Eight Questions Reporters Should Ask Clinton

And not a single one about race!

According to Todd Gitlin at the Columbia Journalism Review:

Questions for Hillary Clinton

1. Richard Holbrooke, one of your chief foreign policy supporters, wrote in 2005 that the “Global War on Terror” “is not an accurate description of America’s enemy or of what we are engaged in.” But you use the term “war on terror.” Why?

2. Do you propose to preserve American bases in Iraq?

3. Are you prepared to renounce the Bush Doctrine, which permits preventive war? If the answer is “yes,” how do you square that with your vote to brand Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a “terrorist organization,” and your refusal to take military action against Iran “off the table”?

4. In 1999, your husband withdrew the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty from Senate consideration in the belief that the Senate would not vote to ratify it by the necessary two-thirds vote. Do you anticipate being able to work with the Senate to pass such a treaty, or indeed any arms control treaty? How would you persuade dissenters?

5. Which of the Bush administration’s privacy-invading and government secrecy measures do you reject?

6. To what extent should the money saved by phasing out American combat operations in Iraq be used to reduce the deficit, and to what extent should it be used for creating jobs, environmentally sensible investments, and social programs?

7. One of your chief economic advisers, Gene Sperling, has written that “there are goals—banning child labor in our factories; preventing racial, religious, and gender discrimination in the workforce—that require direct intervention in the market regardless of their efficiency or economic impact.” Is government support for the organizing of unions among the “direct interventions” you favor?

8. Do you believe that the protection of drug company patents is a responsibility of the federal government?

Research assistance by Michael Meyer

Net Neutrality

Whatever happened to all those Democrats (Including Rep Boucher) who WERE advocating for Net Neutrality? Why haven't they introduced a Net Neutrality Bill?

Meanwhile, in Texas, ATT is going to offer "tiered" service to news internet customers.....

We need our Net Neutrality. Corporations gatekeep the broadcast media. They need to keep their hands off OUR Free Speech on the Web.

Contact your elected officials AND Rep. Boucher....Ask what they are going to do to follow up on their promises to support Net Neutrality.

“Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill)”

What Corporate Media won't tell you Democracy Now will! Thie is from Friday's Democracy Now Broadcast.

JUAN GONZALEZ: As voters head to the polls in Nevada and South Carolina Saturday, the economy remains one of the top issues for voters across party lines. Today, we’re going to spend the rest of the hour examining the growing income gap in the United States.

Economic figures show that in 2005, the wealthiest 0.1 percent of the country’s population had nearly as much income as all 150 million Americans who make up the lower economic half of the country. Of each dollar people earned in 2005, the top ten percent got 48.5 cents, the highest percentage since 1929, just before the Great Depression.

AMY GOODMAN: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston has been closely tracking the nation’s income gap in the pages of the New York Times. In 2004, he published the bestselling book Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich—and Cheat Everybody Else. David Cay has just published a new book. It’s called Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill). He joins us now from the PBS station WXXI in Rochester.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, David.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Thank you for having me, Amy and Juan.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain the wealth transfer.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, I was struck, listening to the program from Kenya, where they talked about the president and his power to give money to people, give land, and that’s why many people identify with it. We have created in the United States, largely in the last thirty years, a whole series of programs—a few of them explicit, many of them deeply hidden—that take money from the pockets of the poor and the middle class and upper middle class and funnel it to the wealthiest people in America. And among the biggest recipients of these subsidies are the wealthiest family America, the Waltons; George Steinbrenner; Donald Trump; a whole host of healthcare billionaires. And these are policies that either have not been reported on or the news reporting on them generally has not informed people about what they really are.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I was struck—you have numerous chapters in the book on the various aspects of this transfer, but I was especially struck by your material on the New York Yankees and Steinbrenner and Joyce Hogi, who you mention in the book, who I know well, and this whole issue of sports teams across America and how the public is subsidizing them. Could you elaborate on that part of it?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Sure. George Steinbrenner is getting over $600 million for the new Yankee Stadium in New York. The New York Mets are getting over $600 million. In fact, the City of New York gave them money to lobby against the taxpayers to get more money. Rudy Giuliani gave $50 million to the two teams for that purpose.

The new owners of the Washington Nationals baseball team in Washington, D.C., paid $450 million for the team. But, in fact, they got the team for free, because the subsidy they’re getting for the new stadium is worth $611 million. We actually paid these people to buy the team.

Now, in this country right now, we are spending $2 billion a year subsidizing the big four sports: baseball, basketball, football and hockey. It accounts for all of the profits of that industry and more. Now, there may be individual teams that make money, but the industry as a whole is not profitable. And that’s astonishing because the big four leagues are exempt from the laws of competition. By the way, irony is not dead, because here are people who are in the business of competition on the field who are exempted by law from the rules of economic competition.

If you go to England and you want to start a soccer team, they have to let you join the soccer league. There are thirteen commercial soccer teams in the London area. New York City, the biggest city in the country, there are two baseball teams, because there’s no free entry into the market. In Los Angeles, there’s no football team. And the owners use this power to prevent others from owning teams, to prevent municipal governments from owning teams, to prevent nonprofits from owning teams, to extract money from the taxpayers to build them new stadiums.

At the same time that we’re doing this, we are starving our public parks for money. And I show in Free Lunch how the rise of urban gangs and now suburban gangs is connected to this. We used to have all sorts of programs in this country after World War II for young men and young women on Saturdays and during the summer and school holidays, where even if you didn’t have any money—didn’t matter that your parents didn’t have any money, because—and I know this because I did it as a child—you could go to any one of a half-dozen different places, and there were organized activities to keep you out of trouble. After all, idle hands are the devil’s workshop is not exactly a radical new idea. Well, we’ve cut and cut and cut those programs to fund two different subsidies: one to sports teams’ owners, one that goes to Tyco, General Electric, Honeywell and some other big companies. And, lo and behold, we’ve had a big rise in urban violence because of the vacuum being filled by young people who no longer have these organized activities.

AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of sports teams, talk about President Bush and where you believe, really, ultimately, he got his wealth.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, it isn’t a function of belief, Amy. I’ve got the documents. President Bush, who will go down in history as the great tax cutter, owes almost all of his fortune to a tax increase that was funneled into his pocket. What happened is, an oil man named Eddie Chiles wanted to sell his money-losing Texas Rangers baseball team. They played in a little stadium, smaller than the one we have here in Rochester, New York, and of course couldn’t make any money. So George Bush put together a group of very wealthy investors to buy the team. He put up himself $600,000 of borrowed money. The partners then gave him a 10 percent stake as the managing partner. That’s a very common arrangement in business. Then they held a special election in January of the year in question to increase the sales tax in the town of Arlington, Texas, by one half-cent. That money was used to build a new baseball stadium. It’s an incredibly nice baseball stadium.

Then the power of government to seize land by eminent domain—and I go back to what was talked about in Kenya, the leader there can give you land, he can presumably therefore also take it away—the government used its power of eminent domain to seize land from people, not for a public purpose—not for a military base, for a school, for a highway, for a sewer plant—but because it was coveted by President Bush and his friends, and they were unwilling to go into the market and buy it through market economics. So the government seized this land. People were paid far less than they were owed, and we know that because one family fought back, and a jury, after being out just a matter of minutes, awarded them about six times what they had been offered by the government of Arlington.

The value of this subsidy, according to Ray Hutchison, who is the husband of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, is a prominent Republican insider in Texas and is the leading authority on municipal bond finance in Texas, was $202.5 million. The profit that President Bush and his partners made when they sold the team was $164 million. What does that tell you? Every single penny of additional money President Bush got from that investment, his gain, came from the taxpayers. He did not add one cent to the value of that team through his skill as an MBA manager. This gets repeated all over the country.

And then when President Bush filed his tax return, he should have reported that the 10 percent share he had, the one that was given to him as compensation for being general manager, was wage income. And, of course, we tax wages at a higher rate than we do capital income, like capital gains. President Bush therefore shorted the government $3.4 million. Under our system, you sign your tax return subject to audit. If you’re not audited and you don’t pay the government the right amount, if it’s too much, the government keeps it, if it’s too little, you short the government, but nothing happens to you.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist. His new book is called Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill). We’ll come back to David Cay Johnston in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist, has written the book Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill). Juan?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, David Cay Johnston, the American home subprime crisis has been much in the news and the enormous impact it’s having on the economy. You’ve got a few chapters here where you talk about the home and home robbery, and you even delve on an issue that very few people have ever talked about: title insurance companies and the enormous wealth transfer that have gone on there. Could you talk about that?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Oh, sure. You know, when you buy a home—and I remember the first time I did it as a young man—you have this enormous sense of accomplishment, and you sit down in a room, and they throw all these papers at you—“Sign this, sign this, initial this page, OK, sign this.” So when you’re all done, you get a little sheet listing all the costs you have, and you get dinged for $15 here and $25 there. But there’s one big item called land title insurance. If you buy a $200,000 house, it will probably cost you close to $1,000. Well, it turns out that ninety cents out of every dollar you are forced to pay for this goes to pay commercial bribes. And this goes on all throughout the industry all across the United States, and nobody is prosecuted for it.

And here’s what happens. Well, you wrote the check for the $1,000, the land title insurance companies, who are insuring the risk that someone will come along and say, “That’s really my piece of land,” or “I have the right to put an oil well in your backyard. Here’s this document from 1848,” or your new outbuilding encroaches one inch onto the neighbor’s land, supposedly. That’s what you are insuring against. These companies’ real customers are the real-estate agent that you thought was representing you or the lawyer you paid to represent you or the mortgage broker who arranged to get you the mortgage, because they steer you to the title company. And in return, they get kickbacks.

The state insurance commissioners of California and Washington wrote very detailed reports about this, because one of the land title companies tried to spear the insurance commissioner of Colorado. And there’s emails and tape-recorded conversations about a very Machiavellian plot to use the news media to a plant a question that would smear this woman. And what did the insurance commissioners say should be done after they found that 90 percent of this money is paid in kickbacks? And by the way, one of the big title companies, in its report to shareholders, says that its customers aren’t you and me, when we buy a house; it says its customers are the bankers and the brokers and the lawyers. Well, the insurance commissioners said what we need is an education program. We need to make sure that the land title companies know that they can’t pay these kickbacks and referral fees, as they’re politely called. Well, if the education program worked, the cost of land title insurance would have dropped 90 percent. It hasn’t. So it’s another example of the kind of institutionalized corruption that I write about in Free Lunch that takes money from the many and concentrates it in the hands of the politically connected few.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about Barack Obama’s comments, David Cay Johnston, who praised—

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, one thing, Amy, I don’t do, Amy, I don’t talk about the presidential campaign, because—

AMY GOODMAN: Oh, you don’t have to—you don’t have to talk about them—

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: OK.

AMY GOODMAN: —but just the substance of what he had to say, which was very interesting, as he talked about former President Ronald Reagan. He was in an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal, appearing to express admiration for what he called Reagan’s “clarity” and “optimism” and overcoming “excesses” of the ’60s and ’70s. This is what he said.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the ’60s and ’70s and, you know, government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. And I think people just tapped in—he tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want, you know, a return to that sense of dynamism and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing.


AMY GOODMAN: In response, rival candidate John Edwards said Reagan “did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day.” He said, “I can promise you [this: I will] never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change.” So, David Cay Johnston, without getting into presidential politics, you write extensively about Ronald Reagan in this book.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Yes. Well, Ronald Reagan, whether you love Ronald Reagan or you hate Ronald Reagan, was a great leader. He did, in fact, dramatically change the country.

Between 1945 and the election of Ronald Reagan, we had a government that was focused on creating and nurturing the middle class. When I was a young man, I was able to go to college only because it was free. It didn’t matter that I didn’t have any money—my dad was a 100 percent disabled veteran, and I went to work when I was ten years old and full time since I was thirteen—because it was free.

Today, the cost of a college education, a state college education, is about $10,000 a year. The average income of the bottom half of taxpayers—that’s not families, that’s taxpayers—is about $15,000. Think you can go to college if two-thirds of your income would have to go to college? I don’t think so.

Well, Mr.—what Mr. Reagan did in 1980 was he asked a question that had a very powerful effect. He said, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” And Americans said no, they weren’t. And they elected him to office, and they set in motion a major change in government policy, a change that I think has been perverted. I do not believe Reagan intended all of the things that have been done since he started this happening.

But I’m asking the question in Free Lunch: Are you better off than you were in 1980? And on the surface, America is much better off. The country is more than twice as wealthy in real terms as it was in 1980. Per person, adjusted for inflation, the economy now puts out $1.70 for every dollar that it put out in 1980. Those are absolutely tremendous economic numbers.

So how come we’re not all really well-off? Why is it one-in-seven families has filed bankruptcy in the last twenty-five years? Why is it people are so mired in debt that television ads are just full of debt relief and take on more debt ads, sometimes at 99 percent interest? Why is it that so many people don’t have health insurance and so many people no longer have a retirement plan?

And by the way, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of Americans, what I call the vast majority, is smaller today than it was in 1980. And since the year 2000, when we really got serious about this tax cut business, the average income of Americans every year—2001, ’02, ’03, ’04, ’05—has been smaller than it was in 2000. There have been some gains in 2004 and ’05, but they haven’t gotten up to equal 2000. And of those gains in the year 2000—it’s either ’05 over ’04 or ’04 over ’03—half went to people who make over a million dollars a year. What’s happened is—

AMY GOODMAN: Didn’t that wealth transfer massively begin—I mean, accelerate with Reagan?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Oh, yes. No, that’s—I’m sorry, that’s exactly my point, Amy, is that what happened is that we put in place all sorts of new programs, many of which were never written about in the news media, that got no attention whatsoever. We created healthcare billionaires while making healthcare unavailable to one-in-seven Americans. And we did this with government money. We allowed people to buy public assets for, in some cases, a fraction of a penny on the dollar and then poured government money into them.

And, you know, our national myth that Ronald Reagan ran for office on was that there were all these welfare queen Cadillacs—welfare queens driving Cadillacs out there. I think there was, in fact, one scam artist who went to prison. But what’s really going on is welfare at the top, and way beyond what’s been reported in the news media as corporate welfare. We have built into the scaffolding of the new economy rules that funnel money to the top.

And that this has happened really shouldn’t surprise us, because under our campaign finance system, which has gotten worse and worse and worse with campaign finance reform that hasn’t worked, politicians running for high office spend a great deal of their time talking not to you and me and school teachers and police officers and firefighters and factory workers, but to rich people and their paid representatives. And they hear about their concerns and what they say they need to make things fair.

JUAN GONZALEZ: You also delve into this whole phenomena across America of the big box stores, the Targets and the Wal-Marts and the Kmarts. And obviously they’ve—to some, they at least offer cheaper goods, cheaper consumer goods. Your analysis of their impact?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, first of all, they say they offer cheaper goods. I don’t accept that that’s necessarily true.

But here’s what happens. And this is a good example of where the news media hasn’t done a good job. I have tons of news clips that say, oh, this new shopping mall is coming or a new Wal-Mart or a new Cabela’s store, and thanks to tax increment financing, this store is going to be built. Well, what is tax increment financing? I’ll tell you what it is. You go to the store with your goods, you pay for it at Wal-Mart, and there’s a very good chance that that store has made a deal with the government that the sales taxes you are required to pay, that government requires you to pay, never go to the government. Instead, those sales taxes are kept by Wal-Mart and used to pay the cost of the store. And typically in those deals, the store is tax exempt, just like a church.

Now, there are two ways that it’s important to think about this. One is, that means your kid’s schools, your police department, your library, your parks are not getting that money. And you’ll notice we keep saying we’re starved for money. We’re twice as wealthy as we were in 1980, but we’ve got to close hospitals, and we’ve got to close schools, and we don’t have money for all sorts of things like after-school programs, even though we’re twice as wealthy. The second thing to think about is, imagine that you own Amy Goodman’s or Juan’s department store across the street. You suddenly have to compete with people whom the government is giving a huge leg up on. You think you would go broke after a while? Well, in fact, you will.

And I tell about a man named Jim Weaknecht who owned a little store in the Poconos of Pennsylvania. He sold fishing tackle, hunting gear, stuff like that. And the way he made his living in his little tiny store, enough that he was able to have his wife stay at home and raise their three kids full time, was by charging less than a company called Cabela’s. Well, then Cabela’s came to town. This little city of 4,000 people made a deal to give Cabela’s $36 million to build a store. That’s more than the city budget for that town for ten years. It’s $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in that town to have this store. And even though he charged lower prices, he was pretty quickly run out of business.

That’s not market capitalism, which is what Ronald Reagan said he was going to bring us. He said, you know, government’s the problem, we need markets as a solution. Well, that’s not the market. That’s corporate socialism. And what we’ve gotten is corporate socialism for the politically connected rich—not all the rich, the politically connected rich—and market capitalism for everybody else.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And, of course, many of those folks need lobbyists to be able to get these kinds of breaks from the government, and you talk about the explosion of lobbyists and their influence on government.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: There are twice as many registered lobbyists in Washington today as there were in 1980. If the lobbying community had grown in revenues since the ’70s at the same rate as the economy, there would be one-tenth as many lobbyists in Washington. And those people are not there doing the good of the public. You know, the Constitution’s Preamble talks about the—

JUAN GONZALEZ: They’re not just in Washington, right? They’re not just in Washington. They’re also at the state level.

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: No, no, they’re in all the state capitals, they’re in city halls, they’re all over the country. The lobbying business is one of the fastest-growing businesses in America, because—you know why? It’s easier to mine gold from the government’s treasury than from the side of a mountain. Why wouldn’t you go do that if you could get the government to give you money? And Donald Trump—a tax that’s supposed to serve the poor, his company got $89 million for a tax designated for the poor. Somehow, Mr. Trump’s public image suggests to me that he does not think of himself as a poor person.

AMY GOODMAN: David Cay Johnston—we’ll leave it there—Free Lunch is his book, How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill), speaking to us from the PBS station WXXI in Rochester, New York.

Virginia's DMV website

I just visited Virginia's DMV website. It is Fabulous and easy to use. I had requested that a pin be sent to me so I could use the website for future transactions. I realized I only had 30 days to activate the pin so there's no time like the present.

After activating my pin I surfed over to the driver's license renewal and "discovered" that if my license was set to expire within two years I could renew it online. They will use my last photo and send me a new license within 5 business days. WOW...I was set to expire in 2009 so I now have a new license ordered that will expire in 2014. How's that for never having to visit a DMV location again....
This will be great for renewing my tags etc.

I'll probably only have to visit the DMV when I purchase another car.

If your license is going to expire within the next two years I suggest you renew on line. It's just so easy.

Demonstrate Against Blackwater Jan 22

Blackwater Demonstration

WHEN: Tuesday January 22
at 9 a.m.

WHERE: Currituck County Courthouse
2795 Caratoke Highway (Caratoke Highway is also known as Route 168)
Currituck, NC 27929

Potluck and Vigil on January 21
at 6:30 p.m.

Where: Sacred Heart Church
520 Graydon Ave.
Norfolk VA 23507

There will be a potluck dinner (bring something to share), music, poetry, and reflection. Out of town visitors are welcome to sleep overnight in the church commons...and can join us, if they wish, for the demonstration on Tuesday.

The Blackwater 7 will be at the potluck dinner and vigil. Their trial will be occurring the next day where the demonstration is to be held.

From Death Row, Mumia Abu Jamal (Part 3 of 3)

Since Mumia Abu Jamal is a very controversial figure, I am continuing to post these three biographical pieces on Mumia, to give the reader some greater perspective on his background and character. Here is Part 3. You be the judge, ultimatley, after watching all three posts, as to whether he is a cold-stone killer or a political prisoner. If you think you need to know more, just start googling his name.

From Death Row, Mumia Abu Jamal (Part 2 of 3)

Since Mumia Abu Jamal is a very controversial figure, I am continuing to post these three biographical pieces on Mumia, to give the reader some greater perspective on his background and character. This is Part 2. You be the judge, ultimatley, after watching all three posts, as to whether he is a cold-stone killer or a political prisoner.

From Death Row, Mumia Abu Jamal (Part 1 of 3)

Since Mumia Abu Jamal is a very controversial figure, I thought it would be worthwhile to post the first of three biographical pieces on Mumia, to give the reader some greater perspective on his background and character. You be the judge, ultimatley, after watching all three posts, as to whether he is a cold-stone killer or a political prisoner.

Erc Cantor (R-VA) sponsoring bill to lower Corporate taxes

...and he's named the bill the "Middle Class Job Protection Act"even though it does nothing for the Middle Class. These Republicans keep trying to beat this dead horse to death.

According to Think Progress:

At a press conference today unveiling the stimulus proposal, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) justified the conservative plan to give tax breaks to corporations — instead of working Americans — by arguing that people actually like working long hours:

I am so proud to be from the state of Minnesota. We’re the workingest state in the country, and the reason why we are, we have more people that are working longer hours, we have people that are working two jobs.

Bachmann’s version of the American Dream is apparently working two full-time jobs and struggling to get by.

Yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that corporate tax cuts, such as the one proposed by Cantor, "may be less cost-effective in the short term" and less effective than a stimulus plan consisting of “tax rebates, extended unemployment benefits and a temporary increase in food stamps.”

Court allows casino vote that may boost Obama

Justice is done. Judge rules that there will be no rule change six days before the election. The casino workers will be allowed to caucus at their workplace.

Sorry Hillary you lose the court battle and you will also lose voters. We will not forget how you tried to keep folks from voting....totally dirty....totally undemocratic!

Story is here.

Blackwater Demonstrators Go to Trial

BLACKWATER 7 TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 22/POTLUCK AND FESTIVAL OF HOPE JANUARY 21

Friends,

The 7 protesters arrested at Blackwater USA in
October for recreating the Nisoor Square massacre atthe company's front door will go to trial on Tuesday, January 22 at 10 am. Trial will be at the Currituck County Courthouse at 2795 Caratoke Highway, Currituck, NC 27929 (Caratoke Highway is also known as Route 168).

There will be a vigil calling for the closing of
Blackwater on Route 168 outside the courthouse complex beginning at 9 am.

The previous night, Monday, January 21st, beginning at 6:30 pm there will be a Festival of Hope with the defendants at Sacred Heart Catholic Church (520 Graydon Ave., Norfolk VA 23507). There will be a potluck dinner (bring something to share), music, poetry, and reflection. Out of town visitors are welcome to sleep overnight in the church commons.

Please forward this to anyone who may have interest.

Thank you,
Steve Baggarly

Mumia Abu-Jamal -- War for the Eternal Empire -LIVE FROM DEATH ROW

Mumia Abu-Jamal, explains, live from Death Row, the true nature of the War on Terror and who the real master of terror is in this world.

Bush World Strikes Again!!

According to George Bush, ""There's a lot of really good people here . Look, you can't deny the fact that some, a majority, of the terrorists came from Saudi, but you should not condemn an entire society based upon the actions of a handful of killers." Say what George? Isn't that exactly what you are doing with another country--Iran??

"The American president doesn't come and lecture somebody. The American president develops a relationship where he can work with somebody. And as I told you, his majesty is, he is modernizing his society. Is it going to meet somebody's standards sitting in Washington, D.C.? Probably not overnight. Can it eventually? Yes.… And for us to say that you can't have a democracy if you've got a king is just not right." So George Bush 'thinks" that Saudi Arabia is democratic? Or is he thinking he's in England and not Saudi Arabia?

Here's the Source.

I don't know about your thoughts but this President is a major embarrassment. This is almost as sad as Bush learning that the Russian President would have a longer fligh home from the summit than he would....so the dummy went around to folks like Tony Blair exclaiming that Russia is a BIG COUNTRY...he's got a longer flight home than me.....sheesh....this man should not be allowed to travel.

The Invisible War Profiteer--VP Dick Cheney

You may not see or hear much of him these days.....In fact, try perusing the White House Photos and the Vice President website photos and you won't find a single photo with Cheney and Bush featured in it. What happened to those old photos anyway?

But rest assured, Dick Cheney remains hard at work in the manner he prefers....behind the scenes and out of view of the taxpayer.

Raw Story reports that in 2007, "Cheney's Halliburton stock options rose 3,281% :
An analysis released by a Democratic senator found that Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock options have risen 3,281 percent in the last year."

RAW STORY reveals:

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asserts that Cheney's options -- worth $241,498 a year ago -- are now valued at more than $8 million. The former CEO of the oil and gas services juggernaut, Cheney has pledged to give proceeds to charity.

Cheney "agreed" to give the proceeds to charity but he's keeping the stocks which he can sell upon leaving the Vice Presidency for a hefty profit....So will that hard work pay off? The Republicans are going to once again ask that the tax break for Dick Cheney and his cronies in that top bracket get permanent tax cuts.

Way to go Dick Cheney...you are still hard at work protecting the elites, getting nuclear power subsidized by Congress, and pushing the propaganda to try to start another illegal but very profitable war for you with Iran.

In the meantime the American people, Rep. Wexler, and Rep. Kucinich are pleading with the irrelevant Democratic Congress to Impeach Dick Cheney.

We deserve an investigation...let the facts do the talking. Let the facts decide if Dick Cheney should continue to be our Vice President....or not.

Buzz...Buzz...

America's Irrelevant Democratic Congress

While our Congress busies itself with those all important baseball steroid hearings it appears that the Secretary of Defense's office was involved with disseminating propaganda (to push America into another illegal invasion) to the American people. This is against the law.

So why isn't Congress investigating this?

Wexler Calls for Impeachment Hearings

IF this should occur....What do you think the average American will want when she/he finds out that Bush/Cheney went to war with Iraq in spite of the fact that there were offers to turn over Osama Bin Laden and his top men AND destroy his training camps. In addition, Saddam Hussein offered to leave Iraq tree weeks prior to our illegal and disastrous invasion.

What is the evidence that the wireless surveillance on Americans started BEFORE 9/11?

What is the evidence that Cheney and Rove did "out" an undercover CIA agent?

What is the evidence that Bush/Cheney destroyed millions of emails to cover up the "outing" of a CIA agent and what was discussed prior to the Iraq invasion?

And the list of crimes goes on and on......

Put your memory cap on....think back to right before we invaded...Even the US corporate media aired at least once Saddam Hussein's offer to leave Iraq in order to avoid an invasion....Definitely makes George Bush look even crazier than Saddam Hussein doesn't it? AFter 1 million IRaqi's have died, at least 4 thousand American troops dead (these numbers are "fudged"---if a troop dies on the helicopter being transported to the hospital or in a hospital from his wounds he/she is not counted as a war fatality) and over 1 trillion Amerian dollars spent (the cost when the costs of the wounded to date are factored in)...when we realize none of this had to take place....and this is only a "portion" of the Bush/Cheney crimes....

Let's hold the hearings, let's get the facts, and THEN let us decide.

IF Congress can take the time to hold hearings on steroid abuse in baseball surely they can take the time to hold impeachment hearings.

The majority of the American people want Impeachment hearings. The majority of Americans love our country more than any political party. We want freedom and justice restored.

Is our Congress going remain complicit with the Bush/Cheney war crimes?

Hillary Clinton is Running like a Republican

Hillary Clinton is playing dirty tricks which are un-Democratic.

In New Hampshire, Clinton cronies mailed out a FALSE mailer suggesting that Obama was not a supporter of women's right to choose.

In Nevada, Hillary's allies are engaging in voter repression. That's right. Nevada Democrats who are supporting Hillary are now in court suing for a rule change (a rule change that these very same Democrats originally voted for.) That's right these very same democrats were part of a unamimous vote to allow democratic caucasses to take place in several casinos so that the casino workers would have a chance to participate in the Democratic primaries.

There was no problem until the casino worker's union voted to endore Barrack Obama. Now Hillary's Nevada cronies are suing to repeal the rule they themselves supported.

Hillary seems to know that her only chance of winning is to have FEWER voters coming to the polls. This is the anti-thesis of Democracy and is something I would expect from a Republican candidate not a Democrat.

Shame on Hillary Clinton and her allowing such actions to occur for her benefit.

CHALLENGE TO NANCY PELOSI--REFUTE THIS OR IMPEACH

REPOST FROM AFTERDOWNINGSTREET.ORG

NANCY PELOSI YOU MUST IMPEACH!

When people who honestly believe a lie
learn the truth, they will either cease believing,
or they will cease being honest.
--anonymous

Speaker Pelosi, President Bush could have achieved his goal of “regime change” in Iraq quickly and without the violence of war. Saddam Hussein offered, weeks before his country was invaded, to leave Iraq and go into exile. President Bush withheld this offer from public view—and refused it. Nor did the President need to invade Afghanistan to apprehend Osama bin Laden. On five different occasions, George Bush refused a standing offer from the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden—three times before 9/11 and twice thereafter, again without public disclosure.

No, the military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are not directed against terrorism. They are territorial in nature. Mr. Bush intended from his first days in office to invade the two countries: as early as late January, 2001, his Administration was developing the decisions and beginning the preparations for both military incursions. 9/11 was in the distant future, so the conflicts cannot be exercises in counter-terrorism, as the Bush Administration frequently and dishonestly insists. They are premeditated wars of unprovoked conquest and occupation.

Madam Speaker, if you know this, and if you continue refusing impeachment, then you are a criminal accomplice in violating the trust of the American people—and in violating both U.S. and international law.

If you do not know this truth about the wars, Madam Speaker, you must learn its details and embrace it, and then you must seek with dispatch and justice to impeach George Bush and Richard Cheney.

You claim you don’t have the votes. But to say that is to canvass the jury before the trial begins, before the evidence is presented and scrutinized. When the hideous truth of these wars is finally exposed—as it will be in the impeachment process—you will have the vote of every honest and patriotic member of the House of Representatives, Democrat and Republican alike.

Why isn’t the truth already widely known? There are two reasons. The Bush Administration is infamous for its pathological lying and secrecy: they have done everything in their power to distort or suppress the truth. And the mainstream press has become an engine of entertaining, not informing the American people: it is indifferent to the truth.

But the truth is always there, and it can be discovered in foreign news outlets, in the domestic alternate press, in book-length treatises, and in the passion for truth and unconstrained inquiry displayed by people posting to the Internet. These are the sources for the exposition to follow.

Madam Speaker, if you will not impeach, then you must refute this history, if you can.

THE WARS ARE NOT ABOUT TERRORISM

The Bush Administration’s Curious Behavior

Hours after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush told the world the United States would take the fight directly to the terrorists and the states that harbored them. Thus the Bush Administration’s “War on Terror” was born.

Less than a month later, on October 7, Mr. Bush launched a savage aerial bombardment of Afghanistan. He had the support of a shocked American citizenry and a sympathetic world, all of whom expected justice to be delivered soon to the terrorist Osama bin Laden and the harboring state embodied in the Taliban.

The incursion into Afghanistan was sold as the first action in the “War on Terror.” It was a brilliantly executed charade.

Flashback to October 12, 2000, a year earlier. The USS Cole, an American Navy destroyer in the Yemeni port of Aden, has suffered heavy damage from a terrorist attack, perpetrated by Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda.

Three weeks later officials of the Clinton Administration met with theTaliban in the Sheraton Hotel in Hamburg, Germany. To avoid a violent retaliation of furious bombing, the Taliban offered the unconditional surrender of Osama bin Laden.

Before the details of the transfer were completed, however, a Supreme Court ruling gave George W. Bush the White House, and the message was passed: the actual handover of bin Laden will be deferred until the Bush Administration is sworn in.

Once in office, the new Administration asked the Taliban to delay the handover of Osama bin Laden at least until February. As winter faded into spring, and spring into summer, the Administration demurred twice more.

Then Osama bin Laden struck again, on September 11, 2001.

On September 15, Taliban officials were flown in U.S. Air Force C-130 aircraft to the Pakistani city of Quetta, where the deal was sweetened. The standing offer of surrendering Osama bin Laden was renewed, but now the Taliban would also oversee the closure of bin Laden’s bases and training camps.

This time the White House simply rejected the offer out of hand. It did so again when the offer was repeated several weeks later, and days after that President Bush ordered the violence to begin.

The invasion of Afghanistan was something vastly different than a quest to apprehend a terrorist..

Sources for this section:

1. “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Hand bin Laden Over,” Guardian Unlimited (UK), October 14, 2001.

2. “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Surrender bin Laden,” Andrew Buncombe, The Independent (UK), October 15, 2001.

3. “Dreamers and Idiots: Britain and the US did everything to avoid a peaceful solution in Iraq and Afghanistan,” George Monbiot, The Guardian (UK), November 11, 2003.

4. “How Bush Was Offered bin Laden and Blew It,” Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, CounterPunch, November 1, 2004.

5. “Did Bush try to stop bin Laden in his first eight months in office?” MSNBC Countdown, September 28, 2006.

The War in Afghanistan

The commitment to invade Afghanistan was made long before 9/11.

The Bush Administration wanted to secure for American energy companies—notably the Enron and Unocal Corporations—the strategic pipeline route across Afghanistan to the Caspian Basin. But the Taliban had signed a contract in 1996 with the Bridas Corporation of Argentina, preempting the route.

Scarcely settled in Washington in early 2001, the Bush Administration immediately pressed the Taliban to rescind the Bridas contract, and undertook planning for military intervention should negotiations fail. Administration officials and the Taliban met for talks three times throughout the spring and summer, in Washington D.C., Berlin, and Islamabad—but to no avail.

At the last session, in August, 2001 the Administration threatened a “carpet of bombs” if the Taliban did not comply. The Taliban would not. Soon thereafter—still weeks before September 11—President Bush notified Pakistan and India he would attack Afghanistan “before the end of October.”

Then 9/11. Then two more refusals of Osama bin Laden’s head. Then, on October 7, the Bush Administration looses the carpet of bombs.

Since then Afghanistan has been supplied with a puppet government, the Bridas contract is history, and the country is dotted today with permanent U.S. military bases in close proximity to the pipeline route. It was a war of conquest and occupation.

Counter-terrorism is scarcely visible. Osama bin Laden remains at large, the yield of “terrorists” to date consists of several hundred iconic and badly treated wretches in Guantanamo Bay, and terrorism in the Middle East has intensified, not diminished.

Sources for this section:

1. “Players on a rigged grand chessboard: Bridas, Unocal, and the Afghanistan pipeline,” Larry Chin, Online Journal, March, 2002.

2. Crude Politics: How Bush's Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism, Paul Sperry, WND Books, 2003.

3. Alexander’s Gas and Oil Connections, February 23, 2003.

4. “A Timeline of Oil and Violence: Afghanistan”, see the website,

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm

5. “Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat,” New York Times, September 24, 2006.

6. “From Afghanistan to Iraq: Connecting the Dots with Oil,” Richard W. Behan, AlterNet, February 5, 2007.

THE WARS ARE ABOUT AMERICAN HEGEMONY—

AND OIL

The War in Iraq

The template for the invasion of Iraq was crafted in 1992, in Richard Cheney’s Defense Department during the first Bush Administration. It was a document advocating a U.S. posture of singular global dominance in economic, diplomatic, and military power. The authors were Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Their document spoke explicitly about the need to secure “...access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil,” and Iraq was in the crosshairs.

In 1996, the Project for the New American Century was created, touting the term “global hegemony,” and seeking to maintain America’s status as the world’s only superpower, using preemptive war if necessary. Among the founders of the PNAC were the earlier advocates of world dominion: Richard Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Donald Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush were founding members as well.

In a 1998 letter to President Clinton the PNAC people once again sought the invasion of Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, and 15 others signed the letter.

In September of 2000 the Project for the New American Century once more advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Then four months later, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis “Scooter” Libby—and 24 others from the PNAC—moved into top positions in the Bush Administration.

The commitment to invade Iraq was made at the first meeting of President Bush’s National Security Council in January of 2001.

The rationale was ideological, apparently: by means of a preemptive war, to take an initial step toward global hegemony. A more tangible objective would soon emerge.

Sources for this section:

1. “Empire Builders: Neoconservatives and their blueprint for U.S. Power,” Christian Science Monitor , a series appearing June, 2005.

2. The website of the Project for the New American Century. See

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

3. The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill, by Ron Suskind, Simon and Schuster, 2004.

4. “From Afghanistan to Iraq: Connecting the Dots with Oil,” Richard W. Behan, AlterNet, February 5, 2007.

Regime Change

In December of 2002, 3 months before his country was invaded, Saddam Hussein invited the Bush Administration to send U.S. troops into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, and he said he could prove Iraq was not involved in 9/11. His entreaty was turned aside by President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Two months later Hussein promised unlimited access to the FBI to search for WMD’s, support for the US position on Israel and Palestine, and even some limited rights to Iraq’s oil. All this was rejected. Finally, in desperation Saddam Hussein offered personally to depart Iraq for exile in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Once again he was refused by the White House, and soon thereafter cruise missiles pounded Baghdad and U.S. tanks rolled across the border from Kuwait.

Regime change was not the objective: that could have been achieved bloodlessly with Saddam Hussein’s exile. Combating terrorism couldn’t possibly have been the objective, either: when President Bush invaded Iraq, there was no sign of al Qaeda in the country at all. There had to be some other purpose.

Sources for this section:

1. “Dreamers and Idiots: Britain and the US did everything to avoid a peaceful solution in Iraq and Afghanistan,” George Monbiot, The Guardian (UK), November 11, 2003.

2. “Llego el momento de deshacerse de Saddam,” El Pais (Spain), a transcript of a conversation between George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Jose Maria Anzar in Crawford, Texas, February 22, 2003. Published September 26, 2007.

Oil

Within weeks of taking office the Bush Administration was studying maps of the Iraqi oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals, and undeveloped oil exploration blocks. A National Security Council document dated February 3, 2001 spoke of “…actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.” Later in the year the Bush State Department undertook the “Future of Iraq Project,” in one element of which Administration bureaucrats and oil company representatives planned the postwar deconstruction of Iraq’s nationalized oil industry. It would be replaced by a clever form of privatization, hugely favoring American and British oil companies. This planning was underway in October of 2001, exactly a year before Congress authorized military force in Iraq.

The State Department’s plan was codified in a model “hydrocarbon law” drafted during Paul Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority, with direct participation of the American and British oil companies. The law was not translated from English into Arabic until elections had been held; then Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s cabinet approved the law on February 15, 2007 and submitted it to Parliament for passage.

The hydrocarbon law when passed will grant immensely profitable access for international oil companies to an estimated 81% of Iraq's undeveloped crude oil reserves. The favored companies are Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, Royal Dutch/Shell, and BP/Amoco.

Enactment of the hydrocarbon law was proposed as a mandatory “benchmark” by President Bush in a speech on January 10, 2007. The benchmark was made statutory when the Democratic Congress passed the Iraq Accountability Act a short time later.

The tangible objective for invading and occupying Iraq was suspected early by the war’s opponents and it is now confirmed: to secure access to the country’s immense oil and gas resources. Evidence of success is everywhere. Iraq now has a puppet government and five permanent American “mega-bases” to house 100,000 troops for 50 years. The American embassy in Baghdad is ten times larger than any other U.S. embassy in the world. And in November, President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki signed a document called The Declaration of Principles, to assure an “enduring relationship” between their governments.

Sources for this section:

1. For copies of the Iraqi oil field maps, see the website of Judicial Watch, at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/oil-field-maps

2. “Contract Sport,” by Jane Mayer,The New Yorker, Issue 23, February 16, 2004.

3. Crude Designs: the Ripoff of Iraq's Oil Wealth, Gregg Mutitt, ed., the Platform Group, United Kingdom.

4. “Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil,” by Joshua Holland, published on the AlterNet website, October 16, 2006.

5. “Slick Connections: U.S. Influence on Iraqi Oil,” Erik Leaver and Greg Mutitt, Foreign Policy in Focus, July 18, 2007.

6. “Imperial Opportunities for U.S. Builders,” Tom Engelhardt, Asia Times, November 6, 2007.

7. “An ‘Enduring’ Relationship for Security and Enduring an Occupation for Oil,” Ann Wright, truthout website, December 5, 2007.

And so, Speaker Pelosi, here we are after six years of fraudulence, engaged in two wars of conquest and occupation the Bush Administration orchestrated in defiance of honesty, decency, morals, and law. Half a million lives and half a trillion dollars have been poured into the cesspool of their lies and deceit.

Truth and justice are the bedrocks of our existence as a nation. The Bush Administration has trampled truth. We cannot tolerate the withholding of justice as well. Madam Speaker, you must impeach.

Or can you refute this history?

Richard W. Behan lives and writes on Lopez Island, off the northwest coast of Washington state. He can be reached at rwbehan@rockisland.com . (This essay is deliberately not copyrighted: it may be reproduced without restriction.)

THE QUESTION THAT MUST BE ASKED TONIGHT

According to Newsweek, Bush plans to negotiate with Iraq to make a pact that will obligate the United States to remain in Iraq for another 10-12 years. Democracy Now reports today that the Iraqi prime minister stated that Iran will need the United States to keep their military forces in Iran until 2018 or 2020.

The corporate media-ocrity will be negligent if they don't ask the Democratic Candidates how they will be able to bring our troops home if Bush signs this pact with Iraq.

Bill O'Reilly is Whining....

The All Spin Zone has the story on Bill O'Reilly's pathetic whining.

You are simply sowing what you reap Bill'o!

If O'Reilly hadn't arrived to the event in New Hampshire late you might have had a better place in the media corridor and wouldn't have had to act stupid and jump the barrier where of course you were going to be turned back.

Praises to Barack Obama for refusing to be "featured" on Fox News after your previous unfair, unbalanced reporting on Barack Obama.

Buzz...Buzz....

Anti-War Heroes in D.C.

For What It's Worth

There's something happening here.
What it is ain't exactly clear.
There's a man with a gun over there,
Telling me I got to beware.
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down.

There's battle lines being drawn.
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.
Young people speaking their minds,
Getting so much resistance from behind.
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down.

What a field day for the heat.
A thousand people in the street,
Singing songs and carrying signs,
Mostly say, “Hooray for our side.”
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down.

Paranoia strikes deep:
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
You step out of line, the man come and take you away.

Hopefully you'll be able to make the next big march in D.C....they really are something!! You might want to go early and visit your representatives on Friday....let them know this war has to stop AND support the impeachment of Bush and Cheney b/c it is the right thing to do, they definitely should be investigated and if the proof is there (which I'm sure it is) they should be Impeached. Congress needs to use the power it has to prevent any further mischief (such as another illegal invasion) from these two criminals.

Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young one of the great treasures of the '60's!

Listen, open your eyes, and take action folks.

H/T to Anok for directing me to this video.

Hillary Clinton doesn't lead she fails against Bush

According to Cenk Uygur:

[Hillary Clinton] claims that George W. Bush is the worst president we've ever had. Yet in her entire time in the Senate she has never led one successful fight against him. She has either lost every legislative battle on Iraq, or worse yet, been complicit. The vote to authorize the war was one thing, but how about all of the votes to continue and support Bush's war for all of the remaining years? Let alone every other issue on which Bush got exactly what he wanted, up to and including this year, when the Democrats and Senator Clinton were theoretically in charge.

I understand that leaders are supposed to lead. Yet, I have never seen Senator Clinton lead her fellow Democrats in a successful challenge of President Bush. Never. That's a pretty awful record.

Now, it would be one thing if George Bush was a popular president who was hard to defeat politically. But in fact, he is the opposite. He is the most deeply unpopular president of our lifetimes. And Hillary Clinton kept getting her ass kicked by that guy.

That's the real criticism that should be leveled against Hillary Clinton. Yet I have almost never seen anyone make this point on TV. Part of the reason for that, of course, is because her opponents, Barack Obama and John Edwards did no better in their time in the Senate. So, they are embarrassed into an awkward silence on the matter.

The reason I hold Senator Clinton to a higher standard, other than the fact that she has been there longer, is that she had the biggest name recognition and could have led her fellow Democrats - but chose not to. Instead she chose accommodation and capitulation. That's a record worth criticizing, if anyone ever got around to it.

Hillary Clinton keeps reminding us to take a look at her record. She wants to define what we shall look at. It doesn't work that way Hillary. You are a divider not a uniter in the democratic party and no matter how you spin your message the cold hard facts are that you are complicit in the Bush regime's mess in Iraq and you still have not admitted you are wrong.

We have had enough experience with a President who can't admit his errors. We don't need another one like him. You are Karl Rove's dream come true as a democratic presidential candidate. You are my nightmare.

US Corporate Media Refuses to Balance Coverage

A stunning documentary answers vital questions about the Iraq insurgency... Who are the insurgents? Why are they fighting us?

Oh my gosh....the insurgents are ordinary citizens with nationalistic motives? If America was invaded do you think our citizens would have nationalistic motives and fight against the occupation forces?

Surprisingly, Department of Defense reports collaborate this film's findings (i.e. these reports consistently find that 70% of the insurgency consists of ordinary Iraqi's fighting an occupation).

America's Corporate Media has flooded our airwaves with Bush and Pentagon video footage with their commentaries and commentators...yet it refuses to air this documentary. Whatever happened to presenting a balanced picture? Americans need to hear from ordinary Iraqi citizens if they want a balanced picture of what is going on in Iraq.

Check your LOCAL theatres and see if they will be bringing Massive Resistance into town.



Buzz....Buzz....

Bush's Dream Team Works To Make US Occupation Permanent

Bush has General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker making plans to negotiate a pact with Iraq (that will NOT go to Congress for approval) that will LOCK the US into Iraq for the next two Presidential terms and set a foundation for a permanent US presence in Iraq.

Will someone explain to me why Pelosi took Impeachment off the table. It would be better to lock Cheney and Bush up with defending themselves than allowing them to continue to create havoc with our country's future.

Bush and Cheney plan to KEEP us in Iraq so taxpayers can continue to foot the bill so their oil companies can swoop in and reap the profits AND they want to start another war with Iran.

When is Congress going to say enough is enough. Congressman Wexlar AND Congressman Dennis Kucinich are both calling for impeachment. Americans need to rise up and demand that their representatives support impeachment proceedings now....before it's too late.

Buzz...Buzz...

Bush Regime Policies Continue to Ban Free Speech

There was a time (think back 8 years before the Bush-Cheney regime) when Americans were free to speak out in many ways, including comments on t-shirts. The Bush-Cheney regime have successfully quashed many of these rights.

In the latest onslaught against our civil liberties, citizens wearing t-shirts displaying the Constitution's Article 11 section 3 were denied entry to view the U.S. Constitution at the National archives. It was viewed as "political" even though folks with Hillary Clinton t-shirts were granted entry to the National Archives.

This is the Bush-Cheney Fascist version of democracy....regularly, American citizens are being told how to dress and what to wear or they are barred entry to government buildings and even transportation on airplanes.
Story is her at the DC INDYMEDIA website

Bush Misleading us again--Edited Iran gunboat video

Over at Buzzflash, Kristinea Borgeeson reports, "the highly provocative audio of mysterious provenance" is missing from the raw footage of the incident that the Pentagon released. This only highlights the manipulative and deceitful Bush Regime propaganda being put out by the Pentagon. Isn't there a law against this?

Of course, Bush rushed to use this videotape to facilitate Dick Cheney's continued quest to invade Iran. A long time Cheney operative, Stephen Hadley warns us that, ""It could have—and came very close to—resulting in an altercation between our forces and their forces," he said, "They’ve got to be very careful about this, because if it happens again, they are going to bear the consequences of that incident."

The trail of propaganda videotape, statements by the Bush regime point out that the "peace part" of the president's current Middle East mission is only a ruse. What Bush and Cheney want is to start another war with Iran.

Why is it that Pelosi and Reid continue to play "The Deciders" against the wishes of the majority of Americans to tie these two up in impeachment proceedings so they can do no more harm until a new president is in the White House?

Breaking News--OBAMA WON NEW HAMPSHIRE....

There was nothing wrong with the exit polls folks. (BTW, there was nothing wrong with the exit polls in 2000 in FLA and 2004 in Ohio.)

The Election Defense Alliance reports the following discrepancies between the electronic machine totals and the hand count totals:

Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%

Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%

No wonder Barack Obama's supporters were so stunned at the election results. They "knew" their candidate had won....looks like they were right to be stunned.

Amazing that it was Dennis Kucinich, not Barack Obama, who requested the recount. The wrong candidate is being featured by the Corporate Media.

Speaking of the Corporate Media. Only two days ago, NBC invited Dennis Kucinich to participate in the network's January 15 Democratic Presidential Debate. NBC has suddenly decided to "dis invite" Dennis Kucinich, thereby declaring him a "loser." Is this the payback for the New Hampshire Ballot recount. Looks like Kucinich is threatening the powers behind the curtain. The public needs to hear much more from this candidate than the corporate media is allowing. Why should the corporate media have so much power to decide what candidates get to use "our" public platform. This decision should no longer be left in the hands of corporate elites controlling "our" media.

It would really be slap in the face of democracy if Barack Obama and John Edwards show up for that Presidential debate without Dennis Kucinich being allowed to participate.

I'm including John Edwards because he has already been on the losing end of a presidential election, lost in Ohio, and his running mate, John Kerry, neglected to question the Ohio votes...which also confounded the exit polls.

No one knows who is behind whatever occurred to create these discrepancies. However, it has been well established that electronic voting can be manipulated. One manipulation actually "switches" the totals and it looks like that is what occurred in New Hampshire. There hasn't been time to discover who may be behind the election rigging in New Hampshire.

The stolen New Hampshire elections gave Hillary Clinton's campaign an illegal shot in the arm. Hopefully, the news of this stolen primary will expose the threat to our democracy I expect that Americans will not take the news of what happened in New Hampshire lightly.

At the very least, America deserves a President who will stand up and do what's necessary to insure that our elections are honest and democratic. Hillary Clinton is yelling that we should look at actions not words. The actions of Dennis Kucinich speak volumes.

I'll be sending Dennis Kucinich a campaign contribution to help offset the costs of this voter recount. We at least need his voice and his wisdom to continue in this presidential campaign. I wonder if Barack Obama, who is sitting on a pile of money, will do the right thing and at least offer to pay for the recount in New Hampshire.

Was New Hampshire's Election Stolen?

Dennis Kucinich is an American hero. He is the ONLY democratic presidential contender who is doing the right thing as far as New Hampshire goes. Kucinich sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State requesting a vote recount due to "unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots."

In New Hampshire's case, we may be able to "stop" the election from being stolen. The Democrats better learn from Dennis because if they fail to act responsibly it looks likely that the 2008 Presidential election will the next one stolen.

Kucinich explained, "Without an official recount, the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation will never know whether there are flaws in our electoral system that need to be identified and addressed at this relatively early point in the Presidential nominating process," said Kucinich, who is campaigning in Michigan this week in advance of next Tuesday's Presidential primary in that state.

Excerpts from the Kucinich letter requesting a recount:

I am not making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf...Serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced in the past few days...It is imperative that these questions be addressed in the interest of public confidence in the integrity of the election process and the election machinery - not just in New Hampshire, but in every other state that conducts a primary election.

Ever since the 2000 election - and even before - the American people have been losing faith in the belief that their votes were actually counted. This recount isn't about who won 39% of 36% or even 1%. It's about establishing whether 100% of the voters had 100% of their votes counted exactly the way they cast them.

This is not about my candidacy or any other individual candidacy. It is about the integrity of the election process.

New Hampshire is in the unique position to address - and, if so determined, rectify - these issues before they escalate into a massive, nationwide suspicion of the process by which Americans elect their President. Based on the controversies surrounding the Presidential elections in 2004 and 2000, New Hampshire is in a prime position to investigate possible irregularities and to issue findings for the benefit of the entire nation.

I obtained these excerpts from Kucinich's letter here.

Democracy Now Interview with Gareth Porter on US Navy-Iran Incident

One of the Iranian Patrol Boats in the so-called "provocation" against the US Navy (source)


Here is a poignant interview by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, on audio and in print, of veteran reporter and historian Gareth Porter discussing the US Navy/Iranian Naval incident of Sunday morning, January 6, 2008. It includes the Arnold Schwarzenegger-type deep voice threatening in a rather un-Iranian accent that "You will explode after a few minutes".

Porter points out that the commander of the 5th Fleet, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff has made it clear that his "ships were never in danger, that they never believed they were in danger, and that they were never close to firing on the Iranian boats."

So what we have been witnessing is YELLOW JOURNALISM at its worst by the major media, who blew this event up into a near sea-battle, with the Navy "seconds away" from firing on the Iranians, without doing the simplest fact-checking or corroborating. The media mindlessly began dragging us down the rabbit-hole again into the world of make-believe. This is why our country is in such a wretched state. The truth gets slaughtered daily by the mass media. If things had gone wrong enough over this incident, we could be at war with Iran today, spilling blood and treasure on both sides by the bucketful. Ready to sacrifice another half a trillion dollars and thousands of loved-ones to the dogs of war again?

And the big question is out of all this, whose voice issued the Terminator-type threat that sent the media into a feeding frenzy?

*****************************

You can listen to the transcript of the interview by clicking here.


Here is the printed transcript:

January 11, 2008

Gareth Porter: Official Version of U.S.-Iranian Naval Incident Starts to Unravel
The United States has lodged a formal diplomatic protest against Iran for its “provocation” in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday morning. But new information reveals that the alleged Iranian threat to American naval vessels may have been blown out of proportion. We speak to investigative historian Gareth Porter. [includes rush transcript]

Guest:

Gareth Porter, Investigative historian specializing in U.S. national security policy. He writes regularly on Iran for the Inter Press Service. His latest book is called “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam.”

JUAN GONZALEZ: The United States has lodged a formal diplomatic protest against Iran for its “provocation” in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday morning. But new information reveals that the alleged Iranian threat to American naval vessels in the Strait might have been blown out of proportion.


On Tuesday, the Pentagon released video of Iranian patrol boats approaching American warships and an audio recording of a direct threat in English. The accented voice says, “I am coming to you,” and then adds, “You will explode after a few minutes.”


IRANIAN VOICE: I am coming to you.


US NAVAL OFFICER: Inbound small craft, you’re approaching a coalition warship operating in international waters. Your identity is not know. Your intentions are unclear. You’re sailing into danger and may be subject to defensive measures. Request you establish communications now or alter your course immediately to remain clear. Request you alter course immediately to remain clear.


IRANIAN VOICE: You will explode after a few minutes.


US NAVAL OFFICER: “You will explode after a few minutes.”



JUAN GONZALEZ: That was an audio recording released by the Pentagon along with the video of the encounter between American warships and Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz.


But a Navy spokesperson told ABC News Thursday that the threat might not have come from the Iranian patrol boats, but from the shore or another ship passing by. The spokesperson added, “I guess we’re not saying that it absolutely came from the boats, but we’re not saying it absolutely didn’t.”


Iran has denied all allegations of a confrontation and released its own video of the encounter. This is an excerpt of the Iranian video broadcast on Thursday showing what seems to be a routine exchange between an Iranian Navy patrol boat and the American ship.


IRANIAN NAVAL PATROLMAN: Coalition warship 73, this is Iranian Navy patrol boat. Request side number [inaudible] operating in the area this time. Over.


US NAVAL OFFICER: This is coalition warship 73. I’m operating in international waters.



AMY GOODMAN: Gareth Porter is a historian and national security policy analyst. His latest article for IPS News analyzes how the official US version of the naval incident has begun to unravel. He joins us now from Washington, D.C. Gareth Porter, welcome.


GARETH PORTER: Good morning, Amy.


AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about everything that happened from Sunday, what President Bush said, what the Pentagon was alleging, and now what we understand?


GARETH PORTER: Well, this alleged crisis or confrontation on the high seas is really much less than what met the eyes of the American public as it was reported by news media. And the story really began from leaks from the Pentagon. I mean, there were Pentagon officials apparently calling reporters and telling them that something had happened in the Strait of Hormuz, which represented a threat to American ships and that there was a near battle on the high seas. The way it was described to reporters, it was made to appear to be a major threat to the ships and a major threat of war. And that’s the way it was covered by CNN, by CBS and other networks, as well as by print media.


Then I think the next major thing that happened was a briefing by the commander of the 5th fleet in Bahrain, the Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, which is very interesting. If you look carefully at the transcript, which was not reported accurately by the media, or not reported at all practically, the commander—or rather, Vice Admiral Cosgriff actually makes it clear that the ships were never in danger, that they never believed they were in danger, and that they were never close to firing on the Iranian boats. And this is the heart of what actually happened, which was never reported by the US media.


So I think that the major thing to really keep in mind about this is that it was blown up into a semi-crisis by the Pentagon and that the media followed along very supinely. And I must say this is perhaps the worst—the most egregious case of sensationalist journalism in the service of the interests of the Pentagon, the Bush administration, that I have seen so far.


JUAN GONZALEZ: And, Gareth Porter, there have been some reports about the apparent splicing of audio onto the actual video that appear to be from two different sources. Could you talk about that?


GARETH PORTER: Well, that’s right. I mean, we don’t yet know exactly what the sequence of events was in this incident. We don’t know exactly when the voices that we hear making what appear to be a threat to the American ships, where—when that occurred in the sequence of events in this incident. And it seems very possible that indeed the Pentagon did splice into the recording, the audio recording of the incident, the two bits of messages from a mysterious voice in a way that made it appear to occur in response to the initial communication from the US ship to the Iranian boats. And it seems very possible that, in fact, those voices came at some other point during this twenty-minute incident.


So this is something that really deserves to be scrutinized and, in fact, investigated by Congress, because of the significance, in the larger sense, of a potential major fabrication of evidence in order to make a political point by the Bush administration.


AMY GOODMAN: Gareth Porter, what about the timing of this, on the eve of President Bush’s visit to the Middle East?


GARETH PORTER: Well, of course, there’s no doubt that the motivation for the Pentagon to blow this incident up was precisely the timing of President Bush leaving on a trip to the Middle East, in which one of his major purposes was to try to keep together a coalition of Arab states, which—a very, very loose and shaky coalition to oppose Iran and to support, hopefully, according to the administration’s policy, the US pressure on Iran through diplomatic and financial means, through the Security Council and through its allies in Europe. So this is definitely part of the reason, very clearly, that what was a very minor incident which did not threaten US ships, as far as we can tell from all the evidence so far, was turned into what was presented as a confrontation and a threat of war.


JUAN GONZALEZ: Gareth Porter, I’d like to ask you, I was watching the Republican debate last night on Fox News and was astonished to see one of the moderators spend quite a bit of time on this topic, questioning every one of the candidates as to whether they believe the Navy commander on the scene did the right thing by not blowing the Iranian boats out of the water. Surprisingly, only Ron Paul, the maverick, even questioned some of the facts of the incident as reported. Your response to this suddenly becoming a topic for the presidential debates?


GARETH PORTER: Well, I think it’s astonishing that you have this incident being regarded as a test of whether the United States is being belligerent enough, when the commanders of the ships themselves clearly did not regard this as a threat to the safety of their ships. This is the point, again, that the commander of the 5th fleet made very clearly. He was asked by reporters whether the commanders were close to firing on the Iranian ships, and he said, “No, that was not the case,” that at no point were they about to fire on the ships and that they did not feel threatened by the Iranian boats. Bear in mind, what has not been reported by the media, that these are essentially small speedboats that are at most armed with machine guns, not with any weapons that were capable of harming those ships.


AMY GOODMAN: Gareth Porter, this also comes right at the time that new documents have—newly declassified documents have revealed that the Johnson administration faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident to escalate the war in Vietnam, to provide a pretext for increased bombing and increased troops there.


GARETH PORTER: Well, you know, this is an incident—the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the policy shenanigans surrounding it are something that I wrote about in my book, Perils of Dominance, about the US involvement in the Vietnam conflict. And what actually happened regarding the Gulf of Tonkin was that the ships, because of anxiety on the part of the crew of these ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, they thought they were under fire originally. They sent back messages saying that.


But within a matter of a couple of hours, the commander of the flotilla had decided that they had been mistaken, and he passed that message on to the Pentagon, and the Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara was informed by early afternoon on the same day. And it is my interpretation, based on the evidence, that he failed—he refused to inform President Johnson of that fact, and that’s why Johnson went ahead with a decision to bomb North Vietnam, which had already been made at noontime.


JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, going back to the incident also, one of the key contradictions now that have surfaced between the initial reports and certainly after the Iranian release of their own video is that initially the public was told that these were Revolutionary Guard boats, and now the Iranian government has said no, that they were actually boats of the Iranian Navy, and they clearly identified themselves as such.


GARETH PORTER: I do not know what the provenance of these Iranian boats was, whether it was IRGC or Iranian Navy. We do have pictures, photographs of the IRGC small speedboats that clearly resemble the boats that are depicted—at least one of them—depicted in the video. But from the evidence that we have right now, it’s really impossible to say what—whether these boats belonged to be on IRGC or not. It is the case, however, that the IRGC does have, apparently, the primary responsibility to patrol in this area of the gulf. I heard yesterday a former commander of the IRGC state very clearly that they do in fact have the primary responsibility to patrol in that area. So it’s certainly the—it’s a possibility, a good possibility, that these were IRGC boats.


AMY GOODMAN: Gareth Porter, I want to thank you for being with us, investigative historian, writes for Inter Press Service. His latest book is called Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis Kucinich calling for a recount

Gutsy Dennis Kucinich is doing what Barack Obama has neglected. Kucinich is calling for a recount of the New Hampshire vote count due to countless queries and questions, including the fact that the exit polls are not tallying with the machine count.

It 's about time a Democratic candidate stood up for democracy and took the necessary steps to make sure that everyone's vote is counted properly.

Since Kucinich was not with 3% of victory his campaign will have to pay the full costs of a recount. Therefore, I'll be sending a donation to Kucinich today to help pay for the recount.

Since our votes cannot be verified via machine vote a vote recount should be a standard and expected practice.

My Reply to a Comment Blocker

I attempted to comment (twice) over at Skeptical Observer but my comments never were displayed. Therefore, I'm posting the James Young commentary about a Mosquito Blog post My comment will follow:

Another Logically-Flawed Attack

Well, another moonbat fool is attacking Republicans who support America's efforts in Iraq, but whose children are not fighting there, asserting that "Mitt Romney supports the Iraq war [sic] so .... Why isn't a single one of his five sons fighting in it?"

Of course, it's not a real question; it's just an effort to attack a Republican.

I've got a better question: "Mosquito" opposes American efforts (it's not a "war"; that was won four years ago), so why hasn't he gone to Iraq and taken up arms against American forces."

After all, if that's the measure of the courage of one's convictions for "Mosquito," clearly, he/she fails, too.

Or is it just his/her "logic" which miserably fails? posted by James Young

I do follow the courage of my convictions...I am a pacifist and I regularly march and speak out for my belief that war should be the LAST OPTION, not the first. Surely, war should not be fought by the middle and lower class of a nation for the economic benefit of the upper class? (The folks profiting from this war definitely represent that top 1% of our population)

I consider it patriotic to speak out and attempt to steer my country on a course that I believe is more beneficial to my country.

I am shocked that you would actually propose to another American that they should take up arms against American troops. First, I support our troops (even though I don't support the mission) by advocating that they receive all the benefits due to them, including pay raises, quality health care, etc. etc. I have frequently criticized the Bush/Cheney regime for NOT advocating to increase the troops pay, benefits, or quality of healthcare. The last thing I would do is take up arms against American troops. Nor would I propose that any American (no matter what their beliefs) do such an un-patriotic, treasonous act.

Shame on you for proposing such a thing AND refusing to post my comment.

Buzz...Buzz...