http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/06/rudy-giuliani-911-bumper-sticer-victims-outrage.php#more

The Man Who Stole 9/11 -- RADAR ONLINE

by Ray Gustini

GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani is hoping to ride his 9/11 experience straight into the White House. But while "America's Mayor" is playing well in New Hampshire, New Yorkers directly impacted by the World Trade Center tragedy are less convinced.

In a recent New York Daily News poll, New Yorkers said they favor current mayor Michael Bloomberg, who hasn't even declared his candidacy, over "America's Mayor" by almost 2 to 1.

Howard Lutnick, the CEO of money management firm Cantor Fitzgerald who lost 658 of his employees on 9/11, has given Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) presidential campaign $4,600 of his own money over the last two months and has not given the Giuliani campaign a dime. Diny Lajamian, who as Cantor's human resources director worked with families of deceased employees and helped rebuild the company's staff, says she's disgusted by Giuliani's use of 9/11 as a political prop. "It's absolutely disgraceful. He's just a sleazebag," Lajamian says. "I think now the families feel like he left them high and dry."

A rep for a group that aides families of those injured or killed in the WTC seconds that. "Rudy thinks our grief and the hurt we experienced somehow makes us stupid," says Monica Gabrielle, co-chair of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign. "Rudy just can't control himself.... He can't acknowledge his failures.... He just can't stop creating his own myth about himself and about that day. The man is in love with his own legend."

But Giuliani's most powerful opponents are those who became a symbol of bravery after the 9/11 attacks­America's firefighters. The 280,000 member International Association of Firefighter Fund has been at odds with the former mayor since shortly after 9/11, claiming the man now worth as much as $70 million "gave up" on dead firefighters and devoted Ground Zero cleanup efforts to, of all things, recovering gold and silver. Removal of victims' remains amounted, they say, to a "scoop and dump." Tensions heated up again in March, when a draft of a letter explaining the union's decision to snub Giuliani from their 2008 presidential forum was leaked to the press. The union eventually decided to invite him, but the candidate turned down the half-hearted invitation. That was the last straw for the group's president, Harold Schaitberger, who says Giuliani's actions since 9/11 show "disgraceful lack of respect for the fallen."

Of course, none of this has done much to damage Giuliani's long-term national prospects. He retains a healthy lead on his rivals. And the New York Times has even wryly speculated [sub. req.] about the former mayor trademarking "9/11" itself, the idea being that he could then legally prohibit his rivals from drawing on the event in their own terror talk.

Plus, think of the bumper stickers!

Plaintiffs: The American People

Defendents: Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice et.al.

Going against European law AND the rules of common decency, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice et/al tortured prisoners in secret CIA prisons.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070608/ap_on_re_eu/eu_cia_secret_prisons

This is not and should not be the policy of the United States of America!

Impeach the monsters who allowed/caused/approved this policy!

I've been watching Dick Armey make an ass of himself all week over at Swampland, but tonight's post, it's just too much.

First, there's all the social security privatization wankery. Recycled crap about Chile!!! And Personal Accounts!!! But get this:

The current Social Security system is about insecurity, dependence on the government, and votes for the Democrat party.

Democrat party?

Look, it's not like he's talking. I can almost excuse that -- Republicans have been abbreviating that word for so long, it's just second nature. They just fall into it.

Like when I talk, I automatically say, "Dumb-ass Republicans." It just happens.

But this is writing, so it's purposeful. Armey sat down, and purposely typed out "Democrat party."

And it's not like this is some unknown thing. Here's President Bush, this past February, speaking at a Dem Caucus event:

The last time I looked at some of your faces, I was at the State of the Union, and I saw kind of a strange expression when I referred to something as the Democrat Party. Now, look, my diction isn't all that good. (Laughter.) I have been accused of occasionally mangling the English language. (Laughter.) And so I appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party. (Laughter and applause.)

Now, I realize there may not be a whole lot of respect left for the President in the Republican Party, but he is, as we Democrats are often reminded, still our President.

When George W. Bush starts dragging out the "Democrat Party" jokes, you know that shark has been jumped.

Dick -- time's up. It's no longer cool to say Democrat party. Okay? I know you're now a blogger and all, and that's pretty hip. All the kids are doing it. But the whole Democrat thing, that's just done.

Then, turning to taxes, he says:

The family of four that makes under $40,000 per year would pay no tax, and Teresa Heinz Kerry would no longer be able to exploit tax law to only pay 11.5 percent of her $5 million income.

Now, I have no idea if Teresa Heinz Kerry did or did not exploit any tax law. But, what is this, 2004? Is she still the standard go-to for rich Democrat party jokes?

Because I thought John Edwards was the new go-to for rich Democrat party jokes. And if you're gonna be a blogger now, you really need to keep up. Edwards is the rich guy you make fun of.

Or, wait, was he the hair jokes?

So hard to keep track of it all...

Anyway, is evading tax law even a Democrat party problem?

Cause I'm pretty damn sure there a LOT more Dumb-ass Republicans that make out pretty damn well with all the holes in our tax system.

In fact, there's this other Dick I know...

I challenged Sean (yawn) Hannity a while back.

I called him out

So far, no response at all.

Cowards are exposed

Fox Noise is the home of cowards.

I challenge Fox Noise, let me speak.

by Terry Michael

June 6, 2007 -

(first published at Politico.com)

If you publicly pious candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination could look up from your talking points for a moment, I'd like to introduce you to the founder of our party -- our earthly father, if you will, Thomas Jefferson. Consider some of President Jefferson's views on religion and politics, which he expressed in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence ... a wall of separation between church and state."

Apparently, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) all decided they did, indeed, owe an accounting of their personal religious beliefs -- a televised recitation, in fact -- to an audience assembled Monday at George Washington University by the left-liberal-worthy Rev. Jim Wallis and channeled through a television anchor aptly (or at least euphoniously) named Soledad O'Brien.

The front-runners' pandering to "people of faith" is the latest expression of Religion Lite advocated by the consultant wing of the Democratic Party.

After several decades of the religious right's attempt to trash the First Amendment and Christianize America via the GOP (God's Own Party?), we are now treated to the religious left and its heavenly claims on behalf of social justice.

The worst offender in the trinity of poll-directed faith hailers was, of course, Edwards, a trial lawyer to the underclass (he represented the middle class in 2004) and now the political servant of his "Lord Jesus Christ."

Yes, he actually used the whole coded-for-evangelicals phrase -- though, for some reason, those three words, which revealed just how much this former-Baptist-turned-Methodist was willing to prostrate himself before the pious, were omitted from news coverage of the affair in both The Washington Post and The New York Times.

Clinton takes second place in the pander-fest, claiming to the Wallis multitudes discomfort with wearing religion on her sleeve, but then she did just that, revealing how her conversations with the Methodist deity helped get her through that unpleasant Oval Office incident.

Least noxious of the three was Obama, who, with less Methodist in his madness, had the good grace to recall Lincoln's remarks regarding the greater wisdom of the Union's choosing God's side rather than expecting the Heavenly Father (as Edwards would put it) to play political favorites.

Having worked as press spokesman for the Democratic National Committee 20 years ago, when the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority was in full flower, I am appalled at how little these possible future leaders of the free world have learned from decades of mixing "faith" and politics.

I came to Washington in 1975 with the late Paul Simon, working for five years as his House press secretary and later traveling with him for seven months as spokesman for his 1988 presidential campaign. Never once in the almost four decades I knew the Illinois Democrat did I ever hear him invoke religion or mention God in a speech, or even in private conversation, though I assumed his religious views were probably those you would expect from the son of Christian missionaries to China (where he was conceived in 1928) and the brother of a Lutheran minister.

A man with the moral rectitude of an Eagle Scout, Simon understood why the Founders included not a single reference to a deity in our Constitution. The best way to protect your right to be guided by faith (and mine to be guided by reason) is to keep our understandings of where we come from and how we come to be moral animals on the other side of a very high wall between the state, with its coercive powers, and the temples created by believers.

The willingness of Democratic candidates to breach that barrier reflects a failure of nerve in a political party that ought to be our best hope for secular governance in a world where so much hate and murder is still being unleashed by "people of faith," whose beliefs were never touched by The Age of Reason and The Enlightenment -- the same felicitous era in human history that gave us Jefferson and others averse to the mingling of religion and governance.

To put it in bumper sticker form, Hillary, John and Barack: "I'm a Person of Reason, and I Vote, Too!"

___________________________________________

A committed non-theist, Terry Michael writes at his "thoughts from a libertarian Democrat" blog.

TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company

Being informed you have a blind date with either Ann Coulter or Paris Hilton.

The cover story of the new edition of Newsweek (June 11, 2007) features an article by Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, frequent contributor to The Washington Post and numerous other prominent publications, author of several books including The New York Times bestseller, The Future of Freedom, and host of Foreign Exchange, the weekly international affairs show on PBS. If you haven't caught Foreign Exhange, give it a try - it's arguably one of the best shows on PBS. 

The article is titled, Beyond Bush - What the world needs is an open, confident America. Here are just a few highlights from this excellent article:

On the post-Bush era:

...In any event, it is time to stop bashing George W. Bush. We must begin to think about life after Bush - a cheering prospect for his foes, a dismaying one for his fans (however few there may be at the moment). In 19 months he will be a private citizen, giving speeches to insurance executives. America, however, will have to move on and restore its place in the world. To do this we must first tackle the consequences of our foreign policy of fear. Having spooked ourselves into believing that we have no option but to act fast, alone, unilaterally and pre-emptively, we have managed in six years to destroy decades of international good will, alienate allies, embolden enemies and yet solve few of the major international problems we face.

He comes down hard on the fear-mongering of the Republican candidates (although he doesn't let the Democrats off the hook either): 

...The presidential campaign could have provided the opportunity for a national discussion of the new world we live in. So far, on the Republican side, it has turned into an exercise in chest-thumping. Whipping up hysteria requires magnifying the foe. The enemy is vast, global and relentless. Giuliani casually lumps together Iran and Al Qaeda. Mitt Romney goes further, banding together all the supposed bad guys. "This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hizbullah and Hamas and Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood," he recently declared.

...Such overreactions are precisely what Osama bin Laden has been hoping for. In a videotaped message in 2004, bin Laden explained his strategy with astonishing frankness. He termed it "provoke and bait": "All we have to do is send two mujahedin ... [and] raise a piece of cloth on which is written 'Al Qaeda' in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses." His point has been well understood by ragtag terror groups across the world. With no apparent communication, collaboration or further guidance from bin Laden, small outfits from Southeast Asia to North Africa to Europe now announce that they are part of Al Qaeda, and so inflate their own importance, bring global attention to their cause and - of course - get America to come racing out to fight them. 

Zakaria offers some insightful thoughts on Iraq and Iran: 

...The administration has - surprise - tried to play up fears of the consequences of a drawdown in Iraq (which is always described as a Vietnam-style withdrawal down to zero). It predicts that this will lead to chaos, violence and a victory for terrorists. When we listen to these forecasts, it is worth remembering that every administration prediction about Iraq has been wrong. Al Qaeda is a small presence in Iraq, and ordinary Sunnis are abandoning support for it. "If we leave Iraq, they will follow us home," says the president. Can they not do so now? Iraq's borders have never been more porous. Does he think that Iraqi militants and foreign terrorists are so distracted by our actions in Iraq that they have forgotten that there are many more Americans in America?

...I have no magic formula to stop Iran from going nuclear, nor to change Iran's regime. But the strategy we have adopted against so many troublesome countries over the last few decades - sanction, isolate, ignore, chastise - has simply not worked. Cuba is perhaps the best example of this paradox. Having put in place a policy to force regime change in that country, we confront the reality that Fidel Castro will die in office the longest-serving head of government in the world. On the other hand, countries where we have had the confidence to engage - from China to Vietnam to Libya - have shifted course substantially over time. Capitalism and commerce and contact have proved far more reliable agents of change than lectures about evil. The next president should have the courage to start talking to rogue regimes, not as a sign of approval but as a way of influencing them and shaping their environment. 

The quotes above don't really do this excellent article justice. I don't agree with everything Zakaria has written - I'm one of those Democrats he believes are too concerned with the downside of globalization, for instance. But he is an insightful and sensible, even wise, commentator on world affairs (I think of him as the Anti-Neocon). It's an article worth reading, and it's heartening to realize that this is an article appearing in the mainstream media. You might also want to check out the Fareed Zakaria website.

Joe Klein has made one of his periodic attacks on the liberal blogosphere. As usual in order to make himself look good, and make his critics look ridiculous, he lies about what actually happened.

Here’s Klein’s version:

A strange thing happened to me the day the House of Representatives voted to pass the Iraq-war-funding bill. Congresswoman Jane Harman of California called as the debate was taking place. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this," she told me. "We need a new strategy, and I hope we can force one in September. But I flew into Baghdad [with 150 young soldiers recently]. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment... they need. I couldn't do that." I posted what Harman said on Swampland, the political blog at Time.com, along with my opinion that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had changed their positions and voted against the funding for the worst possible reason: presidential politics.

And then Harman changed her position. After we spoke, she voted against the funding. The next day, I was blasted by a number of left-wing bloggers: Klein screwed up! I had quoted Harman in the past tense—common usage for politicians who know their words will appear after a vote takes place. That was sloppy and... suspicious! Proof that you just can't trust the mainstream media. On Eschaton, a blog that specializes in media bashing, I was given the coveted "Wanker of the Day" award. Eventually, Harman got wind of this and called, unbidden, to apologize for misleading me, saying I had quoted her correctly but she had changed her mind to reflect the sentiments of her constituents. I published her statement and still got hammered by bloggers and Swampland commenters for "stalking" Harman into an apology, for not checking her vote in the Congressional Record, for being a "water boy for the right wing" and many other riffs unfit to print.

Or to sum in up. Klein spoke to Harmon prior to the vote, and she indicated she would vote for the supplemental. Klein then posts the Harman quote and also says that Clinton and Obama, in voting against the supplemental, had changed their positions. Then Harman changed her position, and the next day bloggers attacked him. Atrios called him a wanker. Harman later called him to apologize, Klein published her statement, but the criticism did not let up either in the blogosphere or among the commenters at Swampland.

Except this is not what happened. The Iraq vote was taken in the House at 6:45 PM, and in the Senate at 8:26 PM on May 24. Joe posted his claim about Harmon’s vote – and Clinton and Obama’s change of position at 9:37 AM the next day. Within two hours, the Swampland commenters were pointing out that Joe had gotten Harman’s vote wrong. By 11:13, Booman Tribune had noted that Klein had gotten it wrong, and at 12:53 Atrios cited Klein as “wanker of the day”, linking to Boorman. Sometime after 4PM, Joe gets a call from a Harman staffer, telling him that Harman had voted against the bill, and Klein posts that at 5:13PM. Later that night, Harman leaves a voicemail apologizing to Klein, which he posts at 12:54 the next day.

In other words, while Klein would have you believe that he posted about Harmon’s vote before she changed her mind (“I posted what Harman said on Swampland…[t]hen Harman changed her mind”) there was more than 15 hours between the time Harman changed her mind, and Joe said she’d voted for the bill.

And while Joe’s commenters (who he cites later for their viciousness) tried repeatedly to get Joe to correct his post beginning less than two hours after he posted it, he ignored them. Only when he got the staffer’s call did he correct the record, and then it took him an extra hour to do so. Harman’s call didn’t come until well after the staffers call.

But Joe was not initially attacked for getting the vote wrong, but for stating as fact that “[v]oting against it means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq”, for supporting his argument by quoting Harman’s justification that “[t]o vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment, the armor they need”, for falsely stating that “a majority of Democrats who are not running for President” voted for the bill (123 Dems”not running” in the House and Senate voted for the bill, 147 against), and for falsely claiming that Clinton and Obama had “changed their position” when they didn’t take a position on the bill until the last minute. (Klein’s fictitious “fact” that voting against the bill meant voting for immediate withdrawal, lead to that false accusation, because each of them had said they were against “immediate withdrawal’.)

These were the focus of the initial criticisms of Klein’s post – it was not until well after it became obvious that Klein was ignoring the factual correction that had been noted in the comments section (and in comment sections of other posts).

It is also important to note that Klein neither acknowledged nor apologized for his own error when posting the statements of Harmon’s staffer, and Harmon herself. The error was understandable (and a number of commenters made that point), but it was also easily preventable insofar as the vote was a public record, and Joe posted the wrong information 15 hours after the vote had been taken. Nor has Klein apologized for being wrong about the way that Democrats had voted.

And while it may be true that some of Klein’s critics went slightly overboard in their criticism of him after he posted the corrections by Harman’s staffer, it is in fact “sloppy…and suspicious [and] proof that you can’t trust the mainstream media” that Klein would write “[y]esterday I spoke with Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Ca.) just back from Iraq, who voted for the bill”, because the clear implication is that the conversation occurred after the vote had been taken. In other words, Klein’s careless construction leads one to conclude that he got his facts wrong after the vote – had he been more careful and simply told the truth by saying “During the debate, I spoke with Jane Harmon who planned to vote for the bill” the “got the vote wrong” would not have been a controversy. Instead, in his rush to make his own point about the vote, he made a false statement – and it is precisely this kind of journalistic carelessness in pursuit of telling the story the journalist wants to tell that results in skepticism toward the mainstream media.

(It should also be noted that no one on Swampland used the word “stalking” in the comments related to Harman’s phone call, and the commenter who criticized Klein for being a “water boy for the right wing” cited a prime example of Klein’s willingness to repeat right-wing talking points --i.e. the claim that voting against the bill meant a vote for “precipitous withdrawal”-- and cited the insult to the “motives, patriotism, and decency” who opposed the supplemental through that statement. )

The criticism of Klein that took place after the “correction” was firmly grounded in the other errors found in his post, as well as his long history of egregious journalistic errors, uncritical acceptance of conventional “beltway” wisdom, and repetition of Republican talking points which are too numerous to be mentioned here. What should be mentioned is that while Klein labels as “extremists” anyone on the left who disagrees with him too vigorously for his liking, he goes out of his way to court right-wing extremists like Dick Armey, who supports the privatization of all medical care, telling Armey that “we're playing between the 40-yard-lines here” when Armey’s position isn’t even on the football field.

There are other well known centrists who progressives read, and criticize, without the kind of flames that Klein consistently encourages. One such centrist is Steve Clemons who clearly thinks about every word that he writes before posting on The Washington Note – it’s a habit that Klein would do well to emulate.

The opening clause of Section 8 says, "The Congress shall have the Power To.provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 assigns to Congress the Power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"  (A letter of marque is issued by a nation to privateers or mercenaries to act on behalf of that nation for the purpose of retaliating against another nation for committing some wrong against it.)

According to this language, the Pentagon has usurped the Constitutional power of Congress by employing contracted mercenaries.  Congress has both the right and responsibility to seek full disclosure regarding the use of armed contractees.  

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14 assigns to Congress the Power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"

This language requires Congress to define where, when, and why the military forces of the United States are used.  This Power does not reside in the Executive branch of the U.S. government.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 assigns to Congress the Power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States."

This language assigns to Congress the authority to decide where, when, and why the military forces of the United States are used in the service of the United States.  This Power does not reside in the Executive branch of the U.S. Government.  The President's limited Constitutional role regarding the disposition of U.S. military forces is defined in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution that says, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.when called into the actual Service of the United States;" by Congress.

The President has no authority to order the military forces of the United States into "actual Service". Congress must first define where, when, and why the military forces of the United States will be used.  If this authority can only be granted by Congress, this authority can also be denied by Congress.  Congress defines the specific goal of war.

The President as "Commander in Chief" is limited to developing the strategy to achieve the specified goal.  In effect, the President becomes the highest ranking officer in the United States military and manages the resources provided by Congress to accomplish the goal defined by Congress.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 assigns to Congress the Power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof."

This language assigns to Congress the authority to enact legislation to enforce all clauses of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.  This clause also assigns to Congress the authority to enact legislation to effectuate "all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States" in order to conduct the business of the Government of the United States. 

In addition, this clause assigns to Congress the authority to enact legislation to oversee and enforce "all other Powers vested by the Constitution.in any Department or Office" in the U.S. Government.  There is no exclusion cited for the Office of The President of the United States.

by John Sebastian [send him email], who is a freelance writer and Constitutionalist. John is a Populist Party contributing author.

Doesn't it seem that everybody tied in with Bush somehow is related to some public company associated with the war on terror? Radar Online connects all the dots today...

http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2007/06/george_tenet_paul_bremer_richard_perle_freeh_downing_woolsey.php

According to at least one top analyst who tracks homeland security stocks, it's an ideal time to invest in companies that seem to have sprung from the pages of a Philip K. Dick novel. There are outfits that develop systems for secretly reading an entire nation's e-mail or biometrics scanners that can recognize every face on a busy street. Then there are purveyors of unmanned spy blimps and robotic death machines. But how's a typical 401K owner supposed to pick the winners?

In this age of outsourcing, 70 percent of the nation's estimated $48 billion intelligence budget goes straight into the pockets of private contactors­and an additional $58 billion is earmarked for homeland security. For security and defense firms, the road to profitability is paved with government contracts. But landing those coveted deals is often dependent on having friends in those high places where procurement decisions are made.

Lately, Radar Online has noticed a stream of former Bush Administration officials and insiders signing on as directors at obscure companies that compete for contracts at their old agencies. Where other observers might see revolving-door corruption, or perhaps an orgy of military industrial profiteering, we see a tantalizing investment opportunity. Just because this crew, which includes George Tenet, Paul Bremer, and Richard Perle, monumentally bungled their duties to the American tax payer doesn't mean they aren't capable of feathering their own nests --­ and yours

.

Click on link above for the full story.

So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?

Yep... the vile, Bush-hating, treasonous rant in the Weakly Slander that demeans the Commander-in-Chief and undermines his authority when we have troops in harm's way thus giving aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war comes from none other than Bill "Beat Me Like A Rented Mule" Kristol.

Will the FBI be paying this man a visit? Will the records of his company be seized? Whose body is that slumped over Kristol's desk? These and other questions will be answered in the next installment of "Whose Crime Is It Anyway?" We return to our show already in progress....

[Kristol appears to be drinking alone at his desk, a half-empty bottle of scotch in his hand, the glass long forgotten]

Kristol: I feel TERRIBLE for Scooter Libby's family.

Compassionate Conservative: Fuck 'em. He should have thought of them before he decided to play with the big boys.

[a visibly startled Kristol looks around for the voice]

Kristol:Millions of Americans feel terrible for Scooter Libby's family.

Compassionate Conservative: Bwahahaaaahaah... hey kid... Newflash! No one knows about his family. No one cares about his family. What's next? You gonna cry about all the families of the fallen? Jesus Christ! Get a fuckin' grip!

Kristol: [talking to thin air] But we can't do anything about the injustice that has been done. Nor can we do anything to avert a further injustice looming on the horizon--

Compassionate Conservative: Oh cry me a river... injustice? Now it's an injustice? We've made billions boy...BILLIONS... and so what if a few Iraqis died on the way? We're set for life. Now we take the money and run and leave it to the Iraqis to "step up" or whatever the hell it is we call it when we abandon their sorry asses.

Kristol: Judge Reggie Walton seems inclined not to let Libby remain free pending appeal.

Compassionate Conservative: Oh.... that .... [chuckles quietly]

Kristol: Unlike the rest of us, however, George W. Bush is president.

Compassionate Conservative: Speak for yourself whiney boy.... [the voice sounds oddly familiar, gruff...reminiscent of Burgess Meredith's Penquin from the TV show, Batman]

[blubbering as he takes a long slug off the bottle] Kristol::Article II, Section Two of the Constitution gives him the pardon power. George W. Bush can do something to begin to make up for the injustice --

[a shadowy presence appears behind his chair]

Compassionate Conservative: Ha! The Constitution... how quaint.

Kristol: -- a prosecutor appointed by his own administration brought down on Scooter Libby. And he can do something to avert the further injustice of a prison term.

Compassionate Conservative: Prison term? No one's sending Bush to prison. I sure as hell ain't going to be doing any time. You worried someone might throw you under the bus, boy? Keep blubbering and you might be right. What the hell are you talking about?

Kristol:Will Bush pardon Libby? Apparently not--even if it means a man who worked closely with him and sought tirelessly to do what was right for the country goes to prison.

Compassionate Conservative: Oh... you are still on that thing... Jesus, you Members of the Tribe really hang together don't you? Get over it.

Kristol: [a note of hysteria creeping in to his voice] Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, noting that the appeals process was underway, said, "Given that and in keeping with what we have said in the past, the president has not intervened so far in any other criminal matter and he is going to decline to do so now."

[Cheney steps out of the shadows wearing a baseball cap with Corrupt Bastards Club logo on it]

Compassionate Conservative: No shit Sherlock! He hasn't intervened and won't... if he knows what's good for him.

[Cheney grabs the bottle from the blubbering Kristol and takes a big swallow of Scotch]

Kristol: [openly crying] So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?

[Kristol opens a drawer and pulls out a Glock and holds it in his hands -- sighing]

Cheney: [in a soothing voice] Bill, why don't you give that to someone who knows how to use it?

[Cheney takes the gun from Kristol's limp sweaty hand, checks the clip to see it is loaded and walks over to the light switch. He looks at Kristol as he turns off the light]

BANG!

[All we see is Cheney's silhouette as he opens the door and walks out ... chuckling... an astute observer will notice his horns]

For the musicians and music fans here, the NYT has a piece today on how environmentalism is impacting the guitar-making biz:

Though they are fierce competitors for a small but vibrant marketplace, the companies have become aware of the significant changes in the availability and price of the best woods. In an unusual alliance, the four guitar makers have joined with Greenpeace in one of many efforts to bring attention to forest management and sustainability.

By the way, Martin makes the best guitars. (Now that's a guitar geek provocation if I ever heard one...!)

The blustery style and sound of the carnival barker, urging the gullible public to pay hard earned dollars to look behind the tent.

And that's what this quadrennial dog and pony show that is the abortion "debate" has turned into; the (almost)" Greatest Show on Earth."

Instead of paying money, we're asked to pay with something even more precious. Our integrity and our votes. Cynical pollsters in both major parties know abortion is a "hot-button" issue that will immediately grab some people's attention and turn them away from other issues, like: Starting another illegal and immoral war against another country, this time Iran. And using nuclear weapons to hammer home our version of Democracy.

The first Democrat Party debate had a short discussion on using nuclear weapons, and the three leading candidates in the polls were all for using thermonuclear weapons in a preemptive strike against Iran.

Nary a peep about using nukes in the other debates, that's too scary and distracts voters from the "hot-button" issues that both the Dems and Repubs need to get votes. As soon as the election is over, both parties will fold up their tents and like the carnival, head out of town.

Why is it that America can be so concerned about ending life in our nation, but when it comes to annihilating hundreds of thousands of lives in a flash, we get bored of the discussion and turn our minds to more heady matters, like watching the latest deviations by Paris Hilton.

Guess that's just "Entertainment Tonight."

Another update on Republican corruption, cupidity, and sleaze...

Nobody can be surprised that another Republican operative connected to Jack Abramoff is in legal trouble. The poetically named Italia Federici (who was "romantically linked" with Steve Griles while he was the deputy at the Department of Mining And Logging I mean Interior, even as Abramoff and she were trying to influence Griles on behalf of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients, talk about full service lobbying) will plead guilty on tax evasion and blocking a congressional investigation. But the true scandal in this Washington Post article is the headline: "GOP Environmentalist Linked to Abramoff to Plead Guilty".

Federici is an environmentalist in the same way that John Yoo is an advocate for the rights of the accused. Her "nonprofit" organization, the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, was founded by Bush Environmental Protection Agency chief (and really, doesn't that say it all?) Gale Norton and that Reagan-loving drowning-government-in-the-bathtub- advocating hypocritical anti-all-taxes maggot Grover Norquist, for pete's sake. Not exactly Sierra Club material. By "environmental advocacy," these sorts of Republicans mean advocating FOR big businesses like clear-cutting loggers, wetlands-clearing developers, groundwater- polluting mining outfits and other commercial interests AGAINST environmental protection measures. I suspect CREA never met an environmental law or regulation that it liked. No, Federici isn't an environmentalist. The Post shouldn't sully that word by inaccurately applying it to her.

Turning to the ongoing scandals at the Department of Justice, turns out that Dick Cheney tried to roll Justice into approving the wiretapping program that John Ashcroft refused to approve on his sickbed. What a surprise. Cheney also denied a promotion to a career professional at Justice who was in his eyes too closely linked to the anti-wiretapping effort. Yes, the Vice President reached deep into a cabinet agency to stop a promotion of a qualified career civil servant, Patrick Philbin. And Alberto Gonzales, that paragon of integrity, didn't support his employee and cancelled the promotion. That'll build morale!

If we now know that the VP was involved in this issue to this level of detail, even to the point of exacting revenge against civil servants, is there any reason to give the White House any benefit of the doubt about their knowledge of the ongoing effort to politicize the Department of Justice (and stop eligible citizens from voting), via the Great US Attorney Massacre among other tactics? Of course not.

And now word that Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (a Republican of course) has gotten that most dreaded of requests from the FBI to please "preserve records." That ranks up there with "60 Minutes on line two, sir" as something you don't want to hear. It's all about a big political bribery and corruption scandal in Alaska that surprise, surprise, Ted Stevens' son Ben, the Senator's political buddies and his moneymen are involved in.

Stevens is famous for bringing home absurd amounts of Federal tax dollars to Alaska, the state that has no income tax, that gives a fat check drawn on oil revenues to its residents every year, and STILL has the nerve to beg for rivers of money from the Federal budget to do various pork-barrel projects while still loudly proclaiming its rugged independence. Alaska -- as independent as a three-month-old baby sucking at its mother's teats. And apparently not as pure as the driven snow.

So with all this going on, it's hardly a surprise that the Republican presidential hopefuls at the debate were all at pains to distance themselves from the de facto Bush Administration...

http://vaguelylogical.blogspot.com/ 

[cross-posted to Tikun Olam]

For months, I've been following the plans for a possible new progressive alternative to AIPAC being formed within the American Jewish community. I was tremendously excited when George Soros was named as a possible supporter and funder. When he backed out (foolishly in my opinion), I thought the idea was likely dead. But good ideas don't die easily and others have carried on the discussions:

Merger talks are heating up among three leading dovish Israel advocacy groups in a development that proponents hope will produce a new mega-organization with greater political clout and more money to push for a two-state solution.

Leaders of Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum and Brit Tzedek v’Shalom are weighing the idea and are expected to reach a decision by the fall. The discussions are being held within each of the groups and between leaders of the three organizations, under the auspices of several Washington-based activists who are promoting the idea of a pro-peace Jewish lobby.

...Some liberal observers are hoping that a new joint entity could emerge as a counter to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby that doves have accused of working against efforts to convince the White House to do more to advance Israeli-Palestinian talks. Organizers of the new initiative are publicly dismissing any talk of weakening or competing against Aipac; at the same time, they insist that the goal is to create a new voice for American Jews.

The Forward article notes a bold funding initiative for the new group which is impressive if they can bring it off:

Proponents of the merger aim to raise $10 million — double the combined annual budgets of the three organizations — to help launch the new initiative. Part of the money would come from contributors who already back the three existing groups, but most of the $10 million — if the goal is reached — is expected to come from donors who currently do not give to Jewish organizations or to other pro-Israel groups. Among the potential donors being targeted are Jewish figures in Hollywood, as well as young liberal Jewish philanthropists who currently focus their giving on non-Jewish causes

As a Jewish communal fundraiser, I'd hate to be dubious about such a potentially wonderful venture, but this sounds like the pipe dreams that lots of progressives have about finding funding. The truth is usually that the money comes from those who are committed and I don't see Hollywood Jews or those who don't currently give to Jewish causes as strong prospects. There's a reason why they don't give to Jewish causes (alienation and remoteness) and they're not likely to make an exception for this one.

But hey, prove me wrong. It won't bother me a bit.

One of the sticking points has been the structure of the new entity:

According to sources familiar with the talks, the organizations are being asked to choose between two options: instituting a formal merger that would create a joint pro-peace organization under which the three existing groups would continue to operate, or creating a separate new body that would raise funds independently and provide financial assistance and backing to projects directed by the existing groups.

This is confusing. How do you have a "formal merger" in which the three groups would continue to operate? Unless each of the three groups would focus on a single distinctive area of operation like research, lobbying and outreach, say--but all within one over-arching organization. I'm agnostic on the idea of creating a funding mechanism that would support the three separate groups. It seems a bit cumbersome to have 3 groups fundraising separately and then have a fourth raising money for all of them.

A friend who works for one of the groups gave it a 50/50 chance of ever getting off the ground. I'd say that's still about right. But we need such a new venture. We need a bolder, stronger, better funded voice to combat the hidebound notions of AIPAC. Israel is in desperate straits and needs to hear a voice of encouragement and friendship, but also one of realism and pragamatism from the American Jewish community. Separately, these groups have had much success. But in a joint venture there is much more that could be achieved.

We aren't doing enough. The situation is very bad. It calls for more from us. But can we give it? Do we have it in us?

1.Suspend the Patriot Act and Detainee Bill for Congressional review.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. “For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all”. - H. L. Mencken

2.Deny any additional funding for US Combat roles in Iraq. (This will require backbone and integrity, but I feel we can do it). "Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare". Japanese proverb

3.Increase funding for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. They actually did facilitate an attack on our country. Osama Bin Laden is there, maybe.

4.Prohibit torture in any and all of its forms to include the President’s approved “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques”. "What we must face squarely is this: whenever we torture or mistreat prisoners, we are capitulating morally to the enemy-in fact, adopting the terrorist ethic that the end justifies the means." Rev. Kermit D. Johnson, Chaplain (Major General), U.S. Army (ret.)

5.Repeal The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. (This law was written by the credit card and banking interest) It is a direct assault on the working poor and middle class in America.

6.Reduce the budget for the Office of Homeland Security by half….for starters. The creation of the Office of Homeland security was an ill-advised product of fear and panic.

7.Increase the CIA budget by 25%. Hunting criminal terrorist all over the world is their cup of tea. Let them do their job.

8.Reauthorize FISA court under it’s original language. It is possible that the FISA needs to be completely dissolved. It gave the President the opportunity he needed to circumvent the rights and liberties of the American people and the Rule of Law.

9.Legislatively limit, without prior congressional approval, the numbers of U.S. and foreign civilian contractors who can be hired through the utilization of U.S. Taxpayer monies in any conflict where U.S. forces are present.

The President of the United States should not be permitted the use of American tax dollars to hire private armies not sanctioned by the United States Congress.

10.Prohibit the Department of Defense from contracting any private civilian security agencies for duty outside of the United States and it’s territories. (This would not include U.S. Federal civilian employee security organizations).

11.Demand the 30% reduction of U.S. Military forces currently stationed outside of the continental United States and it’s possessions. The President has decimated the Reserves and National Guard, by sending them to Iraq, while tens of thousands of American regular Army, Air force, Navy and Marine personnel are, without effective purpose, sitting in Asia, Europe and other far reaches of the earth.

12.Terminate future Military Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) decisions. This is a U.S. Congressional responsibility.

13.Provide a comprehensive Universal National Health Care program for all Americans.

"America’s health care bureaucracy cost U.S. $399.4 billion, last year. National health insurance would save at least $286 billion annually just on paperwork – more than enough to cover all of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug coverage for everyone in the U.S."

- from a Harvard Medical School study, January, 2004

“One out of three people in the United States under the age of 65 went without health insurance for all or part of the two-year period from 2002-2003.”

-- from Families USA report, June 2004

“It may be hard to understand why ‘tort reform’ is even on the national agenda at a time when insurance industry profits are booming, tort filings are declining, only 2 percent of injured people sue for compensation, punitive damages are rarely awarded, liability insurance costs for businesses are miniscule, medical malpractice insurance and claims are both less than 1 percent of all health care costs in America, and premium-gouging underwriting practices of the insurance industry have been widely exposed.”- Center for Justice and Democracy, quoted in 6-21-04 NYT)

“Despite claims by the insurance industry, there is no evidence that soaring malpractice premiums are the result of sharp increases in the amounts of money paid out for malpractice claims. And, tellingly, industry executives are careful not to say that the tort reforms sought by the Bush administration will result in premium reductions.”

-- NYT columnist Bob Herbert, 6-21-04

The Bergen Record in NJ reported that an analysis of data showed that malpractice payments in New Jersey declined by 21% from 2001 to 2003, “…but malpractice insurance premiums surged over the same period.”

Florida legislative committee put insurance executives under oath in effort to get truth about malpractice costs. When questions of frivolous lawsuits arose, the chief executive of the Florida Medical Association told the panel, “I don’t feel I have the information to say whether or not there are frivolous lawsuits in the state of Florida.”

-- NYT columnist Bob Herbert 6-25-04

“In 2000, 92% of soft money that went to the key members of Congress who make decisions about health care and financial matters came from huge insurance, banking and health care industry firms, and professional associations such as the AMA. The profits of the health insurance industries have reached an all-time high during the administration of George W. Bush.”-- Vicente Navarro, Professor of Public Policy, Johns Hopkins University

“We collected 100,000 signatures to place Health Care for All Oregon on the November 2002 ballot. However, the thousands of hours of volunteer labor could not counteract the $1.3 million spent on television ads and direct mail by insurance companies.”

-- Health Care for All- Oregon campaign manager

14.Empower the State governments to develop and manage Anti-poverty programs through federal funding. The state Governments are closer and more accountable to their constituents. State governments are more able to define and identify the scope of poverty in their respective states.

15.Strengthen Congressional oversight of The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Justice department. Under the President Bush, these agencies have become tools of the administration to the determent of us all.

16.Strengthen congressional oversight of the Internal Revenue Service.

17.Immediately suspend all federal subsidies to the oil and energy industries and revoke their tax breaks at the level equaling the same dollar amounts, including assets, being taken off shore each year. These Corporations are very able to take care of their own interest without government welfare.

18.Suspend any Corporation, convicted of defrauding the U.S. Government, from being awarded any U.S. Government contracts for ten consecutive years, without appeal. The current revolving door is an insult to all Americans who do an honest days work and live by the rules.

19.Subsidize American agriculture through tax breaks. Recoup the tax breaks through a levy on foreign agricultural imports.

20.Restrict deficit spending to no more than one half of one percent of the GNP.

21.Fund stem cell research. Apply appropriate safe guards.

22.Fund the development of “significant production” water desalinization plants in Washington State, California, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey and New York State.

23.Stop referring to the “War On Terror” when addressing our pursuit of the terrorist criminals who attacked us on 9/11. It is a dishonest label. Terrorism is a tactic. No army or country can war against a tactic. It's deliberately vague and non-definable in order to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere and under any circumstance. Tell the truth!

A Politician thinks of the next election - a Statesman of the next generation. - James Freeman Clarke

The Bush administration recently made two useful databases available for searching. Will wonders never cease?  

The first is the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) database maintained by the Department of Justice. Search "Bangladesh" and learn that Susan Molinari was a lobbyist for the government!

The other is the GSA Excluded Party List System database. Search "Wade" and learn the exact date that Mitchell J. Wade was barred from ever doing business with the Army again! 

Get over it.

Seriously. There is no "bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere."

There are hundreds of thousands of left-wing bloggers. Unfortunately, a handful of these bloggers said mean things to you in the comments section of your blog.

Put down the broad brush?

Thanks.

Sincerely,

cscs

I would have called it "citizen" journalism, but it's really more than that — activists themselves covering events in which they struggle for global justice. This radical gonzo journalism has been going on worldwide under the Indymedia banner since activists/journalists organized to cover the demonstrations in Seattle at the WTO meeting in 1999. The open-publishing Indymedia network was "Web 2.0" years before some johny-come-lately coined that silly term. Activists were "blogging" their reports, photos, and video throughout the Indymedia network before anyone had ever heard of a so-called blogosphere.

There are literally dozens and dozens of local Independent Media Centers (IMCs) on several continents. If you ever want to know what activists are doing below the radar of the corporate media — in your area or across the globe — then check out the list in the lower left column at any IMC website.

Today in Germany, for instance, there were major street battles as activists blockaded entrances to the yearly G8 Summit and police responded with water cannons. You'll barely see any coverage of this in the corporate media, but you can get first-hand coverage at the German IMC with dozens of photos, videos, and reports directly from the front lines.

G8 Protest: More than 10,000 block Heiligendamm

05.06.2007 - 18:45

As hundreds of G8 delegates arrived in the area today, mass blockades seriously interrupted their arrival in the fenced security zone. Thousands of activists blocked all routes leading to the G8 meeting venue. Over 10,000 people blocked the fence gates and breached the newly declared zone around the fence in which all demonstrations had been declared illegal. In the evening, police violently dispersed one of the blockades, while others were continuing, with several thousand people still on the streets. Other activists were protesting in the streets at the Laage airport. In the late evening, more than 1000 people prepare to stay overnight in three blockades.

Of course, language differences can be an obstacle to fully appreciating coverage in Germany, or, say, the excellent IMC work in Latin America, if you don't read German or Spanish. But "bilder" (or pictures) can still speak a thousand words.

There's a revolution going on and it's not being televised.

peace

"In Mosul, in 2003, it felt like we were making the city a better place…(but now, on his third deployment), "We killed a man who was setting a roadside bomb.  And when we searched the bomber's body, we found identification showing that he was a sergeant in the Iraqi Army. 

"I thought, What are we doing here?  Why are we still here?  We're helping guys that are trying to kill us.  We help them in the day.  They turn around at night and try to kill us. 

"If we stayed here for five, even ten more years, the day we leave here these guys will go crazy.  It would go straight into a civil war.  That's how it feels, like we're putting a band-aid on this country until we leave here."--Staff Sgt. David Safstrom, Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division.  

"In 2003, 2004, 100 percent of the soldiers wanted to be here, to fight this war.  Now, 95 percent of my platoon agrees with me." (that we should get out.)--Sgt. First Class David Moore, platoon sergeant., same unit, self-described "conservative Texas Republican"  

"The Iraqi Army would not fight with us.  Some actually picked up weapons and fought against us…Before that fight, there were a few true believers.  After that, I don't think you'll find a true believer in this unit.  They're paratroopers.  There's no question they'll fulfill their mission.  But they're fighting now for pride in their unit, professionalism, loyalty to their fellow soldiers, and chain of command."--Capt. Douglas Rogers, same unit.  

"I don't believe we should be here in the middle of a civil war.  We've all lost friends over here.  Most of us don't know what we're fighting for anymore.  We're serving our country and our friends, but the only reason we go out every day is for each other. 

"I don't want any more of my guys to get hurt or die.  If it was something I felt righteous about, maybe.  But for this country and this conflict, no, it's not worth it."--Sgt. Kevin O'Flarity, squad leader, same unit  

(source:  "As Allies Turn Foe,Disillution Rises in Some G.I.'s," by Michael Kamber, New York Times, May 28, 2007.)   

"They feed us (the intelligence) that they want.  I guarantee that everyone in the city knows where we're going.  Because the Iraqi Army told them.  The only thing they don't know is how big a force we're coming with…It's a debacle."--Spec. Josh Lake, 26, of Ventura, Calif., Apache Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker Brigade  

"The general feeling among us is we're not really doing anything here.  We clear one neighborhood, then another one fires up.  It's an ongoing battle.  It never ends.  It's just the same old bull."--Spec. Daniel Caldwell, 20, Montesano, Wash., same unit  

"We're constantly being told that it's not our fight.  It is their fight."  (the Iraqi Army)  "But that's not the case.  Whenever we go and ask them for guys, they almost always say no, and we have to do the job ourselves."--Sgt. Jose Reynoso, 24, Yuma, Ariz., same unit  

"You do have corruption problems among the ranks…They have militias inside them.  They are pretty much everywhere.  We're chasing ghosts."--Sgt. Justin Hill, 24, Abilene, Tex., same unit  

(source:  "U.S. Unit Patrolling Baghdad Sees Flaws in Bush Strategy," by Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post,, January 12, 2007.)  

"To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do.  I think some people in America don't want to know about all this violence, about all the killings.  The people back home are shielded from it; they get it sugar-coated."--Army 1st Lt. Antonio Hardy, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division  

"What is victory supposed to look like?  Every time we turn around and go in a new area there's somebody new waiting to kill us.  Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for thousands of years, and we're not going to change that overnight.  

"Once more raids start happening, they'll (insurgents) melt away.  And then two or three months later, when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back."--Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, Pulaski, Tenn.,1st Infantry Divisiont  

"We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much.  This isn't our war--we're just caught in the middle."--Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, York, Penn., 2nd Infantry Division  

"They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it’s not going to change."--Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, Tulsa, Okla., 2nd Infantry Division  

(source:  "Soldiers in Iraq View Troop Surge as Lost Cause,"  by Tom Lasseter, McClatchy Newspapers, February 3, 2007.)  

"Why are we here when this country still to date does not want us here?  Why does our president's personal agenda consume him so much, that he can not pay attention to what is really going on here?   I'm still here in this country wondering why, and having to pick up the pieces of what is left of my friend in our room.  I would just like to know what is the true reason we are here?  This country poses no threat to our own.  So why must we waste the lives of good men on a country that does not give a damn about itself?  Most of my friends here share my views, but do not have the courage to say anything."--Pvt. Donald C. Hudson, Jr., 1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division  

(source:  "A Soldier in Iraq Asks in Despair: Why Are We Here?"  by Donald C. Hudson, Jr., Clarksville, Tennessee Online, May 29, 2007.)  

"When are we going to get out of here?  We don't feel like we're making any progress."--Spc. David Williams, 22, Boston, Mass., 82nd Airborne Division, the first of five "surge" brigades to arrive in Iraq.  This was a question he hoped to pose to Sen. Joseph Lieberman during a visit, but never did.  

"We're not making any progress.  It just seems like we drive around all day waiting to get shot at.  It's just more troops, more targets.  But I'd never really say that to the senator." (Lieberman).  "I think I'd be a private if I did."--Spc. Will Heden, 21, Chester, Conn., same unit  

"It's like everything else in this war. (referring to Baghdad)  It hasn't changed."--Spec. Kevin Adams, 20, Moosup, Conn., same unit  

"I think it's important we don't lose our will."--remarks made by Sen. Joseph Lieberman to the troops of the 82nd Airborne  

(source:  "Lieberman Talks to Troops in Baghdad," by Leila Fedel, McClatchy Newspapers, May 30, 2007.)  

"In January, we were doing routine presence patrol through the city of Hawja, and one of our trucks was hit by a roadside bomb, an IED, and it killed four of the soldiers out of the five that were in the truck.  And during the recovery of the fallen soldiers all the debris inside the truck--we just had the truck loaded with school supplies and soccer balls and crayons and notebooks and coloring books.  We just wanna help.  And it was just a really eye-opening and frustrating experience.  Because we're still getting killed out there."--Spc. Kevin Torres, who appeared on 60 Minutes, out of uniform, to explain why he was one of several thousand soldiers and Marines to sign the Appeal for Redress petition to Congress to end the war.   

(when asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan, "What would you say to the people that say, 'All right, it's clear that the war in Iraq is incredibly difficult and life is really tough both for Americans and for Iraqis, but pulling out's not the answer.  It's only gonna get worse.  There's gonna be all-out civil war.'"): 

"How does that become the default?  Either someday, we have to leave.  We can't stay in Iraq for the next thousand years." 

(asked if there's a possibility that Iraq might be better off if American troops stay and finish the job): 

"But then our lives are hanging in the balance of a flip of a coin…We volunteered to make a difference, not just to be part of an experiment."--Sgt. Ronn Cantu, answering her on the program  

(source:  "G.I.'s Petition Congress to End Iraq War," CBS News, Sunday, February 25, 2007.)  

"We really don't want to go to Iraq, but we joined the military out of economic necessity.  I'm scared.  I just want people to know that we didn't want to go over there.  We're not looking forward to it.  People are over there dying and suffering.  Nothing has been accomplished.  We've sacrificed a lot of our time, and a lot of people have died for this.  And for what?" --female Army soldier, due to deploy soon, who chose not to reveal her name, rank, or unit designation from fear of repercussions

"What do you want us to accomplish over here?  We aren't hearing any end state.  We aren't hearing it from the president, from the defense secretary…We're working hard and the politicians are arguing.  They don't have bullets flying over their heads.  They aren't on the front lines, and their buddies aren't dying.

"…We're not complaining.  We're tired of being lost.  Have you ever been lost and at the same time getting shot at?  It's miserable…I want to be here for a reason, not just a show of force."--Sgt. 1st Class Michael Eaglin, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division  

"It's almost like the Vietnam War.  We don’t know where we're going."--Spec. Adam Hamilton, same unit  

(source:  "Troops at Baghdad Outposts Seek Safety in Fortifications," by Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, May 8, 2007)  

"There is an organized, constructive level of dissent with the ranks on this war…It's not political when people heed the call of their conscience.  Not one more of my brothers should die for a lie.  This is my generation's call to conscience."--Sgt. Liam Madden, 22, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, served in Iraq, 2003--assembling out of uniform to present the Appeal for Redress petition to Congress on Monday, January 15, 2007  

(source:  "Service Members Rally Against the War in Iraq," by William H. McMichael, The Navy Times,  January 15, 2007.)  

"One of the key things we all have in common is this frustration with the detachment that we see all around us, this idea that we're at war and everybody else is watching American Idol. 

"It's tough to have such a serious sense of commitment, and then come home and see so many people focused on frivolous things.  So I think this frustration is serious and growing.  And I'll tell you the truth:  I blame the president for that.  One of the biggest criticisms of the president, and I hear this across the board, is that he hasn't asked the American people to do anything. 

"Asking somebody to die for their country might not be the biggest thing you can ask.  Asking my guys to kill, on my orders--as an officer, that's difficult.  I'm telling that kid to squeeze that round off and take a man's life.  And then he's got that baggage for the rest of his life.  That's what you have to live with."--Paul Rieckhoff, former Army infantry officer, Iraq vet, co-founder of IAVA--Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and anti-war activist.  He is the author of the book, Chasing Ghosts, about his experiences in Iraq.  

(source:  "An Invisible War," New York Times op-ed, by Bob Herbert, May 3, 2007.  Subscription required.)  

"We are not fighting the war on terrorism, we are in the middle of a civil war.  Meanwhile, the guy who attacked this country on 9/11 is living in a cave in Afghanistan… 

(Vice President) "Cheney is a draft-dodger.  We've got a president who frankly knows nothing of war and a vice-president who knows even less.  Senators on the fence have a choice.  They can stand with veterans like us, or they can stand with the draft-dodgers down the road."--Jon Stoltz, 29, Iraq war veteran, co-founder of VoteVets.org, which has 20,000 members, including 1,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.  

(source:  "Veteran's Group Speaks Out on War," by Lyndsey Layton and Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post,, February 8, 2007.)  

"First and foremost, we should never have gone into Iraq.  I felt betrayed by the commanders who said they'd find a way to make this war work, when they knew it wasn't practical.  This was a betrayal of the men and women who are fighting in Iraq. 

"You can protect the institution of the military through silence.  To protect the men and women fighting this war, you have to speak up.  There is no courage or honor in silence. 

"From the very founding of this nation, patriotism was going against the grain for the greater good of the country.  A true patriot is not afraid to look out for the best interests of the nation and its citizens.  Today, we are using patriotism to subdue people, to convince them not to exercise their rights.  Are we really serving the citizens well by being in Iraq?  I think the truth is no, we're not. 

"There's story upon story from people who say, 'I can't believe I'm going back for my third or fourth tour.  They are all saying they have the same problems, on the streets, as they had when they left. 

"I was frustrated that so many people in significant leadership positions remained silent about the war…People are dying.  Families have been torn apart.  This war is sucking the life out of our military.  I cannot stay silent.  I need to say that I am concerned enough to put my reputation at risk to point out that this war is wrong."--Chief Master Sgt. Jeff Slocum, 41, United States Air Force.  Slocum spent 21 years in the military and planned to retire after 30 years, but has decided to leave the military and speak out.  

(source:  "War Causes Air Force Chief Master Sergeant to Change Course," by Sarah Olsen, for Truthout.org, April 24, 2007.)   

ARMY REGULATION 530-1:  OPERATIONS SECURITY (OPSEC): "An OPSEC review is required prior to publishing web log (blog) postings, comments on internet message boards, resumes, letters home…Failure to do so could result in court-martial or administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action. 

"Effective immediately, no information may be placed on websites…unless it has been reviewed…The Army Web Risk Assessment Cell has been formed to scan blogs for information breaches and security violations."--"Army Squeezes Soldier Blogs, Maybe to Death," by Noah Schachtman,  Wired.com, May 2, 2007.  

The Pentagon has placed unprecedented restrictions on who can testify before Congress, reserving the right to bar lower-ranking officers, enlisted soldiers, and career bureaucrats from appearing before oversight committees or having their remarks transcribed, according to Defense Department documents. 

Robert L. Wilkie, a former Bush administration national security official who left the White House to become assistant secretary of Defense for legislative affairs last year, has outlined a half-dozen guidelines that prohibit most officers and civilians appointed by President Bush. 

The guidelines, described in an April 19 memo to the staff director of the House Armed Services Committee, adds that all field-level officers and enlisted personnel must be "deemed appropriate" by the Department of Defense before they can participate in personal briefings for members of Congress or their staffs; in addition, according to the memo, the proceedings must not be recorded. 

Wilkie's memo also stipulated that any officers who are allowed to testify must be accompanied by an official from the administration, such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates or his top-level aides. 

Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress see the move as a blatant attempt to bog down investigations of the war.  But veterans of the legislative process--who say they have never heard of such guidelines before--maintain that the Pentagon has no authority to set such ground rules.--"Pentagon Restricting Testimony in Congress; Blocks Staff of Lower Rank," by Bryan Bender, Boston Globe, May 10, 2007  

"When I returned from the war, almost 40 years ago now, I stood up and spoke from my heart and my gut about what I thought was wrong.  I asked the question in 1971:  How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a  mistake?...I never thought that I would be reliving the need to ask that question again." --Senator John Kerry, in remarks made January 29, 2007, as quoted in, "Soldier's Death Strengthens Senators' Antiwar Resolve," by Jonathan Weisman and Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, January 30, 2007

He couldn’t have foreseen that one e-mail could derail his career and put him on his way out of the Army. One e-mail, speculating about events that millions of people have questioned for the last six years, was all it took.

“Who really benefited from what happened that day?” he asked rhetorically. Not “Arabs,” but “the Military Industrial Complex,” Buswell concluded. “We must demand a new, independent investigation.”

For voicing those opinions in an e-mail to 38 people on the San Antonio Army base, Buswell was stripped of his security clearance, fired from his job, demoted, and ordered to undergo a mental health exam.

http://www.fwweekly.com/content.asp?article=6022

From the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave." What an obsolete saying. For asking a simple question about the events around 9/11, this Army Sergeant, who had decently and bravely served for 20 years, has been demoted, ordered not to speak to the press and is being processed out of the career he loved.