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.

Thursday, September 30, 2004

Kerry Walks Away With Debate!

Every poll, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, even FOX! Kerry won the polls about the debate, online and not scientific, by excess of 70%.

Well, that's a relief. In my opinion, the only way he could have lost, after watching the debate twice on C-Span, was if he fell off of the stage laughing, bumped his head, and could not stand up again.

It was that--that--incredible! Now we will wait for the pundits and gasbags to come up with their evaluation. Did you watch the debate? Don't hesitate to comment by clicking the *AJ* below this post.

"Sanctions on IraN? Sanctions on IraN? That happened long before me"

"And I won't give Maxxed missed moosed morages..." W

Does the UN have sanctions on IRAN?

The Moo-Lahs...The Moo-Lahs...I'm George Bush and I Won't Have Dialogs with Moo-lahs.

How can John Kerry keep from breaking out laughing?~?~?

Chimp_Junta Shuts Down "Free Santa Cruz," Liberal Radio--In First Raid in 50 Years!!!

Democracy Now! Longest-Standing Pirate Radio Station Free Radio Santa Cruz Shut Down by FCC:

"Pirate radio station Free Radio Santa Cruz which had been operating without a license for nearly 10 years, was raided yesterday for the first time and shut down. We go to Santa Cruz to speak with two of the station's longtime programmers. [includes rush transcript]

Yesterday morning at 9:20 in Santa Cruz, California, two dozen armed federal agents with automatic weapons and riot gear raided pirate radio station Radio Free Santa Cruz. The station had just finished airing its regular broadcast of Democracy Now! when the agents arrived on the scene. Moments after the initial raid, 5 agents from the (Chimp_Junta) Federal Communications Commission arrived on the scene.

They (Chimp_Junta) located the transmitter and seized all of the station's broadcast equipment, including the antenna. More than 50 local residents showed up on the scene to protest the shut-down of the independent radio station. Free Radio Santa Cruz has been on the air, operating without a license for nearly 10 years and has never been raided before yesterday. Despite its unlicensed status, the station recently won a resolution of support from the Santa Cruz City Council. "

Gene Lyons: Tight race will hinge on turnout

Tight race will hinge on turnout
Gene Lyons
In what looks like a sign of desperation, the Republican National Committee has sent fliers to voters in Arkansas and West Virginia claiming that "liberal politicians" and "activist judges" want to ban the Bible. Translation: "Dear Hillbillies: We think you are dumber than dirt. Are you? If so, then vote for George W. Bush and keep your Bibles.

You’re surely gonna need them. P. S. There’ll be just as many queers in wedding dresses either way. Next time you hear about the gay marriage amendment will be 2008." I doubt the GOP tactic will work. In Arkansas, appeals to bigotry normally backfire. The fire-breathing fundamentalists always make more noise, but their dogmatism scares people.

I’ve spoken to many Christians who resent being told how to vote as a matter of faith. In Rome, Pope John Paul II’s representative recently emphasized that American Catholics are free to vote their consciences, as most would have done anyway. So will Protestants, Jews and everybody else. But why would Republicans act desperate? Don’t polls show President Bush cruising to an easy victory over yet another hapless Massachusetts liberal? Didn’t 9/11 turn all those 2000 "soccer moms" into 2004 "security moms," comforted by Bush’s tough talk and his manly Texas swagger?

Speaking of which, former Texas Gov. Ann Richards recently mocked the exaggerated movie-cowboy walk Bush bragged about in his acceptance speech: "He’s walking with his arms a little wider, as if he’s gonna go for his sidearms," she said. "I don’t know whether his tailor is making his suits too tight under the arms or whether he’s adopted a kind of Gary Cooper-John Wayne walk down the hall to the podium." If real cowboys walked that way, she might have added, it was because of gimpy legs due to horse-steer collisions. Bush became a "rancher" in 1999; he rides golf carts.

But I digress. No, most polls don’t show Bush swaggering to an easy victory. Only those most touted by the allegedly liberal media show him leading comfortably. Most others, including both parties’ internal polls, I suspect, show an extremely tight contest that appears likely to keep everybody up late on election night—if not beyond.

At best, polls should be considered roughly as accurate as racetrack tout sheets. Back in 2000, the brand-name Gallup Poll showed George W. Bush leading Al Gore by 13 percentage points two weeks before the election—a veritable landslide. Its final count showed Bush up by five. As everybody knows, Gore won the popular vote by roughly one-half of 1 percent nationwide. Did that many people change their minds? Or were the polls badly skewed by poor methodology and wishful thinking? Truth is, it’s impossible to say.

A pollster who routinely told clients what they wanted to hear wouldn’t stay in business long, although suppressing voter turnout is always the GOP’s No. 1 priority. (Rural voters in places like Arkansas and West Virginia being an obvious exception.) Hence, polls making a Bush win seem inevitable definitely have their uses.

Several factors make accurate polling trickier than ever, caller ID and cell phones among them. Many Americans rarely answer calls from anybody they don’t know. Millions have only cell phones, whose numbers aren’t published. Persons without caller ID and/or cell phones skew older and whiter than the general population; hence, more Republican. Calculating the odds is tricky. With passions high, many are reluctant to discuss their political views with strangers. Some even lie.

For prestige reasons, pollsters invoke "science," but do plenty of guesswork. Skeptics have been hammering recent Gallup CNN/USA Today polls. For example, Gallup’s Sept. 13-15 poll showing Bush leading 55-42 among "likely voters" assumed a 40 percent to 33 percent GOP advantage in voter turnout. As rival pollster John Zogby pointed out, this ignores history. In 1996 and 2000, registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans by four points. That’s an 11-point swing based on, pardon me, fuzzy math.

Determining "likely voters" is equally problematic. Republicans truly fear high turnout among impassioned "Bush haters." New registrations among traditionally Democratic groups are high; hence, the Bible smear. So is Gallup in the tank? If so, it has company. Consider a recent CBS-New York Timespoll showing a big Bush lead. A glance at the poll’s "internals" showed 28 percent of respondents voting for Gore in 2000 and 36 percent for Bush. Since Gore out-polled Bush by a half-million votes, the results are absurd on their face.

State polls have been similarly wacky. Rival surveys in Minnesota, which no Republican has carried since 1932, favored Bush by two points or John Kerry by nine. Take your pick. Ditto Wisconsin and Oregon, where polls released within 24 hours differed by 16 and 13 points respectively. The smart money says to believe polls like the Pew Research Center, Zogby, Harris Interactive, Democracy Corps and American Research Group, which depict an extremely tight race apt to be decided by voter turnout. That means you.

• Free-lance columnist Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient of the National Magazine Award.

The Son Of Dwight Eisenhower Explains Why He Will Not Vote Republican This Year

Why I Will Vote for John Kerry for President
By John Eisenhower
The Manchester Union Leader
Tuesday 28 September 2004

The Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we "always have." We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today’s "Republican" Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word "Republican" has always been synonymous with the word "responsibility," which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.
In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.
Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, "If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both." I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.
The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.
I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.

John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing "The White House Years," his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.
More beheadings, increasing American Combat deaths, not enough troops on the ground, spiraling numbers of innocent Iraqis being slaughtered... Posted by Hello

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

AlterNet: War on Iraq: Top 10 Reasons to Get Out of Iraq

AlterNet: War on Iraq: Top 10 Reasons to Get Out of Iraq: "A list of compelling reasons why immediate withdrawal is the only available course of action that can restore hope to both Americans and Iraqis. "

Bartcop: One Reason To Be On The Internet (*aj*)

Bottom line: It's time for the big f-ing hammer and we can't wait another damn day. For Kerry and for us the next four years - there is no tomorrow.

If Kerry can't mop the floor with the stupidest president in American history, a president who lied us into another Vietnam after losing $11 trillion from the Treasury and went to sleep after the CIA told him Osama was on his way, it will just be damn sad.

Rowe vs Wade is gone if Kerry loses this debate.
Bush will finish the Enronization of America if Kerry loses this debate.
Bush will increase his overseas bellicosity if Kerry doesn't win.

Debate Night: Media Whore's Night Out! Will They Do Their Jobs?

Media analysis, critiques and Activism

MEDIA ADVISORY: Post-Debate Fact-Checking Is Media's Main Job

September 29, 2004

Who "wins" the presidential debate on Thursday may well depend on how well media do their job on Friday.

In past debates, post-debate commentary has frequently focused on the candidates' style, body language and other cosmetic issues. The L.A. Times(9/29/04) suggested that these seemingly unimportant details can swing acampaign: "Who could have predicted that in 1992 the camera would catch an apparently unengaged President George H.W. Bush checking his watch during a debate with Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton? (Bush lost the election.) That in 2000, Gore would be remembered for inappropriately grimacing and sighing during his first debate with Bush? (Gore lost.) "Of course, if one were told that the media would play tape of these moments over and over again, than it would be relatively easy to predict that these would be the moments that voters remember. Something that isn't widely remembered is the fact that initial post-debate polls showed Gore winning that debate in the minds of voters (Daily Howler, 9/28/04); it was only after media commentary focused obsessively on Gore's reaction shots that the perception was created that his performance was a disaster. The fact is, voters don't need to be told whether they are put off by acandidate's style or mannerisms; they are fully capable of analyzing their own reaction without pundit intervention.

What the public cannot easily do is determine whether factual claims made during a debate are accurate or not-- and in this far more critical role, media commentators have often fallen down on the job. In one of the most dramatic moments of the 1992 vice presidential debate, Vice President Dan Quayle (10/13/92) charged that Al Gore's book, Earth inthe Balance, proposed that "the taxpayers of America spend $100 billion ayear on environmental projects in foreign countries"; when Gore maintained that he hadn't written that, Quayle cited a page number where the proposal could be found.

One of the few media outlets to look up what the book actually said was the New York Times, which reported the next day (10/14/92) that while the book did say $100 billion a year was needed for global environmental projects, "Mr. Gore notes in the book that such levels of spending would be impossible given the country’s economic distress and calls on the other industrialized countries to contribute." But the Times neutralized its attempt at fact-checking by prefacing it with the statement, "There are elements of truth in the statements of both men," and labeling the passage" Truth on Both Sides." George W. Bush made a series of false or deceptive claims in his debates with Al Gore in 2000: He asserted, for example, that in his tax plan, "by far the majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder" (10/11/00), when Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation (5/3/00) had found that the bottom half of the economic spectrum would receive only 10 percent of Bush's income tax cut. At another point (10/11/00), Bush declared that "we spend $4.7 billion a year on the uninsured in the state of Texas." But the state of Texas itself spent less than $1 billion a year on those without medical insurance; only by adding together all federal, local and private spending can you come up with Bush's figure (Window on State Government, 5/10/00).

Few outlets bothered to examine what "we" meant in Bush's statement. One of the most dramatic moments during the Bush/Gore debates was when the two candidates heatedly clashed over what Bush's Medicare plan offered. It was this dispute that produced Gore's infamous sighs, which received farmore attention than the question of who was actually telling the truth inthe argument. Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler (9/28/04) summed up the NewYork Times' coverage:"In the next day's fact-checks, Robin Toner reviewed the heated drug debate, summarizing what the hopefuls had said. (Toner: 'Mr. Bush accused Mr. Gore of using "Medi-scare tactics," while Mr. Gore accused Mr. Bush of advancing a plan that offered little or no help to most Medicare beneficiaries.') But incredibly, she never said who had been right in the factual battle the two hopefuls waged, and we have never found any place where the Times told readers that Bush had been wrong on the basic facts of this matter."

This kind of coverage evades journalism's most important responsibility--to separate truth from falsehood. If the November election is decided onthe basis of trivia, post-debate coverage that fails to do its job willbear much of the blame.

AlterNet: A Toxic Mix: God, Country, and Perpetual Fear

AlterNet: A Toxic Mix: God, Country, and Perpetual Fear: "By Arianna Huffington, AlterNet
Posted on September 29, 2004

Leave no sucker punch unthrown. That seems to be the scorched earth mantra of the GOP campaign as it heads into the final rounds. But if you're thinking these guys can't go any lower, guess again. George Bush doesn't just have his head buried in the sand--his integrity has sunk well below sea level, as well.

The latest dirty blows are a contemptible one-two combination with which Team Bush has portrayed John Kerry as both the enemy of God and if not exactly the ally of al Qaeda, then, at least, the terrorists' candidate of choice. To hear them tell it, a vote for Kerry is a vote against God and Country. Talk about hitting way, way below the belt.

Let's start with God."

Right Wing Nut Radio Fantasizes About Kerry's Tan

But they haven't mentioned that ball of socks stuffed in elGeneralissimo's crotch?

During his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED 30 mile, $250,000 flight to the Aircraft Carrier Abe Lincoln last year, Tweety Matthews actually got hyper-excited and said "Wow Look At His Manhood!"

No, Tweety. It was not 'manhood.' The biological name was cottonus stickum in dicktus.

(OHIO)Sneak Attack On Citizen Voters By GoPpIG OHIO Secretary Of State--Katherine "Pancake Face" Harris Trained 'em Well

t r u t h o u t - Ohio SCUMBAG Secretary of State Blocks New Voter Registrations Unless The Paper Matches the Weight, Color, Smell, and Texture of Cat PEE: " The League of Women Voters of Ohio on Thursday called on Blackwell to clarify his position. League national president Kay Maxwell said she knows of no other states that are requiring the 80-pound paper stock for voter registration cards. 'This is the first I've heard of it,' she said on Thursday in Columbus."

A Country Of Fools? Uninformed Electorate Can't Find Their Asses In Dark w/ Both Hands!

Yahoo! News - Poll: Americans Uninformed on Bush, Kerry: "Making abortions more difficult to obtain? Nearly one-third of those surveyed didn't know Bush alone supports more restrictions on abortion.
Eliminating the tax on estates? Two-thirds didn't know that's a Bush proposal.
After two years of presidential campaigning and hundreds of millions of dollars in political ads, many voters remained clueless about those and other policies, according to the survey. Annenberg analyst Kate Kenski blamed the candidates for not stressing their points of view and the news media for focusing on character assessments and the race itself.
'It's disappointing that people don't know where the candidates stand, given how much money's been spent on the campaigns,' said Kenski, a senior research analyst. 'In the absence of good information, voters guess and often guess incorrectly.' "

Gallup's Newport dodged charges in a ... [Media Matters for America]

Gallup's Newport dodged charges in a ... [Media Matters for America]

Purporting to respond to a full-page ad by in the September 28 edition of The New York Times, Gallup Poll editor-in-chief Frank Newport dodged the ad's central charge that Gallup's polling methods favor Republicans. On the September 28 edition of CNN's Inside Politics, Newport referred to and purported to answer the following sentence from the ad: "Simply put, Gallup's methodology has predicted lately that Republican turnout on Election Day is likely to exceed Democrats' by six to eight percentage points." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, Gallup's polls do skew Republican by including more Republicans in their samples than statistics from the last two presidential elections show are representative of the electorate.

But rather than respond to the charge over Gallup's methodology, Newport focused instead on the ad's use of the word "predicted":

Third is they state that Gallup somehow is predicting that there will be some percent of Republicans or Democrats or a result of the election on Election Day itself. Not so. We never predict. We say, "As of today, if the election were held today, these are the results that we would find." We by no means are predicting. We all know, particularly with the debates ahead, that there can be significant change in everything between now and Election Day itself.

OK, we get it. Gallup isn't in the business of predicting. But, arguably, it might be in the business of producing polls designed to favor the Republican candidate for president.

Link for Video file....

Chimp_Junta Sics Dogs OF War, Brig.Gen. Mark Kimmet, to Slaughter the 300,000 Civilians in Fallujah, & Lie About "Insurgent" Casualties

Another round of US airstrikes on Fallujah
By Peter Symonds29 September 2004
Back to screen version Send this link by email Email the author
American warplanes once again mounted heavy strikes on the Iraqi city of Fallujah on Saturday in what has become a daily exercise aimed at terrorising the rebel stronghold and its population of some 300,000 people into submission.

The bombing began late on Friday night when US aircraft attacked “an offensive obstacle belt” composed of concrete and earthen barriers. The warplanes returned later when a US base on the outskirts of the city was fired on by “insurgents” using fired rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. At least six houses were demolished in what were described as “precision raids”.

A US military spokesman declared that seven “insurgents” had been killed in the attacks and that there were “no noncombatant injuries or deaths”. No information was provided as to how the targets had been selected. Nor did the military explain how, in the dead of night, it had been able to count the dead and determine whether they were hostile fighters.

Dr Abdalrahman Mohammed of Fallujah Hospital contradicted the US claims, stating that at least eight people had died in the raids, among them two women, three children and an elderly man. Reuters TV showed images of an injured baby being taken out of the rubble of a bombed house and a woman covered in blood, who was alive, after being pulled out. An Associated Press report put the number of casualties higher—at 15 dead and more than 30 wounded.

The repeated discrepancies between official US statements on these “precision strikes” and the casualty figures released by hospitals have become so glaring that the US military has felt the need to respond.
Speaking to the Los Angeles Times over the weekend, a senior US military official condemned “reports of civilian deaths in Fallujah [as] ‘propaganda’ and suggested that local hospitals have been infiltrated by insurgent forces.” He brushed aside video images of the injured declaring “we can’t authenticate that the individuals in the hospital are in the hospital because of [a US] attack that day.”

The absurdity of these self-serving claims is highlighted by the double standards applied. Hospital officials struggling to cope with the daily toll of dead and wounded are accused of manufacturing “propaganda” for “insurgent forces”. But those responsible for the indiscriminate killings offer no justification for their claims whatsoever and are not challenged by the media.

Fallujah has now been pounded from the air for weeks. On Sunday, Air Force Brigadier General Erv Lessel boasted to the media that more than 100 “insurgents” from the Tawhid and Jihad network run by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been killed. “We’re confident that, through these airstrikes, we have been able to thwart many large-scale attacks and suicide bombings that were in the planning process.”

But Al-Zarqawi and his followers, if they are present in Fallujah at all, have simply become the pretext for savage ongoing attacks on a city that has become a symbol of resistance throughout Iraq. US troops were forced to call off an offensive to seize the town in April when confronted with determined armed opposition and growing outrage over the ferocity of the destruction. As a face-saving device, control was handed to the “Fallujah Protection Brigade”, led by a former Baathist officer, but this force has all but disappeared. Neither US nor Iraqi troops have been able to enter the city for months.

The US is now preparing a major military offensive to retake the city, along with other “no-go” areas of Iraq including Ramadi, Samarra and Sadr City, the impoverished Shiite suburb of Baghdad. In interviews on Sunday, US Secretary of State Colin Powell, after admitting that the insurgency was “getting worse” and that there was “an increase in anti-Americanism in the Muslim world”, indicated a “major thrust” was being planned in the near future to “deal with these so-called no-go zones”.

Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi echoed Powell’s comments on Monday, warning that a “decisive military solution” could be carried out if a political one was not reached. “I think we [have] waited more than enough for Fallujah,” he said in comments to the Al-Arabiya network.

Powell attempted to dismiss the growing armed resistance as a last ditch effort to halt national elections scheduled for January. But like previous claims that the insurgency would die away following the “handover of sovereignty” in June, there is no reason to believe that stage-managed elections in January will stem the opposition to the US occupation any more the installation of the US puppet Allawi did.

The overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people are deeply hostile to the US subjugation of their country. The daily US abuses and killing of Iraqis are simply adding to the reservoir of anti-US sentiment and providing a fresh stream of recruits and sympathisers to the various armed resistance groups. The methods used by the US in Iraq are no different from the Nazi occupiers during World War II or the colonial powers of the 19th century: their aim is not to win over the Iraqi people, but to cow them into submission.

In a sign of the mood in US ruling circles, a comment in the Washington Post entitled “From Jenin to Fallujah?” on Monday argued for the application of Israeli methods to Iraq. After noting that suicide bombings in Israel have declined following Sharon’s “relentless warfare” including the flattening of the Jenin refugee camp, the writer concluded: “The Israeli experience does suggest that it’s wrong to insist, as many in Washington do, that a military campaign against the terrorist bases could not substantially improve security conditions for both Americans and Iraqis. The visuals would be awful and the outcry loud, on al-Jazeera and maybe at the United Nations. But if the reality were modest civilian casualties and heavy enemy losses, the result might be an opportunity to pursue the nation-building that now is stymied.”

As plans for a bloody US military offensive are being prepared, the aerial punishment of Fallujah continues unabated. In the early hours of Monday morning, US warplanes fired rockets into the city. A US military spokesman claimed that only “illumination rounds” had been used. But Dr Walid Thamer of the Fallujah General Hospital insisted that at least three people had been killed and nine wounded in that attack. According to hospital officials, another three people died and six were injured in air raids on Tuesday.

Sadr City has been added to the list of targets with successive air strikes on Monday and Tuesday. According to the US military, “precision strikes” were carried out on “positively identified” militant hideouts. Residents told the media that the pre-dawn air raids on Monday lasted for hours. Dr Qaddem Saddam at the Imam Ali hospital said that at least five people were killed and 40 wounded, including 15 women and five children.

Taking Liberties

AlterNet: Taking Liberties: "Meanwhile, despite widespread recognition that Abu Ghraib has done untold damage worldwide to the legitimacy of the fight against terrorism, the military has still not charged any higher-ups in the Pentagon, and the administration has shown no inclination to appoint an independent commission to investigate. It prefers to leave the investigation to the Justice Department and the Pentagon, the two entities that drafted secret legal memos defending torture.

What is most troubling is that none of these developments – the revelation of prosecutorial abuse in the interest of obtaining a "win" in the war on terrorism; the continuing failure to hold accountable those most responsible for the torture at Abu Ghraib; and the exclusion of a moderate Muslim as too dangerous for Americans to hear – is an isolated mistake. Rather, they are symptoms of a deeper problem. The President thinks he can win this war by "acting tough" and treating the rule of law and constitutional freedoms as optional. With enough fearmongering, that attitude may win him the election. But it will lose the war. Bush is playing right into al Qaeda's hands by further alienating those we most need on our side. "

Mis-Leader Generalissimo At it Again

< >
President Bush has opined about the need for democracy to be preserved, and for U.S. elections to be fair. In 2002, he said "Every registered voter deserves to have confidence that the system is fair and elections are honest."[1] In 2003, he gave a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy claiming he had a "commitment to democracy."[2] But, as a new report shows, Bush and the Republican Party are doing everything they can to reduce democracy at home as the election approaches.
As an article in In These Times notes, in August 2003 the CEO of one of the biggest manufacturers of new voting machines wrote a fundraising letter saying he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."[3] In June 2004, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) tried to remove 48,000 traditionally Democratic voters from the Florida voter rolls,[4] prompting the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to demand an investigation.[5] In July, a top GOP official in Michigan indicated his party's effort to reduce minority voter turnout, saying that the GOP will have "a tough time [in this election]" if "we do not suppress the Detroit vote."[6] In August, Jeb Bush's political appointee tried to hire two top Bush fundraisers to represent the election office in Broward County in the case of a recount.[7]
See the full article at
1. "President Signs Historic Election Reform Legislation into Law," The White House, 10/29/02,
2. "President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East," The White House, 11/06/03,
3. "Voting Machine Controversy," Common Dreams News Center, 8/23/03,
4. "Rights leader scolds Bush on use of felon purge lists," Miami Herald, 6/22/04,
5. "Voting worries just won't go away," Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 7/18/04. 6. "Groups Say GOP Moves to Stifle Vote," Washington Post, 8/26/04,
7. "Elections Supervisor Rapped for Hiring Lawyers With Bush Ties,", 8/30/04,

Tell AssKrak To Fuck Off

Yahoo! News - Federal Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Power: "NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge on Wednesday found unconstitutional a part of the United States' anti-terror Patriot Act that allows the FBI (news - web sites) to demand customer records from businesses without court approval. "
(And so the demolition of this egregious piece of horror begins, as it loses one brick...*aj*)

This Can't Possibly Happen In America: 60 Minutes Calling "Facts" About Bush BIASED?!?!? FACTS ARE FACTS YOU FUCKING IDIOTS.

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

60 Minutes: Shelving a Story to Boost Bush?
CBS puts Niger expose on hold as boss endorses Republicans

September 28, 2004

In an outrageous politicization of journalism, CBS announced it would
not air a report on forged documents that the Bush administration used to
sell the Iraq war until after the November 2 election (New York Times,
9/25/04). A network spokesperson issued a statement declaring, "We now
believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the
presidential election."

The 60 Minutes segment was ready to air on September 8, but was bumped
in favor of the now infamous report that relied on supposed National Guard
memos whose authenticity CBS now says it cannot confirm. The furor over
the Guard memos has created a situation where CBS executives say "the network can now not credibly air a report questioning how the Bush administration could have gotten taken in by phony documents" (Newsweek online, 9/22/04).

Of course, what's really inappropriate here is CBS allowing its PR problems to suppress a news report on an important issue until after it no longer matters. The shelved 60 Minutes story deals with the origins of documents purportedly showing that Iraq under Saddam Hussein tried to obtain uranium from Niger-- documents that turned out to be forgeries.

The story, according to the Newsweek online report, asks "tough questions about how the White House came to embrace the fraudulent documents and why administration officials chose to include a 16-word reference to the questionable uranium purchase in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech."

Though such questions are clearly relevant to a presidential campaign that
largely revolves around Bush's decision to invade Iraq, CBS intends to keep the answers to itself until the election has passed. Could there be more than the embarrassment over the Guard story behind this decision?

Sumner Redstone, CEO of CBS's parent company Viacom, made an unusual political statement at a gathering of corporate leaders in Hong Kong (Asian Wall Street Journal, 9/24/04):

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry... but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people.... But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."

Redstone repeated these sentiments in an interview with Time (10/4/04):

"There has been comment upon my contribution to Democrats like Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry is a good man. I've known him for many years. But it happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believethat a Republican administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one."

According to a write-up by Forbes (9/23/04)-- the sponsor of the conference where Redstone issued his endorsement of Bush-- the CEO asserted that "he never gets involved in any aspects of the network's news coverage." But that claim, hard to believe when made by any media industry chief executive, seems particularly dubious given Forbes' report that "Redstone said he has been talking daily to top CBS officials and to Viacom board members about the controversy" over the Guard memos.

It is journalistically indefensible for CBS to withhold a story due to embarrassment incurred by another, unrelated piece. It is particularly unacceptable when the shelving of a story benefits a candidate that CBS's boss has just publicly endorsed. If CBS wants to restore trust in its news judgment, it can begin by applying journalistic standards, not political calculations, to the decision on when to air its report on the origin of the forged Niger documents.

ACTION: Please contact 60 Minutes and urge them to stand up for journalistic principle by airing the report on the Niger forgeries. And call Viacom and CBS executives and tell them to allow 60 Minutes to report the news without political interference.

60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019

Phone: (212) 975-3247

Sumner Redstone, Chairman, Viacom
(212) 258-6000

Les Moonves, Chairman of CBS; co-President & co-CEO, Viacom
(323) 575-2345

As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if you maintain a polite tone. Please cc with your correspondence.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

(OHIO) Breaking News

TRUTHOUT Editor Marc Ash Phone Call To OHIO Dem Headquarters:


This Blogsite Is Devoted To Crushing the Chimper--And So Is George Soros!

Yahoo! News - Billionaire George Soros intensifies his anti-Bush campaign
"Soros, 74, announced Tuesday that he was traveling to 12 US cities -- including stops in the swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa and Florida -- starting October 5 for meetings with the public and local news media.
He has also penned a pamphlet titled 'Why we must not re-elect President Bush (news - web sites)' and is mailing copies to two million voters. "
(There can no longer be a question in any thinking person's mind about the dangers of a second term for chimp_junta. It would mean the END--END--of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. *aj*)

Baghdad Burning

Baghdad Burning: "Liar, Liar...
I was channel-surfing yesterday evening- trying to find something interesting to watch. I flipped vaguely to Al-Arabia and Bush's inane smile suddenly flashed across the screen. Now, normally, as soon as I see his face, I instantly change channels and try to find something that doesn't make me quite as angry. This time, I stopped to watch as Allawi's pudgy person came into view. It's always quite a scene- Bush with one of the alledged leaders of the New Iraq. "

Crawford, TX Newspaper Endorses KERRY

Top News Article | "CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - The newspaper in President Bush's adopted hometown of Crawford threw its support on Tuesday behind Bush's Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry.
The weekly Lone Star Iconoclast criticized Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and for turning budget surpluses into record deficits. The editorial also criticized Bush's proposals on Social Security and Medicare.
'The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda,' the newspaper said in its editorial. 'Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry.'
It urged 'Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.' "

Fuck..Rummy--Remember, there won't be a draft under a Kerry administration.

Daily Kos :: Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.: "They're sending a collective 'fuck you' to the Pentagon:"

Gallup Is Not Only Irrelevant, They are Corrupt Mother Fuckers...Another Story

The Left Coaster: Gallup Is At It Again - Yesterday's National Poll Had 12% GOP Bias: "Gallup has done it again. After supplying CNN and USA Today with a poll two weeks ago that showed a double-digit Bush lead amongst likely voters that turned out to have a significant bias in its sample favoring the GOP, Gallup did it again yesterday.
Except that yesterday, they not only did it again, they apparently felt that a 7% GOP bias wasn't good enough. So they perpetrated the same fraud upon the media (including their partners CNN and USAT) and voters and this time used a 12% GOP bias in their likely voter screen. I kid you not."

A Washington Post/ABC News Poll Shows Lead for Bush

: "How closely are you following the 2004 presidential race: (registered voters)

Very closely48%
Somewhat closely39%
Not too closely8%
Not closely at all4%
DK/No opinion1%

Source: A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted by telephone September 23-26, 2004 among 1,204 randomly selected adults nationwide, including 969 self-identified registered voters. Margin of sampling error for overall results and for registered voters is plus or minus three percentage points. Fieldwork by TNS of Horsham, PA."

(This is a very detailed poll, and I recommend you use the link to see all of the responses. As long as "Gallup" has NOTHING to do with it, it probably is at least a look at the clouds in the sky today, before the debate. Clouds change from hour to hour, and so do poll results. *aj*)

Chimpo & Stooge Allawi: Better Than Cheney and a KILLER Too!

: "Still, Allawi does have the most important job in the Bush campaign. It's a temp thing. Five weeks to be exact. He's the guy who has to keep Americans convinced -- until our Election Day -- that we know what we are doing in Iraq and that what we want there is doable. And, so far, so good. Allawi's job is to keep the lid on -- and he did 'Morning in Iraq' quite well last week. "

Computer scientists slam e-voting machines |

Computer scientists slam e-voting machines | CNET
"The world's oldest professional society of computer scientists on Monday took aim at electronic voting machines, recommending they not be used in elections unless they provide a physical paper trail. In a new position statement, the Association for Computing Machinery said that 'voting systems should enable each voter to inspect a physical record to verify that his or her vote has been accurately cast and to serve as an independent check on the result produced and stored by the system.' "

Get Ready. Jeb Plans To Blow Florida Votes Up To Help elChimpo--Again

t r u t h o u t - Jeffrey Rosen | Bush V. Gore, Round 2:
"Moreover, Bush v. Gore has made candidates far more aggressive in preparing for litigation. To contest the Florida recount in 2000, Democrats and Republicans assembled legal teams on the fly. By contrast, in anticipation of a protracted legal battle this November, both the Bush and Kerry campaigns have made elaborate preparations. The Bush campaign plans to have party lawyers in every state, including more than 30,000 precincts. And the Kerry campaign has set up an unprecedented national legal network involving more than 10,000 volunteer attorneys who are already preparing litigation over voting machines, voter registration rules, and questions over which ballots are counted or disqualified. 'Every counting rule in every one of the key states is already in a binder,' says Bauer. 'All of the background work has already been done so we don't have the scramble that inevitably occurred in Florida.' "

Paul Krugman: Swagger vs. Substance

The New York Times' Paul Krugman : Swagger vs. Substance:

"There have been some encouraging signs lately. There was a disturbing interlude in which many news organizations seemed to accept false claims that Iraq had calmed down after the transfer of sovereignty. But now, as the violence escalates, they seem willing to ask hard questions about Mr. Bush's fantasy version of the situation in Iraq. For example, a recent Reuters analysis pointed out that independent sources contradict his assertions about everything 'from police training and reconstruction to preparations for January elections.'

Mr. Bush is also getting less of a free ride than he used to when he smears his opponent. Last week, after Mr. Bush declared that Mr. Kerry 'would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today,' The Associated Press pointed out that this 'twisted his rival's words' - and then quoted what John Kerry actually said. "


"Led Troops in Battle"--Kerry/Edwards Are Certainly the Best Team for America. Does America Know this? Or Do We Believe the Mendacious Outrageous Bush : Edwards Slams Bush Campaign's Ad 'Lies': "MANCHESTER, N.H. Sept. 27, 2004

John Edwards accused President Bush's re-election campaign of lying in television ads about John Kerry's Vietnam War service and his plan to reform health care. (Not just his "campaign," Vice President Edwards, but elChimpo himself: Liar Liar Liar...Bush/Dick will say ANYTHING to get elected the First Time)*aj*

'They will absolutely lie about anything,' the Democratic vice presidential candidate said Monday at a rally in Victory Park attended by hundreds of well-wishers.

A Bush health care ad claims that Kerry would put health care decisions in the hands of government 'bureaucrats' at a cost of $1.5 trillion. Independent analysts estimate the cost at $895 billion over 10 years, which Kerry says he would pay for by repealing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

'There's not a single new government program in our health care plan,' which calls for strengthening existing government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, giving tax breaks to employers that provide health insurance, and allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada, Edwards said.

The North Carolina senator also criticized the Bush campaign's attacks on Kerry's military service and Republican attempts to portray Kerry as a supporter of al-Qaida and former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. John Kerry 'is the one candidate who's actually led troops in battle,' Edwards said"


Monday, September 27, 2004

Michael Moore--Bringing Free Movies, Beer-Nuts, and a Plea To Get Off Your Donkey and VOTE El Chimpo OUT OUT OUT

t r u t h o u t - FOCUS: Michael Moore Slackers of the World, Unite!
Saturday 25 September 2004

Dear Friends,
Tomorrow I begin a little 20-state, 60-city tour to try and convince the fed-up, the burned-out, and the Nader-impaired to leave the house for just a half-hour on November 2nd and mark an 'X' in a box (or punch a chad or touch a screen) so that America and the world can be saved. (I don't mean 'saved' as in all workers will henceforth control the means of production. That's, um, going to take a few more years.)

What I'm asking is that our fellow Americans, as the collective landlord of a public housing project at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., take just a few minutes to evict the tenant who is currently wrecking the place (not to mention what he's doing to the rest of the neighborhood). After all, isn't this one of the coolest things about a democracy, getting to give some payback to those in power? 'YOU'RE FIRED!' Oooh, that feels good -- especially if the recipient of the pink slip is someone who wants to send your kid off to war.

So, having nothing better to do for the next month (and eager to visit such swinging states as Iowa! Ohio! Arkansas!), I have decided to go to every battleground state in the country and do whatever it takes to get out the vote. I will do your laundry, I will clean your house, I will give you a year's supply of beer nuts if you will commit to me to go to the polls on Tuesday, November 2.

I'm calling it 'The Slacker Uprising Tour', a coast-to-coast effort to bring the non-voting majority out of hibernation and kick some political butt. My goal is to get as many of the 100 million non-voters in America as I can to give voting a try -- just this once. I want at least 56% of all eligible voters to vote and thus set a modern-day turnout record.

I'm putting out the red alert call to slackers everywhere to help me lead this revolt. I want everyone in their teens and twenties who exist from one packet of Ramen noodles to the next bag of Tostitos to take your fully-justified cynicism and toss it like a Molotov right into the middle of this election. As "non-voters" you have been written off. But if only a few thousand of you vote, it could make all the difference. You literally hold all the power in your hands. That's even cooler than holding a TV remote.

I, the original slacker -- I, who have endured all sorts of attacks for my slacker demeanor -- yes I am coming to an arena or stadium just outside your dorm room (or that little space off the furnace room where your parents still let you stay, rent-free). Why arenas and stadiums? Because there are so many of us -- AND they serve beer and chips. From the Sun Dome to the Key Arena, from the Patriot Center to the Del Mar Race Track, I will be there and I will bring prizes and presents and clean underwear for all in need.

Before I arrive, I have arranged for free screenings of "Fahrenheit 9/11" in each city. When I get there I will have with me dozens of voter registrars who will register new (or recently transplanted) voters (please check here for voter registration deadlines -- they are fast approaching in most states in the next 10 days!). Absentee ballot applications will also be available. And the good people of Move-On, ACT and other groups will be present at each of my appearances to sign up volunteers to get out the vote on election day.

Details of where I will be appearing will be available in your local media. Many venues, due to advance word already out there, have "sold out" (at most stops, students get in for free and community people pay a nominal fee -- usually $5 -- to cover costs). Again, check your local media to find out the times and dates and how to get advance tickets.

A partial list of the cities I'm visiting includes: Seattle, Big Rapids (MI), Mt. Pleasant (MI), Tucson, Dearborn, Phoenix, East Lansing, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Albuquerque, Toledo, Columbus (OH), Ames (IA), Cleveland, Fairmont (WV), Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Bethlehem (PA), Fairfax (VA), Carlyle (PA), State College (PA), Minneapolis, Gainesville, Nashville, Miami, Memphis, Orlando, Salem (OR), Jacksonville, Tampa, Kansas City, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Madison, Green Bay, Las Vegas, Reno, Denver, and, of course, Tallahassee, Florida. Others will be posted later.

While on the road, I will try to keep my blog up-to-date and post some pictures we take in each city. The three campuses on the tour which register the most students to vote (or who have the most non-voters committing to me to vote) will receive a special scholarship from us at the end of the tour.

Thanks, in advance, to everyone out there who is working hard during this election. I know it will make a difference.

Let's leave no non-voter behind.


Michael Moore

Off We Go--Into The Wild Blue Yonder!

BBC NEWS | Virgin boss in space tourism bid: "Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson has signed a �14m agreement which will see his company take passengers into space.

The British entrepreneur is having five 'spaceliners' built in the US by the team behind the SpaceShipOne vehicle. The California-based rocket plane became the first privately developed carrier to go above 100km in June.

Sir Richard says it will cost around �100,000 to go on a 'Virgin Galactic' spaceliner, and the first flights should begin in about three years' time. "

Playing Politics With Terror "Suspects"--A Little Taste of Chimp_Mayberry Machiavellis At Work

In Pakistan, dead men tell no tales
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
:"And give the 'war on terror' a boost. Recently, several characters wanted in this have been arrested in Pakistan. However, contacts say their arrests were revealed only when it suited the authorities. For instance, in late July, the US confirmed the capture in Gujrat, a town in Punjab province, of Tanzanian al-Qaeda suspect Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, even though he was arrested many weeks earlier in the capital Islamabad. "

Sunday, September 26, 2004

GOP Voter Vault Shipped Overseas - GOP Voter Vault Shipped Overseas: "Besides the political hot button of using offshore developers in the middle of a recession, some experts question the security of shipping possibly sensitive data around. "

(This fuckinGopPiG trick contains YOUR NAME and MY NAME...not just other GoP*pIGS! Now we do need Gracey Slick's hundred-thousand computer killers)

The Observer | Pro Bono

The Observer | Comment | Pro Bono: "He's as big a campaigner for the poor and hungry as he is a rock star, but what really singles him out is that when he speaks, as he will at this week's Labour Party conference, world leaders listen "

The New York Times >Mo Dowd: Dance of the Marionettes

The New York Times:
Dance of the Marionettes:
Published: September 26, 2004

(I)t's heartwarming, really.

President Bush has his own Mini-Me now, someone to echo his every word and mimic his every action. For so long, Mr. Bush has put up with caricatures of a wee W. sitting in the vice president's lap, Charlie McCarthy style, as big Dick Cheney calls the shots. But now the president has his own puppet to play with.

All last week in New York and Washington, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi of Iraq parroted Mr. Bush's absurd claims that the fighting in Iraq was an essential part of the U.S. battle against terrorists that started on 9/11, that the neocons' utopian dream of turning Iraq into a modern democracy was going swimmingly, and that the worse things got over there, the better they really were."

It's the media's fault, the two men warble in a duet so perfectly harmonized you wonder if Karen Hughes wrote Mr. Allawi's speech, for not showing the millions of people in Iraq who are not being beheaded, kidnapped, suicide-bombed or caught in the cross-fire every day; and it's John Kerry's fault for abetting the Iraqi insurgents by expressing his doubts about our plan there, as he once did about Vietnam.

"These doubters risk underestimating our country and they risk fueling the hopes of the terrorists," Mr. Allawi told Congress in a rousing anti-Kerry stump speech for Bush/Cheney, a follow-up punch to Mr. Cheney's claim that a vote for John Kerry is a vote for another terrorist attack on America.

First the Swift boat guys; now the swift dhow prime minister.

Just as Mr. Cheney, Rummy and the neocons turned W. into a host body for their old schemes to knock off Saddam, transform the military and set up a pre-emption doctrine to strike at allies and foes that threatened American hyperpower supremacy, so now W. has turned Mr. Allawi into a host body for the Panglossian palaver that he believes will get him re-elected. Every time the administration takes a step it says will reduce the violence, the violence increases.

Mr. Bush doesn't seem to care that by using Mr. Allawi as a puppet in his campaign, he decreases the prime minister's chances of debunking the belief in Iraq that he is a Bush puppet - which is the only way he can gain any credibility to stabilize his devastated country and be elected himself.

Actually, being the president's marionette is a step up from Mr. Allawi's old jobs as henchman for Saddam Hussein and stoolie for the C.I.A.

It's hilarious that the Republicans have trotted out Mr. Allawi as an objective analyst of the state of conditions in Iraq when he's the administration's handpicked guy and has as much riding on putting the chaos in a sunny light as they do. Though Mr. Allawi presents himself as representing all Iraqis, his actions have been devised to put more of the country in the grip of this latest strongman - giving himself the power to declare martial law, bringing back the death penalty and kicking out Al Jazeera.

Bush officials, who proclaim themselves so altruistic about bringing liberty to Iraq, really see Iraq in a creepy narcissistic way: It's all about Mr. Bush's re-election.

As The Chicago Tribune reported, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage alleged that Iraqi insurgents have stepped up their bloody attacks because they want to "influence the election against President Bush."
At a recent G.O.P. fund-raiser, House Speaker Dennis Hastert claimed that terrorists would be happier with a Kerry presidency. "I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another," he said, but "I would think they would be more apt to go" for "somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops."

Faced with their dystopia, the utopians are scaling back their grand visions for Iraq's glorious future. Rummy suggested last week that a fractional democracy might be good enough. "Let's say you tried to have an election, and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country, but some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," he said at a hearing on Capitol Hill, adding: "Nothing's perfect in life."

At a Pentagon briefing on Friday, Rummy also blew off Colin Powell's so-called Pottery Barn rule that if we broke Iraq, we own it. "Any implication that that place has to be peaceful and perfect before we can reduce coalition and U.S. forces, I think, would obviously be unwise, because it's never been peaceful and perfect," he said. "It's a tough part of the world."

As he said after the early looting in Iraq: "Stuff happens."

Saturday, September 25, 2004

Why? Posted by Hello
Vote Now! Posted by Hello

Darkest Moment For Chimp_junta: He Is Descended From Nazi Sypathizers

t r u t h o u t - Holocaust Survivors Sue Bush Family over Nazi Link:
Saturday 25 September 2004

"Rumours of a link between the U.S. first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president.

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. "

Latest Direction From X-tian Right-Wing to Followers: Kill Kill Kill (I wish it were a joke)

Yahoo! News - Christians Use Gay Marriage to Seek Voters

"run over the top of them, destroy them — whatever you need to do so that God's word is the word that is being practiced in Congress, town halls and state legislatures."


The New York Times > Opinion > An Un-American Way to Cam

The New York Times > Opinion > An Un-American Way to Campaign(Or Bush is truly a crazy mother fucker *aj*)

resident Bush and his surrogates are taking their re-election campaign into dangerous territory. Mr. Bush is running as the man best equipped to keep America safe from terrorists - that was to be expected. We did not, however, anticipate that those on the Bush team would dare to argue that a vote for John Kerry would be a vote for Al Qaeda. Yet that is the message they are delivering - with a repetition that makes it clear this is an organized effort to paint the Democratic candidate as a friend to terrorists.

When Vice President Dick Cheney declared that electing Mr. Kerry would create a danger "that we'll get hit again," his supporters attributed that appalling language to a rhetorical slip. But Mr. Cheney is still delivering that message. Meanwhile, as Dana Milbank detailed so chillingly in The Washington Post yesterday, the House speaker, Dennis Hastert, said recently on television that Al Qaeda would do better under a Kerry presidency, and Senator Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has announced that the terrorists are going to do everything they can between now and November "to try and elect Kerry."

This is despicable politics. It's not just polarizing - it also undermines the efforts of the Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency to combat terrorists in America. Every time a member of the Bush administration suggests that Islamic extremists want to stage an attack before the election to sway the results in November, it causes patriotic Americans who do not intend to vote for the president to wonder whether the entire antiterrorism effort has been kidnapped and turned into part of the Bush re-election campaign. The people running the government clearly regard keeping Mr. Bush in office as more important than maintaining a united front on the most important threat to the nation.

Mr. Bush has not disassociated himself from any of this, and in his own campaign speeches he makes an argument that is equally divisive and undemocratic. The president has claimed, over and over, that criticism of the way his administration has conducted the war in Iraq and news stories that suggest the war is not going well endanger American troops and give aid and comfort to the enemy. This week, in his Rose Garden press conference with the interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, Mr. Bush was asked about Mr. Kerry's increasingly pointed remarks on Iraq. "You can embolden an enemy by sending mixed messages," he said, going on to suggest that Mr. Kerry's criticisms dispirit the Iraqi people and American soldiers.

It is fair game for the president to claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was a blow to terrorism, to accuse Mr. Kerry of flip-flopping and to repeat continually that the war in Iraq is going very well, despite all evidence to the contrary. It is absolutely not all right for anyone on his team to suggest that Mr. Kerry is the favored candidate of the terrorists. And at a time when the United States is supposed to be preparing the Iraqi people for a democratic election, it's appalling to hear the chief executive say that loyal opposition gives aid and comfort to the enemy abroad.

The general instinct of Americans is to play fair. That is why, even though terrorists struck the United States during President Bush's watch, the Democrats have not run a campaign that blames him for allowing the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to be attacked. And while the war in Iraq has opened up large swaths of the country to terrorist groups for the first time, any effort by Mr. Kerry to describe the president as the man whom Osama bin Laden wants to keep in power would be instantly denounced by the Republicans as unpatriotic.

We think that anyone who attempts to portray sincere critics as dangerous to the safety of the nation is wrong. It reflects badly on the president's character that in this instance, he's putting his own ambition ahead of the national good.

"Vengeance is His" by Paul Begala

"Vengeance is His" by Paul Begala:

"Bush sees the world in black and white. You're either for him or against him; a saint or a sinner; a friend or a foe. If given four more years in the White House, there's little doubt that the politics of retribution and bitter partisanship will dominate every day. "

Chimp_Junta High_Fives it Over CBS Cancellation Of Derogatory Report On Iraq War Rationales (Really A Disgusting Self-Censorship)

The New York Times > The Fallout: '60 Minutes' Delays Report Questioning Reasons for Iraq War

CBS News said yesterday that it had postponed a "60 Minutes" segment that questioned Bush administration rationales for going to war in Iraq.
The announcement, in a statement by a spokeswoman, was issued four days after the network acknowledged that it could not prove the authenticity of documents it used to raise new questions about President Bush's Vietnam-era military service.

The Iraq segment had been ready for broadcast on Sept. 8, CBS said, but was bumped at the last minute for the segment on Mr. Bush's National Guard service. The Guard segment was considered a highly competitive report, one that other journalists were pursuing.

CBS said last night that the report on the war would not run before Nov. 2.

"We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election," the spokeswoman, Kelli Edwards, said in a statement.

Ms. Edwards said that the report had been scheduled for June but that it was postponed because of additional news on the subject.

The CBS statement followed a report in the online edition of Newsweek that described the frustration of CBS News reporters and producers who said the network had concluded that it could not legitimately criticize the president because of the questions about the National Guard report.

According to the Newsweek report, the "60 Minutes" segment was to have detailed how the administration relied on false documents when it said Iraq had tried to buy a lightly processed form of uranium, known as yellowcake, from Niger. The administration later acknowledged that the information was incorrect and that the documents were most likely fake.

The Newsweek article said the segment was to have included the first on-camera interview with Elisabetta Burba, the Italian journalist who was given the fake documents and who provided them to a United States Embassy for verification. The documents were sent to Washington, where some officials embraced them as firm evidence that Iraq was aggressively trying to make nuclear weapons.

The lead producer on the Niger segment, David Gelber, declined to comment.

(Fucking falling on your sword for the Chimp_junta...especially when the "Guard" story was every bit as true as the Swamp_Boat Critters for Bush...What the F-*% Has America Become? Land of the piss-poor and White House of the Knave? *aj*)

"What If Bush Wins" by a panel of 16 experts

Chimp_junta's Bananna Republic Governor, Jeb, Plays God--But Is Judged Illegal by Supreme Ct

BBC NEWS | Americas | Coma woman intervention 'illegal': "Florida Governor Jeb Bush acted illegally by intervening to keep a brain-damaged woman alive against her husband's wishes, a court has ruled.
The decision by the Florida Supreme Court means Terri Schiavo's fate is again uncertain, 14 years after she fell unconscious after a heart attack.
Mrs Schiavo's parents have battled to keep her alive, and gained the support of Mr Bush. He may yet go to appeal.
He brought in a law last year allowing him to insist she be kept alive. "

'Mexican Madonna' comeback urged

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | 'Mexican Madonna' comeback urged:

"Thousands of fans have urged Mexican star Gloria Trevi to resume her singing career at a hometown mass where she gave thanks for her release from jail.
On Wednesday, the former 'Mexican Madonna', 36, was cleared of sex abuse charges after a court ruled there was not enough evidence against her.

Some 1,500 people came to show Trevi their support at the mass in Monterrey. "

BBC NEWS | Africa | Shock as SA vagrant left to die

BBC NEWS | Africa | Shock as SA vagrant left to die: "An investigation has been launched after paramedics allegedly left a homeless man in Johannesburg to die because he was dirty.
Images of the man in the gutter and his cursory examination by paramedics were captured on security cameras.

South Africa's Health Minister expressed shock at what she said appeared to be appalling conduct.
'We should ensure that such an incident never happens again in this country,' said Manto Tshabalala-Msimang. "

We're With You, Cat! Fu_cking Chimp_Junta and AssKrak have got to go...

BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Cat Stevens to take legal action: "Yusuf Islam, the British singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, is taking legal action after he was refused entry into the US.

Mr Islam said the decision to deny him entry on grounds of national security was 'very serious and wholly unfounded' and he wants an explanation.
His Washington-bound flight was diverted to Maine on Tuesday and he was told to leave the country by the FBI.

He said a legal process had been put in place to find out what had happened.
In a statement Mr Islam, who grew up living above his parents' restaurant in London's West End, said: 'Never would I believe that such a thing could happen in the 'land of the free' - unfortunately, it did. "

(ed.s note: This aircraft was diverted over the Atlantic Ocean and turned 600 nm out of its flight plan because Cat Stevens, who just re-released the song PEACE TRAIN, was on board. Nearly 300 transatlantic passengers were de-boarded and re-boarded, and the airline involved suffered all expenses without a penny recovered from chimp_junta, or an explanation. Or an apology. Sue the mother_Fucker Chimp_junta government.*aj*)

Debate On Thursday Night Marks The Beginning of the END of Chimp_junta

BBC NEWS | Americas | Kerry and Bush in new Iraq clash: "The two candidates are due to meet in the first presidential debate on Thursday, which will focus on foreign policy and homeland security. "

Brig_fucking_ader General Mark Kimmet, Butcher of Fallujah, Kills and Bloodies more and more and more...

Thanks Chimp_Junta: Iran Says With its New Missiles Ready, Iran is a SAFER PLACE from BUSH

Michael Moore | Bush on Iraq: A Flip and Now Just a Flop

t r u t h o u t - Michael Moore Bush on Iraq: A Flip and Now Just a Flop:
Wednesday 22 September 2004

Dear Mr. Bush,
I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq? You, your Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you!
Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have taken over the years represents your current thinking:

1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because 'The Donald R.' went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddam's right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.
1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.
1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.
1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.
2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist:
"I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously." - October 3, 2000
2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:
Powell: "We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." --February 24, 2001
Rice: "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." --July 29, 2001
2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq.
2003: WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!
2003: "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!
2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a "catastrophic success." That's what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there.
Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again?

I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won't use them both on you. In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the "intelligence" they gave you is a flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop.
And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the "many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country where they can believe their president.
That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down. And that is why tens of millions can't wait to get to the polls on Election Day -- to remove a major, catastrophic flop from our dear, beloved White House -- to stop all the flipping you and your men have done, flipping us and the rest of the world off.
We can't take another minute of it.
Michael Moore


Bush Rapes Child on White House Lawn, News on Nov. 3 One wonders if CBS will realize that two wrongs do not actually make a right. I guess they've bought into the New Journalism, in which the facts themselves are partisan, and thus shouldn't be reported.
-Atrios 11:44 AM

Stinking Chimp_Junta Angling For New War Adventure In Iran?

Bush administration escalates confrontation with Iran:

"Last week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna was one more sign that the US is intent on intensifying the confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program and laying the ground for another military adventure.
As far as Washington was concerned, the meeting had only one purpose: to issue an ultimatum to Iraq to shut down its nuclear activities or face automatic referral to the UN Security Council for punitive measures. Despite failing to provide conclusive evidence, the US claims that Tehran has had secret nuclear weapons programs for nearly two decades.

Iran has consistently denied any plans to build nuclear weapons, insisting that its uranium enrichment program is designed to provide fuel for a power reactor being constructed at the southern port city of Bushehr. Tehran is adamant that under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has the right to develop all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle for civilian purposes, including enrichment.
The European Union, spearheaded by Britain, France and Germany, presented a somewhat �softer� approach, including possible inducements if Iran freezes its uranium enrichment program. At the same time, however, the EU was unwilling to cross Washington on the key issue: Iran had to demonstrate it had no weapons program or face the consequences.

The US insists that Iran prove the unproveable: that it has no nuclear weapons programs anywhere in its extensive territory. Every Iranian attempt to satisfy US demands is dismissed with contempt and inevitably followed by fresh accusations, based on little or no evidence, in order to keep up the pressure on Tehran.

On cue, new allegations surfaced in the midst of the latest IAEA proceedings. A former US weapons inspector David Albright released satellite images of an industrial complex at Parchin which he claimed was “a logical candidate” for developing high-explosive components needed for the trigger device to a nuclear weapon. No further evidence was offered. But the threadbare allegation served its purpose: to assist in browbeating IAEA members to take a tough stance.

The final “compromise” resolution on Iran produced last Saturday fell short of US demands. While calling on Iran to “immediately suspend” its uranium enrichment program, it included no automatic trigger clause to refer the matter to the UN and extended the deadline to November 25 to comply with other IAEA requirements. But as US undersecretary of state John Bolton declared: “Whatever the precise wording of the resolution, the issue of the Security Council referral will be up at the November board meeting and everyone knows it.”

Underlying Washington’s contemptuous attitude towards the IAEA proceedings lies the Bush administration’s repeated declaration that it reserves the right to take unilateral, preemptive action, including by military means. US Secretary of State Colin Powell reiterated the point this week. While stating that the US had no immediate plans to attack Iran, he pointedly added: “Every option, though, of course remains on the table.”


Friday, September 24, 2004

Bush Poll On Iraqis Having More Optimism Than Pessimistic USA'ans

Right Track Balta finds out where that hilarious poll came from.
-Atrios 7:09 PM

USA Gives Saddam Bombs To Drop on Iraq in 1980

ON THIS DAY 24 1980: Iraq bombs Iran as hostilities increase:

Iraqi planes have bombed and set on fire Iran's Kharg Island crude oil export terminal.

Iranian officials have confirmed oil exports from the terminal, off the north-west coast of Iran, have been halted and given no indication when they may be resumed.

The fighting began three days ago when the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, ordered a bomb attack against Iran following months of border clashes.

Link to whole sad tale

The Washington Post | Freeing Mr. Hamdi

t r u t h o u t - The Washington Post | Freeing Mr. Hamdi:

"Nearly three years after his capture, the government has agreed to release Yaser Esam Hamdi, the American-born Saudi it has been holding as an 'enemy combatant' at a naval brig in South Carolina. In and of itself, the deal is unobjectionable. Mr. Hamdi, even accepting the worst of the government's allegations against him, was nothing more than a Taliban foot soldier, neither a major national security threat nor a likely intelligence asset of ongoing consequence. The deal will allow Mr. Hamdi to return to Saudi Arabia, where he will renounce any claim to American citizenship and accept travel restrictions. His release is part of an important process of belatedly distinguishing detainees who may need to be held from those who can be repatriated. "


t r u t h o u t - European Press: Bush in Denial

t r u t h o u t - European Press: Bush in Denial:

"London - The editorial cartoon in The Times of London on Wednesday was derisive: the first panel showed President Bush telling the United Nations General Assembly, 'Friends, our policy in Iraq is directed solely towards a successful election.'

The second panel had him saying which election: 'Mine.'

European newspapers, including some that supported the American military campaign in Iraq, were largely critical of Mr. Bush's address on Tuesday to the United Nations, accusing him of being unrealistic about the worsening situation in Iraq.

The Financial Times contended in its lead editorial that the Bush administration 'systematically refused to engage with what actually has happened in Iraq' - namely, in the newspaper's view, that American policy 'mistakes' had 'handed the initiative to jihadi terrorists' who 'now have a new base from which to challenge the West and moderate Islam.'

The newspaper said that Mr. Bush's Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, 'after being evasive, long-winded and sometimes contradictory,' was beginning to speak more realistically than Mr. Bush about the deterioration of security in Iraq. And, the newspaper asserted, Mr. Bush's 'disengagement from the reality of a sinking Iraq is alarming.'

The left-leaning Independent of Britain carried an editorial cartoon of Osama bin Laden putting up a Bush campaign poster saying '4 More Years' on a shell-pocked bit of masonry in Iraq. The cartoon seemed to be inspired by a diplomatic spat over remarks attributed to the British ambassador to Italy, Sir Ivor Roberts. After a private discussion on policy that was supposed to be off the record, Sir Ivor was quoted by an Italian newspaper as saying that Mr. Bush had become 'the best recruiting sergeant' "


t r u t h o u t - Nicholas Turse | Swift Boat Swill

t r u t h o u t - Nicholas Turse | Swift Boat Swill:

"John Kerry is being pilloried for his shocking Senate testimony 34 years ago that many U.S. soldiers-not just a few 'rogues'-were committing atrocities against the Vietnamese. U.S. military records that were classified for decades but are now available in the National Archives back Kerry up and put the lie to his critics. Contrary to what those critics, including the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, have implied, Kerry was speaking on behalf of many soldiers when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, and said this: "


Let's Get Real

(N)ever mind the inevitable claims that John Kerry is soft on terrorism. What he must address is the question of how his policy in Iraq would differ from President Bush's. And his answer should be that unlike Mr. Bush, whose decisions have been dictated at every stage by grandiose visions and wishful thinking, he will get real - focusing on what is really possible in Iraq, and what needs to be done to protect American security.

Mr. Bush claims that Mr. Kerry's plan to secure and rebuild Iraq is "exactly what we're currently doing." No, it isn't. It's only what Mr. Bush is currently saying. And we have 18 months of his administration's deeds to contrast with his words.

The actual record is one of officials who have refused to admit that their fantasies about how the war would go were wrong, and who have continued to push us ever deeper into the quagmire because of their insistence that everything is going according to plan.

There has been a lot of press coverage of the administration's failure to do anything serious about rebuilding Iraq. Less attention has been given to its parallel failure to take the security problem seriously until much of Iraq had already been lost.

Long after it was obvious to everyone else that we were engaged in an escalating guerrilla war, Bush appointees clung to the belief that they were fighting a handful of dead-enders and foreign terrorists.

As a result, they casually swelled the ranks of our foes - remember, Moktada al-Sadr was never going to be our friend, but he didn't have to be our enemy. They even treated Iraqi security forces with contempt, not bothering to provide them with adequate training or equipment.

In an analysis titled "Inexcusable Failure," Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies details how the U.S. "failed to treat the Iraqis as partners in the counterinsurgency effort." U.S. officials, he declares, are "guilty of a gross military, administrative and moral failure."

That failure continues. All the evidence suggests that Bush officials still think that one more military push - after the U.S. election, of course - will end the insurgency. They're still not taking the task of fighting a sustained guerrilla war seriously.

"Three months into its new mission," The New York Times reported, "the military command in charge of training and equipping Iraqi security forces has fewer than half of its permanent headquarters personnel in place."

At the root of this folly is a continuing refusal to face uncomfortable facts. Confronted with a bleak C.I.A. assessment of the Iraq situation - one that matches the judgment of just about every independent expert - Mr. Bush's response is that "they were just guessing." "In many ways," Mr. Cordesman writes, "the administration's senior spokesmen still seem to live in a fantasyland."

Fantasyland extended to the Rose Garden yesterday, where Mr. Bush said polls asking Iraqis whether their nation was on the right track were more positive than similar polls asking Americans about their outlook - and he seemed to consider that a good sign.

Where is Mr. Bush taking us? As the reality of Iraq gets worse, his explanations of our goals get ever vaguer. "The security of our world," Mr. Bush told the U.N., "is found in the advancing rights of mankind."

He doesn't really believe that. After all, he continues to praise Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, even as Mr. Putin strangles democratic institutions. The subtext of Mr. Bush's bombast is that because he can't bring himself to admit a mistake, he refuses to give up on his effort to turn Iraq into a docile client state - an effort that is doomed unless he can figure out a way to come up with a few hundred thousand more troops.

We don't have to go there. American policy shouldn't be dictated by Mr. Bush's infallibility complex; our first priority must be our own security. And in Iraq, that means setting realistic goals.

On "Meet The Press" back in April, Mr. Kerry wasn't as forthright about Iraq as he has now, at long last, become, but he did return several times to a point that shows that he is on the right track. "What is critical," he said, "is a stable Iraq." Not an Iraq in our image, but a country that isn't a "failed state" that poses a threat to American security.

The Bush administration has made such a mess of Iraq that even achieving that goal will be very hard. But unlike Mr. Bush's fantasies, it's still in the realm of the possible.