On Friday, outgoing Palm Beach County Elections Supervisor Teresa LePore (she of the infamous 2000 butterfly ballot) issued an edict, in contravention of the First Amendment, decreeing journalists could not interview or photograph voters while they were in lines outside the polls.
Yesterday, well-known investigative journalist James B. Henry was chased, tackled, punched, handcuffed and arrested by Sheriff’s Deputy Al Cinque for photographing some voters in a line of about 600 waiting on the street outside the elections headquarters. Henry was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence, and jailed on $500 bond.
In addition to the early voters, the incident was witnessed by a Palm Beach Post reporter and British reporter Marcus Warren of the London Daily Telegraph.
Upon hearing of the incident, the Post reported that Leon County Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho “called restricting reporters and photographers on public sidewalks outside polling places ‘an outrage. I'm shocked. The First Amendment right to be there is absolute.
"’Outside our early voting place we had Japanese journalists, the BBC, all kinds of reporters and photographers,’ added Sancho, who is based in Tallahassee. ‘It's a public place, a public sidewalk. There is no statute, no law that can take away your right to talk to someone who is willing on a public sidewalk as long as no one is obstructing or interfering.’"
According to the Post, “Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, also called Henry's arrest an outrage. ‘Where did Theresa LePore get the authority to criminalize activities protected by the First Amendment?’"
Where, indeed. In case no one has noticed, Florida officials tend to make up laws whenever they wish.
The Post noted that it “and other newspapers and television stations had previously interviewed and photographed voters in line without incident since early voting began Oct. 18. LePore did not mention any new restrictions on interviews and photographs during a meeting with news media representatives Friday.”
Monday, November 01, 2004
Azzam & bin Laden videos exposed?
Clues on "Azzam the American" and the electronic logos
(INN World Report, Oct. 31)
“Why did the CIA not verify the contains the tape's authenticity of Azzam the American, which containes a logo of "an al-Qaida production group", but "approved" Bin Laden's video, which had the same logo?”
Terrorism: Tale of the Tape
(Newsweek. Nov. 8 issue)
“It was the second alarming tape to air within a week. On Thursday, ABC broadcast footage of an angry, fluent-English speaker called Azzam the American threatening that U.S. streets would run with blood. Some investigators think that Azzam could be a Southern Californian named Adam Gadahn, an American convert to Islam, who has been the focus of terror warnings since May. (The tape had an electronic logo burned into the bottom of the image—the same logo that appeared on the bin Laden tape and on other Qaeda videos, NEWSWEEK has learned.)”
(INN World Report, Oct. 31)
“Why did the CIA not verify the contains the tape's authenticity of Azzam the American, which containes a logo of "an al-Qaida production group", but "approved" Bin Laden's video, which had the same logo?”
Terrorism: Tale of the Tape
(Newsweek. Nov. 8 issue)
“It was the second alarming tape to air within a week. On Thursday, ABC broadcast footage of an angry, fluent-English speaker called Azzam the American threatening that U.S. streets would run with blood. Some investigators think that Azzam could be a Southern Californian named Adam Gadahn, an American convert to Islam, who has been the focus of terror warnings since May. (The tape had an electronic logo burned into the bottom of the image—the same logo that appeared on the bin Laden tape and on other Qaeda videos, NEWSWEEK has learned.)”
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Bush Cult goons prepare to disrupt Nov. 2 election
They may live in their cult leader Bush’s fantasy reality, but in their gut his Kool-Aid disciples know that if the 2004 presidential election is on the up and up, George W. Bush will be evicted from the White House. So they cannot chance that the easily fixed computerized voting equipment—optically scanned ballots or paperless touchscreens—are or will be rigged for Bush.
Nor can they chance that their stealth tactics of intimidation and lies, destroying Democrats’ registration forms, and a variety of efforts to disenfranchise voters will be enough to keep their demagogue in power. So the last trick up their sleeves before the vote is tallied, short of guns and bombs, is to disrupt the process by challenging voters at the polls, thus delaying the casting of votes, frightening some voters away and causing others to leave in disgust without voting.
To this end, the Bush Cult is recruiting thousands of its followers to do just that in what are perceived to be the swing states. And they don’t give a damn that the whole world is watching; because in their twisted reality only might makes right and the rest of us in the “reality-based community” just don’t get it.
As “an unnamed senior Bush advisor” told The New York Times reporter Ron Suskind,” ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
The question is if the Bush Cult again steals the election, will the “reality-based community” on Nov. 3 be studying what they did or will it be out in the streets waging another American revolution? How much more shame will we allow them to heap on our country and us?
Nor can they chance that their stealth tactics of intimidation and lies, destroying Democrats’ registration forms, and a variety of efforts to disenfranchise voters will be enough to keep their demagogue in power. So the last trick up their sleeves before the vote is tallied, short of guns and bombs, is to disrupt the process by challenging voters at the polls, thus delaying the casting of votes, frightening some voters away and causing others to leave in disgust without voting.
To this end, the Bush Cult is recruiting thousands of its followers to do just that in what are perceived to be the swing states. And they don’t give a damn that the whole world is watching; because in their twisted reality only might makes right and the rest of us in the “reality-based community” just don’t get it.
As “an unnamed senior Bush advisor” told The New York Times reporter Ron Suskind,” ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
The question is if the Bush Cult again steals the election, will the “reality-based community” on Nov. 3 be studying what they did or will it be out in the streets waging another American revolution? How much more shame will we allow them to heap on our country and us?
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Is Kerry the Democrats’ sacrificial lamb?
If John Kerry truly wants to be president, then he has got to stop the nonsense and start pounding away on George W. Bush’s record of failures and that is assuming the computerized voting devices haven’t already been rigged for Bush.
Kerry just wasted two days on the non-issue of assault weapons and probably lost thousands of votes in the process. Guns in the hands of citizens may be a bug-a-boo with a fraction of liberals, who foolishly think getting rid of guns will make crime vanish, and certain of our friends abroad. We suspect, though, that the anti-gun lobby was something dreamt up in the bowels of a right-wing think tank and foisted on unsuspecting liberal do-gooders. After all, one of the first things Hitler did was remove the citizens’ guns.
To those who say small arms are useless against military firepower, what is currently going on in Iraq belies that argument. Old Saddam, knowing what was going to happen in the wake of the illegal US invasion of his country, was wily enough to arm the Iraqi people before he was overthrown.
At every step, thus far, Kerry has allowed the Bushies to frame the debate and, thusly, make him look weak, indecisive and deceitful, while portraying the liar-in-chief, who skipped out on his National Guard commitment, stole the presidency, wrecked the economy, initiated two illegal wars, trampled on the Bill of Rights, tore up treaties, spit in our allies’ faces, and is destroying the environment, as some kind of strong, decisive leader—a hero, if you will.
Bush’s record speaks for itself. The man who was going to restore “honor and dignity” to the White House has brought us disgrace and ruin that will take decades to overcome, if, there is anything left to overcome should he and his gang remain in power. Kerry has been handed a mountain of incontrovertible facts to work with, but, thus far, he seems just about blind to them all.
Kerry has allowed his service in Vietnam to be smeared by the Bushies, while turning a blind eye to the truth about Bush’s. He has allowed the Bushies to turn his ability to think and reason into a liability: flip-flopper, while ignoring Bush’s egregious flip-flops (see Flip-Flopper-in-Chief).
John Kerry has had his eye on the presidency for a long time. Surely he didn’t think that going up against George W., Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes and their Soprano neocons was going to be a civilized thing. Actually, the Sopranos fight fairer.
Karl Rove may not be a household name among those Americans who get their “news” from the corporate media. But for those of you thought Poppy Bush’s boy, the late Lee Atwater, who destroyed Michael Dukakis was evil, his protégé, Rove, is beyond evil.
Now, unless Kerry is just raw meat for what may be our last presidential election and is meant to lose, someone has to get through to him: John Kerry, you can and must do better. Everything you need to win has been handed to you on a platter by Bush. Use it!
Kerry just wasted two days on the non-issue of assault weapons and probably lost thousands of votes in the process. Guns in the hands of citizens may be a bug-a-boo with a fraction of liberals, who foolishly think getting rid of guns will make crime vanish, and certain of our friends abroad. We suspect, though, that the anti-gun lobby was something dreamt up in the bowels of a right-wing think tank and foisted on unsuspecting liberal do-gooders. After all, one of the first things Hitler did was remove the citizens’ guns.
To those who say small arms are useless against military firepower, what is currently going on in Iraq belies that argument. Old Saddam, knowing what was going to happen in the wake of the illegal US invasion of his country, was wily enough to arm the Iraqi people before he was overthrown.
At every step, thus far, Kerry has allowed the Bushies to frame the debate and, thusly, make him look weak, indecisive and deceitful, while portraying the liar-in-chief, who skipped out on his National Guard commitment, stole the presidency, wrecked the economy, initiated two illegal wars, trampled on the Bill of Rights, tore up treaties, spit in our allies’ faces, and is destroying the environment, as some kind of strong, decisive leader—a hero, if you will.
Bush’s record speaks for itself. The man who was going to restore “honor and dignity” to the White House has brought us disgrace and ruin that will take decades to overcome, if, there is anything left to overcome should he and his gang remain in power. Kerry has been handed a mountain of incontrovertible facts to work with, but, thus far, he seems just about blind to them all.
Kerry has allowed his service in Vietnam to be smeared by the Bushies, while turning a blind eye to the truth about Bush’s. He has allowed the Bushies to turn his ability to think and reason into a liability: flip-flopper, while ignoring Bush’s egregious flip-flops (see Flip-Flopper-in-Chief).
John Kerry has had his eye on the presidency for a long time. Surely he didn’t think that going up against George W., Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes and their Soprano neocons was going to be a civilized thing. Actually, the Sopranos fight fairer.
Karl Rove may not be a household name among those Americans who get their “news” from the corporate media. But for those of you thought Poppy Bush’s boy, the late Lee Atwater, who destroyed Michael Dukakis was evil, his protégé, Rove, is beyond evil.
Now, unless Kerry is just raw meat for what may be our last presidential election and is meant to lose, someone has to get through to him: John Kerry, you can and must do better. Everything you need to win has been handed to you on a platter by Bush. Use it!
Monday, September 13, 2004
A thank you to our well-wishers
Our appreciation to all of you who called (when you could get through) and emailed your concerns about our safety during Hurricane Frances.
Other than losing electricity and phones, having a mess of downed tree limbs and the debris therefrom to clean up, and damage to an outbuilding caused by falling limbs, Frances left our little spot in Florida relatively unscathed. I wish I could say others in the Sunshine State were as fortunate.
My first concern when I could get back online was to start publishing articles that had piled up along with more than a thousand emails. I beg the indulgence of Online Journal’s readers and writers, because it is going to take some time for me to get caught up.
While our main server is in a more secure location, the one for the mailing list is here. I ask those of you on the mailing list to check Online Journal’s website, because weather conditions here, due to daily thunderstorms and whatever effects we experience from Hurricane Ivan, are not favorable for sending to the list.
Right now, Ivan seems to be headed for the Florida Panhandle or points west of it, but, given its size, we are likely to experience wind gusts and heavy rains coming off the outer bands.
Other than losing electricity and phones, having a mess of downed tree limbs and the debris therefrom to clean up, and damage to an outbuilding caused by falling limbs, Frances left our little spot in Florida relatively unscathed. I wish I could say others in the Sunshine State were as fortunate.
My first concern when I could get back online was to start publishing articles that had piled up along with more than a thousand emails. I beg the indulgence of Online Journal’s readers and writers, because it is going to take some time for me to get caught up.
While our main server is in a more secure location, the one for the mailing list is here. I ask those of you on the mailing list to check Online Journal’s website, because weather conditions here, due to daily thunderstorms and whatever effects we experience from Hurricane Ivan, are not favorable for sending to the list.
Right now, Ivan seems to be headed for the Florida Panhandle or points west of it, but, given its size, we are likely to experience wind gusts and heavy rains coming off the outer bands.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Will they be ignored tomorrow?
For hours, I have been glued to C-SPAN, watching decent people marching peacefully in the streets of New York City, exercising their constitutional right for a redress of grievances.
From across America they came -- young and old of every race and ethnicity -- to tell George W. Bush and the Republicans what they think of them and their wars, imperialism and injustices.
Four hours have now passed and a sea of humanity still fills Seventh Avenue, which runs past the Garden, as far as the eye can see. In the sweltering heat and humidity of a New York August day, the spirits of the demonstrators are still high and good-natured, even when confronted with handfuls of taunting Bush supporters on the sidewalks; Bush supporters protected by police.
Currently, a procession of people carrying flag-draped coffins -- representing the coffins of the fallen troops Bush did not want Americans to see -- is moving up Seventh Avenue toward the Garden, where the Republican National Convention will convene tomorrow.
From my vantage point, this has to be the biggest street demonstration the Big Apple has yet to see. But will it make a difference or will the Bushies and the GOP brush it off as a meaningless “focus group,” the way Bush brushed off the demonstrations that preceded his illegal invasion of Iraq? Will it be back to business tomorrow for the Republicans in the safety of the fortress atmosphere that will surround Madison Square Garden?
Will people across America see any of this if they aren’t watching C-SPAN? Will it make a difference if they do? Can we rid ourselves of Bush’s lies, fear and hate?
From across America they came -- young and old of every race and ethnicity -- to tell George W. Bush and the Republicans what they think of them and their wars, imperialism and injustices.
Four hours have now passed and a sea of humanity still fills Seventh Avenue, which runs past the Garden, as far as the eye can see. In the sweltering heat and humidity of a New York August day, the spirits of the demonstrators are still high and good-natured, even when confronted with handfuls of taunting Bush supporters on the sidewalks; Bush supporters protected by police.
Currently, a procession of people carrying flag-draped coffins -- representing the coffins of the fallen troops Bush did not want Americans to see -- is moving up Seventh Avenue toward the Garden, where the Republican National Convention will convene tomorrow.
From my vantage point, this has to be the biggest street demonstration the Big Apple has yet to see. But will it make a difference or will the Bushies and the GOP brush it off as a meaningless “focus group,” the way Bush brushed off the demonstrations that preceded his illegal invasion of Iraq? Will it be back to business tomorrow for the Republicans in the safety of the fortress atmosphere that will surround Madison Square Garden?
Will people across America see any of this if they aren’t watching C-SPAN? Will it make a difference if they do? Can we rid ourselves of Bush’s lies, fear and hate?
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Bush: Rich people don’t pay taxes
Another bit of truth escaped George W. Bush’s mouth yesterday at a carefully vetted (read that supporters only) campaign rally in Virginia. Call it his Leona Helmsley moment, when he said taxing the rich was a failed strategy because “"the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."
There you have it. Cutting taxes on the rich has nothing to do with helping the rest of us or the economy. It’s why bother since they have all those pricey lawyers and accountants, and can hide the money offshore?
Too bad George wasn’t around when Leona, the wife of New York real estate tycoon Harry Helmsley, drew prison time for tax fraud and evasion. He could have pardoned her on the spot. Leona, dubbed the Queen of Mean for the way she treated staff at the Helmsley hotels she ran, declared, “Only little people pay taxes.” The newsfakers had a field day with that one, but don’t expect any screaming headlines or television coverage of Bush's remark. Then, the network anchors all fall into “the really rich people” category.
Last week, at a signing ceremony for the $417 billion defense bill, Bush popped out with another bit of truth when he said, “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
His record on harming the country and the people is impressive: 9/11, illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, tax cuts and more tax cuts for the rich, the highest deficits in history, an economy in the tank, more than 2 million jobs lost since he was handed the White House, letting what were good jobs be outsourced to lower paid workers in foreign countries, unconstitutionally giving taxpayer money to religious groups, taking away our freedoms and turning us into a police state, criminally leaking the name of a CIA operative, blowing the cover of an alleged double agent, destroying the environment, tearing up treaties, slapping our allies in the face, threatening Iran, Syria, North Korea and China, and working to overthrow Chavez in Venezuela and Castro in Cuba. This is a mountain of impeachable offenses, but neither the corporate trivia mills (a.k.a. corporate news media) nor anyone in Congress will say the I-word.
On the few occasions he tells the truth, his words are dismissed as a joke or that he “misspoke” himself. Jokes or misspoken words can have dire consequences—nay, catastrophic consequences. Ronald Reagan nearly found that out in 1984 when, not realizing he was before an open microphone, he sent the then Soviet Union into a tizzy with his quip, “My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." The Soviets didn’t find that funny, especially after he had called the USSR the “focus of evil” and an “evil empire” in a March 8, 1983, speech before the National Association of Evangelicals convention in Orlando, Fla.
There you have it. Cutting taxes on the rich has nothing to do with helping the rest of us or the economy. It’s why bother since they have all those pricey lawyers and accountants, and can hide the money offshore?
Too bad George wasn’t around when Leona, the wife of New York real estate tycoon Harry Helmsley, drew prison time for tax fraud and evasion. He could have pardoned her on the spot. Leona, dubbed the Queen of Mean for the way she treated staff at the Helmsley hotels she ran, declared, “Only little people pay taxes.” The newsfakers had a field day with that one, but don’t expect any screaming headlines or television coverage of Bush's remark. Then, the network anchors all fall into “the really rich people” category.
Last week, at a signing ceremony for the $417 billion defense bill, Bush popped out with another bit of truth when he said, “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
His record on harming the country and the people is impressive: 9/11, illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, tax cuts and more tax cuts for the rich, the highest deficits in history, an economy in the tank, more than 2 million jobs lost since he was handed the White House, letting what were good jobs be outsourced to lower paid workers in foreign countries, unconstitutionally giving taxpayer money to religious groups, taking away our freedoms and turning us into a police state, criminally leaking the name of a CIA operative, blowing the cover of an alleged double agent, destroying the environment, tearing up treaties, slapping our allies in the face, threatening Iran, Syria, North Korea and China, and working to overthrow Chavez in Venezuela and Castro in Cuba. This is a mountain of impeachable offenses, but neither the corporate trivia mills (a.k.a. corporate news media) nor anyone in Congress will say the I-word.
On the few occasions he tells the truth, his words are dismissed as a joke or that he “misspoke” himself. Jokes or misspoken words can have dire consequences—nay, catastrophic consequences. Ronald Reagan nearly found that out in 1984 when, not realizing he was before an open microphone, he sent the then Soviet Union into a tizzy with his quip, “My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." The Soviets didn’t find that funny, especially after he had called the USSR the “focus of evil” and an “evil empire” in a March 8, 1983, speech before the National Association of Evangelicals convention in Orlando, Fla.
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Fearmongers Bush & Cheney fear the people
Do you want to see Bush or Cheney in person for some inexplicable reason? Well, if you’re a Democrat, it will cost you—not money, but your soul.
The price of a ticket to one of their campaign speeches is signing a pledge that you endorse Misleader Bush, after you supply your name, address, phone number, email address and driver’s license, as a group of Democrats in El Paso, Texas, found out when they wanted to attend a Cheney speech.
A Vietnam veteran said he also was asked if he belonged to a veterans’, pro-life, gun rights’ or teachers’ groups. What no proof of church affiliation or oaths stating you are not and never have been a terrorist or that you repent your evil liberalism?
And the reason given for this extortion and unwarranted invasion of privacy? “Secret Service stuff.”
Might Democrats be subjected to strip searches, too, to make sure they haven’t secreted an anti-Bush sign in their underwear; a sign that will later be pulled out and displayed to the TV cameras?
In Tucson, an organizer for a Cheney lie-fest there, demanded to know the race of Arizona Daily Star journalist Mamta Popat, who was assigned to photograph Vice Misleader Potty Mouth.
Calling the request “outrageous,” managing editor Teri Hayt refused to provide the information, as did two other editors GOP organizer Christine Walton had spoken to before she called Hayt.
Equally outrageous, Bush and Cheney require all reporters covering them to undergo a background check, which means their dates of birth and Social Security numbers must be disclosed, in addition to their names. The Star had complied with that “requirement” prior to Walton asking about the race of Ms. Popat, who happens to be of Indian ancestry.
The kicker was that Walton claimed it was necessary for the Secret Service to know Ms. Popat’s race in case someone else had the same name.
First it was herding protesters in protest pens, erroneously called First Amendment or Free Speech Zones, where Bush could neither see nor hear them. Then it was arresting protesters with valid tickets to his rallies, who dared display anti-Bush signs. Now it’s forcing people to sign oaths of loyalty to Bush in order to be allowed in the same arena with him or Cheney, and racial profiling.
Yet, people who get their “news” from the television trivia mills don’t have a clue how carefully vetted those Bush and Cheney rallies are; how afraid this dastardly duo are of the people. That big tent the GOP talks about is only for Republicans and Bush loyalists. The rest of America, keep out!
The price of a ticket to one of their campaign speeches is signing a pledge that you endorse Misleader Bush, after you supply your name, address, phone number, email address and driver’s license, as a group of Democrats in El Paso, Texas, found out when they wanted to attend a Cheney speech.
A Vietnam veteran said he also was asked if he belonged to a veterans’, pro-life, gun rights’ or teachers’ groups. What no proof of church affiliation or oaths stating you are not and never have been a terrorist or that you repent your evil liberalism?
And the reason given for this extortion and unwarranted invasion of privacy? “Secret Service stuff.”
Might Democrats be subjected to strip searches, too, to make sure they haven’t secreted an anti-Bush sign in their underwear; a sign that will later be pulled out and displayed to the TV cameras?
In Tucson, an organizer for a Cheney lie-fest there, demanded to know the race of Arizona Daily Star journalist Mamta Popat, who was assigned to photograph Vice Misleader Potty Mouth.
Calling the request “outrageous,” managing editor Teri Hayt refused to provide the information, as did two other editors GOP organizer Christine Walton had spoken to before she called Hayt.
Equally outrageous, Bush and Cheney require all reporters covering them to undergo a background check, which means their dates of birth and Social Security numbers must be disclosed, in addition to their names. The Star had complied with that “requirement” prior to Walton asking about the race of Ms. Popat, who happens to be of Indian ancestry.
The kicker was that Walton claimed it was necessary for the Secret Service to know Ms. Popat’s race in case someone else had the same name.
First it was herding protesters in protest pens, erroneously called First Amendment or Free Speech Zones, where Bush could neither see nor hear them. Then it was arresting protesters with valid tickets to his rallies, who dared display anti-Bush signs. Now it’s forcing people to sign oaths of loyalty to Bush in order to be allowed in the same arena with him or Cheney, and racial profiling.
Yet, people who get their “news” from the television trivia mills don’t have a clue how carefully vetted those Bush and Cheney rallies are; how afraid this dastardly duo are of the people. That big tent the GOP talks about is only for Republicans and Bush loyalists. The rest of America, keep out!
Vote of no confidence or another GOP trick?
There are two ways to look at the flyers the Florida GOP sent out to some Republicans, advising them to apply for paper ballots because the new touchscreens provide not paper trail, then, after raising the ire of Gov. Jeb Bush, offering a lame apology, saying it regretted that the language in the flyer wasn’t clear.
Not clear? It couldn’t be much clearer: ''The liberal Democrats have already begun their attacks and the new electronic voting machines do not have a paper ballot to verify your vote in case of a recount. Make sure your vote counts, order your absentee ballot today.''
So, was this the work of an individual or group within the party truly concerned about electronic voting systems that provide no auditable paper trail or a ruse the GOP thinks will cover its tracks when it steals the 2004 vote?
Not clear? It couldn’t be much clearer: ''The liberal Democrats have already begun their attacks and the new electronic voting machines do not have a paper ballot to verify your vote in case of a recount. Make sure your vote counts, order your absentee ballot today.''
So, was this the work of an individual or group within the party truly concerned about electronic voting systems that provide no auditable paper trail or a ruse the GOP thinks will cover its tracks when it steals the 2004 vote?
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Miami’s disappearing and reappearing e-voting data
First Miami-Dade County election officials said the electronic voting records from the 2002 Florida gubernatorial primary were conveniently lost forever due to a computer crash—well, not exactly a crash but a corruption of the wonderful software in their shiny, new ES&S system—and, alas, there was no backup.
Well, you know how computers are. They crash; software corrupts. It’s too bad that our election officials can’t or won’t grasp that as they go on touting the wonders of e-voting, especially e-voting that leaves no paper trail to conduct pesky recounts. But I digress.
When that brought more howls of protest from the opponents of touchscreen voting, the most miraculous thing occurred yesterday. A disk, which had been tucked somewhere or other in the bowels of the county elections office, was disgorged and on it, lo and behold, was the 2002 data.
But did that satisfy those skeptical ingrates who don’t believe in fairy tales, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, and who oppose paperless voting? Nope!
"There are now more questions than before," Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, chairwoman of the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition, told the Orlando Sentinel. "I certainly want the disk, I certainly wish someone would test the original disk they are now claiming they found and determine when that disk was made, where it came from, whether it's been tampered with and if anyone's opened it."
What makes this miraculous find smell so fishy is that the county says it did not have a backup system until last December.
Well, you know how computers are. They crash; software corrupts. It’s too bad that our election officials can’t or won’t grasp that as they go on touting the wonders of e-voting, especially e-voting that leaves no paper trail to conduct pesky recounts. But I digress.
When that brought more howls of protest from the opponents of touchscreen voting, the most miraculous thing occurred yesterday. A disk, which had been tucked somewhere or other in the bowels of the county elections office, was disgorged and on it, lo and behold, was the 2002 data.
But did that satisfy those skeptical ingrates who don’t believe in fairy tales, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, and who oppose paperless voting? Nope!
"There are now more questions than before," Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, chairwoman of the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition, told the Orlando Sentinel. "I certainly want the disk, I certainly wish someone would test the original disk they are now claiming they found and determine when that disk was made, where it came from, whether it's been tampered with and if anyone's opened it."
What makes this miraculous find smell so fishy is that the county says it did not have a backup system until last December.
Freedom and democracy Bush-style
Arabic News is reporting that Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zeibari is threatening to shut down the Baghdad office of al-Jazeera and several other Arab TV channels, claiming their coverage of the situation in Iraq is biased and deviant.
In an al-Jazeera interview, Zeibari said that " we will not be tolerant with this unilateral coverage of the situation in Iraq and we will not permit those who hide before the freedom of the media… This provocation is not only in al-Jazeera, rather in the Arab TV channels, al Manar and the world.. became channels of provocation against the interest, security and safety of the people of Iraq and the Iraqi government will not be easy with these behaviors."
Well, Zeibari is just following in the footsteps of the freedom-loving Bremer, who shut down Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s Al Hawza, setting off a wave of mayhem that continues to this day. But Bremer was just following the lead of the freedom-loving George W. Bush who said, “There ought to be limits to freedom.”
And we all know what George has done to limit our freedoms, too. And more of those limits will be coming if he manages to hang on to the White House.
In an al-Jazeera interview, Zeibari said that " we will not be tolerant with this unilateral coverage of the situation in Iraq and we will not permit those who hide before the freedom of the media… This provocation is not only in al-Jazeera, rather in the Arab TV channels, al Manar and the world.. became channels of provocation against the interest, security and safety of the people of Iraq and the Iraqi government will not be easy with these behaviors."
Well, Zeibari is just following in the footsteps of the freedom-loving Bremer, who shut down Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s Al Hawza, setting off a wave of mayhem that continues to this day. But Bremer was just following the lead of the freedom-loving George W. Bush who said, “There ought to be limits to freedom.”
And we all know what George has done to limit our freedoms, too. And more of those limits will be coming if he manages to hang on to the White House.
Medical personnel in Iraq complicit in torture and Gitmo prisoners subjected to medical experiments?
The New England Journal of Medicine is reporting that “U.S. doctors, nurses, and medics have been complicit in torture and other illegal procedures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay.”
Then there is the matter of two French citizens, Mourad Benchellali and Nizar Sassi, recently returned to France after being held for more than two years in the US military prison in Guantanamo. According to their lawyer, Jacques Debray, both men told him, “We have emerged from hell.”
Debray told Reuters that both men have concerns about the “interrogation techniques and medical experiments” at Guantanamo. He said that Sassi, in a letter, claimed “bizarre” medicines had been given to inmates at night and that one had caused some prisoners to break out in rashes.
Dr. Josef Mengele may be dead, but his playbook is still being used with the blessing of those compassionate conservatives squatting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC.
Now what were Rummy and and Lt. Gen. Paul T. Mikolashe, the Army inspector general, saying about the use of torture not being a systemic problem; that it all was the work of a “few bad apples” who suffered from poor training, slapdash organization and outmoded policies? That isn’t saying much about the mighty US military, is it?
And from all that has come oozing out, despite Rummy’s efforts to force it back in the tube, torture—which he insists on calling “abuse”—wasn’t among the outmoded policies. Nor have the Bushies been able to make those damning memos disappear—the one cooked up in the Pentagon on March 6, 2003, and the Bybee Memo of August 1, 2002, on how to circumvent the laws, national and international, prohibiting torture.
US Census Bureau tracking Arab-Americans for Dept. of Homeland (In)Security
Its apology for having its data used to round up Japanese-Americans during World War II notwithstanding, the US Census Bureau has now provided the Department of Homeland (In)Security with detailed information about where Arab-Americans live.
While what the bureau did is legal and the bureau claims it provided no names, its actions raise a lot of questions in the Bush-induced climate of fear that all Arabs want to kill Americans. Will the next move be to round up all the Arab-Americans and cart them off to internment camps for “their” protection?
While what the bureau did is legal and the bureau claims it provided no names, its actions raise a lot of questions in the Bush-induced climate of fear that all Arabs want to kill Americans. Will the next move be to round up all the Arab-Americans and cart them off to internment camps for “their” protection?
Saturday, July 24, 2004
House bill strips federal courts of jurisdiction in same-sex marriage cases
When at first you don’t succeed, do an end run and strip the federal courts of the power to protect a minority’s civil rights.
And that’s precisely what the House Republicans did last week in passing the so-called Marriage Protection Act, which prohibits the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, from deciding whether a state must recognize a same-sex marriage legalized in another state.
This goes beyond President Clinton’s stupidity in pandering to Christian zealots by signing the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, to the very essence of what the Bill of Rights is all about: protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
What has these tyrannical religious zealots’ panties in a wad over same-sex marriage is beyond me. Nor can they explain how a loving same-sex married couple living next door to them is going to have a deleterious effect on a heterosexual couple’s marriage. Of course, not too long ago, their predecessors fought against legalizing interracial marriage, with the same arguments that the republic would collapse if people of different races married.
For once, The New York Times got it right: “This radical approach would allow Congress to revoke the courts' ability to guard constitutional freedoms of all kinds. And although gays are the subject of this bill, other minority groups could easily find themselves the target of future ones.”
While some legal scholars agree with the bill’s author, Representative John Hostettler (R-Ind.), that Congress has the power, under Article III of the Constitution, to strip the courts of their jurisdiction in this and other matters that strike their fancy, I don’t read it that way, especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. Yes, the Constitution gives Congress the power to establish “inferior courts,” but nowhere can I find where it is given the power to prohibit the lower courts or the Supreme Court from adjudicating cases that arise under the Constitution.
Republicans have a habit of setting up slippery slopes, which they often are the first to slide down, such as the amendment limiting presidents to two terms. The presidential term limit amendment came about when they got their knickers in a twist over Roosevelt winning four terms. It came back to bite them when Eisenhower could not run for a third term, had he chosen to do so, nor could their darling Reagan.
Now what if a Democratic majority in Congress passed a bill stripping the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to decide the victor in a close or stolen election? Surely, the Republicans would go for that, yes? Or might they be too busy peering into bedrooms to notice?
And that’s precisely what the House Republicans did last week in passing the so-called Marriage Protection Act, which prohibits the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, from deciding whether a state must recognize a same-sex marriage legalized in another state.
This goes beyond President Clinton’s stupidity in pandering to Christian zealots by signing the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, to the very essence of what the Bill of Rights is all about: protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
What has these tyrannical religious zealots’ panties in a wad over same-sex marriage is beyond me. Nor can they explain how a loving same-sex married couple living next door to them is going to have a deleterious effect on a heterosexual couple’s marriage. Of course, not too long ago, their predecessors fought against legalizing interracial marriage, with the same arguments that the republic would collapse if people of different races married.
For once, The New York Times got it right: “This radical approach would allow Congress to revoke the courts' ability to guard constitutional freedoms of all kinds. And although gays are the subject of this bill, other minority groups could easily find themselves the target of future ones.”
While some legal scholars agree with the bill’s author, Representative John Hostettler (R-Ind.), that Congress has the power, under Article III of the Constitution, to strip the courts of their jurisdiction in this and other matters that strike their fancy, I don’t read it that way, especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. Yes, the Constitution gives Congress the power to establish “inferior courts,” but nowhere can I find where it is given the power to prohibit the lower courts or the Supreme Court from adjudicating cases that arise under the Constitution.
Republicans have a habit of setting up slippery slopes, which they often are the first to slide down, such as the amendment limiting presidents to two terms. The presidential term limit amendment came about when they got their knickers in a twist over Roosevelt winning four terms. It came back to bite them when Eisenhower could not run for a third term, had he chosen to do so, nor could their darling Reagan.
Now what if a Democratic majority in Congress passed a bill stripping the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to decide the victor in a close or stolen election? Surely, the Republicans would go for that, yes? Or might they be too busy peering into bedrooms to notice?
Friday, July 09, 2004
Oops, Bush’s crucial military records were destroyed
How convenient! It only took the Pentagon four years to come up with this tale, claiming George W.’s crucial Texas Air National Guard payroll records were destroyed, allegedly with those of “numerous other service members,” during an operation “to salvage deteriorating microfilm.”
"Destroyed" in 1996 and 1997, yet. Even more convenient, considering he obtained a new Texas driver's license in 1995. A tidying up operation in preparation for a run for the White House?
In a letter signed by C. Y. Talbott, chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of Information Office, that accompanied a CD-ROM of Bush’s records that had already been released, Talbott said, “Searches for backup paper copies of the missing records were unsuccessful.” Some 60 pages of Bush’s medical files and other records were also withheld on privacy grounds.
How interesting that the records “destroyed” were only for the first quarter of 1969 and the third quarter of 1972. The question of whether Bush was paid for these quarters, which would prove whether he fulfilled his obligation or deserted, could be cleared up from his income tax returns for 1969 and 1972. Yes, people in the military have to file tax returns. It’s doubtful that the dog that ate the microfilm is still around.
"Destroyed" in 1996 and 1997, yet. Even more convenient, considering he obtained a new Texas driver's license in 1995. A tidying up operation in preparation for a run for the White House?
In a letter signed by C. Y. Talbott, chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of Information Office, that accompanied a CD-ROM of Bush’s records that had already been released, Talbott said, “Searches for backup paper copies of the missing records were unsuccessful.” Some 60 pages of Bush’s medical files and other records were also withheld on privacy grounds.
How interesting that the records “destroyed” were only for the first quarter of 1969 and the third quarter of 1972. The question of whether Bush was paid for these quarters, which would prove whether he fulfilled his obligation or deserted, could be cleared up from his income tax returns for 1969 and 1972. Yes, people in the military have to file tax returns. It’s doubtful that the dog that ate the microfilm is still around.
We don’t need no steenking elections
With each passing week, the cacophony grows louder about having to call off this year’s elections in the event of another “terrorist attack.”
The corporate media chorus keeps dutifully singing, “The terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming” to Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft’s tune, “We Don’t Know Who; We Don’t Know When; We Don’t Know Where; We Don’t Know How, but We Have Credible Evidence and the Attack Will Be Bigger than 9-11.”
Gotta keep that fear card in play, not to mention having a game plan if the Pakistanis fail to pull Osama out of a cave—preferably during the Dems’ convention—to save Bush’s sorry derriere.
Far fetched? Not when you consider retired General Tommy Franks’ remarks to the right-wing NewsMax last November: "It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world—it may be in the United States of America—that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important."
Goodbye, freedom! Hello, dictatorship!
The “replacement” government—also known as the Armageddon Plan—is already in place. And the numbskulls in Congress are being urged to commit suicide by voting for an unconstitutional provision that will allow for “emergency elections” should the vast majority of them be wiped out in an attack on the Capitol.
To further the diabolical plan, the Bushies want to make sure there are as few as possible foreign journalists in the country to record the event. To accomplish that, the new visa rules that take effect next week will require foreign journalists whose visa are expiring to leave the country in order to renew them at a US embassy or consulate abroad. It could take from four weeks to six months before their applications are processed. Neat, huh?
Be afraid, folks. Be very afraid. Our only hope of thwarting this scheme and keeping the freedoms we still have is by spreading the word of what is on the Bushies’ drawing board to as many people as possible.
The corporate media chorus keeps dutifully singing, “The terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming” to Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft’s tune, “We Don’t Know Who; We Don’t Know When; We Don’t Know Where; We Don’t Know How, but We Have Credible Evidence and the Attack Will Be Bigger than 9-11.”
Gotta keep that fear card in play, not to mention having a game plan if the Pakistanis fail to pull Osama out of a cave—preferably during the Dems’ convention—to save Bush’s sorry derriere.
Far fetched? Not when you consider retired General Tommy Franks’ remarks to the right-wing NewsMax last November: "It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world—it may be in the United States of America—that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important."
Goodbye, freedom! Hello, dictatorship!
The “replacement” government—also known as the Armageddon Plan—is already in place. And the numbskulls in Congress are being urged to commit suicide by voting for an unconstitutional provision that will allow for “emergency elections” should the vast majority of them be wiped out in an attack on the Capitol.
To further the diabolical plan, the Bushies want to make sure there are as few as possible foreign journalists in the country to record the event. To accomplish that, the new visa rules that take effect next week will require foreign journalists whose visa are expiring to leave the country in order to renew them at a US embassy or consulate abroad. It could take from four weeks to six months before their applications are processed. Neat, huh?
Be afraid, folks. Be very afraid. Our only hope of thwarting this scheme and keeping the freedoms we still have is by spreading the word of what is on the Bushies’ drawing board to as many people as possible.
A classic Bush temper tantrum
Like the kid on the playground who can’t stand losing and picks up his baseball bat and goes home, an angry George W. stomped out of a press briefing Thursday when asked questions about his relationship with indicted former Enron chief Kenneth Lay, whom Bush had dubbed “Kenny Boy” back in the salad days when Lay and his wife were pouring some three-quarter of a million dollars in GOP campaign coffers from 1989 to 2001.
Not able quite yet to shout, “Off with their heads,” Bush’s temper grows shorter by the day. Asked during a campaign appearance in North Carolina how John Edwards, John Kerry’s choice for vice president, stacked up against Dick “Potty Mouth” Cheney, Bush snapped, “Dick Cheney can be president.”
Yeah, right, if old Snarling Potty Mouth doesn’t wind up in an orange jump suit for his “big time” Halliburton skullduggery. But at a cabinet meeting, in response to aides worried about Cheney being indicted by a French court and the probes undertaken by federal prosecutors who haven’t yet figured out how to sweep the Cheney-Halliburton scandal under the rug, Bush reportedly growled, “F*uck ‘em all.”
Aren’t you so f*cking glad, that f*cking Bush and Cheney brought f*cking honor and dignity back to the f*cking White House?
Not able quite yet to shout, “Off with their heads,” Bush’s temper grows shorter by the day. Asked during a campaign appearance in North Carolina how John Edwards, John Kerry’s choice for vice president, stacked up against Dick “Potty Mouth” Cheney, Bush snapped, “Dick Cheney can be president.”
Yeah, right, if old Snarling Potty Mouth doesn’t wind up in an orange jump suit for his “big time” Halliburton skullduggery. But at a cabinet meeting, in response to aides worried about Cheney being indicted by a French court and the probes undertaken by federal prosecutors who haven’t yet figured out how to sweep the Cheney-Halliburton scandal under the rug, Bush reportedly growled, “F*uck ‘em all.”
Aren’t you so f*cking glad, that f*cking Bush and Cheney brought f*cking honor and dignity back to the f*cking White House?
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Is Bush planning to pull another PR stunt in Iraq?
Is Bush planning to pull another PR stunt in Iraq?
The word floating in from a military source in Iraq is that George W. may be planning another quick photo-op in Baghdad for three purposes: stealing the thunder from John Kerry’s announcement of his choice for vice president; tamping down Saddam Hussein’s performance last Thursday in a dubious “court” (what little of it US authorities didn’t censor) by strutting macho-like to show the Iraqi people he is stronger than Saddam; and attempting to boost his sinking poll numbers.
Ah, but there is another element to the Bushistas’ madness, according to the source: “The last time Mr. Bush was here General Sanchez requested all the kids who saw Mr. Bush write home to their families and local newspapers to tell them how happy they were that Mr. Bush came to visit them. A few moments ago we were ordered to have thousands of ‘commemorative presidential’ letterheads published for distribution to the kids so that their letters home will saturate the States and many more letters than last time will make it into the media…This PR crap that Mr. Bush's Karl Rove dreams up is disgusting. Are we over here fighting an insurgency or reelecting [sic] a bad commander in chief?”
You have to admit that there is no bottom to the filth the Bush cabal comes up with. And how can someone who wasn’t elected be reelected?
The word floating in from a military source in Iraq is that George W. may be planning another quick photo-op in Baghdad for three purposes: stealing the thunder from John Kerry’s announcement of his choice for vice president; tamping down Saddam Hussein’s performance last Thursday in a dubious “court” (what little of it US authorities didn’t censor) by strutting macho-like to show the Iraqi people he is stronger than Saddam; and attempting to boost his sinking poll numbers.
Ah, but there is another element to the Bushistas’ madness, according to the source: “The last time Mr. Bush was here General Sanchez requested all the kids who saw Mr. Bush write home to their families and local newspapers to tell them how happy they were that Mr. Bush came to visit them. A few moments ago we were ordered to have thousands of ‘commemorative presidential’ letterheads published for distribution to the kids so that their letters home will saturate the States and many more letters than last time will make it into the media…This PR crap that Mr. Bush's Karl Rove dreams up is disgusting. Are we over here fighting an insurgency or reelecting [sic] a bad commander in chief?”
You have to admit that there is no bottom to the filth the Bush cabal comes up with. And how can someone who wasn’t elected be reelected?
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Sneaking out like a thief in the night
There was no fanfare. No tight shots of a hand-picked group of cheering Iraqis, like the ones assembled for the toppling of Saddam’s statue. Not even George W., in a flight suit, emerging from a fighter jet on the deck of a US aircraft carrier in the middle of the Persian Gulf to personally preside over the grand moment. This “mission accomplished” was all done in secret with 30 minutes notice.
In the now all too familiar sneaky Bushistas’ way, the American viceroy, L. Paul Bremer III, Tuesday “handed over power” — sort of — to the newest interim Iraqi puppet government, headed by a CIA asset.
Except it wasn’t night. It was 10:26 in the morning, Baghdad time, when the fearful Bremer relinquished the keys to Saddam’s palace in a secret ceremony and made a dash for a waiting C-130 to fly him out of Iraq. The excuse for the hastily convened ceremony that should have taken place publicly today? To ward off more violence by those dastardly “insurgents.” Hey, any excuse will do.
And it wasn’t really power or sovereignty that Bremer conveyed in a letter he handed to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, because it was preceded by 97 ‘irrevocable” edicts — thou shalts and thou shalt nots — that Bremer had written over the past week. The real power will rest with Ronnie Reagan’s Honduran death squad and Nicaraguan contras facilitator, US Ambassador John Negroponte, who will take his directions from the Bushies, and the US military. The perfect guy to put in charge of the biggest taxpayer-funded private business enterprise and employment (for anyone other than Iraqis, that is) agency in the world, a.k.a. the US embassy.
Maybe now, grateful for being “liberated,” enjoying “democracy” and having regained their “sovereignty,” the Iraqi people will hug and kiss our folks, and throw flowers at their feet, as Rummy predicted, you think?
In the now all too familiar sneaky Bushistas’ way, the American viceroy, L. Paul Bremer III, Tuesday “handed over power” — sort of — to the newest interim Iraqi puppet government, headed by a CIA asset.
Except it wasn’t night. It was 10:26 in the morning, Baghdad time, when the fearful Bremer relinquished the keys to Saddam’s palace in a secret ceremony and made a dash for a waiting C-130 to fly him out of Iraq. The excuse for the hastily convened ceremony that should have taken place publicly today? To ward off more violence by those dastardly “insurgents.” Hey, any excuse will do.
And it wasn’t really power or sovereignty that Bremer conveyed in a letter he handed to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, because it was preceded by 97 ‘irrevocable” edicts — thou shalts and thou shalt nots — that Bremer had written over the past week. The real power will rest with Ronnie Reagan’s Honduran death squad and Nicaraguan contras facilitator, US Ambassador John Negroponte, who will take his directions from the Bushies, and the US military. The perfect guy to put in charge of the biggest taxpayer-funded private business enterprise and employment (for anyone other than Iraqis, that is) agency in the world, a.k.a. the US embassy.
Maybe now, grateful for being “liberated,” enjoying “democracy” and having regained their “sovereignty,” the Iraqi people will hug and kiss our folks, and throw flowers at their feet, as Rummy predicted, you think?
Sunday, May 16, 2004
The Nick Berg video: what is wrong with these pictures?
Are the corporate media newsfakers who saw this snuff video so stupid that they didn't notice that the duplicating equipment kept being turned on and off, and that the audio and time track were added afterwards? Also, the wall color in the video seems to be the same as the walls in Abu Ghraib prison. And, if they closely watched the person standing on the left, that several frames were duplicated?
Aside from questions about the orange jumpsuit Nick Berg was wearing and the plastic chair he was sitting in that suspiciously looks similar to a chair Pfc. Lynndie England was photographed in at Abu Ghraib prison, the most telling thing about the video is what is absent when Berg's head is severed: blood. Slicing through the carotid arteries of a live person would have produced a geyser of blood spraying the executioner, the person holding down Berg and those gathered in closely. But there is no blood. There is not even a pool of blood on the floor where Berg's body lies. That can lead to only one conclusion: Berg was already dead before the grisly decapitation.
And how from that video could anyone tell that the person clad in black was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a high level al Qaida operative, whom the US military reported was killed April 3 in the bombing of Falluja? Did the Bushies lie about that, too, or has al-Zargawi also been resurrected like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was reported killed in a Sept. 11, 2002 shootout with Pakistani police in Karachi only to be arrested on March 1, 2003, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, as the new alleged mastermind of 9/11 and the executioner of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl?
Is the Berg murder another sloppy black op ordered by the Bushies to divert attention from the torture of Iraqi prisoners or was the military behind it in an attempt to destroy the crazed Bush administration?
Aside from questions about the orange jumpsuit Nick Berg was wearing and the plastic chair he was sitting in that suspiciously looks similar to a chair Pfc. Lynndie England was photographed in at Abu Ghraib prison, the most telling thing about the video is what is absent when Berg's head is severed: blood. Slicing through the carotid arteries of a live person would have produced a geyser of blood spraying the executioner, the person holding down Berg and those gathered in closely. But there is no blood. There is not even a pool of blood on the floor where Berg's body lies. That can lead to only one conclusion: Berg was already dead before the grisly decapitation.
And how from that video could anyone tell that the person clad in black was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a high level al Qaida operative, whom the US military reported was killed April 3 in the bombing of Falluja? Did the Bushies lie about that, too, or has al-Zargawi also been resurrected like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was reported killed in a Sept. 11, 2002 shootout with Pakistani police in Karachi only to be arrested on March 1, 2003, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, as the new alleged mastermind of 9/11 and the executioner of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl?
Is the Berg murder another sloppy black op ordered by the Bushies to divert attention from the torture of Iraqi prisoners or was the military behind it in an attempt to destroy the crazed Bush administration?
Sunday, May 02, 2004
A nasty hoax or the reason Bush’s handlers keep him on a short leash?
According to TBR News (The Madness of King George), several unnamed sources claim that George W. suffered “what one of his aides called ‘a very minor seizure’ and as a result of this, the President [sic] has a very difficult time following any unscripted conversations.”
"The President [sic] takes oral medication at least twice a day according to [redacted] because of an unspecified "indisposition' and this subject is strictly off limits for any casual staff conversation," according to the TBR report.
"At one point during a staff conference, the President [sic] stood up and began to speak in an unknown language. Mr. Rove was able to stop the President [sic] and get him to resume his seat. It was reported by [redacted] that for a period of time (about fifteen minutes) after this incident, the President [sic] appeared to be 'somewhat confused and very inarticulate.'"
Have the years or drinking and possible drug use caught up with Bush? Might this explain his inability to think on his feet; his inability to express himself other than in a kindergartner’s terms, when he isn’t mispronouncing or misusing words or issuing ungrammatical sentences, such as “Is your children learning?” More importantly, is this the reason his handlers could not trust him to face the 9/11 commission alone, much less testify under oath?
Was the pretzel incident due to a seizure? Might George W. have already been suffering seizures while in the Texas Air National Guard, which would explain why he was grounded, never took a required physical exam and skipped out on fulfilling his Guard service? Could this also explain why to this date Bush refuses to release his medical records?
If this isn’t a hoax, we are in serious trouble and the American people have a right to know, and must demand full and unequivocal disclosure.
"The President [sic] takes oral medication at least twice a day according to [redacted] because of an unspecified "indisposition' and this subject is strictly off limits for any casual staff conversation," according to the TBR report.
"At one point during a staff conference, the President [sic] stood up and began to speak in an unknown language. Mr. Rove was able to stop the President [sic] and get him to resume his seat. It was reported by [redacted] that for a period of time (about fifteen minutes) after this incident, the President [sic] appeared to be 'somewhat confused and very inarticulate.'"
Have the years or drinking and possible drug use caught up with Bush? Might this explain his inability to think on his feet; his inability to express himself other than in a kindergartner’s terms, when he isn’t mispronouncing or misusing words or issuing ungrammatical sentences, such as “Is your children learning?” More importantly, is this the reason his handlers could not trust him to face the 9/11 commission alone, much less testify under oath?
Was the pretzel incident due to a seizure? Might George W. have already been suffering seizures while in the Texas Air National Guard, which would explain why he was grounded, never took a required physical exam and skipped out on fulfilling his Guard service? Could this also explain why to this date Bush refuses to release his medical records?
If this isn’t a hoax, we are in serious trouble and the American people have a right to know, and must demand full and unequivocal disclosure.
Friday, April 30, 2004
Sinclair Broadcasting orders stations to boycott tonight’s Nightline
In a move sure to please the White House that is determined to keep Americans from seeing the coffins of the US troops who have died in Iraq, the eight affiliates owned by Sinclair Broadcasting won’t be running tonight’s Nightline paying homage to those troops who have paid the ultimate price for Bush’s war.
Why, said Sinclair vice president and general manager, they have determined—they who are allowed to profit from the public’s airwaves— that Nightline anchor Ted Koppel’s ” motivation is to focus attention solely on people who have died in the war in order to push public opinion toward the United States getting out of Iraq.”
Well, if that is Koppel’s motivation, its about time.
As for Sinclair, the FCC should revoke its broadcast license.
Why, said Sinclair vice president and general manager, they have determined—they who are allowed to profit from the public’s airwaves— that Nightline anchor Ted Koppel’s ” motivation is to focus attention solely on people who have died in the war in order to push public opinion toward the United States getting out of Iraq.”
Well, if that is Koppel’s motivation, its about time.
As for Sinclair, the FCC should revoke its broadcast license.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
In Bush's Wonderland, failures are successes
Perhaps we shouldn't be pointing this out to the Bush people, but George W. is campaigning on his failures and calling them successes: 9/11, tax cuts for the rich, deficits, an economy in the toilet, climbing unemployment as more and more jobs are sent offshore, Afghanistan, Iraq and his bogus, but endless, "war on terror."
Then what can Bush run on when his whole term in the White House -- a term handed him by the Supreme Court -- has been nothing but lies, coverups, broken promises, illegal wars and failures?
Do the Bushies think the American people are that stupid or have they already rigged the electronic voting equipment?
Then what can Bush run on when his whole term in the White House -- a term handed him by the Supreme Court -- has been nothing but lies, coverups, broken promises, illegal wars and failures?
Do the Bushies think the American people are that stupid or have they already rigged the electronic voting equipment?
Hatch uses Democrats' absence to torpedo Memogate probe
While Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were on the floor voting Thursday night, committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) seized the opportunity to kill a bipartisan request to federal prosecutors to investigate Republicans' theft of memos from Democrats' computers and tossed the issue back to the Senate's sergeant-at-arms to decide what to do.
Following a contentious day in trying to find compromise language on how to proceed, Democrats believed they had time to cast their votes on the floor and return to the committee before a vote was taken there.
"'We weren't boycotting this -- we thought we had 10 more minutes,' said Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, who said some Republicans wanted to stop or curtail the probe because they did not want any revelations about 'which interest groups received these stolen documents' about the battle over the judges," according to a Reuters article.
Reuters reported that Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle "released a report last week showing how two Republican staffers, both of whom have since left the committee, improperly retrieved sensitive documents from Democratic committee staff computers."
Earlier in the day, Pickles said he thought "a referral to the US attorney's office was probably the right course of action."
Following a contentious day in trying to find compromise language on how to proceed, Democrats believed they had time to cast their votes on the floor and return to the committee before a vote was taken there.
"'We weren't boycotting this -- we thought we had 10 more minutes,' said Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, who said some Republicans wanted to stop or curtail the probe because they did not want any revelations about 'which interest groups received these stolen documents' about the battle over the judges," according to a Reuters article.
Reuters reported that Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle "released a report last week showing how two Republican staffers, both of whom have since left the committee, improperly retrieved sensitive documents from Democratic committee staff computers."
Earlier in the day, Pickles said he thought "a referral to the US attorney's office was probably the right course of action."
US continues to pay con man Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress some $340,000 a month
George W. Bush keeps cutting money for everything that would help the people, and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan now wants to reduce their Social Security benefits and add to the number of years they have to work in order to collect. Yet, the Bush administration has the money to continue paying Ahmed Chalabi, a convicted felon and fugitive from justice, and his Iraqi National Congress about $340,000 a month for "intelligence" about Iraqi insurgents.
This is the same Chalabi who supplied the Bush administration with false, misleading and fabricated information in order to promote an illegal war against Iraq. This is the same Chalabi who took the Bushies and New York Times reporter Judith Miller down the garden path about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction." This is the same Chalabi who was convicted in absentia in 1992 by a Jordanian court for bank fraud, embezzlement, and currency-trading irregularities, following the collapse of the Petra Bank that he set up in 1977. And this is the same Chalabi who is currently serving as a member of the Iraqi Governing Council and who has his eye on becoming Saddam's replacement.
Is Jordan, an ally du jour, so afraid of the US that it is not demanding Chalabi be handed over to serve his prison term? Silly question.
This is the same Chalabi who supplied the Bush administration with false, misleading and fabricated information in order to promote an illegal war against Iraq. This is the same Chalabi who took the Bushies and New York Times reporter Judith Miller down the garden path about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction." This is the same Chalabi who was convicted in absentia in 1992 by a Jordanian court for bank fraud, embezzlement, and currency-trading irregularities, following the collapse of the Petra Bank that he set up in 1977. And this is the same Chalabi who is currently serving as a member of the Iraqi Governing Council and who has his eye on becoming Saddam's replacement.
Is Jordan, an ally du jour, so afraid of the US that it is not demanding Chalabi be handed over to serve his prison term? Silly question.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Truth is neither trash nor gutter politics
Question anything about George W. Bush and you are "trolling for trash" and engaging in "gutter politics."
The only sorry pieces of trash are in the White House and it's time for someone to take out the garbage.
The things the Bushies are good at are lying, intimidation and harassment. But Bush and all his men are not making the questions about his service in the Texas Air National guard -- or his lack of service -- go away, as they did four years ago. Despite Bush's lie to Tim Russert on Meet the Press that he would release all his military records to prove he completed his obligation, so far what has been produced raises more questions.
Now, the more they fuss, fume, waffle and spin, the more determined even the corporate media are now to join us in digging even deeper.
The true heroes in this effort are Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, now retired, who served under then-Adjutant Gen. Daniel James of the Texas Air National Guard, and Iowa farmer Martin Heldt. Online Journal, among other online publications, broke the stories about what Burkett had to say and Heldt obtained through Freedom of Information requests, beginning in June 2000 (See Bush Military Info), but after buying into the Bushies' "explanation" the corporate media, with a few exceptions, gave the revelations short shrift.
The White House would have you believe that Burkett is either a disgruntled former officer or just plain crazy. Yet, The Dallas Morning News took him seriously enough to report today that "Burkett told the AP that he saw documents from Bush's file discarded in a trash can a few days later at Camp Mabry in Austin, Texas. Burkett described them as performance and pay documents. He said the documents bore the header: 'Bush, George W. 1lt.' -- meaning first lieutenant."
The Boston Globe today said Bush's removal from flight status should have sparked a probe. The Globe went on to report, "Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, a former top aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said in an interview that Bush's failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969."
The horror of it all is that this privileged son, who threw away the best schooling money could buy, jumped ahead of hundreds of his contemporaries to secure a place in the TANG and zoomed to the head of a three-year waiting to become a fighter pilot, could not even complete that service while other people's less fortunate sons were being killed or maimed in Vietnam. And it is this same privileged son, who likes to don military uniforms, who is now sending other people's sons and daughters to be killed or maimed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who know where next.
Trolling for trash? No, Mr. Bush, we are trolling for truth and truth knows no ideology or political party.
The only sorry pieces of trash are in the White House and it's time for someone to take out the garbage.
The things the Bushies are good at are lying, intimidation and harassment. But Bush and all his men are not making the questions about his service in the Texas Air National guard -- or his lack of service -- go away, as they did four years ago. Despite Bush's lie to Tim Russert on Meet the Press that he would release all his military records to prove he completed his obligation, so far what has been produced raises more questions.
Now, the more they fuss, fume, waffle and spin, the more determined even the corporate media are now to join us in digging even deeper.
The true heroes in this effort are Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, now retired, who served under then-Adjutant Gen. Daniel James of the Texas Air National Guard, and Iowa farmer Martin Heldt. Online Journal, among other online publications, broke the stories about what Burkett had to say and Heldt obtained through Freedom of Information requests, beginning in June 2000 (See Bush Military Info), but after buying into the Bushies' "explanation" the corporate media, with a few exceptions, gave the revelations short shrift.
The White House would have you believe that Burkett is either a disgruntled former officer or just plain crazy. Yet, The Dallas Morning News took him seriously enough to report today that "Burkett told the AP that he saw documents from Bush's file discarded in a trash can a few days later at Camp Mabry in Austin, Texas. Burkett described them as performance and pay documents. He said the documents bore the header: 'Bush, George W. 1lt.' -- meaning first lieutenant."
The Boston Globe today said Bush's removal from flight status should have sparked a probe. The Globe went on to report, "Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, a former top aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said in an interview that Bush's failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969."
The horror of it all is that this privileged son, who threw away the best schooling money could buy, jumped ahead of hundreds of his contemporaries to secure a place in the TANG and zoomed to the head of a three-year waiting to become a fighter pilot, could not even complete that service while other people's less fortunate sons were being killed or maimed in Vietnam. And it is this same privileged son, who likes to don military uniforms, who is now sending other people's sons and daughters to be killed or maimed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and who know where next.
Trolling for trash? No, Mr. Bush, we are trolling for truth and truth knows no ideology or political party.
In whose interests is MoveOn working?
As this year's Super Bowl approached and CBS still refused to run MoveOn's "Child's Pay" commercial, MoveOn came up with the wimpy idea for a one-minute viewer boycott during the game's half-time, as a way of punishing CBS for its censorship, rather than calling for a boycott of the whole game.
After all, said a MoveOn supporter, people would be more likely to go along with a one-minute boycott than a boycott of the whole game. Translated that means a football game is more important than a tiny step toward letting the corporations know we are going to fight back.
Oh yeah, that worked so well that if anyone turned off Super Bowl for the prescribed minute, CBS didn't notice. Instead, the talk was all about Janet Jackson and an exposed breast.
To compound its fuzzy thinking, MoveOn is now back to where it started, when it called for censuring Bill Clinton and moving on. This time, it is calling for Congress to censure George W. Bush.
Where in the constitution is the provision for censuring a president -- elected or unelected?
Under the constitution, each house of Congress has the right to make its own rules regarding members' behavior, which means the houses can censure members for inappropriate or unethical conduct; even go so far as to expel a member.
Congress, though, has no constitutional right to censure a president -- an argument we made when MoveOn was calling for the censure of Clinton. The only constitutional provision for dealing with a president alleged to have committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" is by impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate.
There is more than enough to draw a bill of impeachment against Bush, given that the evidence suggests he either was complicit in or had foreknowledge of Sept. 11, 2001; that he blatantly lied to the American people, Congress and the world in order to wage an illegal war on Iraq; that he bribed nations into becoming part of his Iraq war's "coalition of the willing;" that he or his subordinate illegally told some six reporters that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA operative; that he has been complicit in keeping from the American people who was involved with Dick Cheney in drawing up a national energy policy; that he has bankrupted the country with his tax cuts and "wars;" that he may have covered up a criminal record that goes beyond one DUI, two pranks while in college and the killing of an endangered species bird; and that he may have deserted the Texas Air National Guard.
After being handed the presidency by the US Supreme Court, Bush has violated the oath he took to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" by taking unto himself powers the constitution does not give a president; by violating the separation of church and state; by signing the USA PATRIOT Act and creating the Department of Homeland Security, thusly curbing the people's rights of free speech and assembly, and their rights to privacy; by setting up First Amendment Zones into which peaceful protesters and peace advocates are herded so he doesn't have to see or hear them. Moreover, his bogus "war on terror" has made us less secure, not more.
Why then is MoveOn calling for, as they say in spookville, a limited hangout: censure? Yet, the gullible keep pouring their money into MoveOn at the expense of the real journalists who are working to get back the country. Is feel good all that matters?
Yes, MoveOn has gotten some excellent issue commercials on television. Since the presidential election isn't until November, might it have been premature in airing them now or does it plan to keep extracting money from its followers to keep the commercials on the air?
The pie is only so big, so more money for MoveOn means less money for journalists laboring to shed light on the truth.
It is hard these days to separate the good guys from the bad, so one must keep in mind hidden agendas.
After all, said a MoveOn supporter, people would be more likely to go along with a one-minute boycott than a boycott of the whole game. Translated that means a football game is more important than a tiny step toward letting the corporations know we are going to fight back.
Oh yeah, that worked so well that if anyone turned off Super Bowl for the prescribed minute, CBS didn't notice. Instead, the talk was all about Janet Jackson and an exposed breast.
To compound its fuzzy thinking, MoveOn is now back to where it started, when it called for censuring Bill Clinton and moving on. This time, it is calling for Congress to censure George W. Bush.
Where in the constitution is the provision for censuring a president -- elected or unelected?
Under the constitution, each house of Congress has the right to make its own rules regarding members' behavior, which means the houses can censure members for inappropriate or unethical conduct; even go so far as to expel a member.
Congress, though, has no constitutional right to censure a president -- an argument we made when MoveOn was calling for the censure of Clinton. The only constitutional provision for dealing with a president alleged to have committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" is by impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate.
There is more than enough to draw a bill of impeachment against Bush, given that the evidence suggests he either was complicit in or had foreknowledge of Sept. 11, 2001; that he blatantly lied to the American people, Congress and the world in order to wage an illegal war on Iraq; that he bribed nations into becoming part of his Iraq war's "coalition of the willing;" that he or his subordinate illegally told some six reporters that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA operative; that he has been complicit in keeping from the American people who was involved with Dick Cheney in drawing up a national energy policy; that he has bankrupted the country with his tax cuts and "wars;" that he may have covered up a criminal record that goes beyond one DUI, two pranks while in college and the killing of an endangered species bird; and that he may have deserted the Texas Air National Guard.
After being handed the presidency by the US Supreme Court, Bush has violated the oath he took to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" by taking unto himself powers the constitution does not give a president; by violating the separation of church and state; by signing the USA PATRIOT Act and creating the Department of Homeland Security, thusly curbing the people's rights of free speech and assembly, and their rights to privacy; by setting up First Amendment Zones into which peaceful protesters and peace advocates are herded so he doesn't have to see or hear them. Moreover, his bogus "war on terror" has made us less secure, not more.
Why then is MoveOn calling for, as they say in spookville, a limited hangout: censure? Yet, the gullible keep pouring their money into MoveOn at the expense of the real journalists who are working to get back the country. Is feel good all that matters?
Yes, MoveOn has gotten some excellent issue commercials on television. Since the presidential election isn't until November, might it have been premature in airing them now or does it plan to keep extracting money from its followers to keep the commercials on the air?
The pie is only so big, so more money for MoveOn means less money for journalists laboring to shed light on the truth.
It is hard these days to separate the good guys from the bad, so one must keep in mind hidden agendas.
Friday, January 30, 2004
If CBS won't yield on running the MoveOn.org commercial, boycott Super Bowl
There is only one thing corporations understand: money. The folks at the Censorship Broadcasting System (CBS) are no different. So if they refuse to yield on running the MoveOn.org commercial during Sunday's Super Bowl, hit them in the pocketbook by not watching the game. CBS and the FCC need strong reminding that the airwaves belong to the people, not to them to do anything they please.
Yours truly was so infuriated by MoveOn.org's call for a miserable one-minute boycott during halftime, that I fired off the following email to Trevor FitzGibbon (tfitzgibbon@fenton.com, 202-822-5200).
"A one-minute boycott? What kind of wusses are you? Is that game so bloody important to you? Boycott the whole game! If enough people boycott it, CBS will take a hit in its pocketbook (the only thing such people understand), because when the guaranteed ratings don't materialize, they will have to give the advertisers additional free time.
CBS must be laughing themselves silly over your call for a one-minute boycott. It's time to get serious!"
Yours truly was so infuriated by MoveOn.org's call for a miserable one-minute boycott during halftime, that I fired off the following email to Trevor FitzGibbon (tfitzgibbon@fenton.com, 202-822-5200).
"A one-minute boycott? What kind of wusses are you? Is that game so bloody important to you? Boycott the whole game! If enough people boycott it, CBS will take a hit in its pocketbook (the only thing such people understand), because when the guaranteed ratings don't materialize, they will have to give the advertisers additional free time.
CBS must be laughing themselves silly over your call for a one-minute boycott. It's time to get serious!"
Friday, January 16, 2004
White House now wants control over health and safety warnings
In a move to further usurp the powers of federal regulatory agencies, the White House now wants to control when warnings affecting health and safety are issued to the public, and to manage all scientific and technical peer reviews.
It isn’t enough that the Bush administration has replaced qualified scientists and other experts with political hacks, religious fruitcakes and corporate buddies, now it wants the Office of Management and Budget to have the final say in areas it knows nothing about.
Warnings about the danger of a prescription drug, a medical device, a nuclear accident, a release of a toxic chemical or a biological, even mad cow disease would be at the pleasure of OMB, which undoubtedly would delay while weighing the cost of such disclosures to business versus the value of your life. Remember, the airlines used to calculate what your life was worth against the cost of installing safety devices.
OMB claims Congress has ordered it "to take 'a greater role in evaluating what the agencies do,'" according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
It isn’t enough that the Bush administration has replaced qualified scientists and other experts with political hacks, religious fruitcakes and corporate buddies, now it wants the Office of Management and Budget to have the final say in areas it knows nothing about.
Warnings about the danger of a prescription drug, a medical device, a nuclear accident, a release of a toxic chemical or a biological, even mad cow disease would be at the pleasure of OMB, which undoubtedly would delay while weighing the cost of such disclosures to business versus the value of your life. Remember, the airlines used to calculate what your life was worth against the cost of installing safety devices.
OMB claims Congress has ordered it "to take 'a greater role in evaluating what the agencies do,'" according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Thursday, January 08, 2004
Building up the corporate-controlled New Democrats' favorite warrior: General Wesley Clark
It was disconcerting, to put it mildly, to watch Peter Jennings' velvet glove treatment of General Wesley Clark during Wednesday's Democratic presidential candidate series on World News Tonight. Jennings didn't just lob softball questions at the Republican turned Democrat who wants to be the Democratic nominee, he tossed sponge balls.
Jennings completely dropped the ball when it came to Clark's tenure as NATO commander in Kosovo. Rather than question Clark about nearly beating Bush to starting the next world war, Jennings allowed him to pave over his dismissal from his post as thought it had been merely a matter of office politics. Yipes!
And Clark is the guy the corporate-controlled New Democrats are hoping can stop Howard Dean. Double yipes!
If Democrats across the land voted in their self-interest and the interest of the nation -- assuming there is an honest primary vote (a big assumption, given e-voting machines, controlled by Republicans, that produce no paper trail -- Dennis Kucinch would win the party's nomination hands down.
But the powers that be are going to assure that Kucinich isn't going to win and, if they can pull it off, they are out to kill Dean's bid, too. We realists (deranged is what the neocons call us these days) realize that whether it's Dean, Clark, Kerry, Gephardt. Edwards or Lieberman (Mosely Braun and Sharpton have been consigned to the ash heap, too) that any change, should a Democrat somehow prevail against the Bush-Rovian machine, will only be a matter of degree.
Jennings completely dropped the ball when it came to Clark's tenure as NATO commander in Kosovo. Rather than question Clark about nearly beating Bush to starting the next world war, Jennings allowed him to pave over his dismissal from his post as thought it had been merely a matter of office politics. Yipes!
And Clark is the guy the corporate-controlled New Democrats are hoping can stop Howard Dean. Double yipes!
If Democrats across the land voted in their self-interest and the interest of the nation -- assuming there is an honest primary vote (a big assumption, given e-voting machines, controlled by Republicans, that produce no paper trail -- Dennis Kucinch would win the party's nomination hands down.
But the powers that be are going to assure that Kucinich isn't going to win and, if they can pull it off, they are out to kill Dean's bid, too. We realists (deranged is what the neocons call us these days) realize that whether it's Dean, Clark, Kerry, Gephardt. Edwards or Lieberman (Mosely Braun and Sharpton have been consigned to the ash heap, too) that any change, should a Democrat somehow prevail against the Bush-Rovian machine, will only be a matter of degree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)