The Bush Watch [Archive] - HawaiiThreads.com

craigwatanabe

November 10th, 2004, 08:05 AM

You know this would be a great time for Kerry and Edwards to really show what they're made of. Just because they didn't take the top honors, they can still be proactive in their desires to bring back the troops.

So far all I've heard from the two is rhetoric with no meat behind it. Now maybe they wanted to keep it hush hush so if they won they could implement it.

If Kerry's plans were so great (in his mind) why waste such a good idea! He should start a campaign to get the job done. If he can do it (not as the President) then he can show that he was the right man for the job.

You don't have to be the President of the United States to change the world and a strong grassroots campaign headed by Kerry and Edwards could be enough to bring change, look at all the civil rights leaders that have changed the world.

So if Kerry can accomplish this goal of bringing home the troops and bring peace to the middle east without being the president, can you imagine what he could do if he was? Now's the time for him and Edwards to show what they're made of. I hope to hear from him in a proactive way during the next four years instead of disappearing. Look at President Carter, he did more for the world after being president than while he was in office.

By the way Miulang, when I was in the military I went to my first assignment which was Mtn Home AFB in Mountain Home, Idaho back in 1978. I was told that this AFB was described as "Hell" because of it's remoteness and lack of women. I arrived one cold December evening during a snow storm. The sign on the Interstate offramp said "Welcome to Mountain Home".

Someone had crossed out Mountain Home and spray painted the word "Hell" across the name.

Okay I said to myself, welcome to Hell and guess what? Everything was frozen over! Somewhere some beautiful young girl had to marry some fat ugly bastard to keep that promise, "When Hell freezes over is when I marry you!" I guess she did, poor gal, lucky bastard!

Miulang

November 11th, 2004, 05:04 AM

By the way Miulang, when I was in the military I went to my first assignment which was Mtn Home AFB in Mountain Home, Idaho back in 1978. I was told that this AFB was described as "Hell" because of it's remoteness and lack of women. I arrived one cold December evening during a snow storm. The sign on the Interstate offramp said "Welcome to Mountain Home".

I've driven through Mtn Home, and there really isn't much to it, is there? I remember seeing a few buildings up the side of a hill, and that was about it. Since you were in Idaho and in the Air Force, did you guys ever get to Hill AFB in Utah? We used to call that place "Hell AFB", too.

Miulang

Miulang

November 11th, 2004, 08:03 AM

For those of you who were disappointed by the results of the Presidential election, try taking the 2 tests at this website (and after that, start snooping around on the main website).

I can almost guarantee the responses you give to the questions will make you feel better about your knowledge of the Bible and how our government runs. There's still hope for us! :)

http://www.retrovsmetro.org/lighterside/games.php

Miulang

Miulang

November 14th, 2004, 02:03 PM

Here's the complete text of the President's radio speech yesterday. Note that he says more than 115,000 Iraqi security forces will be trained by the January election. Unfortunately, it has been shown that a percentage of those trained troops are also aiding the enemy. That's why our own troops are a little leery of fighting side-by-side with the Iraqis.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041113.html

Miulang

Miulang

November 14th, 2004, 05:05 PM

King Bush has secretly ordered his puppetman at the CIA, Porter Goss, to get rid of any CIA employees who don't agree with him or his administration. I guess that means an almost clean sweep of the CIA, then, which will now embark on a hiring campaign to hire clones of Bush who are paranoid and will spread his form of patriotism around the world. Can you say "assassin"?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia1114,0,707331.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

Miulang

waioli kai

November 14th, 2004, 05:28 PM

"(Bush) says more than 115,000 Iraqi security forces will be trained by the January election. Unfortunately, it has been shown that a percentage of those trained troops are also aiding the enemy. That's why our own troops are a little leery of fighting side-by-side with the Iraqis."
Miulang

As if U.S. soldiers need something else to look out for, Iraqi police and military uniforms used by "the enemy" are on the growing list.

Miulang

November 15th, 2004, 04:27 PM

Boy, that old revolving door to the White House cabinet is really spinning now! 4 more cabinet secretaries have handed in their resignations. The most prominent of today's resignations is that of Gen. Colin Powell. Gen. Powell was the voice of reason and moderation and a calming force within the Bush Administration's first 4 years. He is a true statesman and diplomat, who gets along well with leaders from all parts of the world. His chosen successor? None other than Condoleeeeeeezza Rice. Poor ol Condy really wanted Rummy's job in the Defense Dept. but since Rummy appears to want to hold on to his job until we get out of Iraq, Condy will have to settle for the State Dept.

Unfortunately, she has made quite a few enemies over the last four years, particularly in terms of being one of the key players in the Iraq debacle. The Democrats in Congress are not going to forget this and she will probably face some fairly tough grilling during the confirmation hearings. Also, I think if she is confirmed, the leaders of the Middle East will really not want to deal with us, after all, not only is she a woman, she's a black woman to boot. Middle Eastern cultures don't take too kindly to uppity women. Hang on to your papales, it's gonna be an interesting ride! ;)

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_CABINET?SITE=NYROM&SECTION=HOME

Miulang

Miulang

November 16th, 2004, 06:37 PM

There are at least 2,000 former members of the Armed Forces who served in the past who are now appealing their being called back into active service because their last tours of duty were years ago and they have fulfilled their military requirements. There are at least 110,000 other members of the Active Reserve who are carefully watching what happens to these 2,000 people. Is this another shameful chapter in the Bush Administration's attempt to follow through with the promise of not reinstating the draft? Seems like a really stupid idea to me. Why aren't they able to recruit more young volunteers? Why do they have to try to put back into uniform people who have honorably served their country and fulfilled their tours of duty?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111704A.shtml

Miulang

Miulang

November 24th, 2004, 06:53 AM

NYT poll on the fallout from the last Presidential election. Mandate for Bush? Hardly. Further polarization of the US over the next 4 years? Probably. Does the President and his Administration really know what the people of this country want him to be doing with Social Security, tax reform or gay marriage? Not a clue. The original article came from the NYT, but you need to subscribe in order to view it, so I've given you the Truthout.com source instead.

Miulang

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/112404A.shtml

Miulang

November 29th, 2004, 11:10 AM

Boy, it really would have been embarrassing to the Republicans and big business if Bush hadn't won in November. According to CBS, large corporate PACs gave more political contributions to the Republican party than they did to the Democrats, on an order of 10:1! The Republicans are truly painting themselves as representing big business interests, while the best the Democrats can do is represent the average American consumer and Hollywood. ;)

Miulang

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/26/politics/main657844.shtml

Miulang

December 4th, 2004, 04:56 PM

Apparently the President's nominee to replace Tom Ridge as Director of Homeland Security is no angel with wings. According to people who have worked for or with Bernie Kerik, the man is a ticking time bomb who believes he can operate outside the law and is a crass opportunist. Hmmm...if confirmed, will he play Tweedledee to Dubya's Tweedledum? ;) Wonder if the Dems will turn up the heat during the confirmation hearings...If we thought Tom Ridge was bad, I don't hold out much hope for our personal freedom if Kerik is confirmed.

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nyhen034063947dec03,0,1568495,print.column?coll=ny-news-columnists

Miulang

Miulang

December 9th, 2004, 05:37 PM

I like the way Sheila Samples chastises the popular media for kowtowing to Dubya and not reporting the truth. Samples thinks that the press, formerly considered the watchdogs and consciences of society, is in serious need of watchdogs of their own now that they have been sucked into the grasp of the neocon PSYOPS mindset where you only report what the Administration wants you to report on, not what is really going on.

When I was in journalism school, as idealistic as I was back then, I felt as though I had to be the vigilant eyes and ears for the people. I still feel that way, but I am embarrassed by the electronic and print journalists today who think they are doing a favor to the American public by not reporting the truth. Of course, it doesn't help to have a President who believes he can do no wrong and that whatever destiny he is shaping for this country, he has God at his side. We have a President who believes that he can impose a set of preconditions on the leader of another country before he will deign to touch his boot-clad tootsies on their soil; he is someone who will not speak to someone who doesn't address him as "Mr. President" in press conferences..I mean, come on, if he can call a reporter "Sparky" during one of these sessions, why should anyone respect him?

I still have faith in the cyclical nature of history, and I can hardly wait for the pendulum to swing the other way. Why, Election Day, 2006, is less than 2 years away! ;)

Miulang

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7448.htm

Miulang

December 10th, 2004, 08:56 AM

Another "black hole" in our intelligence program. Democratic senators on the Intelligence Committee promise they will do everything to block future funding for this supersecret intelligence project, but no one will say what the project is supposed to do! Geeze, I know of thousands of ways that hundreds of millions of tax dollars could be spent where secrecy about purpose and function and accountability would not be tolerated, programs that would help far more people! :eek:

Miulang

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121104X.shtml

Miulang

December 10th, 2004, 04:48 PM

Yipee skippee! Yahoo and AOL report that about 2 hours ago, Bernard Kerik, the Dept of Homeland Security nominee, had requested that his name be withdrawn from consideration for the post due to "personal reasons".

Uh huh. When the stove gets too hot, the cook leaves the kitchen...I wonder what kind of additional dirt would have been dug up during his confirmation hearings? :D

Miulang

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bush_homeland_security

Miulang

December 11th, 2004, 07:52 AM

Wonder no more what dirt would have come out about Bernard Kerik: on top of having a "nanny problem", there were issues about his leadership in NYC, in Iraq, potential conflict of interest for his being on the Board of Taser, Inc., etc. etc. Now the press is questioning how Kerik even passed the first level of vetting (where the White House was supposed to do a background check...maybe they saw this nanny problem as not important...although during the Clinton Administration, 2 potential Attorney General nominees were scrubbed because of it).

I wanna know what kind of excuses Bush is gonna give for having egg on his face...or if he'll just pretend the whole fiasco of Kerik's nomination never existed (if you want to save face, just deny everything or plead ignorance).

Miulang

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121204Z.shtml

Miulang

December 12th, 2004, 07:41 AM

Just as I suspected, the Bush Administration is saying it was all Kerik's fault for not telling the truth. And Kerik, being a good dobee, is taking all the blame for the "nanny problem."

Um, how stupid does the Administration think the American public is, anyway? If they didn't want to be embarassed, why didn't the Administration wait until the FBI concluded its investigation of Kerik before announcing his nomination? I think Alberto Gonzalez and his crew knew about this illegal immigrant thingie and just ignored it, again because they believe they are above the law. Now Kerik can go back to being a highly paid board member of Taser, Inc. and can continue to recommend that the government award contracts to Taser for equipment.

Miulang

Miulang

December 12th, 2004, 02:45 PM

This is the Washington Post's analysis of how Bernard Kerik managed to get past the first stage of vetting in his quest to be the next Secretary of Homeland Security. Notice again, that the White House puts the blame on Kerik entirely.

Miulang

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121304L.shtml

Miulang

December 13th, 2004, 12:40 PM

Well, if you go visit another country, make sure you don't dress or talk like an American. According to the following article from a NC newspaper, we've lost even more credibility with the rest of the world since Bush's re-election. An interesting aside is that NC has a large population of Middle Eastern residents.

Miulang

http://www.citizen-times.com/cache/article/editorial/72173.shtml?refresh=1

kimo55

December 13th, 2004, 04:08 PM

if you visit another country, make sure you don't dress or talk like an American. we've lost credibility with the rest of the world since Bush's re-election.

the "ugly american" syndrome has been holding fast for a few decades.
regardless of the puppet-like figurehead in office.
Never fear.

Miulang

December 13th, 2004, 05:08 PM

the "ugly american" syndrome has been holding fast for a few decades.
regardless of the puppet-like figurehead in office.
Never fear.
True, but until very recently, only the French really looked at us disdainfully. Now that the Euro is worth more than the American dollar (thanks primarily to our outrageous trillions of dollars of national debt), none of the European countries really has any need to be nice to us anymore because they don't need our money anymore :eek:

Miulang.

Miulang

December 14th, 2004, 09:59 AM

George Bush awarded the Medal of Freedom, which is the highest civilian honor that can be bestowed, to 3 of the architects of our botched invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq today.

The medals went to George Tenet, former director of the CIA, Paul Bremer, the former administrator of Iraq and Gen. Tommy Frank, who led the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is hilarious and another sign that the Administration doesn't care what other people think about its decisions!

If I was one of the previous recipients of the award, I would return my medallion. The Medal, which used to be considered prestigious, is now not even worth the metal its stamped from because the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been resolved and we still have troops dying over there.

Miulang

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/14/bush.medaloffreedom.ap/index.html

Miulang

December 18th, 2004, 02:15 PM

Miulang

December 19th, 2004, 06:25 AM

Bahahahaha! When I first heard that Time Mag had named George W. Bush as its Man of the Year this morning, I thought I was hallucinating! Then the next thought I had was that Time had pulled an early April Fool's Day joke on its readers by doing a parody (a la the National Lampoon) of its normally logical Man of the Year Award.

Then I went to the TIME website and there it was...

"Person of the Year

For sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his ten-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years, George W. Bush is TIME's 2004 Person of the Year"

This just goes to show how much the Bush Administration has got the popular press hog tied (although I do have to admit, if you read between the lines of the passage above, it does kind of sound like a snide comment to make about Dubya's sticking to his guns). I expect there will be many howls from the 49% of the people who didn't vote for him. I myself am tempted to write to TIME to congratulate them on their excellent parody issue.

Miulang

http://www.time.com/time/

Miulang

December 20th, 2004, 09:23 AM

I'm now taking bets on how much longer the Bush Administration can continue to defend Donald Rumsfeld's job as Defense Secretary. I think for even the most straightshooting hardcore Republican, Rummy's reply to the Kuwaiti soldier's question about inadequate armoring of Humvee's kinda spelled the death knell for Rummy. Everyone but the neocons (even moderate Republicans like John McCain and Trent Lott want Rumsfeld to leave) now admit that it's time for him to go.

Miulang

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0412180290dec18,1,151698.story

The President staunchly defended his Secretary of Defense today, calling him
"...a good decent man...a caring fellow". I guess if he listened to what even members of his own party say about Rummy and actually replaced him, that would be an admission of his fallability! And we all know that Texans in 10-gallon hats are never wrong. :rolleyes:

Miulang

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20041220/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld

Miulang

December 21st, 2004, 09:01 AM

Slowly but surely, the truth is coming out about what the President and his henchpeople ordered American forces to do to try to pry out secrets from detainees in Guantanamo and Iraq.

The ACLU is now requesting that the White House admit or deny that there is an Executive Order in existence that sanctioned the use of inhumane questioning methods against detainees in Iraq, as well as other FBI documents that show that torture was also widespread in Guantanamo, where detainees who were labelled as "terrorists" have been held.

What these revelations do is question where in the chain of command the responsibility and accountability lie, and could add another nail in Donald Rumsfeld's coffin.

Miulang

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122204X.shtml

Miulang

December 22nd, 2004, 06:54 AM

The President is now warning Syria and Iran to stay out of Middle East politics. There are some people betting that once we've left Iraq, we will invade Syria next.

Miulang

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=6292

Miulang

December 27th, 2004, 07:00 AM

My father-in-law, who's a crochety old man, tried to give me a book on the "Illuminati" when we went to visit him in North Carolina earlier this year. I thought he was nuts to believe that the world's geopolitical fortunes were governed by a highly secretive group of rich families (e.g. the Rockefellers in the US and the Rothschilds in Europe).

I just finished reading a most intriguing article by a Scottish writer about how close the Bush Administration's "neoconservative" tactics are to neofascism.
See if the 14 items below also describe our current political climate:

"Bottom line, are the neo-cons driving this agenda neo-fascist? Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, published research on fascism [18] in which he examined the fascist regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each fascist State:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarceration of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists; terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military are glamorized.

5. Rampant sexism - The government of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are intertwined - Government in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation are often the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated, or are severely restricted.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassinations of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections."

Intrigued? Read the rest of the article here. You will be shocked and angered by the historical facts. When will the "little" people in this country take power over the rich who control our destiny?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7553.htm

Miulang

Miulang

December 30th, 2004, 03:20 PM

There's something veeeeeery wrong with this picture: The Bush Administration, through USAID, has committed $35 million to the tsunami relief efforts. The Bush Inauguration on Jan. 20 is expected to cost somewhere between $30-40 MILLION. Granted, the funds for the inauguration are being solicited from private donors, but for gawdssake, aren't we supposed to be at WAR? Why don't the private donors (list below) take the money they were going to contribute to the Prez' inauguration and send the money where it would be most needed, like in SE Asia? The corporate fatcats are so busy kissing the okoles of the Bush Administration, they obviously can't bother with the riff raff who work in their sweat shops in places like Sri Lanka producing the clothing and other goods that places like WM sell.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1219inaugural19.html

Miulang

This reminds me a little of Nero fiddling while Rome burned around him.

Miulang

January 3rd, 2005, 08:47 AM

Another interesting tidbit from the hallowed halls of the White House: Now the Bush Administration wants federal funds to create a prison for foreign detainees suspected of terrorism who will probably never be tried due to lack of sufficient evidence against them. The DoD wants $32.1 million for a 200-bed prison to hold these detainees "indefinitely". Huh? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? In the world of the Bush Administration I guess it must be "heck, we don't know if they're the enemy, but we'll keep them locked up and throw away the key just in case they are the enemy." They obviously haven't learned anything about how illegal this is, even though the atrocities at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib continue to unfold like bad cases of salmonella poisoning. Good proactive strategy. Like killing someone on the streets of Iraq, just in case they might be a terrorist.

Miulang

BTW: If you wander on over to the www.whitehouse.gov website, take a gander at the "Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives". There was news recently that some church groups have been given federal funding for some questionable activities (like abstinence-only education plans...$31 million). Um, what happened to separation of Church and State? :eek:

"The Administration has eliminated regulatory and policy barriers that have kept faith-based organizations from partnering with the Federal government to help Americans in need. It has also worked to put into place regulations to ensure that faith-based organizations are able to compete on an equal footing for Federal funding within constitutional guidelines, without impairing the religious character of such organizations and without diminishing the religious freedom of beneficiaries..."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/

kimo55

January 3rd, 2005, 08:50 AM

The DoD wants $32.1 million for a 200-bed prison to hold these detainees "indefinitely".

That IS a travesty!

I know many contractors who would build it for half that!

Miulang

January 3rd, 2005, 08:58 AM

That IS a travesty!

I know many contractors who would build it for half that!
And you can bet these detainees wouldn't be as lucky as Martha Stewart and have that facility be another "Camp Cupcake", either! :rolleyes:

Miulang

Miulang

January 3rd, 2005, 11:19 AM

BTW: If you wander on over to the www.whitehouse.gov website, take a gander at the "Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives". There was news recently that some church groups have been given federal funding for some questionable activities (like abstinence-only education plans...$31 million). Um, what happened to separation of Church and State? :eek:

"The Administration has eliminated regulatory and policy barriers that have kept faith-based organizations from partnering with the Federal government to help Americans in need. It has also worked to put into place regulations to ensure that faith-based organizations are able to compete on an equal footing for Federal funding within constitutional guidelines, without impairing the religious character of such organizations and without diminishing the religious freedom of beneficiaries..."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/
This White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is really scaring me now. It's bad enough that federal funds are being distributed to religious groups, but now they want state governments to chip in, too. What about the aetheists? Isn't that discriminatory?

Miulang

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050103/ap_on_go_ot/federal_faith

Miulang

January 3rd, 2005, 11:37 AM

Miulang

January 3rd, 2005, 03:14 PM

OK, so now the Republicans have increased their majority in the House. So what do they plan on doing this session of Congress?
Here are 3 of the top items on their wishlist:

They want to do away with a 30-year old House rule that would essentially negate a general rule of conduct that the ethics committee has often cited in admonishing lawmakers -- including Majority Leader Tom DeLay -- for bringing discredit on the House even if their behavior was not covered by a specific regulation. This means that if someone like DeLay is indicted in his home state, he will no longer be censured by the House nor forced to give up any key positions he might hold in the leadership. Talk about moral turpitude!

A second item on their list is the relaxation of rules against relatives of lawmakers from accepting foreign or trips from groups interested in placing legislation in front of the House. Can you say conflict of interest?

Rounding out the terrible 3 is a rule that would allow either party from stopping a House Ethics Committee investigation. Today if the House is deadlocked, an investigation would ensue. Without this provision, it pretty much opens the door to further hanky panky with no punishment.

If you care at all about how your elected officials conduct themselves while representing you, the electorate (and you want things to be done in an ethical manner), please write to your Congress people (both Republican and Democrat) and tell them this is not right and totally unnecessary and that you will be keeping score.

Miulang

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=8&u=/washpost/20041231/ts_washpost/a37521_2004dec30
The postscript to all of this is that the House Republicans met in a secret session today (one day prior to the official opening of Congress) and chickened out on changing the rule of conduct that would require any leader in the House to step down from his leadership role if indicted. They also apparently will allow deadlocked decisions to go to a special House Ethics Committee investigation.

Maybe they realize that they need to play nicey nicey with the Democrats in the same sandbox in order to get some of the Bush Administration's program, which has yet to be completely unveiled, pass through Congress without too much filibustering. There was no mention, however, about spouses and children being allowed to go on domestic and foreign trips that are sponsored by parties who want to put legislation before Congress. I guess they decided that the perks weren't controversial enough to give back to the Democrats.

Miulang

Miulang

January 8th, 2005, 10:41 AM

The Bush Administration paid $240,000 to a black commentator to "advertise" the President's "No Child Left Behind" Act. That in itself probably wouldn't raise too many eyebrows, but the manner in which the "objective programming" commentator Armstrong Wiliams delivered (he was contracted by the Administration to comment on the Act regularly on his syndicated news program, as well do interviews with Education Secretary Rod Page (also a black) which were aired as radio and TV spots), has been deemed unethical by the top Democrat on the House Education subcommittee. It was also disclosed elsewhere that the Medicare prescription medicine program was also influenced by the President using our taxpayer money.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010805A.shtml

So now the Bush Administration wants to use federal (our taxpayer) funds to advocate for his pet programs by hijacking the media to do his dirty work? No wonder the public doesn't trust the US media anymore.

Miulang

Miulang

January 10th, 2005, 05:24 PM

Seems that the great state of Texas is squandering some of our hard earned tax dollars on some interesting pieces of "equipment" in the name of Homeland Security. During a recent audit, it was discovered that one jurisdiction used funds marked for anti-terrorism activities to purchase a trailer to tow lawn mowers to "lawn mower drag races". Hmmmm...wonder how many terrorists race lawn mowers in Texas? One other Texas county used the money to purchase radios and other communications equipment from a company owned by a county commissioner.

The Texas audit found other funds purchasing equipment for traffic stops, drug probes and community festivals.

What the hecuba is going on in Texas, anyway? Are all the States as negligent as Texas? If so, no wonder we should be in fear of another attack on our shores. Sheesh. :mad:

Miulang

http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=2783139

Miulang

January 11th, 2005, 10:17 AM

If you want to feel like you live in a police state, make every attempt to be part of the inauguration day crowd in Washington, DC.

Snipers on every rooftop...cement barricades lining streets...armed helicopters hovering overhead...metal detectors at entrances to reviewing stands... :eek:

Funny that I got this story from the Chinese newspaper, Xinhua!

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-01/11/content_2443507.htm

Miulang

Miulang

January 12th, 2005, 05:09 PM

The White House begrudgingly admits now that the panel it hired to look for WMDs in Iraq didn't find any. This search took 2 years and millions of dollars. George Bush has lost his main reason for the pre-emptive attack against Sadam Hussein. Whether or not he had WMDs before 2001 is a moot point, because by 2003 he had none in Iraq. They may be hidden in Syria (our next probable war front), but nothing was found in Iraq.

What gets me is how the Bush Administration cannot admit that a mistake was made in starting the war. Scott McClellan, Bush's mouthpiece said today that even knowing there were no WMDs threatening us, the Administration still would have proceeded with the invasion. OK, so what were the other reasons for us having more than 1300 US troops killed, $200 billion spent, 10,000 troops wounded and more than 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians killed? Was it to control the oil resources? Getting rid of the despot Saddam Hussein (funny, but many Iraqis think what's going on today is worse than Saddam ever was when he was in power)?. The closest they will come to admitting it was a mistake is to attack the intelligence gathering community for "faulty information".

Miulang

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_weapons

Miulang

January 13th, 2005, 10:02 AM

Some of this article is a little too much even for me, but it does cause one to stop and think. According to this author, the "army of fascism" are those Americans who blindly pledge allegiance to the Bush Administration without question.

Dangers Real and Perceived

Yet, for about forty percent of the population, the ‘war on terror’ is as real as night and day, a most important war against the hated Arab heathens who share neither religion nor culture nor skin color with noble America. To the army of fascism, Arabs are evildoers extraordinaire, savages and primitives intent on killing all of what America stands for. They are barbarians, a people worshipping false gods and idols, mere subhuman animals willing to kill themselves, the army of Satan and reincarnations of demons past. They are an enemy that must be defeated and exterminated, whatever the cost, whatever the consequences. This belief by the army of fascism, however, is one based on ignorance, the belief of fantasy and a sheer weak-minded capacity to distinguish fact from fiction. When bombarded by a Zionist-first media and scapegoat-needing government, using a massive and methodical propaganda campaign, though, the Fox News and talk radio addicted army of fascism easily succumbs to such manipulations and lies.

While most Americans have recovered their senses in the years after 9/11, the army of fascism still remains trapped inside the clouds of asbestos and debris and smoke and dust, refusing to take the hand of truth and reality, firmly digging themselves inside the trenches of a horror-filled fantasy. Because they wish for its truth, they make it so, retaining the lies and deceits and manipulations they hear, never questioning for an instant the validity of such claim and never seeking their own education of such matters. Trained to always believe what they hear, they incorporate deceptive propaganda as their own, every day hating and fearing more and more, scapegoating an entire culture, religion and race, justifying their hatred and growing racism through the bull manure they hear and see on a daily basis.

The army of fascism remains deeply distraught by the horrors of 9/11, still possessed by its demons and its stresses, unable to exorcise the memories or ghosts of an operation allowed to succeed by the same heroes the army now religiously follows. Their outward bravado hides a deep inner fear, acting as their protective surrogate, for traumatized they remain and brainwashed they have been made to be. Psychologically fragile and mentally intimidated, they cling to the Dear Leader their monitors and radios command them to adore as a father figure in whom they seek protection and security. These millions are not able discern the falsity of the war on terror, nor the reality of what their ‘leader’ truly is, nor the true nature of the wars of conquest against Afghanistan and Iraq.

To the army of fascism, lies become truth just as much as reality becomes falsity. In their inescapable bubble, they see not how the world is but how they want the world to be, refusing to accept truth even as it showers them with unending facts and even as it utterly destroys the fictions they cannot let go of. These Americans remain traumatized and haunted by 9/11, clouding the rational and analytical thought processes they might have once possessed. Every hate and racist filled tirade by their favorite talking head vermin only validates in their minds the necessity to wage ceaseless war upon innocent Arabs and Muslims. Every diatribe they hear confirms their belief in the elimination and mass murder of hundreds of thousands of humans, replacing the goodness they once had with the thirst for malice that now runs through their veins.

More here (very long document): http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7676.htm

Miulang

Miulang

January 16th, 2005, 11:53 AM

Yessiree, indeedeedoo. our tax dollars hard at work protecting us from terrorists. Right after 9/11, the FBI engaged on an ambitious, $170 million computer project that would allow it to share information with various other agencies. Four years later, the Agency is forced to admit that might have to scrap the whole project, because, simply, it doesn't work. Then they have to go back to Congress to get more funding to build a new system that DOES work.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&ncid=676&e=3&u=/usatoday/20050114/ts_usatoday/fbiexpectstodumpinformationsharingsoftware

Here is some interesting information on SAIC for FY 2001, when the FBI contract would have been awarded. Notice that the contractor just happens to hold many IT contracts with the government (I wonder if this FBI project went out to bid???)

Miulang

SAIC
Growth of the company
FY2001
Revenue: $5.9 billion
Employees: 41,000
Net Income: $2.1 billion
Earnings per Share: $8.11

Revenues for the Fiscal Year ended January 31, 2001 (Fiscal 2001) were $5.9 billion, reflecting growth over the prior year of 7 percent. As a result of the company's growth, SAIC now ranks #296 on the FORTUNE® 500 list of the largest U.S. companies. Our strong growth also has made us Business Week's #1 Private Info-Tech Company for the second year in a row and INPUT Government Services' #1 for federal IT security market share.

New commercial business during the first three quarters of the fiscal year included a major agreement with BP, one of the world's largest oil companies. Under the agreement, an SAIC-led team will support BP's North American application and host services.

During the fiscal year, BellSouth selected our Telcordia Technologies subsidiary as its preferred strategic partner for supplying operation support systems infrastructure. Telcordia also provided key software for Sprint's converged voice, video, and data communications network and CTC Communications' converged network.

Numerous large federal government contracts also were awarded to SAIC during fiscal year 2001.

The SAIC and Bechtel National team won a $3.1 billion contract to support the Department of Energy's civilian radioactive waste management program at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
A team led by SAIC was selected as an awardee of a Defense Information Systems Agency contract to provide information assurance capabilities support worldwide for the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. The total ceiling value of the contract is $1.5 billion.
An SAIC team won an Army Aviation and Missile Command contract to provide advisory and assistance services and support battlefield system readiness under a contract with potential value of $1.25 billion over five years.
An SAIC team was selected to perform systems engineering and integration tasks under a $496 million, five-year contract from the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center.
SAIC won a $200 million fixed-price contract to provide support to the Defense Logistics Agency.
SAIC and its teammates won the Treasury Information Processing Support Services-2 contract, valued at up to $225 million, to provide information systems support to the Department of Treasury and all of its bureaus and services.
Looking to the future, our new, wholly owned subsidiary SAIC Venture Capital Corporation has been identifying and investing in emerging technologies strategic to our continued growth.

Miulang

January 18th, 2005, 06:08 AM

When questioned this morning by Congress, Condoleeeeeeeza Rice firmly stated that she couldn't give a timeline for when our troops could be pulled out of Iraq. Instead she spouted the same illogical rhetoric that her boss, the President stated on Saturday (our pullout will be determined by the ability of Iraqi security forces to take over and control the situation). She will be confirmed as the new Sec. of State, but don't look to her to be the "voice of reason" within this Administration when it comes to things like our warmongering.

Miulang

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050118/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/senate_rice_13

Miulang

January 18th, 2005, 12:33 PM

In response to the Prez' sabre-rattling pronouncement that we would use military force if necessary in Iran if that government didn't get rid of its nuclear arms, the Iranian government in an equally testosterone-induced counter pronouncement indicated that it has the armies that could repel any such invasions.

It's this kind of "one upsmanship" that always get us into trouble. Why can't the Prez and the Iranian government just meet in some neutral place, over a cup of coffee, and talk about things instead of flinging veiled threats at each other? As I said earlier, all signs point to our pulling out of Iraq and heading right next door to Iran. As much as they would like to discredit Seymour Hersh's article about our meddling in Iran since last summer, I think there is more truth to his reporting than the White House dares admit right now.

Miulang

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=5&u=/nm/20050118/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc

Miulang

January 18th, 2005, 06:10 PM

We truly have a whacko totally out of touch with reality President leading us. Today, during some pre-inaugural formalities, he addressed the troops
today by saying "much more will be asked of you" in Iraq and elsewhere."

Um, excuse me? The fact that almost 1,400 American troops have died and more than 9,000 have been wounded, with many hurt too seriously to return to combat means that these guys have been slackers? That they have been understaffed and underequipped and undertrained (the Reservists) is their fault? That their tours of duty are sometimes being extended illegally because we can't find enough replacements is their fault?

Geez...give me a break. :mad:

Miulang

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20050119/pl_nm/bush_inaugural_dc

Miulang

January 18th, 2005, 06:23 PM

So where were the 52% of the people who voted for Bush in November when this Washington Post Poll was conducted recently? 58% of those polled disapprove of the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq war now. 57% believe that the January 30th elections should serve as the catalyst for the start of American troops being taken out of Iraq. Nearly 60% believe that while the elections should not be postponed, that the country will not be more stable afterward.

Hmmm...maybe what the public is trying to tell the Bush Administration is that we no longer want to "stay the course" in Iraq? Maybe it's time for them to determine their own future, even if it means democracy will not prevail?

And people don't want the Bush Administration to meddle with Social Security before they fix the Iraq situation, which probably means that you kids (the under-45 generations) have dodged a big bullet. At least for now the Democrats won't let the Administration force you guys to put all your retirement money into the stock market, while taking away bennies for your grandma and grandpa.

Miulang

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=5&u=/washpost/20050118/ts_washpost/a16073_2005jan17

Miulang

January 19th, 2005, 08:58 AM

Condoleeeeeza Rice, the soon-to-be confirmed Secretary of State, announced that 4 more countries have joined Iraq and Iran in the "Axis of Evil". Cuba, Myanmar, Belarus and Zimbabwe now have the dubious distinction of regimes the US feels it must help get rid of.

I say, instead of getting directly involved in these countries' politics, why not work with and let the United Nations do that job? that way we won't directly incur the world's ire as international buttinskys.

Miulang

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7755.htm

Miulang

January 20th, 2005, 12:58 PM

The President's Inauguration Speech, which lasted 21 minutes, drew mixed reviews, as would be expected because of the highly partisan election. One thing that does irk me is he totally ignored talking about Iraq and Afghanistan but did talk about spreading liberty and democracy.

Skeptics and paranoiacs might interpret this as an offhanded invitation to meddle in other repressive regimes around the world.

I with him all the luck in the world. The record for 2nd term Presidents hasn't been very good.

Miulang

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inaugural_america_reacts

Miulang

January 20th, 2005, 03:21 PM

While the President and his cronies are celebrating and exulting over his coronation today, some serious points to ponder:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012105Y.shtml

Miulang

Miulang

January 20th, 2005, 03:29 PM

Will any or all of the following 34 "scandals" committed by the Bush Administration during the first 4 years in office haunt him and become his legacy? I mean, we're talking serious financial scandals here, particularly the multiple investigations of the government's relationship with Halliburton. All Bubba Clinton did was get caught messing with a Congressional intern, and for that he got impeached. What'll we do to Dubya if the allegations are true?

Miulang

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011905D.shtml

Kalihiboy

January 20th, 2005, 09:41 PM

Miulang

January 21st, 2005, 07:07 AM

Geeze I havent seen such mass protests for a President and the war since January 20, 1973 when Richard Nixon was re-inaugurated. Well we all know what happened to him in his second term. If things dont improve in Iraq soon the protests will get worse and it will take another President (Ford) to finally pull a cease and withdrawal of ALL troops since our current one never admits to making a mistake.

KalihiBoy
I think what's going to happen is if the heat over Iraq does get hot enough, we will withdraw our troops, but instead of bringing them home, they will be shipped to Iran, which the Bush Administration believes is our next target of opportunity. And it's still all about oil and about protecting Israel.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7763.htm

Miulang

P.S. Here in Seattle, we had a peaceful protest march against the Bush Administration of about 3,000 people last evening. Most of the people in the march are against the Iraq war.

Miulang

January 23rd, 2005, 05:08 PM

Heehee! This is how wars get started! On the Inaugural review stand last Thursday, the First Family stood and gave the "Hook 'em Longhorns" sign (sort of a reverse "shaka") when the University of Texas Longhorn marching band passed by.

Unfortunately, in Norway, that particular sign is acknowledged as a sign of Satan! Here I thought the Bushes were good church goin' people. So the Norwegian newspapers had to print a story saying that the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world was NOT giving Norwegians a curse with that hand signal. :p

Miulang

http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/news/4116379/detail.html

Miulang

January 24th, 2005, 07:29 AM

Remember the Patriot Act? What I didn't know until now was that the primary author of that piece of legislation, which was the catalyst to our rights in this country going into a serious decline, is a Vietnamese-American who fled from communism and now teaches law at Georgetown University and who was a Bush-appointed Assistant Attorney General when he penned the law.

You would think that someone who lived under the iron fist of a repressive government (Vietnam) would want to resist forcing others to live in a country (here in the good old US of A) where an innocent utterance or your financial records might put you on some government terrorist watchlist, wouldn't you? :rolleyes:

Miulang

http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/05/20/news-schou.php

Miulang

January 24th, 2005, 01:08 PM

This is what went on behind the scenes at the Presidential Inauguration last week. This is the whole laundry list of dos and don'ts for the rabble that attended.

I especially like the one where no one who walked past the Presidential review stand was to look directly at the President or make any sudden gestures (which of course would have gotten the trigger-happy SSA all excited). I also like the one which said the antiabortionists couldn't carry their crosses if they were going to be demonstrating in the crowds. :rolleyes:

Yes, the coronation went pretty much as expected. Mercifully, none of the "agitators" who managed to wiggle through the tight security was seriously hurt or killed.

Miulang

http://www.news-herald.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1698&dept_id=21849&newsid=13721845

Miulang

January 25th, 2005, 06:47 AM

OK, so we should be grateful for the small things, I guess. When the Prez goes before Congress to plead his case for additional funding to support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, he'll only ask for $80 billion, not the $100 billion everyone thought he would be asking us for.

Yay! He saved us from going another $20 billion into the hole! And lookee what that additional money will buy: more funding for the Army (about 75% of the requested additional budget) so they can have better equipment (that part's OK). The rest of the money will go to some interesting line items.
For instance, he wants to set aside some of the remaining funds to send to the governments of Pakistan and Iraq to keep them on our side. Um, first of all, what makes us think just because we're handing over a passle of money to these undemocratic governments that they won't also be extending their hand to the Chinese or the Russians or whoever else might come a-courting? :eek:

And then there's the "small" matter of the $1.5 billion they estimate it will cost to build a new American Embassy in Iraq. Lemme guess: they're going to get Halliburton to do the job, right? :mad: What kind of compound can you build for $1.5 billion? Would it cost that much to rebuild the most secure prison in this country? I think not.

Miulang

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_SPENDING?SITE=HIHAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Miulang

January 26th, 2005, 12:49 PM

The Prez is rattling sabers at Iran again. Today he again warned them not to interfere with the elections in Iraq on Sunday. Um, what happens after the elections? Will the new government be told by us that they can't talk to Iran? Because they will, and they are definitely planning to, because Iran is right next door, and Iraq has certain common interests with Iran.

Is the Prez hoping Israel will bomb Iran first? And what will he do after Iraq takes over control of its own destiny, and they tell us just go away and Iran does start forming closer ties with them? Is that why we have to be in Iraq for 2 years after this Sunday, to keep that from happening (snowball's chance in Hell)? I think Iran could justifiably say that America is meddling in this election now, so why can't they?

Miulang

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=6&u=/ap/20050126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_bush_4

Miulang

January 26th, 2005, 04:07 PM

The Prez is really worrying me now. In another of his utterances during a press conference today, he said that while he expected '"every nation" to adopt "the values inherent in a democracy," he acknowledged that not every country "is going to immediately adopt America's vision of democracy. . . . We're talking about the work of generations." :eek:

"Certainly," he said, "a world without tyranny is an ideal world" and policy is "at its best when it reflects an ideal world."' (quoting the Washington Post article, but my emphasis)

Um, excuse me, Mr. President? Has it not occurred to you and your advisors that maybe, just maybe, some countries don't want our brand of "democracy"? Has it ever occurred to you that in the checks and balances (yin/yang) of nature maybe the reason tyrannical governments exist is because it then gives us something with which to compare our own government?

I'm sorry, Mr. President. I am not one of your lemmings. I refuse to be led from the safe ground of reason into the precipice of doom by you or any of your legion of pipe-playing subordinates.

I am as patriotic as the person who blindly believes all your rhetoric, but I value ALL human life more than you apparently do, and I will continue to question why your administration cannot concede that maybe you are just as human as the rest of us, prone to make mistakes at times. It's time the American people held you accountable for all the half truths and lies that have gotten us into the situation we're in.

We are watching. We will remember.

Miulang

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=2&u=/washpost/20050127/ts_washpost/a37761_2005jan26

Miulang

January 26th, 2005, 04:16 PM

Read it and weep: below is the full text of the Prez' press conference today.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050126-3.html

Miulang

Miulang

January 27th, 2005, 05:52 AM

The following is a very long interview with Seymour Hersh, the man who recently reported that the US secretly had been spying on Iran since last summer. This time, he expounds on the notion that George Bush is the leader of a cult who believes what he is doing in Iraq is right and will never waver from that course.

How many of us know that Iyad Allawi, the current head of the interim government, was a member of Sadam Hussein's secret police long before he became an outspoken critic against Hussein and became a political refugee? Maybe that's why the bets are on his coming in second in the polling on Sunday Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's roster of candidates, and al-Sistani is considered the leader of the Shias, who are the majority of the Iraqi population.

Here is an excerpt from that interview:
"...We have a President that -- and a Secretary of State that, when a trooper -- when a reporter or journalist asked -- actually a trooper, a soldier, asked about lack of equipment, stumbled through an answer and the President then gets up and says, “Yes, they should all have good equipment and we're going to do it,” as if somehow he wasn't involved in the process. Words mean nothing -- nothing to George Bush. They are just utterances. They have no meaning. Bush can say again and again, “well, we don't do torture.” We know what happened. We know about Abu Ghraib. We know, we see anecdotally. We all understand in some profound way because so much has come out in the last few weeks, the I.C.R.C. The ACLU put out more papers, this is not an isolated incident what’s happened with the seven kids and the horrible photographs, Lynndie England. That's into the not the issue is. They're fall guys. Of course, they did wrong. But you know, when we send kids to fight, one of the things that we do when we send our children to war is the officers become in loco parentis. That means their job in the military is to protect these kids, not only from getting bullets and being blown up, but also there is nothing as stupid as a 20 or 22-year-old kid with a weapon in a war zone. Protect them from themselves. The spectacle of these people doing those antics night after night, for three and a half months only stopped when one of their own soldiers turned them in tells you all you need to know, how many officers knew. I can just give you a timeline that will tell you all you need to know. Abu Ghraib was reported in January of 2004 this year. In May, I and CBS earlier also wrote an awful lot about what was going on there. At that point, between January and May, our government did nothing. Although Rumsfeld later acknowledged that he was briefed by the middle of January on it and told the President. In those three-and-a-half months before it became public, was there any systematic effort to do anything other than to prosecute seven “bad seeds”, enlisted kids, reservists from West Virginia and the unit they were in, by the way, Military Police. The answer is, Ha! They were basically a bunch of kids who were taught on traffic control, sent to Iraq, put in charge of a prison. They knew nothing. It doesn't excuse them from doing dumb things. But there is another framework. We're not seeing it. They’ve gotten away with it. ..."

Just as an historical aside, Seymour Hersh was the reporter who first reported on the MyLai massacre in Vietnam.

Miulang

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/26/1450204

Miulang

January 27th, 2005, 12:54 PM

Woohoo! Douglas Feith, the #3 civilian employee in the Pentagon, is leaving his job sometime this summer. He's one of the most hawkish supporters of Donald Rumsfeld's policy in Iraq.

One down, two to go...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805Y.shtml

Miulang

kimo55

January 27th, 2005, 01:11 PM

Woohoo! Douglas Feith, the #3 civilian employee in the Pentagon,

Miulang

...speaking of the pentagon, seen this?!

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php

Miulang

January 27th, 2005, 03:43 PM

Heehee. I'm glad someone has a sense of humor! I like the story about Feith, too. Too bad he ain't leaving soon enough. Is being caught doing bad things the only thing that will rid us of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz? So far, it hasn't worked if that's the case.

Miulang

Miulang

January 27th, 2005, 04:52 PM

Here's a very provocative interview with Naomi Klein on why the Republicans won the last national election and how the Democrats and progressives assisted in that victory.

She also talks about what it's going to take to change the mindset of people enough to get them to look at the "real" cost and victims of this war: the people of Iraq.

Miulang

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21099/

Miulang

January 27th, 2005, 08:47 PM

Hahahaha! Many of the moderate Republicans who campaigned alongside Prez Bush appear to value their own political skins more than continuing to be team players. Tomorrow, when the Prez meets with the Republican caucus in White Sulphur Springs, WV, the more moderate Republicans plan to gently push back at the Prez' ambitious plans for his second tenure.

During the first 4 years, those politicians were in lock step with the President and never even bothered to question the President's policies. In his second term, they no longer have to worry about a Bush re-election and they are worried about their own political skins in the off year elections.

I hope the Prez doesn't hemorrhage or have a heart attack when he hears some of the people he thought were "his" guys, pushing back at some of his plans, especially with regard to the Iraq war and changes to Social Security. Now that the emperor has been crowned, we need him to stay healthy for another 4 years, because his replacement, Dick Cheney, would be even worse than him.

Miulang

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=1&u=/washpost/20050128/ts_washpost/a42895_2005jan27

Miulang

January 29th, 2005, 07:28 AM

Yes, even Republicans are finally coming to their senses (at least the "moderate" ones). Below is a speech that was delivered by Representative Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas, before the House of Representatives on Wednesday. In his speech he asked Congress to think about the following questions:

"If we're willing to consider a different foreign policy, we should ask ourselves a few questions:

1. What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances, policing the world, nation building, and spreading our values through force are deeply flawed?

2. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction?

3. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were never allies?

4. What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to enhance our national security?

5. What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of our client oil states in the region?

6. What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 American troops have suffered serious casualties or died in the Iraq war, and 9% of our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle?

7. What if it turns out there are many more guerrilla fighters in Iraq than our government admits?

8. What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some claim, and what is an acceptable price for "doing good?"

10, What if Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and things become worse under a Defense Secretary who demands more troops and an expansion of the war?

11. What if we discover that, when they do vote, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis support Islamic (Sharia) law over western secular law, and want our troops removed?

12. What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in Iraq are never asked for their opinion of what should be done now?

13. What if the only solution for Iraq is to divide the country into three separate regions, recognizing the principle of self-determination while rejecting the artificial boundaries created in 1918 by non-Iraqis?

14. What if it turns out radical Muslims don't hate us for our freedoms, but rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected Arabs and Muslims?

15. What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden?

16. What if we discover that democracy can't be spread with force of arms?

17. What if democracy is deeply flawed, and instead we should be talking about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted through persuasion, not force?

18. What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and occupation of Arab/Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us, and it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them?

19. What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad?

20. What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, actually recognized the dangers of our policy before the invasion, and their warnings were ignored or denied?

21. What if the argument that by fighting over there, we won't have to fight here, is wrong, and the opposite is true?

22. What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?

23. What if the principle of pre-emptive war is adopted by Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, "justified" by current U.S. policy?

24. What if pre-emptive war and pre-emptive guilt stem from the same flawed policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?

25. What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally, and turns on us when conditions deteriorate?

26. What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions that would be used to justify a military response and pre-emptive war against them?

27. What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails, and ends up fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that we regret - an alliance not achieved even at the height of the Cold War?

28. What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is deeply flawed?

29. What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial leads to the total undermining of constitutional protections for American citizens when arrested?

30. What if we discover the army is too small to continue policies of pre-emption and nation-building? What if a military draft is the only way to mobilize enough troops?

31. What if the "stop-loss" program is actually an egregious violation of trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers? What if it actually is a backdoor draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and women? Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political leadership running the war?

32. What if the Pentagon's legal task-force opinion that the President is not bound by international or federal law regarding torture stands unchallenged, and sets a precedent which ultimately harms Americans, while totally disregarding the moral, practical, and legal arguments against such a policy?

33. What if the intelligence reform legislation - which gives us bigger, more expensive bureaucracy - doesn't bolster our security, and distracts us from the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy?

34. What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors, and we are losing an unwinnable guerrilla war?

35. What if we discover, too late, that we can't afford this war - and that our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a severe economic downturn?..."

Every reasonable, thinking American should consider the list above and then decide for his/herself whether or not the course the current Administration is headed in is flawed. Also consider that we, the people who put this Administration in power, have the right and the duty to force changes in those policies through peaceful means in this country.

It is time for all thinking moderate Republicans and Democrats to come together to fight against the neoconservative thinking that has resulted in nothing but divisiveness, a huge deficit, and a hopeless war in the Middle East.

Miulang

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012905B.shtml

Miulang

January 29th, 2005, 04:14 PM

I know the Prez has God on his side, but here's what the Chinese astrologers predict for Dog people (he was born in 1946) for this year:

"The Watchful Dog - The “Vanquishing Vigilante.”
Your nervousness and tendency to worry may reach a climax during the new year of the Rooster. Deadlines, delays and emotional dramas run roughshod over your life. While not in direct opposition with the Dog, Rooster years are the "Karmic Combatants" for those born into Dog years. For singles, because you have experienced heartache in the past, you may not be willing to extend your heart in love this year, however, don't discount the possibility of a reunion with a past lover. Using selective memory to remember only the good, while forgetting the pain will put you right back into the same turmoil and impossible situation. Remember, that a leopard rarely changes it's spots. This year will give you many occasions to prove your worth. Rewards for artistic achievements come in March and June. In 2005 your health may be troublesome, especially during the months of April and September. Regularly exercise to improve your circulation and to protect your delicate spine. The lunar climate of 2005, is indeed a trying period for most Dogs, but out of adversity, emerges strength and the kind of wisdom which only comes through experience. Both danger and opportunity walk the same street."

And the Hindus, who have been predicting events for as long as the Chinese, had this to say about Cancer people in 2005:
"Yearly Horoscope Predictions : 2005 Cancer

January to April

Will gain through the profession by hard work and may receive recognition or award of the same type. Advancement in profession and social life is indicated. But at the same time you need to be careful as Saturn transiting the 12th House can bring : Jealousy among others, Danger, accident, mental agony, worried, heavy expenditure, calamities, loss of wealth, litigation, quarrels in family, unpleasant journeys, separation from. family, displeasure and domestic disharmony. will feel impaired domestic happiness, peace and will remain disturbed. One may seek seclusion for peace if the circumstances permit him. Change of residence and may there be death of mother or father. Loss through property and conveyance, separation from loved one’s fear, obstacles in business or profession and ill health. Loss of wealth, and friends, status or of employment and change of residence etc.

May to September

Saturn transiting the 1st House, Health of spouse, children and close relations is affected. Food not to taste, afraid of enemies, disharmony, disagreement and disputes, Journey to a distant place and separation from relatives. Loss of wealth and honour, obstruction and delay in undertakings, failure in attempts, increase in expenditure. loss of position, separation from loved one's fear, obstacles in business or profession and ill health. Loss of wealth, and friends, status or of employment and change of residence etc. Ketu transiting the 3rd house, one will experience strained relations with brothers and sisters. If the native is studying then there will be break or hindrance in education. Worries through neighbors. Since this house indicates short journeys, one will not be benefited through such journeys. Rahu transiting the 9th house, Rahu's transit denoted prophetic dreams pilgrimage and religious and philosophical ideas. May travel abroad to gain higher education and expansion. Spiritualistic. During such transit, the native may gain through publishing, religious institutions and distribution.

October to December

Same as above. Sorrows through relations, loss of money, fear, suffers humiliations. False implication, domestic unhappiness, and accidents while traveling. Doing remedies for bad planetary influences can bring happiness and harmony."

We'll just have to see if the ancient astrological methods can predict the next 12 months in the life of our President.

Miulang

Kalihiboy

January 29th, 2005, 04:37 PM

If any of the questions from Miulang's post were actually posed to Bush during this past election year, the GOP wouldnt need to rig the election like they did. Instead, the GOP would have rigged it in Kerry's favor to save themselves from the embarrassment they have caused their party and this country.

KalihiBoy

Miulang

February 3rd, 2005, 12:17 PM

The Senate confirmed the appointment of Alberto Gonzales to replace John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the US. Some people say Gonzales was the primary architect of the policy of torturing prisoners at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and in Afghanistan.

The voting in the Senate was along party lines: the 36 who voted against his confirmation were Democrats plus one independent from Vermont.

There were a couple of good things about his confirmation: 1) he is the first Latino to ever hold the office of Attorney General of the US (thus giving hope to other Latinos that they too, can aspire to higher office) and 2) the buck will stop with him if there are any more allegations of abuse of prisoners during his watch, because in his confirmation hearings, he swore that he did not advocate torturing prisoners to obtain information. He won't be able to hide behind anyone like he did when he was just an adviser to the President.

Miulang

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-03-gonzales_x.htm

Miulang

February 3rd, 2005, 12:38 PM

I refused to watch the Prez' State of the Union address last night, because I had already heard enough "prequels" to know what he was planning to say.

For those of you who are younger than age 55: think carefully about what the Prez wants to do with Social Security. Do you feel competent to manage your own retirement income? Because that's basically what the Bush Administration wants you to do. Do you know about investing in the stock market? If you don't, you'd better take a crash course in personal finance right away.

It's interesting to see where the Prez has taken his "Privatizing Social Security" dog and pony show: to "red" states where Karl Rove and his bunch of neocons think there is a chance that a Democrat might back his plan.

They need to look at what happened in Britain over the last 20 years before they go too far trying to convince Americans that privatizing part of their Social Security retirement funds is a good idea. Britain tried to persuade its people that if they had control over their own retirement funds that they would be able to have better retirements. They totally ignored the fact that sometimes, the stock market will do silly things, like go down, rather than up. In 2000, their private pension system was on the verge of bankruptcy. They have since reverted back to something very similar to our current Social Security plan.

What lots of people in this country don't realize is that the money we pay in to Social Security isn't meant for our retirement anyway; it's meant for our parents and grandparents and the disabled. If I had to completely subsidize the standard of living of my parents or grandparents, I'd be broke. I'm more than happy to pay into the current Social Security system.

What happens if the Bush Administration gets its way, and those of you under 55 get to choose where to invest part of the money that would have gone into Social Security? Who would you turn to for investment advice? What happens if the stock market tanks again (it will, we just don't know when). Would you be better off or worse off not knowing what kind of guaranteed income you could count on when you retire? Or can you even realistically think you will ever be able to retire?

And what happens if your portfolio tanks? Who would be there to bail you out?If you care about your future, you'd better start thinking about how any changes in the Social Security Act are going to affect you in about 30 years, because there will be profound changes unless you start planning today.

Miulang

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=HIHAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Here is an unbiased analysis of the real truth about the year 2018, which is when the Prez said the Social Security system would collapse. What he said was a scare tactic meant to make people uneasy without providing enough detail to really make clear what he was talking about.

http://www.cepr.net/columns/weisbrot/mark_weisbrot_2_03_05_.htm

Miulang

February 5th, 2005, 06:55 AM

There is a deeper story to the presence of that "Iraqi" woman who was introduced at the Prez' State of the Onion Address this week and who elicited cheers and tears from the Prez as she hugged the parents of a soldier who died in Iraq.
The Prez said,
""Eleven years ago, Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country -- and we are honored that she is with us tonight."

Her name is Safia Taleb Al Souhail.

Turns out she was no ordinary Iraqi "citizen", but a member of a right-wing organization with US ties! :eek: Her father was exiled in Lebanon when he was killed. She left Iraq in 1968 and the last time she was in Iraq was this past July when she was part of a women's conference.

Another game of smoke and mirrors perpetuated by an Administration that will stop at nothing to try to dupe its citizens into believing that our cause in Iraq is a just one and worth the 1,400 American lives and billions of dollars.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/3/61911/26777

Miulang

Miulang

February 7th, 2005, 08:53 AM

Whew. The moderate and liberal Democrats can breathe a sigh of relief as the "real" Prez, Dick Cheney, categorically states he will not be running for President in 2008.

I guess he realized that being being the President behind the Prez for 8 years was long enough. ;)

Miulang

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/06/cheney.president.run.reut/index.html

Miulang

February 7th, 2005, 03:53 PM

I hope every single tax-paying voter takes a serious gander at the budget the President is proposing. $2.5 trillion dollars with 150 politically sensitive programs headed for the chopping block. And guess who benefits from the soon-to-defunct programs? Farmers, who already are having tough time making ends meet; students who won't be able to afford college and younger students (mostly poor ones) who won't have access to programs that are designed to try to pull them up to the level of the majority of kids; Medicaid, which along with state subsidies helps lower income families; environmental programs (just when you throught the air and water were getting cleaner); assistance to local police departments (if you think crime is bad now, just wait a couple more years), etc. etc. etc.

The list of people who will be adversely impacted by these budget cuts smacks suspiciously of retribution for the voting block that opposed the Bush Administration in the last election. I mean, how many poor people voted for Bush?

The biggest travesty of all is his smoke and mirrors omission of the $81 billion he wants to ask Congress for to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So he's cutting programs that help American citizens to go "help" people in other countries?

He says with these cuts in spending, the national debt will be halved by 2009. Um, before he took office, there was a sizeable surplus. He's trying to dig himself out of his own hole by penalizing the rest of us???? :mad:

Fortunately, most of the programs in his proposal have powerful friends in Congress, so it's doubtful that many will actually occur. But it still galls me that he has the audacity to say that a federal program has to stand on its own merits in order to survive. Since when does spending $200+ billion and more than 1,400 lives in a foreign country have merit, especially since the new government will probably be advocating a constitution that is religious and not secular?

Miulang

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/020705J.shtml

Miulang

February 8th, 2005, 04:17 PM

The White House announced that Prez Bush has promoted his political strategist and the man credited with his re-election in November, Karl Rove, to the office of deputy White House Chief of Staff.

In this position, he will be in charge of coordinating policy between the White House Domestic Policy Council, National Economic Council, National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, meaning he will have his little neocon fingers in everything the Prez is doing.

I personally think the reason why he was promoted is because the Prez realizes that his dream of restructuring Social Security has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, and he needs someone to tell him the right words to say to try to at least convince all of the Republicans that the sky will be falling in 2018 unless we privatize part of Social Security for those under the age of 55. He is also in serious need of help trying to cut those 150 federal programs that he says are duplication of other programs or are not worthy of continued funding, because in his smoke and mirrors budget for FY 2006, he makes no mention of the costs associated with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (he argues that that money should come from a supplemental budget which means it is hard for Congress to figure out the "true" cost of the wars) or the money we would have to borrow if he gets his changes in Social Security.

Miulang

P.S. Oh yeah, his former speechwriter, Michael Gerson, also got a fat promotion to assistant to the President for policy and planning.
"He will be involved in advancing Bush's "compassionate agenda," such as his faith-based initiative, headed by Jim Towey." Um, what happened to separation of church and state??? :confused:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7573881

Miulang

February 9th, 2005, 03:50 PM

I thought when we signed the nuclear nonproliferation agreement with Russia that they were supposed to destroy all their nuclear weapons and we would, too, to "bring peace and harmony to the world."

"U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe," a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, says "short-range nuclear weapons are stored under American control and regulated by secret military agreements at eight bases in Germany, Britain, Italy, Belgium, Turkey and the Netherlands."

The NATO defense ministers (the US is represented by Donald Rumsfeld), is meeting in Nice, France today and tomorrow. One of the main topics of discussion will be the nuclear proliferation capabilities of Iran (and possibly Pakistan).

Hmmm...here the UN, the EU and the US are sabre rattling at Iran, telling them the free world will impose sanctions against them unless they tell us where their nuclear weapons (which they deny having) are located.

Doesn't it seem a little weird that we can have up to 480 of these deadly suckers pointed at Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and wherever our "enemies" are, at the same time we're telling those same countries they have to play the game according to our rules or suffer the consequences? As I recall in my feeble brain, the reason why the arms race occurred in the 1950's and 1960's between the US and Russia was because each country wanted to out-testosterone the other, so each side kept adding more and more nuclear devices to its arsenals.

The Iranians would be perfectly in their rights to ask the US to tell them where our weapons are hidden if we want them to show theirs!

Miulang

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/020905N.shtml

Miulang

February 9th, 2005, 06:20 PM

Has anyone ever heard of the "extraordinary rendition act" of 1998?
"...Rendition was originally carried out on a limited basis...as a program aimed at a small, discrete set of suspects—people against whom there were outstanding foreign arrest warrants—came to include a wide and ill-defined population that the Administration terms “illegal enemy combatants.” Many of them have never been publicly charged with any crime....The Bush Administration...has argued that the threat posed by stateless terrorists who draw no distinction between military and civilian targets is so dire that it requires tough new rules of engagement...."

What we're basically doing is outsourcing our torture of suspected terrorists by whisking them away in private jets to Syria, Morocco, Egypt, and Jordan, countries which have been cited for human rights violations by the State Department and who are known to torture prisoners.

"... This jet, which has been registered to a series of dummy American corporations, such as Bayard Foreign Marketing, of Portland, Oregon, has clearance to land at U.S. military bases. Upon arriving in foreign countries, rendered suspects often vanish. Detainees are not provided with lawyers, and many families are not informed of their whereabouts..."

No one, not even Congress, knows how many of these rendered detainees exist because the White House refuses to talk about them.

Our new Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, stated during his confirmation hearings the other week "that the U.N. Convention Against Torture’s ban on “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment” of terrorist suspects does not apply to American interrogations of foreigners overseas...." In other words, we shouldn't torture these detainees in this country, but it's OK to torture them using our own people as long as we torture them outside of the US. This is how the White House and the Pentagon tried to justify the mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib, until all those repulsive photographs of Lynndie England and others made their way into broad daylight.

Yikes. So this would mean that any of us might be whisked away on that "Special Removal Unit" jet and disappeared to the Middle East, where we could also be tortured for information if we were suspected of having terrorist ties. Our families wouldn't know where we were and we would not be allowed access to legal counsel. We might be detained with no specific charges pressed against us for months, or years.:eek:

This is truly sickening.

Miulang

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

Miulang

February 11th, 2005, 02:25 PM

Now our coalition partners the Brits are also being investigated for serving as the European landing base for "extraordinary rendition" detainees who are then shipped off to Jordan, Syria, Morocco and Egypt to be tortured for information.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=609538

Miulang

Miulang

February 11th, 2005, 04:02 PM

I'll give you a reason why the French and Germans hate our guts. Not only was the Bush Administration awarding no-bid contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries to do reconstruction work in Iraq, but the White House was also playing footsie with the likes of Bechtel, Fluor, Northrop Grumman, American International Contractors, and Great Lakes Dredge and Dock. The total value of the no-bid contracts awarded to these companies was somewhere around $7 billion.

As the Information Clearinghouse notes, these firms all paid huge fines for various environmental damage, bid rigging, and other types of malfeascence.

While Bill Clinton was in office, regulations were put in place which barred new government contracts for companies convicted or penalized during the previous three years. Once George Bush entered the White House, he promptly (and quietly) removed the regulations.

"Federal contracting regulations require contractors to have a "satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics." The government can ban unethical companies from getting new contracts through a process called debarment. However, companies too often escape debarment by agreeing to settle cases of misconduct by paying large fines without admitting guilt."... All of the companies above weasled out by paying the fines without admitting guilt.
George Bush rewards his friends again, while the French and Germans in particular, who we could have kept as allies, were shut out of being able to do any work in Iraq because they were not allowed to bid on the contracts (no one was)!

Miulang

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8028.htm

Miulang

February 12th, 2005, 05:54 AM

The Bush Administration knew as early as January, 2001 that al Qaida was planning to do something big but did nothing about the intelligence reports, according to a newly declassified memo to then-National Security Advisor Condeleeeeeza Rice from counterterrorist advisor Richard Clarke.

"...Washington, D.C., February 10, 2005 - The National Security Archive today posted the widely-debated, but previously unavailable, January 25, 2001, memo from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice - the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to debates in the 9/11 hearings over the Bush administration's policies and actions on terrorism before September 11, 2001. Clarke's memo requests an immediate meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss broad strategies for combating al-Qaeda by giving counterterrorism aid to the Northern Alliance and Uzbekistan, expanding the counterterrorism budget and responding to the U.S.S. Cole attack. Despite Clarke's request, there was no Principals Committee meeting on al-Qaeda until September 4, 2001. ..."

If you go to the link, you can see the actual memo for yourself. The Bush Administration (the FAA) also neglected to follow up on numerous reports of the possibility that al-Qaida was planning to use commercial airliners as weapons of mass destruction that were issued before 9/11. Their excuse? "We thought they would do this in Europe. We never expected them to do it here in the US." :mad:

Mind you, this was while the Bush White House was already laying plans for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein!

Miulang

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

Miulang

February 12th, 2005, 07:01 AM

Here's a more in-depth report from the NY Times about the Richard Clarke memo, with various analysts' commentaries about whether it should have elicited more concern from the White House than it did.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021205A.shtml

Miulang

Miulang

February 12th, 2005, 08:44 AM

And now, the great debate and battle over Social Security reforms begins. Here's the radio address the Prez gave this morning. Notice that he says he went out into the hinterlands to talk with the citizens about how his vision of reform would work. Notice also that those 8 states happen to be "red" states, so in effect, he was preaching to the choir. People in those states will follow the Prez no matter where he leads, even if it's over the precipice. Those of us who were born after 1950 had better hope Congress has more common sense than the Prez and his advisors, because everybody in the middle class loses if he gets his way with the reforms he wants. And he and his fat cat cronies could care less about those of us working schlumps who would be affected by these changes.

Miulang

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050212.html

Miulang

February 12th, 2005, 03:07 PM

In the bad old days, we used to joke about "Big Brother" watching you. Now, with the passage of the Patriot Act, financial institutions, your supermarket, the library you use, all have been deputized to keep watch over us, just in case we're doing something illegal or unpatriotic.

The other day, Congress passed a bill that essentially will require all states to comply to what is tantamount to a national ID by requiring standardization in who is issued a driver's license (the "REAL ID" bill). Ostensibly, it means that all states have to require any person applying for a driver's license to prove that they are a legal immigrant or an American citizen. Any state that doesn't comply with these rules will find all its citizens persona non grata everywhere else in the US. Right now in the state of Washington, when you apply for a driver's license, you don't have to prove you're an American, you just have to provide proof of your citizenship in a country. And as we all know, bogus IDs are a dime a dozen.

Once these national driver's licenses are in place, the next logical step will be to require all citizens to have an RFID chip implanted with all the person's personal information (probably medical history, too). Won't the civil libertarians have fun with that one! It's already happening in Mexico and Spain (in Spain they're implanting chips in people so they don't have to produce IDs when they go bar hopping). Eek! :eek:

"More than ever before, the details about our lives are no longer our own. They belong to the companies that collect them, and the government agencies that buy or demand them in the name of keeping us safe."

Miulang

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/10/1545230

Miulang

February 14th, 2005, 10:28 AM

This particular news story wouldn't be so alarming were it not for the fact that this same company (SAIC) holds multiple government contracts and is the primary contractor on that new FBI intelligence sharing computer network that now looks like it's going to have to be trashed and redone (all at our taxpayer expense, thank you). :eek:

Miulang

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5575861.html?tag=zdnn.alert

Miulang

February 15th, 2005, 08:07 AM

Whether or not you agree with the Bush Administration's economic and foreign policies, please read this article (http://oldamericancentury.org/dalt1052.htm).

At the very least, please ask yourself the following questions: Would I put my life on the line to defend the President's policies both here and abroad? If I won't, then what will I do to change things? Do I want to live in a second-class nation where I have no rights? If I don't, what can I do to change things?

Miulang

Miulang

February 15th, 2005, 11:26 AM

How ironic is this? Former US POWs from the first Gulf War are being denied compensation (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/02-05/02-15-05/a02wn837.htm) by, of all people, our own government!

"...Many of the pilots were tortured in the same Iraqi prison, Abu Ghraib, where U.S. soldiers abused Iraqis 15 months ago. Those Iraqi victims, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said, deserve compensation from the United States.
But the U.S. victims of Iraqi torturers are not entitled to similar payments from Iraq, the U.S. government says.

"...The case, now being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, tests whether "state sponsors of terrorism" can be sued in U.S. courts for torture, murder or hostage-taking. The court is expected to decide in the next two months whether to hear the appeal. "

"...The administration lawyers based their argument on language in an emergency bill, passed shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, approving the expenditure of $80 billion for military operations and reconstruction efforts. One clause in the legislation authorized the president to suspend the sanctions against Iraq that had been imposed as punishment for the invasion of Kuwait more than a decade earlier.
The president's lawyers said the clause allowed Bush to remove Iraq from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism and to set aside pending monetary judgments against Iraq.
When the POWs' case went before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the three-judge panel ruled unanimously for the Bush administration and threw out the lawsuit.
"The United States possesses weighty foreign-policy interests that are clearly threatened by the entry of judgment for (the POWs) in this case," the appeals court said.
The administration also succeeded in killing a congressional resolution supporting the POWs' lawsuit. "U.S. courts no longer have jurisdiction to hear cases such as those filed by the Gulf War POWs," then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said in a letter to lawmakers. "Moreover, the president has ordered the vesting of blocked Iraqi assets for use by the Iraqi people and for reconstruction." ...

So it's OK for us to compensate the detainees who we abused in Abu Ghraib, but it's not OK for our own POWs to get compensation from Iraqi funds that we still hold? :eek: Why is it more important to compensate foreigners while we deprive our own war heroes?

Miulang

Miulang

February 15th, 2005, 11:41 AM

The other day, Congress passed a bill that essentially will require all states to comply to what is tantamount to a national ID by requiring standardization in who is issued a driver's license (the "REAL ID" bill). Ostensibly, it means that all states have to require any person applying for a driver's license to prove that they are a legal immigrant or an American citizen. Any state that doesn't comply with these rules will find all its citizens persona non grata everywhere else in the US. Right now in the state of Washington, when you apply for a driver's license, you don't have to prove you're an American, you just have to provide proof of your citizenship in a country. And as we all know, bogus IDs are a dime a dozen.

More concrete information on what the "REAL ID (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-5571898.html?tag=zdnn.alert)" act will mean to you and your life if it becomes law and the State of Hawai'i doesn't meet the criteria set up by the Dept. of Homeland Security.

"Under the rules, federal employees would reject licenses or identity cards that don't comply, which could curb Americans' access to airplanes, trains, national parks, federal courthouses and other areas controlled by the federal government...".

Miulang

February 17th, 2005, 06:46 AM

Although we "practice" detonating our nuclear weapons via a computerized simulation, the Energy Secretary wants Congress to allocate $2 billion next fiscal year to actually detonate one of those suckers underground at our nuclear test site in Nevada.

This, of course, has the good citizens of southern Utah up in arms because they would be the ones who would suffer from the downwind effects (http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2569845) of such a test. I wouldn't want to be living in St. George or camping in Zion or Bryce Canyon when the nuclear dust blows in that direction. :eek: And Utah (down in the 4 corners area) has more beautiful scenery than just about any other part of this country.

Miulang

Miulang

February 17th, 2005, 06:58 AM

If you're a parent, do you care about the kind of future your kids and grandkids will have based on what you see and hear going on around you?

This powerful article (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=7158) from Bill Moyer will give you pause.

"...The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free - not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. What we need is what the ancient Israelites called hochma - the science of the heart ... the capacity to see, to feel and then to act as if the future depended on you..."

Miulang

Miulang

February 22nd, 2005, 11:08 AM

America, as the Empire the Bush Administration and the neocons in this country would like to believe it is, is disintegrating.

Kirkpatrick Sales, in an article in Counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.com/sale02222005.html ), reveals the 4 things which have brought other empires down which he sees in action in this country today:

"...All empires collapse eventually: Akkad, Sumeria, Babylonia, Ninevah, Assyria, Persia, Macedonia, Greece, Carthage, Rome, Mali, Songhai, Mongonl, Tokugawaw, Gupta, Khmer, Hapbsburg, Inca, Aztec, Spanish, Dutch, Ottoman, Austrian, French, British, Soviet, you name them, they all fell, and most within a few hundred years. The reasons are not really complex. An empire is a kind of state system that inevitably makes the same mistakes simply by the nature of its imperial structure and inevitably fails because of its size, complexity, territorial reach, stratification, heterogeneity, domination, hierarchy, and inequalities. "...

"...First, environmental degradation. Empires always end by destroying the lands and waters they depend upon for survival, largely because they build and farm and grow without limits, and ours is no exception, even if we have yet to experience the worst of our assault on nature...."

"Second, economic meltdown. Empires always depend on excessive resource exploitation, usually derived from colonies farther and farther away from the center, and eventually fall when the resources are exhausted or become too expensive for all but the elite...."

"Third, military overstretch. Empires, because they are by definition colonizers, are always forced to extend their military reach farther and farther, and enlarge it against unwilling colonies more and more, until coffers are exhausted, communication lines are overextended, troops are unreliable, and the periphery resists and ultimately revolts. ..."

"...Finally, domestic dissent and upheaval. Traditional empires end up collapsing from within as well as often being attacked from without, and so far the level of dissent within the U.S. has not reached the point of rebellion or secession-thanks both to the increasing repression of dissent and escalation of fear in the name of "homeland security" and to the success of our modern version of bread and circuses, a unique combination of entertainment, sports, television, internet sex and games, consumption, drugs, liquor, and religion that effectively deadens the general public into stupor."...

If history repeats itself, this current American Empire, which is 229 years old at this time, will fall right into the same timeframes as other fallen empires.

All of these signs are present now and some signs are progressing more rapidly than others in this society, but unless we do something to turn the tide (we probably have it in our capacity to do something about the environmental problems and the economic meltdown), but it would take a mass paradigm shift for us to move away from being a war mongering society and one which is deadened to the human condition. :(

Miulang