Nasty Letters To Crooked Politicians

As we enter a new era of politics, we hope to see that Obama has the courage to fight the policies that Progressives hate. Will he have the fortitude to turn the economic future of America to help the working man? Or will he turn out to be just a pawn of big money, as he seems to be right now.

Wednesday, December 31, 2003

El Chimpo Speaketh -- er-- talks -- er yaa

Thank you all for that warm welcome.

This great country will show the world that we fight for what we believe, as we seek justice. It's a huge honor to be the greatest — to be the President of the greatest country in the world. Our forefathers would be proud, really proud of what they see in America today.

This isn't a Republican war, this isn't a Democrat war; this is an American war. Part of the war on terror is to deny terrorist weapons getting — I mean, weapons to be used for means of terror getting in the hands of nations that will use them. Our enemies send other people's children on missions of suicide and murder. They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed. Terror is bigger than one person, and we will smoke them all out of their caves.

It starts with routing out terror wherever it exists. We will use whatever means are necessary to achieve our objective. You will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us, or our allies or friends. They must have thought we were so weak and self-absorbed, so materialistic, that all we would do was file a couple of lawsuits, if you know what I mean.

If you want to fight evil, make a contribution to a local charity. Everyone needs some cause larger than his or her own profit. We cannot be complacent.

You know, in this town, sometimes people don't shoot straight with you. They kind of come in and tell you something and then they leave, and you're wondering what they said — or if they said something, whether they mean it. I can tell when they mean it. The great strength is the American people because not only are we tough, like I said, we're also a compassionate people. We care deeply about neighbors in need. I have asked all Americans to commit at least two years — 4,000 hours over a lifetime -- to the service of our neighbors and our nation. You should think about becoming a soldier in the army of compassion.

Part of having a secure homeland is to have a good airport system, that's safe for people to travel, an airport system that is inspecting bags by inspectors who are qualified to inspect bags. I want to talk about the challenges America faces. I worry about our security. I'm worried about our homeland security; I'm worried about our national security; and I'm worried about economic security. And that's what I want to talk to you about. A secure America is an America that is a compassionate America. A secure America is also an America that is willing to hunt down international killers one by one and bring them to justice.

The textbook I read says that if we let you have your own money, you'll decide to spend it on a good and service. And if you decide to spend it on the good and service, somebody will produce the good and service. And when somebody produces the good and service, it means somebody is going to find work. We've got sound monetary policy. Interest rates are reasonable. If people want to borrow money, you don't have to pay a lot of interest. If the concern is more jobs, and people aren't lending money because there is no insurance against acts of terror, Congress needs to deal with it.

We need to simplify the process by which community-based organizations gain tax-exempt status. Our priorities is our faith. I pray that there's a shield of protection, so that if the evil ones try to hit us again, that we've done everything we can, physically, and that there is a spiritual shield that protects the country. Schools should be safe and orderly; they should be decent and drug-free; and they should teach character by expecting character. They should be places where rules are set and, as importantly, where rules are enforced. We must have the attitude that every child in America—regardless of where they're raised or how they're born—can learn. We cannot know every turn this battle will take. Yet we know our cause is just and our ultimate victory is assured. We will, no doubt, face new challenges. I also believe that out of the evil done to America will come some incredible good, particularly as our fellow Americans love their neighbor like they'd like to be loved themselves. I'm patient and I'm focused, and I will not yield. We must win. We have no other choice, for our children and our grandchildren, that we bring any terrorist to justice and hold those nations who harbor them -- which harbor them, or feed them, or clothe them to justice, as well. And the United States will prevail. Our people are united; our government is determined; our cause is right; and justice will be done.

In the coming weeks, I'll continue to focus on pursuing the war, and protecting the homeland, and strengthening our economy. And I urge the Congress to join me in this unfinished business. Thank you for coming. God bless.

Tony Blair's Latest WMD Bald-Faced Fucking Lies: Heard them on US WHORE MEDIA YET?

Time for Blair to Step Down. No One Believes A Word He or Chimper Bush Says.
Blair caught out again over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction

By Julie Hyland
31 December 2003

Prime Minister Tony Blair has come under renewed attack for his support for the US-led war of aggression against Iraq, following a damning admission by Paul Bremer, US head of Iraq’s puppet Provisional Authority, that US and British troops have found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Bremer has inadvertently caught Blair out in yet another lie over Iraqi WMDs.

During the course of an interview on ITV1’s Jonathan Dimbleby programme on December 28, Dimbleby asked Bremer whether the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) had unearthed “massive evidence” of clandestine laboratories capable of producing such weapons.

Bremer interjected, rejecting the claim as untrue. “I don’t know where those words come from but that is not what (ISG chief) David Kay has said,” he said.

“I have read his reports so I don’t know who said that,” he went on, accusing those responsible for making such misleading statements as being motivated by an antiwar agenda.

“It sounds like a bit of a red herring to me,” Bremer said. “It sounds like someone who doesn’t agree with the policy sets up a red herring then knocks it down.”

In fact, Blair himself made the claim during his televised Christmas message to British troops stationed in Iraq. In his adjective-laden remarks the prime minister had claimed, “The Iraq Survey Group has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists, plans to develop long range ballistic missiles.

“Now, frankly, these things weren’t being developed unless they were developed for a purpose.”

When told that the citation came direct from the prime minister, a clearly embarrassed Bremer sought to retract his previous admission. “There is actually a lot of evidence that had been made public,” he said, including “clear evidence of biological and chemical programmes, ongoing”.

The damage had already been done, however.

Blair’s predicament was made worse when former United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said in a TV interview that the ISG had failed to find any concrete evidence of WMD programmes. In a scarcely veiled reference to Blair, he continued that those who claimed the discovery of laboratories was proof of an Iraqi WMD programme were resorting to “innuendo”. Blix has previously stated that it was “increasingly clear” that Iraq did not have any WMD capability at the time of the US-led attack.

Bremer’s interview came just as Blair had left Britain for a seasonal family break, still bathing in the political afterglow of Saddam Hussein’s arrest. In response, a spokeswoman for Blair argued that the prime minister had been referring in his broadcast to “already published material” in the ISG’s interim report.

This again is not true. The ISG’s interim report does not make the same grandiose claims as Blair. Whilst citing evidence of “clandestine” laboratories, it does not describe them to be part of a “huge system” for developing biological and chemical weapons capabilities. More cautiously it alleges that the labs contained equipment “suitable for continuing” research into weapons development. Contradicting itself, the report also states that these supposedly hidden laboratories were in fact “subject to US monitoring”.

The ISG report, it must be stressed, admits that “no weapons of mass destruction” had been uncovered.

After the momentary shock of his faux pas, Bremer went on to attack Dimbleby for his obsession with what he called minor “details”. He ordered the reporter to “Listen!” As a historian he knew that in the future people would not care about the failure to find WMDs. “Weapons of mass destruction or no weapons of mass destruction, it’s important to step back a little bit here, to see what we have done historically,” he said.

But Blair sold the war to the British people on the strength of Iraq’s supposed threat to world peace and cannot simply switch to hailing the benefits of “regime change”. Bremer’s interview consequently provoked renewed criticism of the prime minister by leading Church of England representatives and Labour MPs.

Interviewed by the Times newspaper Dr David Hope, the Archbishop of York and Britain’s second most senior church leader, said, “We still have not found any weapons of mass destruction anywhere.

“Are we likely to find any? Does that alter the view as to whether we really ought to have mounted the invasion or not?”

Referring to Blair’s own pronouncement that he would answer for his actions before God—a statement designed to deflect from his refusal to answer to the British people—Hope warned that the supreme being could also find the prime minister wanting! “There is a higher authority before whom one day we all have to give an account,” he said.

The Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright, went further calling Blair a “vigilante”. Blair and US President George W. Bush did not have the credibility to deal with the problems facing Iraq, Wright said.

“For Bush and Blair to go into Iraq together was like a bunch of white vigilantes going into Brixton to stop drug-dealing,” he told the Independent newspaper.

“This is not to deny there’s a problem to be sorted, just that they are not credible people to deal with it.”

Criticisms by the clergy were backed by Labour MP Clare Short, who resigned as Blair’s international development secretary following the attack on Iraq. Short repeated her allegation that Blair had lied when he claimed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and called on Blair to resign. “If you are going to start getting into deceit when you are going to war and risking human life it has gone too far,” she said.

The intelligence agencies and the prime minister knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction but continued to claim this was the case to justify a pre-emptive strike. “No one thought there was some imminent danger,” she said. “That was all talked up and talked up to a point of deceit.”

Blair had been driven to go to war by his obsession with “his place in history” and in order to satisfy an agreement he had made with Bush some months before that his government would stand by the US regardless of international law.

What followed was “a complete disaster for the Middle East, for Iraq, for the world,” Short said. Blair must not lead Labour into the 2004 election, she continued, urging him to resign for the “honour of Britain”.

Former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who also resigned his position in advance of the war, was more cautious, urging Blair to recognise that he had lost public trust and should admit it was wrong about the threat posed by Iraq.

Tuesday, December 30, 2003

Dr. Howard Dean Is Ready to Step In and Take Over the Reigns of USA Government

Howard Dean’s Keys To The White House

Carl F. Worden

When I wrote “President Howard Dean”, Al Gore hadn’t yet given Dean his endorsement. It was yet another solid step Dean achieved on his journey to the White House in November.

I am a Christian conservative who voted for Bush in 2000, and I write for a largely conservative and excellent Internet news and opinion publication called The Sierra Times. Remarkably, the positive responses I received from that article ran 8 to 2, 2 being those who said I was dead, absolutely DEAD wrong. The fact that largely conservative readers responded as positively as they did, means I am not wrong, and I am sticking to my prediction that Howard Dean will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States.

Don’t misunderstand me: Dean’s platform supports all forms of elective abortion, which I strongly oppose, but pinch yourselves and try to remember that it is the Judiciary Branch that controls the issue of abortion – not the Executive Branch – and that means a presidential candidate’s position on abortion means little more than window dressing – window dressing that gets 100% of the “Choice” voter.

Dean is also pro-gun, and although some would disagree with that, try to remember that Dean was Governor of Vermont, the only state in the Union that allows the concealed carry of guns without a special permit.

The pundits and Dean’s Democratic opponents are criticizing Dean for his opinion that Saddam Hussein’s capture did not mean America was more “safe” from terrorist attack, and that he did not consider Osama bin Laden guilty until proven in a court of law.

That makes me shake my head: Saddam’s capture didn’t make America more safe from future terrorist attack, and it is a fact that no American really knows for certain that Osama bin Laden actually did orchestrate the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. All we have is the word of the government on that. Honest-to-God, I really don’t know about that myself. Do you? Have you seen the evidence for yourself? No, I haven’t either… Think about it.

If Howard Dean embraces the American principle that a person is presumed innocent, doesn’t that make him credible and enhance his integrity in the public eye? It certainly does for me.

So let’s see: Bush announced through a spokesman several months ago that he would extend the federal assault weapons ban (AWB). Maybe he just wanted to see what kind of reaction he’d get to that, kind of like a political weather balloon of sorts.

When the AWB was passed under Clinton ten years ago, there was a massive and fatal loss of Democratic seats in Congress. It was a vicious backlash that even Clinton admitted was due to passage of the AWB.

Maybe Bush thinks a faux Christian conservative president could get away with it, but the retard in the Oval Office is in for a nasty backlash himself if he extends the AWB, and I think the idiot will: Most pro-gun voters are pro-gun, one-issue voters, and if Bush extends the AWB, the personal and vindictive backlash against him in November 2004 will be just as harsh, even if it means a vote for Dean. To those voters, what’s the difference??

The issue that I believe will put Dean right over the top will be his condemnation of NAFTA/GATT, free trade, and his pledge to end our participation in the World Trade Organization. If Dean wants to win by a comfortable margin, all he has to do is THAT. The massive number of red states that voted for Bush last election will turn to blue, and Dean will waltz into the White House like a halfback who strolls untouched into the end zone. End of game.

Of course, I have no idea what Dean’s position is on free trade, NAFTA/GATT or the WTO. As far as I know, he hasn’t said. Maybe he’s saving that for the finishing shot. I’m speculating of course, but Mr. Dean, if you are reading this, I just gave you the keys to the White House.

Carl F. Worden

Copyright 2003 The Sierra Times

Monday, December 29, 2003 9-11 Visibility Project (Or Why the Chimp_junta Must Be Killed)

You will be amazed. You will be astounded. But hopefully, you will understand why Chimp_junta is hiding every piece of information it can hide, and arresting anyone who knows about any of it: It is a treasonous takeover of our American government by a cabal of insane ideologues, and it must be stopped by any means 9-11 Visibility Project

Sunday, December 28, 2003

Who Do You Believe: American Marine Hero Scott Ritter, or the Blair Mother-Fuckers?

Friday, December 26, 2003

Lousy Bastard Chimp_junta Plays Fast and Loose With American Democracy--Ready to March An Army into DC and Take it Back?

Bush's Christmas Terror Alert

by Michel Chossudovsky 24 December 2003
The URL of this article is:


This calculated decision of the military-intelligence apparatus was taken at a time when families and friends, with small children and the elderly meet and rejoice.

Christmas, celebrated around the World by both Christians and Non-Christians, is the coming of peace between fellow human beings. It is the pursuit of peace and tolerance.

Bush's Christmas terror alert strikes with unreserved cynicism at the very heart of the "Spirit of Christmas".

As people around the World prepare to celebrate Christmas, in a a spirit of peace and communion, the Bush Administration has put America on high risk terror alert.

On December 21st, four days before Christmas, the Homeland Security Department, raised "the national threat level from an elevated to high risk of terrorist attack". ( )

In his pre-Christmas Press Conference, Homeland Security Department Secretary Tom Ridge confirmed that

"the U.S. intelligence community has received a substantial increase in the volume of threat-related intelligence reports".

According to Tom Ridge, these "credible [intelligence] sources" raise "the possibility of attacks against the homeland, around the holiday season..." (For complete statement of Secretary Tom Ridge, 21 December 2003, )

Needless to say an atmosphere of collective fear and confusion has been created across America, which goes against the very "Spirit of Christmas". According to the media reports, the high-level terror alert is to "hang over the holidays and usher in the new year".

"Terrorists still threaten our country and we remain engaged in a dangerous - to be sure - difficult war and it will not be over soon," warned Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "They can attack at any time and at any place."

"With America on high terror alert for the Christmas holiday season, intelligence officials fear al-Qaeda is eager to stage a spectacular attack - possibly hijacking a foreign airliner or cargo jet and crashing it into a high-profile target inside the United States." ( Boston Globe, 24 December 2003)

The official Christmas announcement by the Homeland Security Department dispelled any lingering doubts regarding the threat level:

"the risk [during the Christmas period] is perhaps greater now than at any point since September 11, 2001;"

It also warned Americans, in no uncertain terms, but without supporting evidence, that there are:

"indications that [the] near-term attacks ... will either rival or exceed the [9/11] attacks".

"And it's pretty clear that the nation's capital and New York city would be on any list..."

Following Secretary Ridge's announcement, anti-aircraft missile batteries were set up in Washington:

. "And the Pentagon said today, more combat air patrols will now be flying over select cities and facilities, with some airbases placed on higher alert." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "You ask, 'Is it serious?' Yes, you bet your life. People don't do that unless it's a serious situation." (ABC News, 23 December 2003)

According to an official statement (quoted by ABC News, 23 December):

"intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda-trained pilots may be working for overseas airlines and ready to carry out suicide attacks."

On Christmas eve 24th of December, several flights out of Paris were cancelled in response to "credible threats" that Al Qaeda operatives may be boarding the planes.

This is the fifth time the Bush Administration has put the country on Orange Code terror alert since September 11, 2001.

Orange Code Alert was ordered on 7 February 2003, one day after Colin Powell's flopped presentation on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction to the UN Security Council.

Powell's intelligence dossier had been politely dismissed. The rebuttal came from UN Inspector Hans Blix, who showed that the intelligence used as a pretext to wage war on Iraq had been blatantly fabricated.

Colin Powell addressed the Security council on the 6th. On the 7th, the Bush administration declared an ‘Orange Code’ Terror Alert. This "save face operation" contributed to appeasing an impending scandal, while also upholding the Pentagon's planned invasion of Iraq.

Media attention was immediately shifted from Colin Powell's blunders at the UN Security Council to an (alleged) impending terrorist attack on America.

The United States raised its terrorist threat alert to the second-highest level -- code orange -- based on significant intelligence reports warning of a "high risk" of a terrorist attack from the international terrorist group al-Qaeda, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said on February 7.

"After conferring this morning with the Homeland Security Council, the decision has been made to increase the threat condition designation, currently classified at 'elevated' risk,... to the 'high' risk category," Ashcroft said. "This decision for an increased threat condition designation is based on specific intelligence received and analyzed by the full intelligence community. This information has been corroborated by multiple intelligence sources."


"The call that we've made today, which Americans have certainly heard before, is based on our knowledge and our conviction that heightened awareness and readiness deters terrorism and saves lives," Ridge said. (State Department Dispatch, 7 February 2003)

Following this February 7 Orange Code announcement, anti-aircraft missiles were immediately deployed around Washington. The media became inundated with stories on Iraqi support to an impending Al Qaeda attack.

The objective was to present Iraq as the aggressor. According to the New York Post, (11 February 2003):

‘The nation is now on Orange Alert because intelligence intercepts and simple logic both suggest that our Islamic enemies know the best way to strike at us is through terrorism on U.S. soil.‘

Another story allegedly emanating from the CIA on so-called ‘radioactive dirty bombs’ had been planted in the news chain (ABC News, 13 Feb 2003). Secretary Powell warned that "it would be easy for terrorists to cook up radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs to explode inside the U.S. … ‘How likely it is, I can't say... But I think it is wise for us to at least let the American people know of this possibility.’"(ABC News, 9 Feb. 2003).

Meanwhile, network TV warned that "American hotels, shopping malls or apartment buildings could be al Qaeda's targets as soon as next week…".

The hidden agenda in the weeks leading up to the war was not only to link Baghdad to Al Qaeda, the intent was to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, which would muster unbending support for President Bush and weaken the anti-war protest movement. Following the announcement, tens of thousands of Americans rushed to purchase duct tape, plastic sheets and gas-masks.

It later transpired that the terrorist alert was fabricated by the CIA, in all likelihood in consultation with the upper echelons of the State Department (ABC News, 13 Feb. 2003, ).

The FBI, for the first time had pointed its finger at the CIA.

This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington this week, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true," said Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief and ABCNEWS consultant.

According to officials, the FBI and the CIA are pointing fingers at each other. An FBI spokesperson told ABCNEWS today he was "not familiar with the scenario," but did not think it was accurate. (Ibid)

While tacitly acknowledging that the alert was a fake, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge decided to maintain the ‘Orange Code’ alert:

"Despite the fabricated report, there are no plans to change the threat level. Officials said other intelligence has been validated and that the high level of precautions is fully warranted." ((Ibid)

A few days later, in another failed propaganda initiative, a mysterious Osama bin Laden audio tape was presented by Sec. Colin Powell to the US Congress as ‘evidence’ that the Islamic terrorists "are making common cause with a brutal dictator". (US official quoted in The Toronto Star, 12 Feb. 2003). Curiously, the audio tape was in Colin Powell's possession prior to its broadcast by the Al Jazeera TV Network. (Ibid.) ,

"Copy and Paste": Déjà Vu
Is the Bush administration telling the truth regarding the risk of a terror attack during the Christmas holiday?

While the circumstances and timing are different, Secretary Tom Ridge's December 21 statement has all the appearances of a "copy and paste" (Déjà Vu) version of his February 7 announcement, which according to the FBI was a hoax.

Al Qaeda is once again identified in the December 21st statement as "the Outside Enemy", without of course mentioning that Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA and is an "intelligence asset" controlled by the US. (See Selected References at

In other words, what is "the credibility" of an Administration which, according to the FBI is on record for having (in February 2003), deliberately fabricated a terror alert in violation of US laws?

What is disturbing in the December 21 statement is the fact that an "actual" or "attempted" Al Qaeda terrorist attack seems already to be in the official pipeline.

The Central Role of "a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event"
In October, former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks, hinted that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack could in fact lead to the suspension of democracy in America.

Franks was alluding to a so-called "Pearl Harbor type event" which would be used as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military government:

"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event."

The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.

In the words of David Rockefeller:

"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

A similar statement was made by Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Grand Chessboard:

"As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

The NeoCons' Project for the New American Century (PNAC), published in September 2000, barely two months before the presidential elections, called for:

"some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

(See )

Needless to say, the statement of the NeoCons in the PNAC is consistent with that of Secretary Tom Ridge.

The day following Secretary Ridge's announcement (December 21st), President Bush was briefed by his "top anti-terror advisors" in closed door sessions at the White House. Later in the day, the Homeland Security Council (HSC) met, also at the White House. The executive body of the HSC, the so-called Principals Committee (HSC/PC), headed by Secretary Tom Ridge. includes Donald Rumsfeld, CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General John Ashcroft , FBI Director Robert Mueller and Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, who overseas the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

In the wake of the HSC meeting held on 22 December, Secretary Ridge confirmed that:

"we reviewed the specific plans and the specific action we have taken and will continue to take"

According to the official statement, which must be taken seriously, an "actual terrorist attack" in the near future on American soil would lead to a Red Code Alert. The latter in turn, would create conditions for the (temporary) suspension of the normal functions of civilian government, as foreseen by General Tommy Franks. This scenario was envisaged by Secretary Tom Ridge in a CBS News Interview on December 22, 2003:

"If we simply go to red ... it basically shuts down the country," meaning that civilian government bodies would be closed down and taken over by and Emergency Administration. The scenario is presented in detail at the Homeland department's Ready.Gov website at

Moreover, in recent months (May 2003) the Homeland department has conducted an "anti-terrorist exercise" entitled TOPOFF 2. The latter is described as "the largest and most comprehensive terrorism response and homeland security exercise ever conducted in the United States.

In a Strangelovian logic, this "national response capability" translated into a military style exercise by federal, State and local level governments, including Canadian participants, establishes various "scenarios" under a Red Code Alert. In essence, it was conducted on the same assumption as military exercises in anticipation of an actual theater war, examining various WMD attack scenarios and the institutional response of State and local governments:

"It assessed how responders, leaders, and other authorities would react to the simulated release of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in two U. S. cities, Seattle, WA and Chicago, IL. The exercise scenario depicted a fictitious, foreign terrorist organization that detonated a simulated radiological dispersal device (RDD or dirty bomb) in Seattle and released the pneumonic plague in several Chicago metropolitan area locations. There was also significant pre-exercise intelligence play, a cyber-attack, and credible terrorism threats against other locations." (For full text see, Department of Homeland Security, Summary Conclusions From National Exercise, Office of the Press Secretary, December 19, 2003, )

What will happen under Code Orange terror alert during the Christmas holiday, remains to be seen.

The Administration has already simulated the Orange Code and Red Code scenarios, of an actual terror attack. The perspective, and assumptions, however, have changed markedly since the February 7 Orange Alert.

We are no longer strictly dealing with a fear and disinformation campaign. "Mass casualty producing events" --or "Pearl Harbor type events" to use the PNAC's expression-- constitute the basic premise and driving force behind the Homeland Emergency response system, including its Ready.Gov instructions to citizens, its "anti-terrorist" legal framework under the Second Patriot Act, etc. According to Frank Morales:

"Homeland defense", as we experience it today, has been percolating in the bowels of the Pentagon and corporate think tanks like the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Council on Foreign Relations, along with their Congressional counterparts, for nearly a decade. What it required was an emergency situation. The "homeland security" apparatus presently being constructed is modeled roughly after the military's "combatant command structure" and is --in the wake of 9/11– set within the context of the "laws and customs of war", hence the introduction of military courts and the shifting of jurisdictions for so-called "crimes associated with terrorism". The Northern Command, based at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, whose job as of October 1st is to patrol America, will head up this homeland defense "command structure".

In short, what we are dealing with is "the Roadmap to a Police State".

This Administration has chosen the Christmas holiday to wage a campaign of fear and intimidation. Its ultimate objective consists in manipulating Americans into accepting a de facto military government, as a means to "protect their civil liberties".

This calculated decision of the military-intelligence apparatus was taken at a time when families and friends, with small children and the elderly meet and rejoice.

Christmas, celebrated around the World by both Christians and Non-Christians, is the coming of peace between fellow human beings. It is the pursuit of peace and tolerance.

Bush's Christmas terror alert strikes with unreserved cynicism at the very heart of the "Spirit of Christmas".

24 December, 2003

C-Span's Brian Lamb Joins The Media Attack On Dr. Howard Dean: Now You Know They're Worried.

Friday, December 26, 2003
Re: Paul Krugman: New Year’s Resolutions (Column 12/26/03)

Attn: Brian Lamb
C-SPAN Journal (12/26/03)

Dear Mr. Lamb:

I enjoy watching your show, and C-Span in general. This morning however, I was surprised to see you frame your entire first segment on the premise, “Should the Bush Campaign use Dr. Dean’s ‘anger’ against him at this early stage. “Dr. Dean’s Anger?” This is a fraudulent and mocking attack in its early stages, sir, and you are one of the prevaricators building this pernicious rumor from the ground up, are you not?

Sir, I have been around the block in journalistic circles, and you were clearly trudging through the same quagmire Paul Krugman had described in his column, quoted earlier on this same show. You took the time to denigrate Mr. Krugman—knocking him down a notch or two for the benefit of your right wing admirers—stating that he was not truly a ‘journalist.’ By whose standards does one become a journalist, Mr. Lamb? Are you a journalist? If one writes with the terrific impact of Paul Krugman, does he need to defend to Brian Lamb his credentials as a ‘journalist?’ Maybe I have missed the publication wherein Mr. Krugman states that he is not a journalist and you, Brian Lamb, are?

I think not. I think if there is a journalist between the two of you, Mr. Lamb, it is Paul Krugman. And I think you must agree. You owe him an apology.

You picked up an assumption, offered to you by the Bush propaganda machine, that frames Dr. Dean as ‘angry’ and repeated the lie over and over again. On several occasions viewers put you in your place by advising that you were framing passion and impatience the candidate possesses, with the direction of America under Bush, as some sort of emotional ailment.

If so, there are hundreds of thousands of us out here, Mr. Lamb, who find that Dr. Dean discusses the political landscape in terms that are very easy for us to identify: Bush lied. Bush lied about so many things that at this point it is not even a good use of time to respond to all of the lies. An administration with that agenda and propaganda machine at its base…controlling much of the political polling that is placed in the national press as well as much of the discussion on C-Span…needs to go.

That, sir is not anger. It is pure common sense.

Alan J. Franklin

Wednesday, December 24, 2003

Dr. Dean Defends His Policy Against Attacks by Washington Post Media Whores

Howard Dean rejects Washington Post charge that he is "beyond the mainstream"

"...Dean’s response, headlined “Out of the Mainstream? Hardly,” argues that it is the Bush administration that is pursuing a foreign policy radically out of line with the “mainstream” of US policy in the post-World War Two period. Presenting himself as a clear-headed defender of the global interests of American capitalism, the former Vermont governor warns that the unilateralist and extreme militarist cast of the present government is undermining long-standing international alliances that have served the interests of the US ruling elite very well for more than half a century.

"Dean, who, according to opinion polls, is the front-runner in the race for the Democratic nomination, has become the target of a ferocious political attack by most of the media and prominent figures within the Democratic Party establishment. These attacks reached a frenzied pitch following the capture of Saddam Hussein. Among those who have sought to use the seizure of the former Iraqi president to justify the invasion of Iraq and brand Dean a security risk and dangerous radical are rival candidates for the Democratic nomination—senators Joe Lieberman and John Kerry, and Congressman Richard Gephardt.

"Dean writes in his column that “the Bush agenda represents a radical departure from decades of bipartisan consensus on the appropriate use of US power and our leadership in the world community.” He continues: “From its derisive treatment of allies to its rejection of important global agreements, this administration has favored a go-it-alone approach and a determination to use force as its weapon of first resort. Its approach has alienated friends and bolstered foes. Its agenda isolates the United States, placing responsibility for all the world’s problems in our hands, and runs counter to America’s traditions as a republic.”

"Dean singles out for attack the Bush administration’s “signature doctrine of ‘preemptive war.’”

"The former governor elaborates his own alternative, reflecting, as he sees it, “the best of our mainstream tradition.” He calls for strengthening “our military and intelligence,” rebuilding alliances—with the Europeans, in particular—that have been “badly damaged by the current administration,” making the defeat of “the terrorists who have attacked America” a top priority, and more seriously engaging with “developing nations on investment, trade, aid and public health.”

"Dean explains that he opposed the invasion of Iraq because “Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat to America.” He adds, “The administration had not (and still has not) presented clear evidence that Hussein was on the verge of attacking his neighbors or threatening the United States or the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction or supporting al Qaeda.” Link to whole story

Tuesday, December 23, 2003

Ephedra Money--The Killing Zone--And Chimp_junta took it Hand over Fi$t

Thanks to a good friend, Dr. Dan McCleod of Pearland, Texas, for this great letter he wrote to his own group of crooked politicians in Texas. This was written back in March of 2003. Just as chimp_junta was moving to Shock & Awe in Iraq.

March 13, 2003

With Bush, it's all about money. When the Texas department of Health tried
to regulate ephedra, Bush put his hand out and received some $150,000 in
disgusting, campaign contributions. The governor then shut down the
investigations. Matter of known, documented fact that the fraud in the WH
can't deny.

Were you a compassionate conservative? What a hoax you perpetrated on the
Americans. Here is the financial report: George W.
Bush--Governor--$141,201 from the ephedra lobby.

Texas ephedra money mainly benefited the GOP (and Metabolife sponsored the
2000 Texas Republican Party Convention)

( )

How much of that made it into the whore media? How much of that makes into
today's media? Why are they afraid to report the truth? Is this communist
Russia? China? Hell is communist dicktator Bush and Liar Fleisher
warning the press not to 'be too free' with their stories.

Governor Bush, tell the world about your slimy acceptance of dollars-for-lives from the national ephedra lobbies. Tell the world how you have actually tried to shut down websites that show that transaction. You are one bad mofo. A liar. A sneak. And the worst, most delusional white house resident since 1776.

Resign, or face the ICC court as a mass murderer in the event you kill anyone in Iraq--without the world's approval.

United Nations showing their cards? Proving to simpleton 'you' their relevance???

What could be more irrelevant than someone who stopped counting votes
because he knew he would lose an election, and won a lawsuit with bought
and paid for felonious supreme court judges?

You will lead a coalition of idiots. Not the willing. The bribed, brow-beaten, blackmailed and paid off. Don Corleone, godfather of the mafia, could take lessons from a power-hungry maniac like W. Bush.

You are like a ride on a runaway train. We can only hope the level ground comes before the disastrous collision with hard objects.


Dan McCleod PhD

Sorry to say, Dan, we still don't have level ground. The chimper_junta is still a runaway train, killing killing killing.

But there is a Doctor in the house. Dr. Howard Dean...We can only pray that the unelected chimp_junta is in its final days and we will soon have a real, duly-elected President in our White House by this time NEXT YEAR!!

Fuck Bush.

Monday, December 22, 2003

Nazi Methods Put to Good Use in Iraq by American_junta, as Collective Intimidation & Shootings

US military metes out collective punishment to Iraqi city

By Peter Symonds
22 December 2003

Despite the attempts of the Bush administration and international media to claim the capture of Saddam Hussein as a major breakthrough in suppressing armed resistance, events on the ground in Iraq speak otherwise. As the attacks on US troops and Iraqi collaborators continue unabated, the response of the US military has been to intensify its heavy-handed repression aimed at terrorising the Iraqi people into submission.

Just days after Hussein’s detention, some 2,500 US soldiers sealed off Samarra, a city of 200,000 people, in the early hours of December 17 and set about smashing their way into homes and factories in search of “insurgents”. It was a classic reprisal raid, not unlike those carried out by Israeli troops against the Palestinian population, or for that matter by the Nazis against villages and towns accused of harbouring resistance fighters in occupied Europe.

The Pentagon identified Samarra as a “hotspot” after two separate US convoys were ambushed simultaneously on November 30. American troops responded and claimed to have scored “a significant victory” by killing 54 of the attackers. However, journalists who later questioned hospital staff and local residents, found an entirely different story: that US soldiers had fired indiscriminately, killing nine civilians including a child and an elderly Iranian pilgrim, and wounding others.

On December 15, US troops were ambushed again. Military spokesmen claimed that 11 “insurgents” had been killed, but like the earlier clash, failed to produce any evidence. According to veteran Middle East journalist Robert Fisk, the only dead man to be found was a vegetable seller. The following day, American soldiers raided a nearby village and detained more than 70 people, including an alleged rebel commander Qais Hatten.

December 17’s huge operation, however, was clearly planned well in advance. US military planners decided the city had to be taught a lesson. Or as Lieutenant Colonel Nate Sassaman told the media afterward: “Samarra has been a little bit of a thorn in our side. It hasn’t come along as quickly as other cities in the rebuilding of Iraq. This operation is designed to bring them up to speed.”

Operation Ivy Blizzard began at 2 a.m. Troops from the Army’s 4th Infantry Division, backed by Apache attack helicopters and F-16 fighters, blocked the main routes and poured into the city. “Using sledgehammers, crowbars, explosives and armoured vehicles, US forces smashed down the gates of homes and the doors of workshops and junkyards to attack the Iraqi resistance that has persisted despite the capture of Saddam Hussein,” Associated Press reported.

According to other accounts, US troops detonated plastic explosives to break open doors. In one of the city’s industrial areas, the military used Bradley Fighting Vehicles to ram through the doors of warehouses and workshops. US military officials cited by the Los Angeles Times described the operation as a “robust response” to insurgents in Samarra. Others explained that a force of some 1,500 fighters was conducting attacks on US troops as well as police and civilians working for the US occupation authorities.

In a sinister development, hooded men described as “Iraqi civil corpsmen” accompanied the US troops. One of them told the Los Angeles Times: “This is a tribal town, and everyone knows everyone else. If someone knows who I am, they will surely try to kill me as a collaborator. The resistance is everywhere here.” While he did not explain his role in the operation, the obvious function of such Iraqi militia is to finger and interrogate suspected “insurgents”.

The US soldiers had been primed for the task. Staff Sergeant Tome Walker told the press: “They hyped this place like it was the Wild West. We heard there were two factions of foreign fighters, and Fedayeen Saddam [Hussein’s paramilitary forces]. We haven’t seen it yet. Maybe later in the week.” By the end of the day, 86 people had been detained, just 12 of whom were on the US list of targets, and a cache containing 200 automatic rifles and some bomb-making material had been uncovered.

According to the US military, several civilians were wounded but no one was killed. But as on previous occasions, this bland statement proved to be a mixture of lies and callous indifference to the suffering, not to speak of the anger and resentment, which had been caused. A dispatch by Robert Fisk entitled “Shooting Samarra’s schoolboys in the back” reported at least one fatality—a taxi driver Amer Baghdadi who was shot dead by US troops. Other casualties were in the Samarra hospital.

Maouloud Hussein, 31, was shot in the back as he tried to shepherd his family into the back room of their house. His brother Hamid Hussein angrily declared: “You said you would bring us freedom and democracy but what are we supposed to think? My neighbour, the Americans took him in front of his wife and two children and tied his hands behind his back, and then, a few hours later, after all this humiliation, they came and told his wife to take all her most expensive things and they put explosives in their house and blew it up. He is a farmer. He is innocent. What have we done to deserve this?”

Issam Naim Hamid, 17, was in the emergency ward with a bullet wound to his stomach. His mother, Manal, explained that US troops had come to their home at around 3 a.m. and fired through the gate. As the family huddled for protection, one of the bullets hit Issam and another hit his father who was in a serious condition in Tikrit hospital. Manal was terrified that they would bleed to death as the US troops refused to allow anyone to leave the house for several hours.

In a separate interview with the Los Angeles Times, Manal, a teacher, denounced the heavy-handed methods of the US military. “The best thing America can do for us is go home and let us take care of our own security. This will only make the resistance stronger... How can the Americans treat us this way? Where is the democracy they promised us?” she asked.

Asked to comment on the impact of the operation on civilians, Colonel Frederick Rudesheim, commander of one of the 4th Infantry Division’s combat teams, was completely unapologetic. “Certainly we’ve inconvenienced a number of citizens of Samarra. But these same citizens are the ones who’ve been living for months with terrorists among them,” he said.

Rudesheim’s comments reveal the logic behind Operation Ivy Blizzard. It is not only the resistance groups that are being blamed for the attacks on US troops. All of the city’s residents, “who’ve been living for months with terrorists,” are being held responsible. The response was a form of collective punishment, aimed at intimidating and terrorising the city as a whole. The US military is increasingly resorting to such methods to pacify a population that is becoming more and more hostile to the neo-colonial occupation of the country.

It is significant that the US military has singled out Samarra for special attention. Prior to the US invasion, the city and its tribal leaders were regarded as anti-Hussein—traditionally it had been a rival to Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit. As Ali Hussein, 35-year-old labourer, exclaimed to the press: “Saddam accused us of being against him, and now the Americans accuse us of being with Saddam.” If Samarra has now become a “hotbed”, it is one more indication of the extent of the opposition to the US occupation.

The US military claims that there has been a significant decline in the level of attacks in Samarra. The city has been placed under an 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. curfew. The arrests have continued. Any lull, however, is dependent on the presence of large numbers of US troops and is therefore only temporary. One “insurgent” told the Washington Post: “There is a total siege of the city. They are all over the streets. If we hit them, people are bound to get hurt. If one shot is fired, the whole street will be shot up.”

Elsewhere, the anti-US attacks and American reprisals continue unabated. Over the weekend, guerrillas struck oil storage tanks in southern Baghdad, blew up a pipeline in the al-Mashahda area north of the capital and fired a rocket-propelled grenade on a US military convoy in Mosul. The US military continued its raids and house-to-house searches in Fallujah and Rawah, as well as Samarra.


US Health Care On The Cheap: Our Excrutiating Pain--HHS department Covers Its Own Ass at Expense of Kids & Elderly

Influenza nearing epidemic levels in the US

By Debra Watson
22 December 2003

"...Influenza outbreaks continue to progress across the United States with the disease widespread in 36 US states, up from 24 in early December. The Centers for Disease Control now characterize the flu outbreak as a likely epidemic.

"The official count for child flu deaths has more than doubled from last week, from 20 to 42. With three months left in the flu season, stocks of vaccine are already depleted. Parents in Western states, where the flu season first took hold, are traveling hundreds of miles in search of vaccine for their children. At least 11 children have already died in Colorado from respiratory complications related to the flu, and some US schools have been forced to shut down because so many students are sick.

"The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has begun distributing an additional 100,000 doses of vaccine to health care providers in the US. An additional 375,000 are to be purchased in Europe. Because the current process used to manufacture flu vaccine includes a mandatory incubation period, none of the three US companies that make vaccines can manufacture more doses in time for this flu season.

"HHS and the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) knew vaccine makers had cut the number of doses produced for the 2003-2004 to 83 million doses, down 12 million doses from the previous year, doing nothing to ensure ample supplies in anticipation of heavy demand. The half-million new doses distributed by HHS are a drop in the bucket, and it is becoming increasing clear that there will be little protection for the population at large if the outbreak develops into a full-blown epidemic..."

Read entire article...

Is there a Doctor in the House? Please support Dr. Howard Dean <---Info-Click

Sunday, December 21, 2003

Saddam's Capture: The REAL STORY. (Not more fucking lies from chimp_junta)

The Sunday Herald - Scotland's award-winning independent newspaper

Revealed: who really found Saddam?

Saddam’s capture was the best present George Bush could have hoped for, and then Gaddafi handed a propaganda gift to Blair. But nothing’s ever that simple
By Foreign Editor David Pratt

It was exactly one week ago at 3.15pm Baghdad time, when a beaming Paul Bremer made that now-famous announce ment: “Ladies and gentlemen, we got him!”
Saddam Hussein: High Value Target Number One. The Glorious Leader. The Lion of Babylon had been snared. Iraq’s most wanted – the ace of spades – had become little more than an ace in the hole.

In Baghdad’s streets, Kalashnikov bullets rained down in celebration. In the billets of US soldiers, there were high fives, toasts and cigars. In the Jordanian capital Amman, an elderly woman overcome by grief broke down in tears and died. Inside a snow-blanketed White House, George W Bush prepared to address the nation.

“There’s an end to everything,” said a sombre Safa Saber al-Douri, a former Iraqi air force pilot, now a grocer in al-Dwar, the town where only hours earlier one of the greatest manhunts in history had ended under a polystyrene hatch in a six foot deep “spider hole.”

But just how did that endgame come about? Indeed, who exactly were the key players in what until then had been a frustrating and sometimes embarrassing hunt for a former dictator with a $25 million (£14m) bounty on his head?

For 249 days there was no shortage of US expertise devoted to the hunt. But the Pentagon has always remained tight-lipped about those individuals and groups involved, such as Task Force 20, said to be America’s most elite covert unit, or another super-secret team known as Greyfox, which specialises in radio and telephone surveillance.

Saddam, of course, was never likely to use the phone, and the best chance of locating him would always be as a result of informers or home-grown Iraqi intelligence. On this and their collaboration with anti-Saddam groups the Americans have also remained reticent.

Enter one Qusrat Rasul Ali, otherwise known as the lion of Kurdistan. A leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), Rasul Ali was once tortured by Saddam’s henchmen, but today is chief of a special forces unit dedicated to hunting down former Ba’athist regime leaders.

Rasul Ali’s unit had an impressive track record. It was they who last August, working alone, arrested Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan in Mosul, northern Iraq. Barely a month earlier in the al-Falah district of the same town, the PUK is believed to have played a crucial role in the pinpointing and storming of a villa that culminated in the deaths of Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay.

In that mixed district of Mosul where Arabs, Kurds and Turkemen live side by side, PUK informers went running to their leader Jalal Talabani’s nearest military headquarters to bring him news on the exact location of the villa where both Uday and Qusay had taken shelter.

Armed with the information, Talabani made a beeline for US administration offices in Baghdad, where deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz was based for a week’s stay in Iraq at the time.

The Kurdish leader and US military chiefs conferred and decided that PUK intelligence would go ahead and secretly surround the Zeidan villa and install sensors and eavesdropping devices. The Kurdish agents were instructed to prepare the site for the US special forces operation to storm the building on July 22.

American officials later said they expected that the $30m bounty promised by their government for the capture or death of the Hussein sons would be paid. Given their direct involvement in providing the exact location and intelligence necessary, no doubt Talabani’s PUK operatives could lay claim to the sum, but no confirmation of any delivery or receipt of the cash has ever been made.

The PUK and Rasul Ali’s special “Ba’athist hunters” have, it seems, been doing what the Americans have consistently failed to do. In an interview with the PUK’s al-Hurriyah radio station last Wednesday, Adil Murad, a member of the PUK’s political bureau, confirmed that the Kurdish unit had been pursuing fugitive Ba’athists for the past months in Mosul, Samarra, Tikrit and areas to the south including al-Dwar where Saddam was eventually cornered. Murad even says that the day before Saddam’s capture he was tipped off by PUK General Thamir al-Sultan, that Saddam would be arrested within the next 72 hours.

Clearly the Kurdish net was closing on Saddam, and PUK head Jalal Talabani and Rasul Ali were once again in the running for US bounty – should any be going.

It was at about 10.50am Baghdad time on last Saturday when US intel ligence says it got the tip it was looking for. But it was not until 8pm, with the launch of Operation Red Dawn, that they finally began to close in on the prize.

The US media reported that the tip-off came from an Iraqi man who was arrested during a raid in Tikrit, and even speculated that he could get part of the bounty. “It was intelligence, actionable intelligence,” claimed Lt General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition ground forces in Iraq. “It was great analytical work.”

But the widely held view that Kurdish intelligence was the key to the operation was supported in a statement released last Sunday by the Iraqi Governing Council. Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, said that Rasul Ali and his PUK special forces unit had provided vital information and more.

Last Saturday, as the US operation picked up speed, the Fourth Infantry Division moved into the area surrounding two farms codenamed Wolverine 1 and Wolverine 2 near al-Dwar, the heart of the Saddam heartland – a military town where practically every man is a military officer past or present. It is said to have a special place in Saddam’s sentiments because it was from here that he swam across the Tigris River when he was a dissident fleeing arrest in the 1960s.

Every year on August 28, the town marks Saddam’s escape with a swimming contest . In 1992, Saddam himself attended the race. It was won by a man called Qais al-Nameq. It was al-Nameq’s farmhouse – Wolverine 2 – that about 600 troops, including engineers, artillery and special forces, surrounded, cutting off all roads for about four or five miles around.

Next to a sheep pen was a ramshackle orange and white taxi, which US officials say was probably used to ferry Saddam around while he was on the run, sometimes moving every three or four hours.

Inside the premises was a walled compound with a mud hut and small lean-to. There US soldiers found the camouflaged hole in which Saddam was hiding.

It was 3.15pm Washington time when Donald Rumsfeld called George W Bush at Camp David. “Mr President, first reports are not always accurate,” he began. “But we think we may have him.”

First reports – indeed the very first report of Saddam’s capture – were also coming out elsewhere. Jalal Talabani chose to leak the news and details of Rasul Ali’s role in the deployment to the Iranian media and to be interviewed by them.

By early Sunday – way before Saddam’s capture was being reported by the mainstream Western press – the Kurdish media ran the following news wire:

“Saddam Hussein, the former President of the Iraqi regime, was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace. Qusrat’s team was accompanied by a group of US soldiers. Further details of the capture will emerge during the day; but the global Kurdish party is about to begin!”

By the time Western press agencies were running the same story, the emphasis had changed, and the ousted Iraqi president had been “captured in a raid by US forces backed by Kurdish fighters.”

Rasul Ali himself, meanwhile, had already been on air at the Iranian satellite station al-Alam insisting that his “PUK fighters sealed the area off before the arrival of the US forces”.

By late Sunday as the story went global, the Kurdish role was reduced to a supportive one in what was described by the Pentagon and US military officials as a “joint operation”. The Americans now somewhat reluctantly were admitting that PUK fighters were on the ground alongside them , while PUK sources were making more considered statements and playing down their precise role.

So just who did get to Saddam first, the Kurds or the Americans? And if indeed it was a joint operation would it have been possible at all without the intelligence and on-the-ground participation of Rasul Ali and his special forces?

If the PUK themselves pulled off Saddam’s capture, there would be much to gain from taking the $25m bounty and any political guarantees the Americans might reward them with to keep schtum. What’s more, Jalal Talabani’s links to Tehran have always worried Washington, and having his party grab the grand prize from beneath their noses would be awkward to say the least.

“It’s mutually worth it to us and the Americans. We need assurances for the future and they need the kudos of getting Saddam,” admitted a Kurdish source on condition of anonymity. It would be all to easy to dismiss the questions surrounding the PUK role as conspiracy theory. After all, almost every major event that affects the Arab world prompts tales that are quickly woven into intricate shapes and patterns, to demonstrate innocence, seek credit or apportion blame. Saddam’s capture is no exception.

Of the numerous and more exotic theories surrounding events leading to Saddam’s arrest, one originates on a website many believe edited by former Israeli intelligence agents, but which often turns up inside information about the Middle East that proves to be accurate.

According to, there is a possibility that Saddam was held for up to three weeks in al-Dwar by a Kurdish splinter group while they negotiated a handover to the Americans in return for the $25m reward. This, the writers say would explain his dishevelled and disorientated appearance.

But perhaps the mother of all conspiracy theories, is the one about the pictures distributed by the Americans showing the hideout with a palm tree behind the soldier who uncov ered the hole where Saddam was hiding. The palm carried a cluster of pre-ripened yellow dates, which might suggest that Saddam was arrested at least three months earlier, because dates ripen in the summer when they turn into their black or brown colour.

Those who buy into such an explanation conclude that Saddam’s capture was stage-managed and his place of arrest probably elsewhere. All fanciful stuff. But as is so often the case, the real chain of events is likely to be far more mundane.

In the end serious questions remain about the Kurdish role and whether at last Sunday’s Baghdad press conference, Paul Bremer was telling the whole truth . Or is it a case of “ladies and gentlemen we got him,” – with a little more help from our Kurdish friends than might be politically expedient to admit?

21 December 2003


Also: Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops

Saturday, December 20, 2003

Help Our Troops

Our troops are in harm's way this holiday season. Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers won't be home for the holidays -- but we can still let them know how proud we are of the finest military in the world. There are two ways you can show American troops how grateful their fellow citizens are for their sacrifice.

Many Americans want to send care packages to the troops, but have no idea how to do it. By visiting this site you can get information about sending a care package to one of our troops in the field:

The site provides information about what our troops need us to send and where we can send it. Many of our men and women in uniform endure the harshest conditions -- even the most basic food items or personal hygiene products can make a huge difference. They also need help with supplies like gloves and flashlights to help them complete their missions. Click here to send a soldier the supplies she or he needs on the ground:

Some soldiers will almost make it home for the holidays. Each day more than 470 soldiers arrive home on short notice for two-week R&R stints -- but the military only takes them part of the way. Servicemen and -women are flown to Germany or one of three airports in the United States -- from there they are on their own to get home.

You can donate your airline frequent flyer miles to Operation Hero Miles to bring them all the way home. Twelve major airlines will accept donations as part of this program, started by Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger, Democrat of Maryland:

Because the last-minute notice the troops receive, they are forced to pay very expensive fares to finish their journey. Your miles can bring an American soldier home to his or her family for the holidays:

The Washington Post, the Washington Establishment, the Hypocrisy of the neo-cons and Washington Insider Democrats all in One Rotten Stew over Dr Dean

Howard Dean and the shrinking US political "mainstream"

By Bill Vann
20 December 2003

With Howard Dean the front-runner in the polls as the Democratic Party prepares for next month’s Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire presidential primary, the drumbeat of attacks from both his Democratic rivals and significant sections of the media, portraying the former Vermont governor as irresponsible and even extremist, is intensifying.

Dean, who made his reputation as a fiscally conservative governor with relatively liberal views on issues such as abortion, is being pilloried because he has criticized the Bush’s administration’s decision to launch an unprovoked, pre-emptive war against Iraq, in defiance of the United Nations. In recent weeks, as his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination has gained momentum, Dean has made a point of affirming his support for the “war on terror” and the invasion of Afghanistan, and opposing any early pullout of US troops from Iraq, declaring that regardless of the government deception that accompanied the war, the US occupation must be maintained and “failure” in Iraq must be avoided a all costs.

Despite such efforts by Dean to demonstrate his basic agreement with the global aims of American imperialism, the tenor of the political offensive against the Democratic front-runner has grown increasingly frenzied, reaching a pitch of near-hysteria in the aftermath of the capture of Saddam Hussein.

The attacks reached a low point this week with the release of a political ad—apparently prepared by operatives from rival Democratic campaigns, using trade union funds—featuring the visage of Osama bin Laden and suggesting that Dean is “soft” on terrorism.

This was followed by a crescendo of criticism from Dean’s Democratic rivals and the media over the candidate’s statement in Arizona that the capture of Saddam Hussein would not “make America’s homeland safer.”

The vitriolic denunciations from Democratic rivals signify that the dominant sections of the Democratic Party are opposed to fielding any candidate who is identified with mass sentiment against the war in Iraq. Senator Joseph Lieberman has led this assault, declaring that Dean’s nomination would “take us back to the days when we Democrats were not trusted to defend America’s security.” Senator John Kerry called Dean’s policies “a profound danger for both our national security and global stability.”

The intensity of these attacks suggests that, should Dean win the nomination, more than a few leading Democrats would either openly or tacitly work for his defeat and the reelection of Bush. Even some who formally endorsed the party’s candidate would be prepared to work behind the scenes to sabotage his campaign.

That factions within the right wing of the Republican Party are tacitly backing the campaign against Dean was made clear in a column by Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard, who declared Dean’s nomination “an event to be feared.”

“Why?” he asked. “Because it will harm the Democratic Party and lead to a general election campaign brimming with bitter assaults on the very idea of an assertive, morality-based American role in the world. And this will play out as the war on terrorism, and the outcome in Iraq, hang in the balance.” Barnes concluded by appealing to Bill and Hillary Clinton—whom the publication has continuously vilified—to “take on Dean.”

The Washington Post, in a December 17 editorial headlined “Beyond the Mainstream,” summed up the attitude of broad sections of the American political and media establishment toward a Dean candidacy. The same issue carried a tendentious front-page story attributing to Dean a “penchant for flippant and sometimes false statements” and a “history of making statements that are mean-spirited or misleading.”

The trajectory of the Post over the past two decades has provided an accurate barometer of the shift by the US political elite, and both of its parties, sharply to the right. In its foreign policy views, it has become virtually indistinguishable from the Wall Street Journal. In common with the modus operandi of that newspaper’s editorial pages, the Post’s editorial on Dean eschews reasoned argument for the dishonest language of political thuggery and intimidation.

Contrasting Dean to the other five “leading Democrats” in the race for the presidential nomination, the Post editorial declares: “...only Mr. Dean made the extraordinary argument that the capture of Saddam Hussein ‘has not made Americans safer.’ Mr. Dean’s carefully prepared speech was described as a move toward the center, but in key ways it shifted him farther from the mainstream.”

Why is Dean’s argument so “extraordinary?” Saddam Hussein was a hunted man, hiding in a hole in the ground without even a cell phone. His capture was all but inevitable, and there is no sign that it has had an effect even on the level of attacks on US occupation forces and their local agents in Iraq. Indeed, US soldiers interviewed in Iraq have said they do not anticipate any lessening of the dangers and casualties they experience daily. Some of those familiar with the politics of the country predict that Hussein’s imprisonment may have the effect of convincing many who have held back for fear of restoring the ex-dictator to join in a nationalist struggle to expel the US occupiers.

As for the US itself, no evidence has been produced linking Hussein to either the September 11, 2001, attacks or any other terrorist acts or conspiracies against the American people.

Dean’s real sin, it would appear, is cutting across a government and media propaganda campaign aimed at using the Saddam Hussein capture to browbeat the American public into accepting the continued occupation of Iraq. Precisely in what way Hussein’s capture validates a war carried out in violation of international law and based on lies has never been explained by the Post or anyone else.

For his own part, the former Vermont governor added his voice to the media triumphalism that accompanied the announcement of Saddam Hussein’s capture, issuing a cringing statement declaring the event a “great day for America” and adding that “President Bush deserves a day of celebration” free from any discussion of “policy differences.”

This, however, is not enough for the Post. In lashing out at Dean, the newspaper repeats the lies and half-truths used by the Bush administration to promote its war of aggression. Unlike Dean, the paper declares, “...most Americans understand Saddam Hussein for what he was: a brutal dictator who stockpiled and used weapons of mass destruction, who plotted to seize oil supplies on which the United States depends, who hated the United States and once sought to assassinate a former president, whose continuing hold on power forced thousands of American troops to remain in the Persian Gulf region for a decade...”

Those Americans who have followed events are well aware that not a trace of the weapons of mass destruction invoked by the Bush administration as its reason for war has been found, and there have been multiple exposures of the administration’s fabrication of “evidence” to deceive the public on this score.

What weapons Hussein had in an earlier period were largely supplied by Washington and its surrogates as successive US administrations sought to build up this “brutal dictator” as a counterweight against Iran. Newly released documents of US-Iraq diplomacy in 1983-84 involving the personal intervention of then US special envoy and current secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld reveal, moreover, that Washington gave Saddam Hussein’s regime assurances that its public opposition to the use of chemical weapons did not imply any lessening of US support for Iraq in its conflict with its neighbor.

The Post’s charge that Saddam Hussein plotted to “seize oil supplies” admirably, if inadvertently, reflects the unbounded arrogance and rapaciousness of an imperialist power that assumes it has the right to control strategic resources wherever they exist in any part of the world. It is the US that has sent tens of thousands of troops and a deadly armada across oceans and continents to seize control of Iraqi oil, not the other way around.

Getting to the heart of its concerns over Dean, the newspaper warns that the Democratic candidate “appears eager to extract the United States from the Middle East as quickly as possible, rather than encourage political and economic liberalization.” The editorial continues: “His speech suggests a significant retreat by the United States from the promotion of its interests and values in the world... His most serious departure from the Democratic mainstream is not his opposition to the war. It is his apparent readiness to shrink US ambitions, in Iraq and elsewhere...”

In other words, Dean’s attempts to win the Democratic nomination through appeals to anti-war sentiment risk derailing Washington’s re-colonization of Iraq and expropriation of the country’s oil wealth, and its even broader geo-strategic and military aims “elsewhere.” In a word, Dean’s nomination could complicate American imperialism’s drive for global hegemony.

What is this “mainstream” that the Post invokes, and how has Dean departed from it?

The Post’s mainstream clearly is not the broad masses of the American population. Even opinion polls that are notorious for underestimating the breadth of opposition to official policy have shown the American people deeply split over whether the war was justified, with many of those who supposedly back the venture evincing no agreement with a protracted occupation. Not only has the war provoked some of the most massive protest demonstrations in US history, but within the US military itself disaffection with the Iraqi operation is rampant.

The obvious question is why, if Dean is, politically speaking, beyond the pale, has he emerged as a front-runner in the Democratic race? It is precisely his appeal, however tame, to anti-war sentiment that has propelled him from relative obscurity to become a leading candidate.

The mainstream, as far as the Post is concerned, has nothing to do with democratic government or popular sentiment. It is defined by the US financial elite, whose interests ultimately determine the policies of not only the Republicans, but the Democrats as well. For these layers, US hegemony over the vital energy supplies of the region is a critical matter. While divisions exist over the provocative and unilateral character of the Bush administration’s foreign policy, there is little stomach for an election campaign that in any way calls into question such strategic goals.

The mainstream of corporate wealth and power is disquieted over the prospect of a Democratic presidential candidate giving even limited voice to the opposition that exists to US policy in Iraq.

The irony underlying the Post’s sophisms is that its so-called mainstream feels itself so isolated and out of line with the broad sentiments of the people that it cannot brook any debate or discussion in a presidential election of the single most important issue facing the American people—the war in Iraq. Any criticism of the war must be branded illegitimate, if not downright traitorous. The frenzied response to Dean’s candidacy reflects the fear that official toleration of anti-war views could fuel popular opposition that is so intense and deep, it could mushroom and spin out of control of the two-party system.

Thus, the well-orchestrated offensive against Dean, including his banishment to the political fringe by the US capital’s newspaper of record, expresses the acute and deep-going social crisis in America—a crisis that has overtaken the political system, rendered it dysfunctional, and made any genuine democratic debate and discussion a mortal danger to the powers-that-be.

The attacks on Dean are two-pronged. The first aim is to defeat his bid for the Democratic nomination. The second, should Dean continue to consolidate his position in the upcoming primaries, is to accelerate his turn to the right.

In the end, the many millions of people opposed to the Bush administration’s policies of militarism abroad and social reaction at home will find no real alternative in Dean or in any other Democratic candidate. Such an alternative is possible only through a break with the two-party system and the emergence of an independent, mass political party of the working class.


Note: Dear Reader, I am a supporter of Dr. Howard Dean. Yet this eloquent statement by the WSWS.ORG gives an incredible view of the disaster that is American politics, our 'Constitutional' democracy, the Democratic party, American media, and of course, the pure thuggery, lies and hypocrisy of republicans. But we, Democrats, have to fight with what we have. And in my opinion and hopefully yours, that will be Dr. Howard Dean...the ONLY candidate that has a chance of returning us our country. And supporting the 'DEMOCRATIC WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY' as well.


Thanks for reading!

Friday, December 19, 2003

Chimp_junta Figurehead, Bush, Delivers Excrutiatingly Idiotic, mono-syllabic, jingoistic interview on ABC

Bush calls for Hussein's execution: a portrait of sadism and ignorance

By Bill Vann
18 December 2003

Media reports on the nationally televised interview with George W. Bush broadcast by ABC News Tuesday night focused on the American president’s call for the execution of Saddam Hussein. “Zap rat Saddam, sez Prez,” was the way the New York Daily News summed up the contents of Bush’s remarks.

The general portrayal was one of a tough-talking leader moved by feelings of personal outrage to demand that the former Iraqi president pay the “ultimate penalty” for his crimes.

Those who actually sat through the interview and who know Bush’s record, however, may not be so impressed. When he was governor of Texas, the “ultimate penalty” was altogether routine. He presided over 152 executions, more than any other governor in US history, and once allowed that he spent an average of just 15 minutes reviewing cases before giving the order to put human beings—including the mentally ill—to death.

After becoming president, he has resumed the use of the federal death penalty for the first time in the US since 1963, ordering the execution of a Persian Gulf War veteran on the very eve of launching the invasion of Iraq last March.

For Bush, imposing the death penalty is less a matter of moral outrage than vicarious thrill. His personal sadism and the “kick” he gets from exercising this ultimate power was revealed most noxiously in his public mimicking of the plea for clemency by a condemned Texas woman, Karla Faye Tucker, before ordering her state murder.

“This is a disgusting tyrant who deserves justice, the ultimate justice. But that will be decided not by the president of the United States but by the citizens of Iraq in one form or another,” said Bush, who defensively added, “You don’t want a kangaroo court.”

But that is precisely what Washington is preparing. The “citizens of Iraq” will decide nothing. They are subjects of a US military occupation, without an elected government and without even the prospect of a vote for years to come. The US will create the instrument that will render Hussein’s verdict based on the time-honored American principle of “give him a fair trial and hang him.”

The Bush administration has no intention of allowing any court that is not under its unrestricted control to bring Hussein to trial. Having revoked a previous treaty committing US support for the International Criminal Court, it is determined not to legitimize any such body. It justifiably fears that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tommy Franks and others could some day be brought before such a tribunal on war crimes charges stemming from the war of aggression against Iraq and the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens.

While international courts have ruled out the death penalty as a barbaric punishment, with an Iraqi puppet court, the US can put Saddam Hussein speedily to death while claiming that it is merely doing the will of the Iraqi people.

The other advantage of such a procedure is that dead men tell no tales. Hussein can be denied the one defense he would inevitably make before an international court: that the greatest crimes of which he stands accused—the Iran-Iraq war, the gassing of the Kurds and suppression of the Shiites—were carried out with either the direct support or tacit approval of US administrations in Washington.

Whether Bush himself even grasps these political issues behind the US handling of Hussein is unclear. The image that came across in what was an exceedingly rare extended interview was that of a politically ignorant and vindictive individual.

His interviewer was Diane Sawyer, a virtual state institution, whose “journalistic” credentials are rooted in her having served as a flack in the Nixon White House and then having followed the disgraced president to San Clemente to help him write his memoirs. But even the gentle probing of such a trusted ally seemed to be an ordeal for Bush.

His peculiar facial expressions and nervous body language suggested an inner fear that each and every question would press against the outer limits of his scant knowledge, driving him to seek refuge in the few stock phrases that he has picked up from his speechwriters and political handlers.

Thus, when Sawyer opened up a line of inquiry concerning the failure of the US military to turn up any trace of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the pretext for launching the administration’s predatory war, Bush became badly flustered.

Sawyer asked about his administration’s claims that the Iraqi regime was close to producing nuclear arms and had hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons. Bush responded, “Look, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person, and there’s no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that, and there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.”

When Sawyer tried to pursue the question, Bush replied childishly, “Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer’s gonna be the same. Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him.” The former White House aide moved accommodatingly to a different subject.

In one extraordinary exchange, Sawyer asked Bush about his statement that his sole source of news is briefings prepared by his staff. “I get my news from people who don’t editorialize,” he said. “They give me the actual news, and it makes it easier to digest on a daily basis, the facts.”

Asked by Sawyer whether he did this because he found it “harder to read constant criticism,” Bush responded: “Why even put up with it when you can get the facts elsewhere? I’m a lucky man, I’ve got ... all kinds of people in my administration who are charged with different responsibilities, and they come in and say this is what’s happening, this isn’t what’s happening.”

Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the US president’s political backwardness and personal indifference to the world outside the White House. His disdain for reading newspapers reflects a lack of any ability or even interest in developing a political orientation based upon a study of competing interests and conflicting policies as they are reflected through the press. Making such analyses is a key task of any serious politician, but Bush is not such a figure.

His subjectivism and limited intellectual capacity make him easy to manipulate. His subordinates and advisers feed him the “facts” that favor the policies they seek, and Bush, with his unconcern about political debate in the wider world, is not even in a position to grasp the aims of antagonistic forces within his own administration and staff.

Given such an individual as the titular chief executive, it is not hard to understand the colossal blunders the administration has made in its war in Iraq, policies that continue to cost the lives of both Iraqi civilians and young American soldiers on a daily basis.

Within US ruling circles, the fact that Bush is grossly unqualified for the position that he holds is well known. For the gang of corporate criminals that dominate his cabinet and serve as his principal political base, his lack of any knowledge or intelligence make him a malleable instrument for the pursuit of their profit interests.


Political Expedience and the Mayberry Machiavellis--Finding Saddam On Schedule

Bush's ace in the hole

by Geov Parrish -

"....Howard Dean was right, and his Democratic presidential opponents crassly wrong for criticizing him on it, to say that U.S. soldiers will not be made an iota safer by the capture of Saddam Hussein.

"Dean was the turd in Sunday's party punch, and bully to him for it. Try to imagine any leading Democrat questioning Our Fearless Leader a year ago at such a moment of administration glory. They would have been lining up in obsequious grandeur, praising not only Saddam's capture but the policies that led to it. Sort of like Fox. Or CNN.

"Instead, Dean is hardly the most radical voice in his own party -- Rep. Jim McDermott, for instance, has publicly questioned the political convenience for the White House of Saddam's capture now rather than months ago."

Link to whole great piece...

The Death of Horatio Alger

The Death of Horatio Alger

[from the January 5, 2004 issue]

The other day I found myself reading a leftist rag that made outrageous claims about America. It said that we are becoming a society in which the poor tend to stay poor, no matter how hard they work; in which sons are much more likely to inherit the socioeconomic status of their father than they were a generation ago.

The name of the leftist rag? Business Week, which published an article titled "Waking Up From the American Dream." The article summarizes recent research showing that social mobility in the United States (which was never as high as legend had it) has declined considerably over the past few decades. If you put that research together with other research that shows a drastic increase in income and wealth inequality, you reach an uncomfortable conclusion: America looks more and more like a class-ridden society.

And guess what? Our political leaders are doing everything they can to fortify class inequality, while denouncing anyone who complains--or even points out what is happening--as a practitioner of "class warfare."

Let's talk first about the facts on income distribution. Thirty years ago we were a relatively middle-class nation. It had not always been thus: Gilded Age America was a highly unequal society, and it stayed that way through the 1920s. During the 1930s and '40s, however, America experienced what the economic historians Claudia Goldin and Robert Margo have dubbed the Great Compression: a drastic narrowing of income gaps, probably as a result of New Deal policies. And the new economic order persisted for more than a generation: Strong unions; taxes on inherited wealth, corporate profits and high incomes; close public scrutiny of corporate management--all helped to keep income gaps relatively small. The economy was hardly egalitarian, but a generation ago the gross inequalities of the 1920s seemed very distant.

Now they're back. According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez--confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office--between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent. (Those numbers exclude capital gains, so they're not an artifact of the stock-market bubble.) The distribution of income in the United States has gone right back to Gilded Age levels of inequality.

Never mind, say the apologists, who churn out papers with titles like that of a 2001 Heritage Foundation piece, "Income Mobility and the Fallacy of Class-Warfare Arguments." America, they say, isn't a caste society--people with high incomes this year may have low incomes next year and vice versa, and the route to wealth is open to all. That's where those commies at Business Week come in: As they point out (and as economists and sociologists have been pointing out for some time), America actually is more of a caste society than we like to think. And the caste lines have lately become a lot more rigid.

The myth of income mobility has always exceeded the reality: As a general rule, once they've reached their 30s, people don't move up and down the income ladder very much. Conservatives often cite studies like a 1992 report by Glenn Hubbard, a Treasury official under the elder Bush who later became chief economic adviser to the younger Bush, that purport to show large numbers of Americans moving from low-wage to high-wage jobs during their working lives. But what these studies measure, as the economist Kevin Murphy put it, is mainly "the guy who works in the college bookstore and has a real job by his early 30s." Serious studies that exclude this sort of pseudo-mobility show that inequality in average incomes over long periods isn't much smaller than inequality in annual incomes.

It is true, however, that America was once a place of substantial intergenerational mobility: Sons often did much better than their fathers. A classic 1978 survey found that among adult men whose fathers were in the bottom 25 percent of the population as ranked by social and economic status, 23 percent had made it into the top 25 percent. In other words, during the first thirty years or so after World War II, the American dream of upward mobility was a real experience for many people.

Now for the shocker: The Business Week piece cites a new survey of today's adult men, which finds that this number has dropped to only 10 percent. That is, over the past generation upward mobility has fallen drastically. Very few children of the lower class are making their way to even moderate affluence. This goes along with other studies indicating that rags-to-riches stories have become vanishingly rare, and that the correlation between fathers' and sons' incomes has risen in recent decades. In modern America, it seems, you're quite likely to stay in the social and economic class into which you were born.

Business Week attributes this to the "Wal-Martization" of the economy, the proliferation of dead-end, low-wage jobs and the disappearance of jobs that provide entry to the middle class. That's surely part of the explanation. But public policy plays a role--and will, if present trends continue, play an even bigger role in the future.

Put it this way: Suppose that you actually liked a caste society, and you were seeking ways to use your control of the government to further entrench the advantages of the haves against the have-nots. What would you do?

One thing you would definitely do is get rid of the estate tax, so that large fortunes can be passed on to the next generation. More broadly, you would seek to reduce tax rates both on corporate profits and on unearned income such as dividends and capital gains, so that those with large accumulated or inherited wealth could more easily accumulate even more. You'd also try to create tax shelters mainly useful for the rich. And more broadly still, you'd try to reduce tax rates on people with high incomes, shifting the burden to the payroll tax and other revenue sources that bear most heavily on people with lower incomes.

Meanwhile, on the spending side, you'd cut back on healthcare for the poor, on the quality of public education and on state aid for higher education. This would make it more difficult for people with low incomes to climb out of their difficulties and acquire the education essential to upward mobility in the modern economy.

And just to close off as many routes to upward mobility as possible, you'd do everything possible to break the power of unions, and you'd privatize government functions so that well-paid civil servants could be replaced with poorly paid private employees.

It all sounds sort of familiar, doesn't it?

Where is this taking us? Thomas Piketty, whose work with Saez has transformed our understanding of income distribution, warns that current policies will eventually create "a class of rentiers in the U.S., whereby a small group of wealthy but untalented children controls vast segments of the US economy and penniless, talented children simply can't compete." If he's right--and I fear that he is--we will end up suffering not only from injustice, but from a vast waste of human potential.

Goodbye, Horatio Alger. And goodbye, American Dream.


Wednesday, December 17, 2003

Challenging 'Pre-emption' by Senator Robert Byrd, American Patriot Extrordinaire

Challenging 'Pre-emption'

"...Yet too many Americans are willing--yes, even eager--to swallow the Administration line on pre-emption without examining it, without questioning it, without challenging it.

"Thank God for courageous institutions--like this one--which are willing to stand up to the tide of popular convention. I commend The Nation magazine for filling this vacuum, and I urge you to continue in your mission, without fear, without constraint, and with an unyielding commitment to truth.

"Today, for better or worse, the United States has embroiled itself in the future of Iraq. But that does not mean that we need to continue to be the lone wolf in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Administration's latest edict to freeze out the French, German, Russian and Canadian companies from Iraq gives me little reason to hope that the President is even remotely interested in internationalizing the political, economic and security reconstruction effort. As a result, the White House continues to feed the perception throughout the world that Iraq's reconstruction is a spoil of war. Reconstruction contracts, funded with $18.6 billion from the American taxpayer, seemingly have become kickbacks to those countries which dared not speak out--as Germany, France, Russia and Canada did speak out--against a policy of pre-emptive war."

Link to whole speech...