public opinion in six Arab states.
Nearly two-thirds, or 64 percent, of more than 4,000 respondents in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) said they held a "very unfavourable" attitude of the United States, up from 57 percent in late 2006, while 19 percent more said their views were "somewhat unfavourable" -- roughly comparable to the results of 17 months ago.
At the same time, support for Iran and its nuclear programme appears to have risen over the same period, according to the new survey, the sixth in a series designed by University of Maryland Prof. Shibley Telhami and carried out by Zogby International since 2002.
The poll found that two-thirds of the Arab public (67 percent) believes Tehran has the right to pursue its nuclear programme and that international pressure to freeze it should cease. That compares to 61 percent who took the same position in 2006.
Remarkably, nearly three out of four Saudi respondents said that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons, it would have "positive" influence on the region, while 51 percent of UAE respondents agreed. Pluralities in Morocco and Egypt took the same position, while pluralities of roughly one-third in Lebanon and Jordan said Tehran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon it would make no difference.
The new survey also found that fears regarding both U.S. and Israeli designs in the region have also increased over the past 17 months, despite the length of time that has passed since the summer 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war which inflamed anti-Israeli and anti-western opinion throughout the region.
Asked to name two countries that, in their view, posed the "biggest threat" to them, a whopping 95 percent and 88 percent of respondents named Israel and the U.S., respectively. That compared to 85 percent and 72 percent, respectively, in late 2006.
By comparison, the sense of threat posed by Iran appears to have diminished over the same period. While 11 percent of Arab respondents named Iran as one of the two greatest threats in late 2006, only seven percent did so in the most recent survey.
The survey, which was conducted in all six countries last month, is certain to be greeted with considerable dismay here in the U.S. capital where policymakers had been cheered by some recent polling. One 23-nation survey released by BBC earlier this month suggested that Washington's image around the globe had bottomed out last year and that the greater emphasis the George W. Bush administration has placed on diplomacy, rather than war and military threats, during its second term, as well as reduced violence in Iraq, had begun to pay off, at least in public diplomacy terms.
But Telhami's "Annual Arab Public Opinion Poll" is highly regarded among Arabist scholars and public opinion specialists here who note that its consistency of methodology and questions over an unusually long period of time has given it considerable credibility. Telhami, an expert on Arab media, holds the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and serves as a senior fellow at the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, a major think tank here.
The survey found that while views on some issues varied among the six countries, cynicism about U.S. motivations and policies was fairly consistent. Eighty percent said their views of the U.S. are formed more by U.S. "policies" than by U.S. "values" -- up from 70 percent who took that position in 2006.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents (65 percent) said they don't believe that democracy is a real objective in the region, while 20 percent said it is an important objective but Washington is going about it the wrong way.
A 36-percent plurality said they did not believe reports that violence in Iraq has been significantly reduced over the past year, while 31 percent said any reduction of violence that has been achieved has little to do with the "surge" of U.S. forces there and that, in any event, it was only a matter of time before violence increases. Only six percent of respondents said they believed the surge was working and would enhance the chances of a stable political settlement.
Asked what they believe would happen if the U.S. quickly withdrew its forces, 61 percent said Iraqis would find a way to bridge their differences -- up from 44 percent in 2006. Only 15 percent said civil war in Iraq would expand rapidly, down from 24 percent in 2006.
Respondents in Lebanon (88 percent), Jordan (87 percent), and Saudi Arabia (66 percent) were particularly optimistic that Iraqis would reach a peaceful settlement if the U.S. withdrew its forces quickly.
Overall, four out of five respondents said they believe that Iraqis are worse off as a result of the U.S. invasion. Only two percent said they believed that Iraqis were better off.
The survey found a sharp rise in the percentage of respondents, particularly in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who identified the Palestinian cause as among their three most important public issues. Eight-six percent of all respondents named Palestine in that context, up from 77 percent in 2006 and 69 percent in 2005.
At the same time, however, a growing majority was found to be increasingly pessimistic about prospects for a two-state solution based on Israel's 1967 borders. Fifty-five percent overall said they believe the collapse of prospects for such a solution will likely lead to a state of "intense conflict for years to come". Views on the conflict were especially pessimistic in Lebanon and Jordan.
Asked which U.S. presidential candidate would have the best chance to advance peace in the Middle East, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama gained the most backing with 18 percent, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (13 percent), and John McCain (4 percent). But 20 percent of respondents said they weren't following the U.S. elections, and a plurality of 32 percent said the policy will be the same regardless of who is elected.
Asked to identify which foreign leader they admired the most, respondents generally volunteered those most outspokenly defiant of Israel and the U.S. The most popular was Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallay, who was named by 26 percent of respondents, up from 14 percent 17 months ago. Second-ranked was Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad at 16 percent, up from just two percent in 2006.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came up third with 10 percent of respondents, up from four percent in 2006, while al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden was cited by six percent of respondents, up from four percent. Al Qaeda also appeared to receive a somewhat more sympathetic response among respondents than in late 2006.
Asked what aspect of the group, if any, they sympathise with the most, one-third of respondents told interviewers then that they "do not sympathise at all with this organisation." Only 21 percent took that position in the latest poll.
Original article posted here.
Monday, March 31, 2008
The Moron has no clothes
Delusionary, Dancing Bush
Bush and the First Lady spent last Monday clowning with the Easter Bunny (White House counsel Fred Fielding having donned the costume).
At the American Enterprise Institute, war-cheerleaders – dressed as academicians – were delivering a panegyric on how peaceful and stable the situation in Iraq had become. The “surge,” they announced, had nipped a civil war in the bud.
“The civil war is over,” AEI’s Fred Kagan, co-author of the surge, declared proudly. Brookings twins Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack led the cheering section.
Meanwhile, back in the southern Iraq city of Basra and elsewhere, full-blown civil war seemed about to explode. And in Baghdad, formerly protected folks were getting killed by mortar and rocket fire in what is customarily referred to as “the highly fortified Green Zone,” which has sequestered U.S. embassy and military officials as well as those of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government.
Two American officials and two Iraqi guards of Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi died in the Green Zone attacks.
At ABC in New York, Good Morning America’s Diane Sawyer was trying hard Thursday to understand it all.
Shaking her head in disbelief after four straight days of attacks on the Green Zone, she asked how a round “can actually get inside the embassy; how fortified is that?”
ABC national security correspondent Jonathan Karl let her down easy, explaining that artillery fire can actually get “over the walls...so it does happen: they do get inside the embassy compound.”
A teaching moment. Mortar and artillery fire can actually get “over the walls.” Quick. Someone tell Gen. David Petraeus.
But Don’t Bother Bush
No need to drag the president away from the Easter Bunny with such nettlesome detail.
Interestingly, it was Sawyer herself who asked Bush, during an interview on Dec. 16, 2003, where he gets his news and how he reacts to criticism. The president’s answer was revealing:
“Why even put up with it when you can get the facts elsewhere? I’m a lucky man. I’ve got...it’s not just Condi and Andy [Andy Card, former chief of staff], it’s all kinds of people in my administration who are charged with different responsibilities, and they come in and say this is what’s happening, this isn’t what’s happening.”
By Thursday of last week, someone did tell the president about Maliki’s big gamble in taking on militias loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr in the Basra area, the stiff resistance Iraqi government forces encountered, and the application of U.S. ground and air support.
And someone told the president to take the line that the outbreak of major violence was “a positive moment,” and so that’s what he said.
No matter that the upsurge in hostilities threatened to demolish the myth of a “successful surge.” The White House spin machine could be counted on to take care of that.
And, for good measure, the shelling of the Green Zone could be blamed on Iran. Indeed, Petraeus was quick to label the projectiles “Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets.”
Reality? We Make Our Own
It is comfortable to stay in denial, and President George W. Bush basks in it.
Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska saw that early on. In June 2005, he told U.S. News & World Report:
“The White House is completely disconnected from reality...it’s like they’re just making it up as they go along.”
Would that someone had the courage to tell Bush of the late William F. Buckley, Jr.’s observations about Iraq in the National Review on Feb. 24, 2006:
“Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans...Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality...different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgement of defeat.”
A few months later, on June 13, 2006, Bush flew to Baghdad to size up Prime Minister Maliki. The president told American troops gathered in the “heavily fortified Green Zone” that he had come “to look Prime Minister Maliki in the eyes—to determine whether or not he is as dedicated to a free Iraq as you are. I believe he is.”
This, of course, was not the first display of the president’s propensity to draw significant impressions from eyeballing foreign leaders. Five years before, Bush had quickly taken the measure of Russia’s Vladimir Putin: “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy...I was able to get a sense of his soul.”
Souls can change, I suppose. But apparently not eyeballs.
Maliki’s retinal scan apparently remains valid for at least two years, judging from the president’s automatic endorsement of Maliki’s major gamble last week in the Basra area.
Bush has now ordered U.S. ground and air units to support Maliki’s effort. The general objective is to root out Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army units in the area, but the campaign faces formidable obstacles and does not appear to be going well.
Doesn’t Make a Lot of Sense? So?...
In the past, Bush has let himself be convinced by Vice President Dick Cheney’s “analysis” that increased enemy attacks were signs of desperation—an indication that the enemy is in its “last throes,” if you will.
And it seems clear that Cheney is still, as Col. Larry Wilkerson has put it, “whispering in Bush’s ear.”
That is scary. There were abundant signs during Cheney’s recent visit to the Middle East that, among other things, he continues to be receptive to Israeli importuning, as Israeli president Shimon Perez put it on March 23, to deal with what both referred to as “the Iranian threat” before Bush leaves office.
Bush and Cheney seem to have given Israeli leaders the impression that the Bush administration has made a commitment to do precisely that.
Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser to the president’s father and who was appointed chairman of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board by the son, took the unusual step of going public with a startling remark in October 2004 that should give us all great concern.
Just before he was sacked, the usually discreet Scowcroft told the Financial Times that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush “mesmerized.” Eyeballing again—this time in Bush’s direction, it appears.
And Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, with masterful tutoring from the psychologists in the Israeli Mossad, has shown he can duplicate the spell.
Who can forget watching Olmert’s fulsome praise of George W. Bush during his recent visit to Israel and how Bush seemed to turn to putty. Aw shucks, he seemed to be saying; at least the Israelis respect me. And they are “mighty tough fellas.”
Attacking Iran
The point is that if Cheney and Olmert both whisper “attack Iran,” the president may give the order with the full expectation that—with Admiral William Fallon out of the way—a malleable secretary of defense and martinet generals and admirals left over from former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s reign will salute smartly and launch a much wider and more dangerous war in the Persian Gulf area.
(After all, those rockets hitting the Green Zone are, according to Gen. Petraeus, “Iranian-provided, Iranian-made.”)
Why attack Iran? Israeli leaders have insisted publicly that they want this done before Bush and Cheney leave office.
And also, well, just because! Because, as Bush is fond of saying, he is commander in chief. And he considers the U.S. armed forces his plaything. And because he can. Never mind the consequences.
When has anyone had the courage to hold George W. Bush accountable for consequences?
Worse still, Bush’s open-ended rhetorical commitment to defend Israel if attacked could spell big trouble. If Iran were to strike Israel, Bush has said, “We will defend our ally (sic), no ifs, ands, or buts.”
That is great rhetoric; trouble is that it surrenders the initiative to the Israelis, who have it within their power to provoke the Iranians.
And, Please, No Jimmy Baker
Bush chafes at any thought that those he considers his father’s cronies could rein him in. Bete noire number one is the fella the president calls “Jimmy Baker.”
Negotiate with Iran? Draw down troops? George W. Bush will instinctively do the opposite. If Baker says Guantanamo should be shut down (as he did, joining five other former secretaries of state last week), then keep it open.
But, most of all, enjoy the last 10 months of “unitary executive” power.
That is perhaps most disturbing of all. George W. Bush is tap dancing through it all. And the worse things get, the more jocular he seems to become.
Commenting on Bush’s recent manic behavior, Justin Frank, M.D., author of Bush on the Couch, suggests that Bush is “acting like a kid planning to make a real mess as only he knows how—given his comfort with sadism; his lack of shame or conscience; and his propensity to take delight in breaking things.”
Trouble is that as he tap dances the next few months away, he is systematically destroying the armed forces of the United States, and there does not seem to be anyone with the courage to try to stop him.
Eight months ago, Dr. Frank and Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) collaborated on an article we called “Dangers of a Cornered Bush.” Since the president and his imperial court have 10 more months to act out, the scenarios we explored in that memo are still worth pondering.
Let me close with a remark Seymour Hersh made last year, even though it may seem flippant and in no way conveys the enormity of the danger we face in the coming months:
“These guys are scary as hell...you can’t use the word ‘delusional,’ for it’s actually a medical term. Wacky. That’s a fair word.”
With so much destructive power at the disposal of George W. Bush, we need to be increasingly alert to signs that additional delusionary policies are about to be executed.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he worked closely with George H. W. Bush when he was C.I.A. Director and later at the White House. McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Monday, March 24, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
No more love for the Moron. 17% of Americans approve.
Concerns over Economy Push
George W. Bush's Overall Job Approval to New Low
George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has dropped to a new low in American Research Group polling as 78% of Americans say that the national economy is getting worse according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.
Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 14% approve and 79% disapprove.
Among Americans registered to vote, 18% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 78% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 15% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 79% disapprove.
A total of 78% of Americans say the national economy is getting worse and 47% say the national economy is in a recession. A total of 42% of Americans, however, say they believe the national economy will be better a year from now, which is the highest level for this question in the past year. This optimism does not spread to improvements in household financial situations as 17% of Americans say they expect their household financial situations to be better a year from now, which is the lowest for this question in the past year.
The results presented here are based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews conducted among a nationwide random sample of adults 18 years and older. The interviews were completed February 16 through 19, 2008. The theoretical margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.
Overall, 19% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, 77% disapprove, and 4% are undecided.
| Bush job approval | Approve | Disapprove | Undecided |
| Feb 2008 | 19% | 77% | 4% |
| Jan 2008 | 34% | 59% | 7% |
| Dec 2007 | 32% | 66% | 2% |
| Nov 2007 | 31% | 64% | 5% |
| Oct 2007 | 25% | 67% | 8% |
| Sep 2007 | 34% | 60% | 6% |
| Aug 2007 | 28% | 65% | 7% |
| Jul 2007 | 25% | 71% | 4% |
| Jun 2007 | 27% | 67% | 6% |
| May 2007 | 31% | 64% | 5% |
| Apr 2007 | 33% | 62% | 5% |
| Mar 2007 | 32% | 63% | 5% |
| Feb 2007 | 39% | 56% | 5% |
Among Republicans (29% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 45% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 50% disapprove. Among Democrats (43% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 1% approve and 99% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among independents (28% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 17% approve and 75% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Saturday, January 19, 2008
A great deconstruction of the Moron
By Curt Maynard
A Limp Dick is an expression that I learned while serving in the Army cavalry back in the 1980s, it is generally applied to someone that is seen as "impotent," in daily life, a non force, or someone that isn't taken seriously by others, thus the application to our squirrelly President.
Many Americans are beginning to realize the obvious, President Bush has completely wasted any capital that he may have once had. Foreign leaders are already aware of this, nobody takes the fool seriously, he is seen for what he is, a weak, inept marionette. in 2006 we saw the new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki literally stand Bush up at an important meeting in Jordan - he literally left Bush standing alone waiting on his own subordinate, at least from Bush's perspective. The Associated Press did their best to mitigate what happened and to spin the implications, but it did a poor job at best. According to the AP the meeting that Bush and al-Maliki were scheduled to meet at was scrubbed, not because al-Maliki "punked" Bush by not showing up, but for some other reason, but not before Bush was expecting al-Maliki as evidenced by the fact that when the meeting was scrubbed, he was already inside Raghadan Palace and had posed for photographs alone with the king. White House counselor Dan Bartlett denied that the delay was a snub by al-Maliki directed at Bush or was related to the leak of a memo written by White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley questioning the prime minister's capacity for controlling violence in Iraq." Yeah, whatever, the AP can write whatever they like, but the truth is al-Maliki "punked," Bush, which is modern vernacular meaning that Bush was intentionally disrespected publicly. To my knowledge nothing like this has ever happened before - as a rule Presidential advisors do everything they can to ensure that the President of the United States never gets embarrassed in such a manner. In any case, al-Maliki's absence spelled out something quite clearly - Bush has no influence in the Mid east any longer - zero.
To further support this fact and to support something else the mainstream media would prefer that you don't know, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad admonished George Bush publicly too, he stated the obvious in response to a comment Bush made about him, when Dubya said that Ahmadinejad was out of step with the rest of the world. Iran's President replied by saying that perhaps Georgie needs to step out of [his] glass palace and go to [his] people to see how isolated [he is], not only across the world but also in your own country." Ahmadinejad continued by saying "Mr. Bush can travel to one of the American states, inviting the people to a stadium to see how the people would treat him I am sure that the American people would treat Mr. Bush as the Indonesian people treated him," he said, referring to protests that greeted Bush on a visit to Indonesia last year. Yeah, fat chance that'll ever happen.
Ahmadinejad then stated what everyone but the most avid Fox News viewers are starting to conclude, and that is that Some so-called superpowers have gathered together and they think that they can control the whole world. I'm telling them: Open your eyes, today, the world no longer thinks your decisions have any value By God's grace, the enemies have not been able to do anything (against Iran) as yet and they will not be able to do anything in the future either," he said.
The above comments weren't made lightly, the Iranian President is well aware of the fact that the power elite in Washington DC cannot afford to allow him to make them look like monkeys, but nonetheless that is exactly what he has successfully done. Another thing the Iranian leader has done that truly has exposed the so-called modern western democracies to the embarrassment they so desperately deserve is to have hosted the holocaust conference he did back in 2006, and to do so under the provision that it was held because it could not be held in the west, which by the way is an empirical fact. Despite the fact that President Ahmadinejad is the leader of a nation that according to our Zionist media suppresses freedom of speech, Ahmadinejad correctly pointed out that it is the west, not Iran, that throws its historians in prison for questioning certain aspects of the holocaust story, not as the media would have you believe, whether or not it occurred, but rather numbers and methods. Just ask Ernst Zundel and/or his recently imprisoned attorney Sylvia Stolz; jailed for defending Zundel too well, i.e. proving that what Zundel has said is in fact true. The fact is, not a single holocaust revisionist would state that the Nazis did not persecute Jews during the Second World War, but most of them question the idea that six million were killed or that any of them were gassed at Auschwitz. By holding that conference and by emphasizing the undeniable fact that the so-called modern democracies in the west imprison skeptics, the Iranian President has further highlighted the fact that Bush is a "limp dick." The media wants you to believe that anyone that would question any aspect of the official holocaust story is crazy and/or a "conspiracy theorist."
The fact is, the reason some people question certain details associated with the holocaust is for exactly the same reason that many people question the "official version" of 9-11, there are many perfectly legitimate questions and no forthcoming answers. The media would have you believe that only uneducated fools, anti-Semites and racists would question their version of what happened to Jewry during WWII, the mainstream media pumped out more than 1,000 articles about the holocaust conference in Iran, but not a single one of them ever mentioned that every scholar that appeared in Tehran to speak was a credentialed academic, meaning that they had at least a graduate degree. Nope, the Mainstream Zionist media doesn't want you to know that. They do however want you to know that David Duke appeared, so that they can cast aspersions on the entire conference by dredging up the fact that Duke was associated with the KKK some thirty years ago, but at the same time not a single one of those so-called "objective" articles mentioned the fact that Duke has a PhD in history or that he appeared, not to question the holocaust, but in order to authoritatively speak about how the mainstream western media spins and distorts the facts, as evidenced by their very coverage of Dr. David Duke and what he actually said. I highly encourage anyone and everyone to disregard what the media said took place in Tehran and what the speakers said, and to see for themselves what transpired there by reading the words of the revisionists that were there, and by reading what Dr David Duke actually said in regards to free speech and its suppression in the west, in his own words.
Was the holocaust conference a success? You bet it was, not three weeks after its conclusion, Austria released David Irving from prison, no doubt as a result of the embarrassment brought upon it by way of the truths spoken at the conference. David Irving owes a large debt of gratitude to those that spoke out on his behalf in Tehran.
Bush has taken the world to the very edge, he has threatened the leaders of nations with absolute destruction, as he did with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, when he sent Zionist lackey Richard Armitage to Pakistan after 9-11 to tell the Pakistani leader that the United States would bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age," unless Musharraf cooperated with the United States in its war on terror. The fact that Pervez Musharraf even admitted this publicly as he did back in September 2006 also is a strong indicator that Bush's impotence is well known among Muslim leaders. None of them believe anything he says, which has led to the all too obvious "broke dick" foreign policy approach taken up by the President and his Zionist sponsors. "Broke dick" is another term I learned while in the U.S. cavalry, it essentially means "irreparably broken," and better describes Bush's misadventures in the Mid east, than any other word that comes to mind.
It isn't just Middle Eastern leaders that have called Bush's bluff, the entire world sees the fool for exactly what he is, a "limp dick" with a "broke dick" administration. The only thing holding Bush up at this point is the Zionist media, who have been busily engaged in making him appear as if he weren't the moron that he in fact is - a tough job to be sure. The Russians and the Chinese have absolutely no respect for Bush, no matter what he does they ignore him and move on with their own interests. Hugo Chavez the popular and democratically elected leader of Venezuela accurately labeled Bush the devil and did so before the entire UN assembly, in New York City no less, and stated something else that should wake up the American people, and that is that Bush's government [Democratic and Republican elite alike] are the first enemies," of the American people," and that the Zionist-American elite's empire is on its way down.
Chavez provided several examples as to why this eventuality is in fact inevitable, one of which was witnessed by the entire world, and that was when a United States veto at the United Nations allowed the Israelis with impunity to destroy Lebanon in front of us all as we stood there watching."
Americans must wake up, their government is ill, it has become a pathological liar, unable to tell the truth, because the truth will lead to its downfall. Bush allegedly sent the US military to Iraq in order to bring "democracy" to the Mid east, but democracy isn't working out very well for Bush and company, because democratically elected leaders aren't siding with the Zionist warmongers that inhabit Washington DC and the western media - in fact - they are doing exactly what Bush and the Zionists least expected, they are standing up to their bullying tactics - they are no longer afraid, which leaves Bush in the unenviable position of having to do something about the world's lack of fear. Unfortunately for Bush, he has no real options, he can go nuclear which will lead to his downfall and the collapse of the American government at best, and at worst, death to tens of millions of people worldwide, including most likely millions of Americans, which will also lead to his downfall and the collapse of the American government.
No, the truth is, Bush is completely impotent, there is no guarantee that the American people will fall for anymore lies or another staged attack - everyone knows Bush lied us into a war in Iraq and its subsequent disastrous occupation, everyone now knows that Bush, despite his rhetoric, supports the amnesty of twenty million illegal immigrants in this country, not because he gives a damn about them, but because his Zionist puppet masters want them there for a variety of reasons, to disenfranchise the American working man, to water down the voting power [if any still exists] of the majority, to force down wages, and most importantly to create disharmony and discord among the American people by way of disingenuous accusations of racism, which will distract Americans from what Bush does elsewhere - Machiavellian principles at their finest. No, it's very difficult to tell whether or not another staged terror attack like 9-11 will have the desired effect, but that isn't to say Bush and his Zionist masters won't attempt one, in fact, I'd say it's inevitable, I don't think they see any other way out of the mess they created, they'll fabricate a new 9-11, not so much to provide an excuse to nuke Tehran, which will come later, but to impose Martial Law here in the United States - an attack can wait, but the growing dissent among Americans cannot - that spells imminent doom for the Zio-American entity. The question that must be plaguing their minds though is whether or not Bush still has enough credibility to compel Law Enforcement and the National Guard to kill American citizens in the millions. Personally I doubt it - the imposition of Martial law with prove to be the final nail in the coffin of the Zionist led government in Washington. That doesn't mean I'll be around to see it, the Neo-Cons will follow to the letter the policies of their ideological predecessors, the Bolsheviks and eliminate with extreme prejudice any opponents, but nonetheless I'll leave this world knowing that they'll soon follow.
I'll probably take some heat for entitling this essay with the colloquialism "limp dick," and no doubt the distribution of this essay will suffer, but it's important for the reader to understand the extent of Bush's foreign policy failure and what it truly means, the world has called Bush's bluff, and he hasn't the "capital" necessary to up the ante, he is more than a "lame duck," he is an impotent loser that has no real future, he'll be consigned to the dustbin of well deserved obscurity, only to be brought out as an example of what can happen to a politician that embraces treason by embracing Zionism.
Original article posted here.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Waiting for one less dangerous Moron
By Kevin Sullivan and Mary Jordan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, January 12, 2008; A08
LONDON, Jan. 11 -- John Mbugua, 56, a taxi driver in Mombasa, Kenya, woke himself at 3 a.m. the day of the Iowa caucuses and flipped on CNN. He said he watched for hours, not understanding precisely what or where Iowa was but thrilled about the victory of Barack Obama, the first U.S. presidential contender with Kenyan roots.
"I have never been interested in the elections before," Mbugua, who also got up at 4 a.m. to watch the New Hampshire primary results, said in a telephone interview. "But now everybody is watching. Everybody feels that Kenya has a stake in the outcome of the U.S. election."
From Mombasa's sandy shores on the Indian Ocean to the hot tubs of Reykjavik, Iceland, the U.S. primary elections are creating unprecedented interest and excitement in a global audience that normally doesn't tune in until the general election in November.
This year's wide-open primary season, filled with big personalities and dramatic story lines, has created an eager global audience that suddenly knows its Hillary from its Huckabee.
"It's a great spectacle, and people are avidly devouring it," said Jeremy O'Grady, editor in chief of the Week, a British magazine. O'Grady said major British newspapers this week alone have devoted more than 87 pages to news of the U.S. primaries, including 22 front-page stories -- exceptionally intense coverage of a foreign news event. More than 700 correspondents from 50 countries covered the Iowa and New Hampshire events.
A popular BBC radio program, "World Have Your Say," devoted an hour this week to parsing how pollsters wrongly predicted that Obama, an Illinois senator, would win the Democratic primary in New Hampshire. The show attracted detailed and nuanced calls and text messages from Romania, South Africa, Liberia and other countries.
About 1.5 million people visited the BBC Web page reporting the win by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) over Obama in New Hampshire, making it one of the most-read stories in months, a BBC spokesman said.
"The candidates have more iconic status than usual," O'Grady said. "They are almost like superhero cartoons: the Mormon, the woman, the black, the millionaire, the war hero. . . . We do love a good show over here.
"Love it or loathe it, this is still a world dominated by one great power," he said. "Even if we can't influence the election, we want to see how it turns out."
Some of the interest is simply partisan cheerleading. In Ireland, Clinton has great support partly because many people fondly recall the role of her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, in helping achieve a peace deal in Northern Ireland, said Tim Pat Coogan, a Dublin author and historian.
But much of the enthusiasm comes from anticipation of President Bush's departure, according to several analysts. U.S. prestige and popularity in much of the world have sunk to historic lows since Bush took office, over such issues as the Iraq war and climate change. Many analysts said the election has created high expectations that the new president will be more in tune with the rest of the world.
"In many capitals people have been waiting for this change for some time," said Rosa Balfour, a senior analyst at the European Policy Center, a Brussels-based research group.
She said Europeans also are struck by the diversity of candidates. "That's a novelty in Europe. . . . That attracts attention."
Jacob Metze, 32, a psychologist from Arhus, Denmark, said the U.S. primaries have dominated the Danish press. People want to know: "Will this be the end of the U.S. being the big bully on the playground?" Metze said.
Margr¿t Sigurdard¿ttir, 34, an opera and jazz singer from Reykjavik, said that in Iceland, "you can hear people sharing their views on this in the cafes and offices -- and also in the hot tubs . . . where everything of any importance is thoroughly discussed."
"It is important that the U.S. citizens choose a person who is both talented and willing enough to work towards peace rather than war," she said.
In South Africa, political analyst Justice Malala said discussion of the U.S. primaries eclipsed even domestic politics. There hasn't been much interest in Republicans Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney, Malala said, "but Obama and Clinton are something special." He added: "It reminds me of the Mandela presidency, which was about the dreams and ideals we hold dear."
Bush's visit to the Middle East this week overshadowed Israeli coverage of the primaries. But Clinton's New Hampshire triumph was generally greeted more favorably than Obama's win in Iowa. Political commentary focused in part on Clinton and her husband being popular, known quantities, while Obama's views are considered less well established.
In Brazil, too, pictures of Obama and Clinton were on the front pages. "People talk about it in cafes and say that maybe a woman will become president," said Roberta Berra, 28, a hotel concierge in Rio de Janeiro.
There are, of course, places where people are not following every twist and turn.
"I don't think who is president will affect the U.S. policy toward China," said Chen Xiaoguang, 33, a doctor in Beijing.
Even those who were following the primaries said it was like watching a game whose rules they didn't fully understand.
In Mombasa, on Kenya's east coast, Mbugua, the taxi driver, said that despite hours devouring the latest news about who is inching closer to the White House, he was still confused. "I find it a bit complicated -- most Kenyans do," he said. "I don't understand why Iowa, New Hampshire and a few other states are so important."
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Lock 'em up
BRATTLEBORO, Vt. - When then Vice President George H. W. Bush visited Brattleboro 23 years ago, he was greeted by protesters who booed and heckled him.
But if his son ever comes to town, some residents hope to present the sitting president with an even less friendly reception: a pair of handcuffs and a jail cell.
“We’re planning to arrest, detain and extradite him,” said Kurt Daims of Brattleboro, an activist who has sought to impeach President George W. Bush and is now trying to up the ante. “There’s a fundamental question here. If Congress doesn’t do this, shouldn’t it be done anyway?”
Daims hopes to gather the 440 signatures necessary to place an article on the Town Meeting warning that would call for the Brattleboro Police Department to arrest Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and cart them off to unspecified foreign entities.
“Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictment for consideration by other municipalities?” Daims’ proposed article reads.
“And shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictment, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro and extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them.”
Daims joined a group of eight like-minded activists Friday afternoon for their weekly impeachment march through town. Beating homemade drums and waving signs calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, the protesters walked from the Brattleboro Food Co-op to the Municipal Building and dropped off a copy of the proposed article at the Town Clerk’s office.
Daims recognizes the myriad legal barriers between his goal and its coming to fruition, but pointing to the Declaration of Independence as his inspiration, he contends that sometimes the laws of the land take second seat to “a higher jurisdiction.”
“There was no legal standing to the document that was written in 1776. It was just people saying ‘we’ve got to get rid of this guy,’” Daims said. “We can’t let him get away just because we don’t have the proper forms and paperwork.”
Vermont remains the only state President Bush has neglected to visit during his seven years in office, and Daims’ proposed article is not likely to hasten a presidential trip to the Green Mountain state.
“I don’t know if Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney are scheduled to visit Brattleboro any time in the near future,” said acting Police Chief Eugene Wrinn, whose force would presumably be charged with making an arrest. “We will wait and see if it passes and then we will check with the town of Brattleboro’s legal counsel to check out what our legal obligations would be.”
According to Town Attorney Bob Fisher, the town could place such an article on its town meeting warning for an up or down vote, but doing so would be “a waste of ink.”
“My response is if you can get me appointed to the U.S. Senate, I would be very grateful and then I would actually have standing to do something about this,” Fisher said.
“It is an absolutely unenforceable type of question. The people in Brattleboro do not have authority to impeach. I don’t have the authority to indict the president, nor do the police have the ability to arrest him based on such a vote.”
Even if Daims manages to collect the requisite signatures of 5 percent of the electorate, the Selectboard could decline to place the article on the town meeting warning.
“A Selectboard can say this is not the business of the town. We’re not going to waste our time with it,” Fisher said.
Selectboard chairwoman Audrey Garfield said she did not have enough information about the proposed article to comment on it and would speak with her fellow board members before making a decision.
According to Newfane Selectboard member Dan DeWalt, who made headlines when his town called for Bush’s impeachment in March of 2006, even if Daims is unsuccessful in throwing Bush in the clinker, his message could resonate throughout the country.
“Kurt saying ‘I’m going to arrest the president’ has no meaning. The town of Brattleboro voting to say they’re going to arrest the president does have meaning,” DeWalt said.
As to just where Brattleboro would send Bush if he was arrested, DeWalt said, “I know there are people preparing war crimes charges against him. I don’t know if they’ve officially been filed anywhere, but once they are filed that would give us a place to extradite him to next time he comes to town.”
Daims hopes other towns will be inspired by his quest and pursue similar courses of action — particularly Kennebunkport, Maine, where the Bush family spends its summers.
“We should do something Mr. Bush can feel. Maine is a very liberal state and I think this could pass in Maine, so then he couldn’t get to his million dollar family vacation resort,” Daims said. “They could arrest him there.”
Friday, December 28, 2007
Burning Bushes
HOUSTON (Reuters) - A home where President George W. Bush lived as a young boy with his parents in Odessa, Texas, and that is now part of a presidential museum there was damaged on Thursday by a fire that investigators blamed on arson.
"I can tell you it has been determined that it was intentionally set, but I cannot discuss anything about evidence or possible suspects because this is an ongoing criminal investigation," said city of Odessa spokeswoman Andrea Goodson.
Museum administrator Lettie England said no motive for the blaze had been determined and there was no reason at this point to believe it was a political act. She said there were no notes or messages left at the scene.
England said in a telephone interview from the west Texas city that the arsonist spread some kind of flammable liquid on the door and front windows and set the fire.
The then 2-year-old Bush lived in the two-bedroom home from September 1948 to April 1949 with his father, former President George Bush, then a trainee for an oil company, and his mother, Barbara Bush.
The Bushes had come to Texas from the Northeastern United States after World War Two to get into the oil business.
The 800-square-foot (74-square-metre) wooden house was restored in 2004 and moved near the Presidential Museum and Leadership Library on the University of Texas of the Permian Basin campus.
Goodson said the front door and windows and the attic were badly damaged.
England vowed to restore the house again because of its historical significance.
"When you realize that two presidents and a first lady who is also the mother of a president and two governors all lived in this house at one time, it's important," she said.
Original article posted here.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The need for the Rule of Law to fight for the Rule of Law
Ted Lang
The arrogance and unrelenting contempt that the Cheney-Bush administration has for the American people and the people’s Congress continuously verified and on public display, has reached exceedingly dangerous levels. The administration’s contempt for Congress and its controlling Democrats is unprecedented in the history of this now rapidly failing experiment in republic-based individual freedom. It is contempt for the very foundation of our societal achievements, a pilgrims’ progress based upon creativeness and industry collectively enjoyed by a nation that formerly depended upon rugged individualism and hard work. It is a contempt that places parasitic bureaucracy and authoritarian government over the rights of individuals that built this nation and made it great. It is a contempt that grows daily and feeds upon itself capitalizing upon the treason and cowardice of the Democratic Party.
The power of Cheney-Bush is magnified not only by the groveling of despicable, treasonous Democrats in Congress, but also by the complacency of a fraudulent and non-existent American press and its highly paid journalistic charlatans. The mainstream press and media have been so incorporated into the arrogance and public contempt displayed by Cheney-Bush for what was once the most revered rule of law of this nation, a rule of law and its former successful implementation that became and was the envy of all other nations, that our government’s self-corrective piloting is fast becoming impossible. Seemingly overnight, after Clinton and especially now with Cheney-Bush, our nation and its people are increasingly hated, despised and feared. We have become the world’s fulcrum of international terror and invasion, horrifically punctuated by the carpet bombings and mass murder and liquidation of entire cities of defenseless, men, women and children.
It should be clear that by now the hatred, contempt and fear the international community once attributed solely to our government leaders, has progressed to where we as a people are the ones now being hated. What of our “checks and balances?” What about our “separation of powers?” What ever happened to our world class ability to correct errant government, never mind a rogue and out-of-control state run by mass murdering genocidal maniacs? Why hasn’t the people’s Congress removed these mass-murdering war criminals from power? Why? Because Democrats do not wish to jeopardize their chances in the 2008 presidential elections! Just think of what Hillary will do with all the unconstitutional and tyrannical “laws” created by Cheney-Bush. Why would any sane American vote for any Democrat ever again?
On Wednesday, December 5th, the American Civil Liberties Union was acting on a filed complaint ordering the release of documents held by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. Now where have we heard of that latter bureaucracy before? Wasn’t it relative to criminal Alberto Gonzales’ illegal firing of US Attorneys? And speaking of that gangster with a law diploma from Harvard, has this guy been charged with any crime yet? There sure are a lot of charges against him to choose from!
According to an ACLU report posted on CommonDreams.org, “ACLU Calls for Release of Three Secret Torture Memos,” the article opens: “The American Civil Liberties Union is in court today calling for the release of three documents issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that are believed to have authorized the CIA to use extremely harsh interrogation methods. The government failed to identify or provide the memos, which were issued in May of 2005, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the ACLU requesting information on U.S. treatment and interrogation of detainees.”
The article continues quoting an ACLU lawyer: “‘This is yet another example of the government’s attempt to bypass legal prohibitions on torture and while engaging in a cover-up of its illegal conduct,’ said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. ‘These memos must immediately be released to the public and high level officials must be held accountable for their role in spawning torture and prisoner abuse.’”
The article goes on, “The New York Times disclosed the existence of the first two memos in a front-page article on October 4, 2007. The Times reported that the first memo explicitly authorized interrogators to use combinations of harsh interrogation methods including waterboarding, head slapping, and exposure to freezing temperatures. The second memo, issued by OLC as Congress prepared to enact legislation prohibiting ‘cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,’ declared that none of the CIA’s interrogation methods violated that standard.”
Astonishing!!!
Here are the words of law from the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Eighth Amendment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment - “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” And then there’s the Fifth Amendment: Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings – “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Although the Eighth Amendment specifically forbids cruel and unusual punishment, and those torture methods used by the CIA definitely fall under the description of “cruel and unusual,” it is really the Fifth Amendment that makes the case barring torture from any and all American court proceedings; specifically, testimony based upon even a written confession can be legally thrown out and excluded in a trial if the defendant can show that his confession was obtained under duress. Can any legal scholar dismiss cruel and unusual punishment to obtain information or a confession as not being the most violent form of duress?
Why must Congress now enact a federal statute prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment when this prohibition is already in our Bill of Rights?! Is Congress familiar at all with the United States Constitution that Cheney, Bush and Gonzales have abolished relegating it to just a “goddamned piece of paper?” Is Congress attempting to rewrite the entire Constitution because Cheney-Bush ignore it and Congress is unfamiliar with it? It would seem that not only do we have just “a goddamned piece of paper” for our nation’s rule of law, but also a goddamned stupid, ignorant and treasonous Congress run by stupid, ignorant and treasonous Democrats as well!
“‘Through these memos, the Office of Legal Counsel created a legal framework that was specifically intended to allow the CIA to violate both U.S. and international law,’ said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. ‘It’s clear that these documents are being kept secret not for national security reasons but for political ones.’”
And speaking of The New York Times [nytimes.con] on Pearl Harbor Day, December 7th, an article was published relating how the CIA deliberately destroyed vital evidence related to the ACLU’s efforts. The article by Mark Mazzetti, “C.I.A. Destroyed 2 Tapes Showing Interrogations,” begins: “The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about its secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.
The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terrorism suspects — including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. The tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks, several officials said.”
Now offered, merely as a point of reference, is the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights: Search and Seizure – “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [Emphasis mine.]
Here’s more from Mazzetti’s report: “In a statement to employees on Thursday, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, said that the decision to destroy the tapes was made ‘within the C.I.A.’ and that they were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value.”
This is the same four-star Bush servant who earned [?] both a bachelor and master’s degree in American history from Duquesne University. This is the same Michael Hayden, who at a press dinner was queried by a reporter concerning illegal searches and seizures and who insisted, repeatedly I might add, that the Fourth Amendment DID NOT contain the term “probable cause.” Obviously, just following orders and ignoring that “goddamned piece” of paper has its rewards if you want a position of stature in the Cheney-Bush administration!
Mazzetti continues: “The destruction of the tapes raises questions about whether agency officials withheld information from Congress, the courts and the Sept. 11 commission about aspects of the program. The recordings were not provided to a federal court hearing the case of the terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui or to the Sept. 11 commission, which was appointed by President Bush and Congress, and which had made formal requests to the C.I.A. for transcripts and other documentary evidence taken from interrogations of agency prisoners.
The disclosures about the tapes are likely to reignite the debate over laws that allow the C.I.A. to use interrogation practices more severe than those allowed to other agencies. A Congressional conference committee voted late Wednesday to outlaw those interrogation practices, but the measure has yet to pass the full House and Senate and is likely to face a veto from Mr. Bush.
The New York Times informed the intelligence agency on Wednesday evening that it was preparing to publish an article about the destruction of the tapes. In his statement to employees on Thursday, General Hayden said that the agency had acted ‘in line with the law’ and that he was informing C.I.A. employees ‘because the press has learned’ about the matter.”
I find it rather curious that the same level of concern exemplified by the destruction of these two torture tapes, produced, directed and enjoyed by the CIA goons for their private amusement, isn’t on a par with that used to out and expose CIA supervising operative Valerie Plame while in her capacity investigating claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iran and Iraq. And that is precisely the problem with the one-man-rule of Dick Cheney in this and any other authoritarian rogue state dictatorship – there is no fixed or equally applied standardized rule of law. The law is changed for the convenience of the dictatorship as needed.
Also posted on CommonDreams.com, on Wednesday, December 5th, in a report entitled “Leahy Plans Contempt Vote” by Even Lehmann and originating in The Brattleboro Reformer, it begins: “Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., scheduled a committee vote for Thursday to consider whether four White House officials, including Karl Rove, are in contempt for disobeying Senate subpoenas.
The move comes after the officials failed to respond to Leahy’s demand last week that they immediately provide testimony and documents related to an investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year.
The officials had previously failed to obey the subpoenas, which the committee issued last summer.
‘They have still not complied with the subpoenas,’ said Erica Chabot, a spokeswoman for Leahy, who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The Thursday vote accelerates the possibility of a legal collision between the Senate and White House over the president’s claim that the officials are protected by executive privilege.”
“Executive privilege,” huh? And failed to obey subpoenas since last summer? Perhaps Leahy’s committee should wait until after Christmas; that is, NEXT Christmas in 2008!
Can you see this nonsense going on during the time of Nixon, or even for that matter, during the reign of “Slick Willie?” This is absolutely outrageous! Are Leahy and the Democrats even aware that Karl Rove has resigned? And where’s Gonzales? And what about that impending book and the revelations by Scott McClellan? Why haven’t his revelations regarding Rove and Libby in outing Plame been taken seriously and acted upon? And remember how Bush commuted Libby’s sentence.
Constant and continuing “in your face” violations of national law and the flipping off of both Congress and the American people. When will these pompous, arrogant, low-life criminals be held accountable? Here’s a clue!
“Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on Thursday postponed a vote on contempt resolutions against former White House adviser Karl Rove and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten after Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) objected to language in the measures. Committee rules allow for a one-week delay, so the vote will likely take place next Thursday. Committee approval of the resolution would trigger a full Senate vote on the resolutions early next year,” reports Susan Crabtree in her article for The Hill of December 6th entitled “Leahy postpones contempt vote.”
Arlen Specter, the Congressional phantom and ghost of investigations, entered upon his career as a federal investigator for the Warren Commission, then looking into the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It was phantom Specter who concocted the ridiculous single bullet theory of that fraudulent cover-up.
Isn’t it just the height of Beltway and MSM convenience that all this CIA dirty laundry is just now hitting the Beltway fan? How convenient for the Beltway Buffoons to have all this marvelous dirt on the rotten CIA! And how convenient to have this all out right after the Monday, December 3rd CIA National Intelligence Estimate exonerating Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Russian President Vladimir Putin and proving again that Cheney-Bush are liars?! The NIE, citing no nukes in Iran, was immediately refuted by Cheney’s stooge Bush and Con-the-Loser Rice! They don’t care what the CIA report presented, because they just know in their hearts that Iran is very, very evil. Iran is most certainly THINKING about acquiring nukes in 2015!
That’s why Cheney and Israel are plotting to bomb them now! Why wait for the smoking gun and the mushroom cloud? And that’s why it’s vital for Cheney-Bush and the MSM to convince US all that we must act now, and not wait for Iran to acquire even just one nuke in 2015! And never mind that Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Traety and Israel did not. Never mind that Israel has somewhere between 200 and 400 nukes, didn’t sign NPT, and has never allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect its nuclear activities as Iran has. Israel and Cheney just know Iran is bad and needs a preemptive attack with real nukes to avoid the risk posed by Iran’s thinking about them!
The MSM’s striking contrast of on-demand reporting to defend, apologize and prop up the despicable American dictatorship has now provided for the added secondary distraction in providing delay and stall tactics by redirecting America’s focus away from the NIE. Cheney-Bush will need time to work out a way to start World War III. Russia, China and Pakistan would be fools not to act to stop the world’s now most dangerous rogue nation. Perhaps after the sinking of the Fifth Fleet, they will act against an Iraqi War-weakened America and Israel to save what will be left of humanity.
Of course, the only blame for the American dictatorship’s successful launch of World War III will now rest entirely on the backs of the despicable Democrats who support Cheney-Bush’s need for time to construct the needed agitprop for the war with Iran. Only the Democrats are left to stop Cheney-Bush! Will Democrats act? Will they finally come through for US and impeach Cheney-Bush? Consider their leadership: Pelosi, Reid and Leahy. Pogo was right: “We have met the enemy and they is US!”
Original article posted here.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
And you call this a democracy?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sunday, September 30, 2007
The Moron keeps making friends among world heads of state
Rafael Correa Calls Bush a Retard
Ecuador's hunky president bailed on Bush’s U.N. dinner after hearing his speech:
"I did not go to the dinner. I was going to go, but I suspended (my attendance) in protest against the barbarities in his speech. He does not have the right to have given such a base, retarded speech nowadays in the 21st century.”Seriously, what’s not to love about this guy?
Original article posted here.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
And these are "leaders"?
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress registered record-low approval ratings in a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday, and a new monthly index measuring the mood of Americans dipped slightly on deepening worries about the economy.
Only 29 percent of Americans gave Bush a positive grade for his job performance, below his worst Zogby poll mark of 30 percent in March. A paltry 11 percent rated Congress positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July.
The Reuters/Zogby Index, a new measure of the mood of the country, dropped from 100 to 98.8 in the last month on worries about the economy and fears of a recession, pollster John Zogby said.
"Since the last time we polled we have had the mortgage crisis, and we are hearing the recession word a whole lot more than we've heard it in the past," Zogby said.
"There are things that happened in the September polling that drove the number down a bit, and they are mostly economic worries," he added.
The Index, which debuts this month, combines responses to 10 questions on Americans' views about their leaders, the direction of their country and their personal situations. Polling for the Index began in July, and that month's results provide the benchmark score of 100.
A score above 100 indicates the country's mood has improved since July. A score below 100, like the one recorded in September, shows the nation's mood getting worse. The RZI, which will be released the third Wednesday of each month, had remained at 100 in August.
"The public mood is not just dark. What's darker than dark?" Zogby said. "The mood is getting ugly."
The national survey of 1,011 likely voters, taken September 13 through September 16, found barely one-quarter of Americans, or 27 percent, believe the country is headed in the right direction. Nearly 62 percent think the country is on the wrong track.
About two-thirds of Americans think the value of their homes will stay the same or drop in the next year, and about one-third expect a recession in the next year amid a housing slump and credit crunch.
The poll also found little confidence in U.S. foreign or economic policy, with 68 percent of Americans rating economic policy as just fair or poor and 73 percent calling foreign policy either fair or poor.
Most of the polling was done after a speech by Bush and testimony to Congress by the top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, indicating the United States would make some reductions but planned to keep high troop levels in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Zogby said continuing uncertainty about Iraq contributed to the bad public mood and helped push down ratings for Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress.
"I think we are seeing an anti-institution mood here," he said. "Post-Katrina, and now with Iraq and the economy getting worse, people just don't have faith that anybody is solving their problems."
In the 2008 White House race, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York led the Democratic field with 35 percent. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois was second with 21 percent and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina was third with 10 percent.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden drew the support of about 3 percent each.
For Republicans, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani led the 2008 field with 26 percent, while newly minted candidate Fred Thompson, a former senator and Hollywood actor, was second with 24 percent.
Arizona Sen. John McCain was third at 13 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was fourth with 7 percent.
In both parties, about 20 percent of likely voters said they had not made up their minds, leaving plenty of room for the races to shift.
The national telephone survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Original article posted here.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Weazl has been wrong before (thankfully). And let's hope weazl and others are wrong again
By Michael E. Salla, Ph.D.
There has been much recent speculation that the Bush administration is about to authorize a massive preemptive aerial assault against Iran. According to Alexis Debat, a national security expert, the Pentagon has prepared for airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran that would in three days destroy Iran's military infrastructure (http://www.timesonline.co.uk
What gives these reports of an imminent attack against Iran greater credibility is an August 2007 purchases of almost 4.5 billion dollars in particular type of stock called 'put options' and 'call options' which are based on a dramatic shift in the U.S. stock market (see: http://tinyurl.com/yw8q4f <http://tinyurl.com/yw8q4f> ). Essentially, a "put option" is where an investor speculates that the market will drop dramatically, say 30-50%, whereas a "call option" is where the investor bets particular stocks will rise just as dramatically. If the stock fails to dramatically shift either up or down by September 21, then the investors stand to lose much from their investment. Such an investment is very unusual and has many market analysts puzzled as to why someone would risk such a large sum unless they had some insider information.
A similar stock market event happened in the weeks before 911 when anonymous investors made great profits when they successfully 'predicted' a dramatic drop in airline and insurances stocks, while also 'predicting' dramatic increases in stocks of corporations producing military armaments (see: http://911research.wtc7.net
The parallels with 'put" and "call option" purchases just before 911 has led to much speculation that the recent $4.5 billion investment is based on insider knowledge of another 911 event before September 21. This has led to speculation that a catastrophic event is about to occur in the U.S. Another explanation for a dramatic shift in the stock market is that China will desert the US currency leading to a collapse in the US dollar. Both explanations would essentially lead to a collapse in some U.S. stocks, while other stocks would rise.
A more plausible explanation for the mysterious billion dollar investments is that hidden investors have insider knowledge that an attack against Iran will occur before September 21. If an attack occurred along the scale described by emerging reports, then the U.S. stock market would collapse as oil prices escalated dramatically. This would spark a global recession, and cause great hardship to many Americans who would find their investments and jobs at risk.
It is very likely that the planned massive aerial attack against Iran's military infrastructure and underground nuclear facilities will use bunker busting nuclear weapons. The question is, what can be done to prevent a preemptive military attack on Iran that may use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy its nuclear facilities?
In 2006, a similar effort to stage a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran was prevented by a revolt of the generals. According to Seymour Hersh:
"In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran's uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. …. "Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning," the former senior intelligence official told me. "And Pace stood up to them. Then the world came back: 'O.K., the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.' " http://www.newyorker.com
It may be significant that General Peter Pace was not reappointed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Pace was opposed to a nuclear strike against Iran. Was he not reappointed in order to clear the decks for a more permissive environment within the Joint Chiefs of Staff for an attack that could use tactical nuclear weapons? It appears so given the coincidence of reports of an imminent attack and purchase of $4.5 billion in stock options predicting a collapse in the US stock market.
The current military plans available to the public mention only conventional munitions but it is more likely that some tactical nuclear weapons will be used to take out Iran's deeply buried nuclear facilities. The effect of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities would be devastating. Radioactive contamination would disperse widely affecting the health of many. At the same time, Iran's military and much of its civilian infrastructure would be destroyed by conventional munitions. This would restrict Iran's abilities to cope with the health and humanitarian impact of the use of nuclear weapons, and destruction of nuclear facilities.
The question to be asked is "who are the hidden investors with insider knowledge that can gain them billions in short term profits?" This answer will give an important clue to the long term agenda being played out, and the actors involved. In the case of 911, similar investors were able to evade detection from an official investigation by the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC launched an unprecedented investigation that deputized "hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector" (see: http://911research.wtc7.net
CIA front companies annually supply funds for a black budget used to fund covert national security projects . The black budget has been estimated to range between 1.0 to 1.7 trillion dollars annually which is funneled through the CIA to various military-corporate entities fulfilling such projects (see: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories
The CIA is able to perform this function of secretly raising revenue through the 1949 CIA Act which authorizes the CIA to expend funds "without regard to any provisions of law". The CIA therefore does not have to follow any legal requirements for the funds it procures from various sources, and funnels to military-corporate entities directly responsible for the second Manhattan project.
There needs to be public opposition to a preemptive military attack against Iran, and exposure of the underlying agenda behind it and those intending to profit from it. An informed public is the best safeguard against unwarranted abuses of executive power such as a preemptive attack against Iran that does not have the support of the American people or Congress. In addition to raising public awareness, it will be very helpful for individuals to project thoughts of peace and goodwill to the Middle East, and especially to Iran. The Princeton Project on Global Conscious Project at Princeton University has demonstrated the effect of large numbers of people placing their attention in ways that can impact on global events (see: http://noosphere.princeton.edu
The period leading up to September 21 will be critical for the whole planet as the signs are all too evident that a preemptive attack against Iran, almost certainly involving nuclear weapons, is imminent. The humanitarian cost in terms of possible radioactive fallout, and casualties from the destruction of Iran's military and much of its civilian infrastructure may be catastrophic for the Persian Gulf region. Furthermore, the U.S. and global economy will go into a deep free fall in the event of dramatic increases in oil prices and further instability in the Middle East. Out of this looming tragedy, investors with possible CIA connections and insider knowledge, plan to profit in ways that may be used to secretly fund a second Manhattan Project.
Michael E. Salla, Ph.D
Kona, Hawaii
09/04/07
www.Exopolitics.Org <http://www.exopolitics.org/>