Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 March
2004 July
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
Monster Limo Weblog
Get Your War On
Howard Dean's official site
Winston Smith's blog
TomPaine.com
Connecticut for Clark
The Daily Howler
Monster Limo and Northern Transplant Weblogs staff retreat to Cape Cod
The Onion
Slate
Eric Alterman
Sulkbrarian
Buzzflash
Village Voice
The Democratic Underground
Ted Rall.com
SamAdams's Blog
AlterNet
New York Times
Joe Vs. Japan
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Fox News: Fairly Unbalanced |
| 09.30.03 (8:19 pm) [edit] |
Fox News, the station self noted as the media entity that brings you the news, " fair and balanced", has, via their website, offered up another paradox to their catchy slogan. On one hand, there's a piece about how 160 newspapers have sprung up in post-Saddam Iraq, chomping on the democratization bit. http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,98711,00.html
On the other hand, a piece written by Frank Gaffney Jr., who held senior positions in the Reagan Defense Department as well as currently being the president of the Center for Security Policy, states that the Iraqi Governing body has banned the Al-Jazeera and Al Arabiya satellite television channels in Iraq.
This piece is a laugh from top to bottom. He justifies the ban with such thoughtful evidence as the following;
"During a just-concluded trip to Iraq -- including visits with senior commanders, Iraqi officials and others in Baghdad, Tikrit and Mosul -- I learned firsthand of the further reasons for the Governing Council's action. It turns out that the two Arab networks have made a fetish of broadcasting murderous attacks on Americans and their Iraqi and coalition allies, often accompanied by commentary or "news analysis" that makes no effort to conceal that the speakers' sympathies lie with the perpetrators.
Now fortunately we have the benefit of, as should had he, of hindsight to remember that when Uday and Qusay were killed, that his beloved Fox News Channel covered American soldiers dragging their bloated bodies through the streets. You do remember, right? I couldn't possibly have been in a drug induced haze for the several days they showed it, could I?
Then, not to be outdone by anyone, he blatantly contradicts himself by bragging of how he's appeared on Al-Jazeera's shows, and goes on to say how this propaganda machine needs to be stopped at any and all costs. Are you kidding me. Crying propaganda, without mention of the FNC?. Hi kettle, I'm black.
Not to ruin it for you, but in effect, he goes on to say that essentially people who don't support the censorship of these stations, are, as you might have suspected, with the terrorists. Evidently we hate censorship, and moreover, America. Those Reagan folks are possibly the craziest people around.
Read the article for yourself, it's truly comical. well, kinda. If you're into that whole selective free press kinda thing.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" title="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,98621,00.html
|
|
|
| |
| Mixed messages from a confused White House |
| 09.29.03 (7:35 am) [edit] |
The While House, stated this week that the Democratic Party has put forth an " unusually weak" field of Presidential candidates. However, Karl Rove, the White House's Skeletor, said that, "We expect it to be a hard-fought, close election in a country narrowly divided". "When a Democratic nominee is finally selected, our expectation is that it could be a close and hard-fought race."
Oddly enough, the Republicans may be realizing that the President is weak on more than just brains. The loss of more jobs in a day than Wilt Chamberlain bedded women in a lifetime. C'mon folks, this stopped pushing the laugh-o-meter millions of jobs ago. This all coupled with the still infantile quagmire of Iraq, makes the President vulnerable. Even Karl Rove is saying this. You know what that means?
It means that Karl Rove is settting himself to beat the odds. A fundraising aggregate supply that has already eclipsed that of thier 2000 Presidential bid, assures that
Rove will have enough ching to work with when he heads out to beam the light of demon upon the Democratic nominee.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/politics/2 9CAMP.html?hp" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/politics/2 9CAMP.html?hp" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/0...
|
|
|
| |
| Italian P.M. takes a hike down the crazy trail, in the name of fascist sympathizer |
| 09.23.03 (6:41 pm) [edit] |
Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian entrepreneur, turned Prime Minister fervidly stated that " Mussolinli never killed anyone". Il Duce, in Burlusconi's words, was just a victim of bad press. You would think Italy, where Fascism
originated and Nazism spawned from, would be a little more sensitive when it came to issues as such. Mussolini, who contrary to this man's belief, did in fact, kill people. Directly and indirectly. In upwards of 7000 Italian Jews he sent to their death, nevermind all the train conductors he shot if the trains were running even seconds late, or the death of at least 1 million people, including Libyans, Ethiopians and the inhabitants of former Yugoslavia. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a reputable argument that would blow my accusation of his crimes out of the water, but then again, what do I know. I don't even get paid to write.
Evidently the Italians, unlike their German counterparts have hidden behind the door of denial with regards to their participation in the second world war. Documented in a new book written by Gianni Oliva called, " Our Unspeakable Past", he says that millions of Burlusconi's compatriots believe that the activities of the partisans in the final phase of the war were used to create a myth of resistance to - rather than support of - Hitler and the Nazis.
Maybe you'll find a chapter on Mussolini in Bill O'reilly's new book about friendships and how to
"spot the good guys".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/s tory/0" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/s tory/0" target="_blank"http://www.guardian.co.uk/els...,7792,1045580,00.html
|
|
|
| |
| Poor Idea, from the pen of John Ashcroft |
| 09.22.03 (8:38 pm) [edit] |
In the same vein as California's three strikes and your out law, Atty Gen. John Ashcroft, or the leader of civil liberties violations, ordered federal prosecutors to pursue maximum criminal charges and sentences whenever possible. Said of his new addition to his consistent barbaric treatment of any and all, " It's a direction for the way we prosecute criminal behavior at the federal level, if you violate a federal law, punishment will be uniform.''
During the summer Ashcroft instructed U.S. attorneys to seek the death penalty whenever applicable, overruling some who would not, and to vigorously oppose sentences imposed by judges that are lighter than recommended by federal guidelines.
You have to give the guy credit for keeping his crazy train on the rails. His black and white modus operandi to absolutely every diminutive thought that crosses his brain would be all well and good, if it weren't for the simple realization that nothing is black and white. Except dominoes, referees, and zebra.
Opponents, or Phish loving, tree hugging hippies, as he'd have you believe, have, oddly enough, voiced their concern;
``No two crimes, and no two defendants, are exactly alike,'' said Marc Mauer, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, a research group that advocates alternatives to prison.
Gerald Lefcourt, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the change ``creates a system that is not only inflexible and problematic, but becomes a sort of immovable object. You're adding more unfairness to the system.''
Not to be smeared as awful a man as he truly is, the compassionate Ashcroft has included six instances whereupon a judge can use his discretion to sentence a defendant. And they are as follows:
--When a defendant agrees to provide ``substantial assistance'' in an investigation. Ashcroft said the message is, ``if defendants will cooperate, the green light is on for negotiation.''
--Under so-called ``fast-track'' programs aimed at unclogging court dockets in which certain types of defendants are given a preset charge and sentence lower than that called for under federal guidelines. These programs, which will be reviewed individually by the Justice Department, are popular for common immigration and drug violations in the Southwest.
--When prosecutors decided that the original charges will be tough to prove in court because of witness access problems, suppressed evidence or some other reason.
--If the possible sentence would be unaffected by a charge under a lesser offense.
--When ``enhancements'' that could result in a longer sentence, such as a defendant facing multiple charges connected with the main crime, remove any incentive for the defendant to plead guilty. Enhancements for firearms offenses, however, would generally have to be included.
--On a case-by-case basis for other reasons with written approval by a supervisor.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP- Ashcroft-Plea-Bargains.html?hp" title="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP- Ashcroft-Plea-Bargains.html?hp" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/aponli... :twisted: :twisted:
|
|
|
| |
| John Ashcroft on the progress of the USA Patriot Act. The bullshit meter is working double time on t |
| 09.19.03 (4:43 pm) [edit] |
John Ashcroft, the leader of American freedom, so he'd tell you, gave a progress report on the usage of the USA Patriot Act. More specifically, demanding records from libraries and other places.
Mr. Ashcroft emphatically answered, zero. the big goose-egg. Not even once. He also noted that he has some beachfront property in Afghanistan if anyone's interested in buying that up to.
C'mon, the section of the USA Patriot Act which the demanding records is under, Section 215, is entirely predicated upon secrecy. Actually the entire piece of police state legislation is, just so we're clear on that.
So they're telling you they haven't exercised their right to use this tool that they don't have to tell you about anyways, and i'm supposed to believe they're telling me the truth? Buy a ticket to the city and get the fuck out of here.
Ashcroft will tell you I'm just part of the masses, contributing to the " hysteria" and propagating the misinformation.
Fortunately, there has been some stirring of the Patriot Act pot within the Democratic Presidential hopefuls.
At this month's Democratic presidential debate in Baltimore, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina said Americans should not have to relinquish their privacy rights to Mr. Ashcroft, and the senator said he was troubled by the notion that F.B.I. agents "are going to libraries to find out what books people are checking out, going to bookstores to find out what books are being purchased."
Well maybe you shouldn't have voted for it then dipshit, that surely would have been a better way to voice your " trouble". Big up's to Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold russell_feingold@feingold .senate.gov,for being the lone voice of reason, and voting no to the USA Patriot Act.
1984 was a good book, but it'd be better kept as a fictional piece.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/national/1 9PATR.html" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/national/1 9PATR.html" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/0...
|
|
|
| |
| Defying campaign finance laws, Bush comes out on top. |
| 09.17.03 (7:31 pm) [edit] |
Here's an article from the Guardian worth reprinting in its entirety. Pioneers and Rangers? This is shit you just can't make up.
They are Pioneers and Rangers and dedicated workers for George Bush. But unlike most activists they are not out on the streets. Their hunting ground is the boardroom, the country club and the barbecue. And their aim is simple: raise money, lots of it.
They are so good at this, they are changing the face of presidential elections in the United States. In a country where money is vital to success at the ballot, Bush's election machine has created a fund-raising network the like of which has not been seen before in US politics.
The campaigners are on course to raise up to $250 million for the President's campaign war-chest, more than doubling the previous record that Bush himself set in 2000.
Big money contributors have always existed in the US, but Bush has institutionalised them. Those who raise $100,000 are dubbed Pioneers. Double that and you're a Ranger. Bush has created a nationwide web of elite fund-raisers dedicated to pouring unprecedented amounts of cash into the coffers. And it looks as if the Democrats simply cannot compete.
'It's the sheer scale of it that is new,' said Steve Weiss, of the non-partisan Centre for Responsive Politics. 'People now practically beg to be Pioneers. It is a status thing and they can raise unbelievable sums of money.'
The network is made of wealthy men, and a handful of women, who dominate the business world. They are rich, Republican and have extensive family and corporate networks from which to tap cash.
Typical is the Egan clan of Massachusetts, whose wealth was won by Richard Egan, an electronics mogul. He was a Pioneer in 2000. This time around he and his sons have Ranger status. His is the only family in the US to notch up three Rangers and they have raised more money for Bush than any other family - they are dubbed the 'First Family of Fund Raising'.
Their weapon is garden parties. In June, the Egans hosted a fund-raiser at their plush mansion in the quiet Boston suburb of Hopkinton. With US Vice President Dick Cheney in attendance, the gathering brought in a reported $1.2m.
'They are not that public about it, it's a family thing,' said George Pillsbury, of the Massachusetts Money and Politics Project. The Egans, however, are big donors across Massachusetts state politics too, making hefty donations to candidates.
Certainly, their efforts seemed to have boosted their profile. From growing up in one of Boston's Irish ghettos, Richard Egan became ambassador to Ireland in August 2001 - a high-profile job for an ex-marine who grew up in a poor household where his parents slept in the dining room.
A pattern of increasing Pioneer influence flows across the nation with the Pioneers of 2000 gaining positions of power. The tycoon Mercer Reynolds III raised $605,000 as a Pioneer in 2000 and is now the finance chairman for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign. Three of Bush's Cabinet posts have gone to Pioneers from the victorious Bush election campaign; they include the Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, and the Secretary of Labour, Elaine Chao. Also appointed from the Pioneers were a federal judge and at least four members of the Energy Department's transition team, including former Enron boss Ken Lay.
None of this was meant to happen, and new laws try to keep money out of American politics. Just 18 months ago a stringent campaign finance law was passed that strictly limited the amount individuals could contribute to candidates - $2,000 a head. The growing influence of cash - blamed for America's low turnout figures - was meant to be booted out of politics.
But Bush's fund-raising network circumvents the rules. Although the Pioneers and Rangers are hugely wealthy, they do not contribute vast amounts from their own pockets. Instead they 'bundle' hundreds of friends and employees - each just pays the maximum, $2,000 dollars.
This bundling occurs at parties, fêtes, dinners and barbecues. Often the big draw is Bush or Cheney. Both men have spent much of the summer making guest appearances at such events, and it's been lucrative. So far, Bush has raised at least $35m, about three times the amount gathered by the leading Democrat candidates.
Ironically, Bush's runaway success could force the Democrats to scupper the finance reform laws they fought so hard to pass. Leading Democrats may now have to follow suit to stay in the race. 'The Democrats shot themselves in the foot,' Weiss said. 'If they stay in the system they won't be able to come close to Bush for raising money. If they opt out, they undermine the rules they wanted so badly.'
Critics say the reason for Bush's success in generating cash is simple: money buys influence. Activists stress the rapid political rise of Pioneers and Rangers. Aside from Egan's appointment, there is a long list of Pioneers-turned-diplomats :George Argyros, in real estate, is now ambassador to Spain; Stephen Brauer, president of a Missouri car firm, was posted to Belgium; Howard Leach, a billionaire financier, was sent to Paris. Other Pioneers have become ambassadors in countries stretching from Belize to Saudi Arabia and Slovakia. In all, 21 Pioneers became ambassadors, and in total 61 of Bush's 551 Pioneers in the 2000 election were named in government posts.
There is no way to prove a direct link between fundraising and influence. But Andrew Wheat, of the campaigning group Texans for Public Justice, which monitors the Pioneer and Ranger networks, says: 'You look at the money going in and the appointments coming out and, you can't prove it, but they do look to be influencing each other.'
As the barbecue season closes, these revolutionaries, determined to win next year's election for Bush, will not be stopping work. They will carry on - indoors - at the exclusive clubs, on the golf course, at the black-tie dinners. As the election looms thousands more donors will sign off their $2,000 cheques. The money will keep flowing.
[image]ryrys23_754145841.gif[/image]
|
|
|
| |
| Bush, excelling in U.S.-Arab relations vetoes a U.N. resolution to protect head of state. |
| 09.17.03 (7:01 pm) [edit] |
The UN Security Council drafted a resolution that would protect Yassar Arafat from the Israeli threat of " removing" him, but the United States vetoed it, in some apparent attempt to further fuel the fire of America hatred in the region. This veto essentially will give the Israeli government/military carte blanche to " remove " Arafat. In other words? Leave him face down in a pool of his own blood.
I'm sorry, U.S. Ambassador, John D. Negroponte post veto vociferously "cautioned Israel not to misinterpret the veto as support for exiling or harming Arafat". Wink Wink.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/worl d/la-fg-arafat17sep170024 29" title="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/worl d/la-fg-arafat17sep170024 29" target="_blank"http://www.latimes.com/news/n...,1,7724109.story?coll=la-headlines-w orld
Yassar Arafat, 74,evidently not surprised by the American veto said, " this is not the first veto against the Palestinians and will not be the last". He also said he was willing to die a martyr's death, "I am a Palestinian soldier...I will use my gun to defend not only myself but also defend every Palestinian child, woman and man and to defend the Palestinian existence," Arafat told Reuters in an interview, as he pointed to an automatic rifle lying on the floor next to his chair in his office.
"Is there anyone in Palestine who does not dream of martyrdom?" Arafat asked. "Is there any Palestinian who could not be martyred by daily Israeli shelling or missiles?"
Now here's my contention on the Palestine-Israel conflict.
Israel is a country that receives in excess of 4b a year in economic aid from the U.S., and 4b. a year in military aid. And those are very conservative numbers. Israel has the 4th largest military in the world. In the world!!.
Now with all that considered, Ariel Sharon is making a strong case for war criminal of the century, and the military who is just as trigger happy as ours, is killing innocent children intentionally. Now, not to condone the suicide bombings from the Palestinain side, but let's digress here for a moment. The Palestinians, receiving no aid from us, has a militant force, not an army, of between 20,000-30,000 men, is at a grave disadvantage to the Israeli juggernaut. Now to steal a bit from by good friend Chris Rock, who said about the OJ case, " I'm not saying he should of done it, but I understand".
Now that may be a little cacophonous, but I need to get my position of contempt for the Israeli government across.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international /international-mideast-un .html" title="http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international /international-mideast-un .html" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/reuter...
|
|
|
| |
| White House refutes facts, intelligence. |
| 09.16.03 (9:47 pm) [edit] |
Out of Washington today, new intelligence assesments are out. What do they say? They are warning that the most formidable foe that lies ahead in Iraq, is the resentment of the ordinary Iraqi, who are everyday becoming increasingly hostile to the American occupation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/internatio nal/middleeast/17MILI.html?pagewanted=1" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/internatio nal/middleeast/17MILI.html?pagewanted=1" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/0...
Despite the clear hard facts, Administration officials are passing it off quicker than you would mom's secret dish at Thanksgivng dinner. In the face of fact, good ol' Rummy said that only, "dead-enders, foreign terrorists and criminal gangs", are opponents to the occupation.
The intelligence report stated that the disaffection that has been ongoing in the Sunni heartland has now been consummated to the Shiite poulation in the South, where occupation has been more popular, or so we thought.
Rummy also said the United States hopes to accelerate the hand-over of security responsibilities in Iraq to Iraqi police officers, border guards, civil defense forces and soldiers trained by the United States. Nearly 60,000 Iraqis are now in uniform, he told reporters at a Pentagon briefing, and the administration hopes to increase that number to about 70,000 soon, to include more than 10,000 former Iraqi soldiers who are being trained to join the new civil defense force. (NYT)
I'm not quite sure how this is going to quell any American disaffection by the Iraqi's, considering we've already mowed down eight of these Iraqi soldiers in a hail of gunfire. Stranger things have happened. That I do know.
Condoleezza Rice weighed in on the issue by saying that it was "simply naïve" to believe that Iraq today was more of a haven for terrorists than it was before Saddam Hussein was ousted from power.
"There is almost a sense that they were sitting someplace minding their own business — drinking tea, having meetings" and then decided to come to Iraq only after the American military rolled into Baghdad.
Well I'll tell you what they weren't doing Doctor dipshit. They weren't killing American soldiers at a near one a day clip before we got there. They weren't plotting to attack the mainland, even if 70% of Americans believed they were.
I also recall, while listening to the Radio Factor antecedently to the war, Bill O'liery, as Al Franken refers to him in his fantastic new book, " Lies, and the lying liars who tell them" saying if the Iraqi's weren't out in the streets cheering throughout the duration of the war, he'd rescind his support for the war, and publicly announce that he was wrong. I'm sure that's on his hot plate, seeing as how he's such the stand-up kind of guy.
|
|
|
| |
| Bush defends plan to further ruin the environment |
| 09.15.03 (11:24 pm) [edit] |
Your President was at a coal burning plant in Michigan today, lobbying for support to "ease" the regulations on industrial pollution. Hiding behind a clever appelation, ala Monte Burns and along the identical line of the Patriot Act, Clear Skies is just loathsome policy.
This policy would allow industrial plants to make major upgrades without installing pollution reduction equipment, and would further allow older plants to operate far beyond their recommended lifespan.
Bush said that the old rules, "created too many hurdles, and that hurts the working people". Translation: Despite the fact that this easement will more than likely shed years off you and every citizen living nearby, it will also line the pockets of all my biggest campaign contributors. Around the merry-go-round and back to me.
You get the picture.
Bush, vehemently defending his proposal said, "I'm interested in job creation and clean air, and I believe we can do both". This is really a gas people. I mean, let's be honest, on a personal note, I'm very interested in having sex again at some point in my life, but just because I have carnal thoughts while i'm reading the most recent issue of playboy doesn't quite qualify as having it.
You get the analogy. Moving on.
Presidential hopeful, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut pointedly spoke against the President today, saying, "The backdrop of President Bush's latest environment photo op -- the dirtiest power plant in Michigan -- says it all, under Bush's policies, this antiquated coal-burning plant will get a free pass to keep pumping smoke and soot into the air with impunity.''
[link]
All this makes you really wish Orwell was still alive to see.
|
|
|
| |
| Texas Democrats concede in Republican power grab. |
| 09.15.03 (6:05 pm) [edit] |
:(
One Texas Senate Democrat, John Whitmire attended a special legislative session in Austin today which gave Republican Governor, Rick Perry, the quorom needed to try to push through the Republican power grab, in the name of redistricting. The Republicans suspect to gain at least seven seats in Washington following the 2004 elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/national/1 5CND-TEXA.html?hp" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/national/1 5CND-TEXA.html?hp" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/0...
Setting this redistricting along was the work of Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, who this summer suspended a longtime practice of bipartisanship that required a supermajority of two-thirds to introduce a bill such as redistricting.The Republicans have contended that the two-thirds practice was not a hard-and-fast rule. Or in other words, not conducive to stealing seats.
In a time on the national level where liberalism has given way to fall in line and do what you're told Conservatism, the states have followed suit. In another paradigm of the Republican power grab, look no further than California. You should hardly be surprised.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delayed the recall in California, concluding that the outdated punch card machines would make it less likely for votes to be counted. This, as to no surprise of mine, miffed proponents of the recall. Ted Costa, head of the Sacramento-based Peoples' Advocate said, " Give us 24 hours, we'll get something off to the Supreme Court".
http://nytimes.com/2003/09/15/national/1 5CND-CALI.html?hp" title="http://nytimes.com/2003/09/15/national/1 5CND-CALI.html?hp" target="_blank"http://nytimes.com/2003/09/15...
|
|
|
| |
| 7 out of ten Americans believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11. 7 out of ten Americans stupid. |
| 09.14.03 (8:15 pm) [edit] |
:shock:
A recent Washington Post article confirms my abiding suspicion that the American populace enjoys a steady diet of the retard sandwich .
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
In a country overflowing with the benighted troglodytic, blind patriotism has positioned itself behind the wheel of the crazy bus, headed due crazy to crazy town.
But again,
you don't have to look very far to find out where they're getting all their talking points from. Despite the fact that supply side economics, or as some refer to it, trickle down economics is a tried and failed policy, starting with Reagan, slightly abandoned by Bush Sr., and welcomed back in by Dubya, supply side or trickle down stupidity has proven inordinately successful for this Administration.
Completely lacking any evidence, shortly after 9-11, Dick Cheney stated that the Iraqi connection to Al-Qaeda was , " pretty well confirmed".
The naive Bush loving contingent of America took this hook, line and sinker.
A simple bit of research however, would have told you that Saddam has always been a secularist, and even most of the dipshits who drive around in their gas guzzling Hummers with a sticker of Calvin pissing on Osama know that he, Osama, fights in the name of god.
Dick Cheney, in a piece of comedy gold, appeared on Meet The Press with Tim Russert this morning. I'm going to paste the transcript here rather than linking it, because it is just that good. Kudos to Buzzflash.com.
BUZZFLASH REPORT Sunday September 14, 2003 at 8:38:41 PM
Either Cheney is a Complete Liar or is Too Stupid to be Vice-President Based on His September 14th "Meet the Press" Interview
September 15, 2003
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
How stupid does Cheney think we are? Apparently, pretty stupid. And maybe we are. Under any normal circumstances (not being ruled by a Republican one-party state), he should have been impeached -- and perhaps imprisoned -- a long time ago.
Here are Honest-to-God (rush) excerpts from the transcript of Dick Cheney on "Meet the Press," forwarded to us by a BuzzFlash reader:
MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know.
MR. RUSSERT: Vanity Fair magazine reports that about 140 Saudis were allowed to leave the United States the day after the 11th, allowed to leave our airspace and were never investigated by the FBI and that departure was approved by high-level administration figures. Do you know anything about that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don’t.
MR. RUSSERT: Joe Lieberman, the senator from Connecticut, running for president, had this to say: “...what President Bush gave the American people on Sunday night was a price tag”—$87 billion—”not a plan. And we in Congress must demand a plan.”
What is our plan for Iraq? How long will the 140,000 American soldiers be there? How many international troops will join them? And how much is this going to cost?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, some of those questions are unknowable at present, Tim. With respect to the financing, the $87 billion we’ve asked for is—about 3/4 of that is to support our military and security operations. About 1/4 of it will go specifically to helping make the investments Bremer believes we need to make in order to get the Iraqis back and functioning on their own capability.
So how long will it take? I don’t know.
MR. RUSSERT: In terms of costs, Mr. Vice President, there are suggestions again—it was a misjudgment by the administration or even misleading. “Lawrence Lindsey, head of the White House’s National Economic Council, projected the ‘upper bound’ of war costs at $100 billion to $200 billion.”
We’ve already spent $160 billion after this $87 billion is spent. The Pentagon predicted $50 billion: “The administration’s top budget official [Mitch Daniels] estimated that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion...he said...that earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s former chief economic adviser, were too high.”
And Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of Defense, went before Congress and said this: “We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years.” It looked like the administration has truly misjudged the cost of this operation.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I didn’t see a one-point estimate there that you could say that this is the administration’s estimate. We didn’t know.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I didn’t see a one-point estimate there that you could say that this is the administration’s estimate. We didn’t know. And if you ask Secretary Rumsfeld, for example—I can remember from his briefings, he said repeatedly he didn’t know. And when you and I talked about it, I couldn’t put a dollar figure on it.
MR. RUSSERT: But Daniels did say $50 billion.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, that might have been, but I don’t know what his basis was for making that judgment.
There are funds frozen, Iraqi assets in various places in...
MR. RUSSERT: How much is all that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don’t have a final dollar figure. We don’t know who will...
MR. RUSSERT: Why is there no bidding?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I have no idea. ..... I don’t know any of the details of the contract because I deliberately stayed away from any information on that, but Halliburton is a fine company.
MR. RUSSERT: Reconstituted nuclear weapons. You misspoke.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. I did misspeak.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, Ambassador Joe Wilson, a year before that, was sent over by the CIA because you raised the question about uranium from Africa. He says he came back from Niger and said that, in fact, he could not find any documentation that, in fact, Niger had sent uranium to Iraq or engaged in that activity and reported it back to the proper channels. Were you briefed on his findings in February, March of 2002?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I don’t know Joe Wilson. ..... One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, “What do we know about this?” They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, “This is all we know. There’s a lot we don’t know,” end of statement. And Joe Wilson—I don’t know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.
With an independent investigation, Cheney testifying under oath, and the release of his papers, Dick would be out of office faster than you can say "Chickenhawk Dick."
(For "Meet the Press" transcript, see: [LINK])
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
|
|
|
| |
| The rich get richer, and the poor go home..just earlier now. |
| 09.12.03 (9:26 pm) [edit] |
In a watershed moment for the 108th Congress, the Senate has blocked a bill proposed by the President that would revamp the Fair Labor Act of 1938. In essence, what this bill would do, would now strip the middle and lower working classes of overtime pay while the upper class, of which Bush is forever pandering to, reaps all the benefits.
John Sweeney, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. president, said the White House plan "would gut overtime protections for millions of American workers."
An analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, estimated that eight million workers would lose their overtime pay under the proposal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/politics/1 1PAY.html" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/politics/1 1PAY.html" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/0...
Eight million. Working class americans who depend on overtime pay to house, feed, and clothe their children.
The roll call ended to a count of 54-45, all Senate Democrats voting against and six Republican Senators voting with thier conscious for a change, including Arlen Specter (R) Pa. who said of the changes, that they were, "excessive, especially at a time when there's so much unemployment."
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-overti me28mar28" title="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-overti me28mar28" target="_blank"http://www.latimes.com/busine...,1,7679211.story
Merka.
|
|
|
| |
| 8 militants killed today...oh...I mean police. |
| 09.12.03 (8:04 pm) [edit] |
Today, while before returning soldiers, President Bush steadfastly spoke on his commitment to further commit others in his imperialistic campaign, American soldiers opened fire on an American trained Iraqi police force in the city of Falluja, about thirty miles west of Baghdad.
The Iraqi police force was chasing a band of thieves just past midnight when the Americans opened fire.
Assem Mohammed, who was wounded in the attack, had this to say from his hospital bed, " They continued firing for about an hour despite our pleas for them to stop and to tell them we are police and security".
In a paradoxical affirmation, President Bush said, " "Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world, and opposing them and defeating them must be the cause of the civilized world."
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=3437152" title="http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=3437152" target="_blank"http://reuters.com/newsArticl...
And if this inordinate miscalculation doesn't quite fill your
cup, let me top it off for you.
Hearing the shots, guards from the nearby hospital opened fire on the road, which in turn prompted the American tanks to attack the hospital. Reported by the New York Times, "The American soldiers and tanks then began to fire indiscriminately for nearly an hour on both the hospital and the police vehicles".
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/12/internatio nal/middleeast/12CND-IRAQ .html" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/12/internatio nal/middleeast/12CND-IRAQ .html" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/0...
You'll bethink back to the beginning of this facile war, turned quagmire, that the President and his staff couldn't tell you enough that they would only be striking military targets? But I suppose if you can deceive the dense masses of America that this war was/is a good idea, you can probably sucker them into believing a hospital is a munitions depot.
RDP.
|
|
|
| |
| Paul Hill. Scumbag.Dead. |
| 09.03.03 (9:07 pm) [edit] |
:lol:
Paul Hill,
was convicted of murdering 2 men, Dr. John Britton, and James Barrett at the Ladies Center in Pensacola, Fl. in 1994. At 6:08 est, Mr. Hill officially cashed in his life chips. In his last statement, he said; "If you believe abortion is a lethal force, you should oppose the force and do what you have to stop it. May God help you to protect the unborn as you would want to be protected."
Oddly enough, he wasn't the only person that postulated this thinking. Not that I'd be so credulous to suppose you thought he was. The extremist publication, Anti Abortionist, has openly threatened the judge, and Governor Bush, while paying more than just minor lip service to Paul Hill in their most recent issue.
Paul Hill, a former Presbyterian minister has armed us with quite the anomoly. The PCUSA ( Presbyterian Church, USA) , on their site, addresses the issue of abortion, and has this to say;
. . . There is [both] agreement and disagreement on the basic issue of abortion. The committee [on problem pregnancies and abortion] agreed that there are no biblical texts that speak expressly to the topic of abortion, but that taken in their totality the Holy Scriptures are filled with messages that advocate respect for the woman and child before and after birth. Therefore the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) encourages an atmosphere of open debate and mutual respect for a variety of opinions concerning the issues related to problem pregnancies and abortion. (http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-...)
Now stay with me here. I'd say, and quite confidently, that, at the very least, this is a very middle of the political road stance. I'd even say it got a more than slight lean to the left, but that's just me.
You'll understand the inconsitency with his consistent discourse in regards to his faith. I'd hope so anyways.
And you thought that extremism only came from the Middle East. aren't you the biggest dipshit in the dipshit parade?
Here's his explanation if it'll make you sleep better.
http://www.armyofgod.com/PHill_ShortShot.html" title="http://www.armyofgod.com/PHill_ShortShot.html" target="_blank"http://www.armyofgod.com/PHil...
|
|
|
| |
| Standing behind the promise of leaving everyone behind, Bush doesn't falter. |
| 09.03.03 (7:01 pm) [edit] |
:twisted:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=3383125" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=3383125" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...
Today, staying in line with his draconian leadership, President Bush eased requirements on hospitals to accept patients to the emergency room that lack proper insurance. In other words, if you have a life-threatening condition, you'll have to drive, possibly for hours to a hospital that does service the uninsured. Duck!! red flag. get out of the way. red flag. I had to read the article a second time after the dope wore off. Just to make sure i read what i read. Dr. Rich Bieser, with a small bit of reasoning said, "Hospital emergency departments are far from ideal in providing primary care, but for people who can't get access to primary care because they don't have health insurance there has to be somewhere for them to go,".
It only seems fitting for an administration that is exhibiting some of the most dangerous foreign policy to ever emanate from the White House, that their domestic policy be just as execrable.
|
|
|
| |
|
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
|
