GW Bush

Bush is World"s #1 Terrorist

911 truth

911 truth

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Arrest Karl Rove

    Arrest Karl Rove

    Friday, February 29, 2008

    Bush did no know $4/gal price of gas!!!!

    jbcard's Xanga Site


    Feb282008

    Bush Asked About $4/gal Oil

    Filed under: energy, environment — admin @ 9:12 pm

    Today at a press conference, the soon to be former President, George W Bush was asked what he thought about the predictions by many experts of $4/gal gas prices. Maybe Bush was trying to do his best Borat impression. I think he thought in his mind “wha, wha, we, wha???” when he responded, “Wait a minute, what did you just say?…That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that.” I immediately thought “WTF?” Where have you been hiding? You had no idea that gas prices could hit $4/gal this summer when the price of oil is at $102/barrel? It’s like the groundhog poked his head out of the ground to see his shadow and now we have 11 more months of an idiot. Then no more than four minutes later when asked where money for his presidential library is coming from he said that the deal was just announced and his attention has been focused elsewhere “like gasoline prices.” So he’s been focused on gas prices, yet he doesn’t know what the price of gas is or the potential for it to rise? Interesting.

    I think you really need to watch the videos to see the response for yourself. To see the arrogance on how he answers the questions. How does he think the country should react? “Make the recent tax cuts permanent.” Then he went on to tell us that we need to build more refineries here and drill ANWAR and find more oil. Maybe he thinks the term locavore applies to drilling for oil?

    Skip to 7:25

    Then continue here

    Source: CNN Money

    Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
    • StumbleUpon
    • Digg
    • del.icio.us
    • Technorati
    • YahooMyWeb
    • ThisNext
    • Twitter


    Thursday, February 28, 2008

    What Would You Do If Bush Declared Martial Law? - Politics on The Huffington Post

    What Would You Do If Bush Declared Martial Law?

    Posted February 20, 2007 | 12:35 PM (EST)



    stumbleupon :What Would You Do If Bush Declared Martial Law? digg: What Would You Do If Bush Declared Martial Law? reddit: What Would You Do If Bush Declared Martial Law? del.icio.us: What Would You Do If Bush Declared Martial Law?

    An editorial in the New York Times yesterday pointed out, for those of us who didn't realize it, that the Bush administration had inserted two provisions into last October's defense budget bill that would make it easier to declare martial law in the US. Senators Leahy and Bond have introduced a bill to repeal these changes, and it is important that voters keep track of this bill and hold their Congresspeople to account on it. Along with several other measures the Bush adminstration has proposed, the introduction of these changes amounts, not to an attack on the Congress and the balance of power, but to a particular and concerted attack on the citizens of the nation. Bush is laying the legal groundwork to repeal even the appearance of democracy. Any senator who does not vote in favor of the Leahy/Bond repeal of these provisions should promptly be recalled by his or her constituents.

    Buzz up!on Yahoo!

    That said, and without underestimating the seriousness of these provisions, I have to point out that with this as with other legal maneuvers like the Military Commissions Act, I have to wonder who Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. think they are governing. Were they planning to spring these things on us? One day, we were supposed to wake up, and martial law would be declared, and we were supposed to actually pay attention to it? Where are they keeping the troops who were going to patrol our neighborhoods? Who was it who was going to disarm the population? Who was their base going to be, when they sought public support for martial law? Who was going to round us up and where were they going to put us?

    It is in these sorts of things that the byzantine thinking and strange psychological make-up of the Bushies comes out. Let's say that Bush imagines (with Gonzalez and Cheney) the enhanced joys of bringing the war home. No longer is his command "over there"--it is now "over here". He can go out onto the White House lawn and issue edicts, and then perhaps he can be driven around Washington, or over into Virginia, and watch civilians obey his orders in a way that the Iraqis seem unwilling to do. I am assuming that the purpose of such an exercise would be to renew and intensify the now-diminishing frisson Bush gets from feeling himself the boss of all he surveys. But we all know it would not work. Very few people believe Bush or take his needs and desires seriously any more. Bush, or his keepers, know this, too, or they would not have introduced these provisions secretly. There was a time, when the nation was in a panic, when he could purloin things openly, and no one dared defy him. That was the appropriate occasion for these martial law changes. Now, or even last fall, was not that time. The Republicans must have suspected that to make such provisions known would have meant jeopardizing an iffy mid-term election even more than it already was, so they hid them. But the fact that they hid them makes them a hundred times more suspect--are the Bushies planning a coup after all?

    And if they are planning a coup, what's the goal? Who is going to fall in line? Arnold Schwarzenegger, my very own governor? Chet Culver? Kathleen Sebelius? Eliot Spitzer? Since the US is a corporatocracy, would we then all be forced to work for $2.00 per hour? Give up all workplace benefits? Attend the religious services of our choice on Sunday? Devote even more of our tax dollars to the war machine and the oil machine? Haven't they taken everything already? Try as I might, I cannot imagine martial law in the US, except as something the population would agree to under threat from...from whom? Correct me if I am wrong (I know you will), but the last time martial law was declared was during the Civil War, and Americans, though the threats to the Union were profound and omnipresent, didn't like it then. I can't even imagine what would happen now.

    Our armed forces can't subdue Iraq. I can't imagine that Bush thinks they could subdue New England or the West Coast, much less the whole US. To imagine himself commanding such a thing seems like magical thinking at its most obvious. So, what would you did if Bush declared martial law, laugh?

    Senate candidate calls for Bush’s arrest

    February 27th, 2008 1:54 am
    Senate candidate calls for Bush’s arrest

    By Laura Dolce / Seacoast Online

    KENNEBUNKPORT, ME — Calling President George Bush "the worst president in the history of the United States," Independent U.S. Senate candidate Laurie Dobson stood on the steps of Town Hall Tuesday and called upon the town to indict Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney as war criminals.

    Saying that both had "made killing fields of many countries," Dobson urged town leaders to issue a warrant for their arrests.

    "There is compelling, undeniable, irrefutable evidence that crimes are going on," she said.

    Dobson filed a copy of her indictment with Town Manager Larry Mead and later read it aloud for gathered media members overlooking Walker’s Point, the summer home of the President’s parents. Flanked by campaign manager Bruce Marshall and human rights lawyer Harold Burbank, Dobson said she will do what she can, from appearing at meetings to gathering petitions, to see that the issue makes it on to the town warrant in June.

    The central focus of Dobson’s campaign has been calling for an end to the war in Iraq and the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney. If impeachment doesn’t happen, though, she wants both to be indicted as war criminals and for "crimes against our Constitution."

    As for the indictment, Dobson said she was following in the footsteps of Brattleboro, Vt., who adopted an indictment resolution in that town.

    Things weren’t looking quite as simple in Kennebunkport.

    "Under Maine law, towns have no power to indict," Mead said.

    Further, though Dobson called upon the police to arrest both Bush and Cheney should they come to town, that doesn’t appear likely either.

    "It’s my understanding that the town has no authority to make an indictment," said Deputy Police Chief Kurt Moses, "so it’s a non-issue."

    Mead said he will take Dobson’s request to the Board of Selectmen on Feb. 28.

    "They can decide whether they want to move forward," he said.

    Selectman Kristy Bryant got an advance look at the indictment, as she happened to be stopping at Town Hall while Dobson was giving her press conference.

    While Bryant said Dobson’s request would be discussed at a future meeting, she also called it, "a shameless plug for her campaign."

    If the selectmen choose not to move forward with the indictment, Dobson’s next recourse would be to gather the 210 certified signatures needed to have the issue placed on the June town warrant.

    At that point, Mead said, the town would need to seek legal advice.

    "We would seek advice from counsel," Mead said. "We would need to know if what we were asking people to vote on was within our legal right."

    For her part, Dobson urged residents of the town she calls the "home of my heart" to refuse to allow "barbaric individuals who mistreat people" to have any right to come within town lines. And while she acknowledged that hers was just a "small campaign," she said she planned to use it to follow her conscience and make a difference.

    Quoting Abraham Lincoln, she said, "Let us have faith that right makes right; and in that faith let us do our duty as we understand it."

    Nurses Telling Candidates: Stop Selling Insurance and Back Real Reform

    jbcard's Xanga Site

    Thursday, February 28th, 2008
    Nurses Launch Major Ohio Radio Ad Campaign Telling Candidates: Stop Selling Insurance and Back Real Reform

    National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association

    Nurses Union to Run Ads in Heavy Rotation Through Primary

    On the eve of Ohio’s crucial primary vote Tuesday, the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association today launched a major radio campaign across Ohio with an emphatic message to the presidential candidates to stop selling private insurance policies and support real healthcare reform.

    The 60-second radio ad is running in markets across the state, including Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Lima, Toledo, and Youngstown.

    Criticizing “individual mandates” that require people to purchase insurance—a major focus of the debate on healthcare among the Democratic presidential candidates— the nurses say that mandating private insurance is not “universal healthcare,” especially while the insurance giants “can still charge as much as they want and still deny you care when you are sick.”

    The role of government, the nurses’ ad says, should be to “protect us from insurance companies, not force us to buy insurance products.”

    Nurses know the problem with insurance-based care, the ad notes. They regularly “witness lives lost, care denied, families ruined by big insurance corporations. Nurses know there is only one real cure for our broken health care system. We ask the candidates to commit to the highest standard of quality care through Medicare for all Americans. That’s the real reform that puts decision-making power where it belongs – with you, your nurses, and your doctors.”

    A challenge to the candidates to support real reform

    “Nurses see America’s healthcare crisis up close everyday,” said Michelle Mahon, a Cleveland area RN. “Our ability to provide safe, effective, therapeutic care is undermined and our professional responsibility as patient advocates is compromised by insurance companies. Ohio nurses believe that the answer to our healthcare crisis is a Medicare for all, single payer plan, that will guarantee quality care to everyone.”

    “We hope to remind Ohio voters of the suffering that nurses witness. We see patients who have been abandoned or abused by the very insurance companies that some think are the solution to our national healthcare crisis. And we hope that voters will ask the candidates of both parties, why are you proposing more insurance, rather than more care?” said Deborah Burger, RN, member of the NNOC/CNA Council of Presidents.

    NNOC/CNA has been in the forefront of the campaign to transform the nation’s broken healthcare system to a guaranteed healthcare program as exists in other industrialized nations and could be achieved in the U.S. through an expanded and improved Medicare for all.

    In the past year, CNA has also run TV and print ads in Iowa prior to its caucuses, in New Hampshire prior to its primary, and in national publications.

    Several of the ads featured the headlines about the health problems of Vice President Dick Cheney with the headline “If he were anyone else, he'd probably be dead by now,” with a call that all Americans should receive the same level and standard of care available to Cheney and members of Congress. In response to that ad, tens of thousands have signed an online petition, and more than 800 people have sent in horror stories of their own experiences with insurance companies.

    Additionally, NNOC/CNA led opposition to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s individual-mandate proposal in California which was subsequently rejected by the California Senate, despite a major campaign for it by a number of politicians, policy wonks, and most of the state's major insurance companies.

    Last year, NNOC/CNA also sponsored events outside hundreds of theaters across the U.S. when Michael Moore’s SiCKO, an indictment of the healthcare industry, opened. Subsequently, NNOC/CNA members hosted hundreds of local showings of the film and other events to promote guaranteed healthcare reform.


    Click here to download and listen to the ad in MP3

    Text of the ad:

    “In denial”

    Nurses and consumer advocates agree. The government should be protecting us from insurance companies, not forcing us to buy their products. Especially while insurance companies can still charge as much as they want and still deny you care when you are sick.

    So why are politicians still calling for mandates? Forcing people to buy health insurance isn't universal healthcare. It just means more profits for the big insurers.

    Registered nurses value every patient they touch. They witness lives lost, care denied, families ruined by big insurance corporations. Nurses know there is only one real cure for our broken healthcare system. We ask the candidates to commit to the highest standard of quality care through Medicare for all Americans. That’s the real reform that puts decision-making power where it belongs – with you, your nurses, and your doctors.

    Paid for by the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association.


    NNOC/CNA represents 80,000 direct-care nurses in all 50 states. To learn more, visit www.guaranteedhealthcare.org.

    Monday, February 25, 2008

    McCamy Taylor's Journal - Karl Rove's Glass House Problem: Or How Governor W. Used the Texas Lottery To Pay Off Ben Barnes

    McCamy Taylor's Journal - Karl Rove's Glass House Problem: Or How Governor W. Used the Texas Lottery To Pay Off Ben Barnes


    Posted by McCamy Taylor in General Discussion
    Mon Feb 25th 2008, 08:28 PM

    Sometimes, I think Karl Roves gets his ideas for how to smear his opponents by looking at the real crimes of the Bush family.
    The charge that Alberto Gonzales’ Grand High Inquisitors created----making it a crime to re-appoint someone to a state board after he has donated money to a state lottery campaign---absolutely pales in comparison to what went on when George W. Bush was governor of Texas.

    Remember Ben Barnes? The Democratic former Texas Speaker who helped W. evade the draft and get a spot in the Texas Air National Guard ahead of other men, back during the Vietnam War? That favor he did for the Bush family really paid off. Here is a link to the story from WorldNetDaily (so we are not talking the liberal media here):

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICL...

    What GTECH revealed in its 1997 10-K was that the company was under investigation in Texas because of allegations against one of its paid consultants, one Ben Barnes, who previously had been lieutenant governor of Texas. GTECH hired Barnes in 1991, before the company had the Texas Lottery contract, because Barnes claimed to have influence with then-governor of Texas, Ann Richards. For getting GTECH the Texas contract in 1992, Barnes received somewhere between 3.5 to 4 percent of GTECH's gross Texas Lottery revenue, a percentage that yielded Barnes somewhere in the range of $3 million a year.

    The 1997 GTECH 10-K noted that the company was under investigation in Texas and its contract had been open to competitive bid. GTECH disclosed that Texas Lottery contract was then the company's largest contract, accounting for 16 percent of GTECH's total revenue in fiscal 1997. Losing this contract would materially hurt GTECH's operating income and depress its stock price as a consequence. GTECH ran for cover by terminating Ben Barnes contract and paying him $23 million to stay quiet.

    Why did Barnes hold out until 1997? He was a Democrat with influence over Democrat Gov. Ann Richards, but what hold did he have on Republican Gov. George W. Bush?


    You already know what he had over Bush, because I just told you. He knew that W. got into the National Guards—and avoided going to Vietnam with the riffraff to die—due to favoritism. However, as usual, the cover up was much worse than the crime.

    Things went on the way they were until 1997 when someone noticed that everything about the Texas State Lottery was illegal, including its habit of hiring former state officials like Ben Barnes. A new executive director named Larry Littwin was brought in.

    He decided to put the GTECH contract up for competitive bid. Mr. Littwin was ordered by the Texas Lottery Commission, including Harriet Miers, to stop his investigation. On Oct. 29, 1997, only five months after he had been hired, Mr. Littwin was fired by the Texas Lottery Commission, whose only state reason was that they had "lost confidence" in him.


    Littwin sued and during the discovery phase, his attorney questioned Barnes and obtained testimony in which “he disclosed his alleged involvement with the Bush National Guard controversy and his political influence peddling for GTECH through the first two years of Bush's term as governor of Texas.”

    Littwin was able to settle with GTECH in exchange for suppressing these incriminating documents. And the contract was re-awarded to GTECH.

    Here is James Moore, at Huffington Post, on the same story (so left and right agree on this one):

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/bu...

    Barnes had been hired by G-Tech, and had signed a lifetime contract giving him a percentage of revenues generated by the lottery. In the late 1960s, Barnes was also Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives. As one of the two most influential people in the Texas legislature during those years, Barnes frequently took requests from people interested in getting their sons enlisted in the Texas National Guard. Enrollment in the Army or Air National Guard was considered a legitimate method for avoiding the draft, and not fighting in Vietnam. As a result, there were more than 100,000 young men on waiting lists around the country, hoping to get enrolled. Usually, they were drafted before the Guard called. Waiting lists were often up to five years long. A friend, or family member, who wanted to get George W. Bush into the National Guard, would have had to contact Barnes or someone on his staff.


    So, obviously, if young W. got into the National Guard , he did it through Ben Barnes. When Republican Governor W. took over in Austin, there was no question that Barnes’ company, GTech would continue to manage the lucrative Texas State Lottery. In 1994 W. had sworn that no special influence was used to get him into the National Guard. He needed to keep Barnes happy to keep that story from being revealed to be the lie it was.

    However, according to Moore, an anonymous letter made the rounds in Texas in 1997, including the federal attorney.

    “Several months ago many of us felt that the Lottery Commission should re-bid the G-Tech contract when it came up for renewal,” the unsigned and undated letter said. “Leaders of the Republican Party strongly supported re-bidding and I believe the chair of the commission also wanted to re-bid. It is now time to disclose at least one reason why it was not re-bid. Governor Bush thru Reggie Bashur made a deal with Ben Barnes not to re-bid because Barnes could confirm that Bush had lied during the ’94 campaign. During that campaign, Bush was asked if his father, then a member of Congress, had helped him get in the National Guard. Bush said no, he had not, but the fact is his dad called then Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes to ask for his help to get his son not just in the Guard, but to get one of the coveted pilot slots, which were extremely hard to get. At the time contacted General Rose at the Guard and took care of it. George Bush was placed ahead of thousands of young men, some of whom died in Vietnam.

    Bashur was sent to talk to Barnes who agreed never to confirm the story and the Governor talked to the chair of the Lottery two days later and she then agreed to support letting G-Tech keep the contract without a bid. Too many people know this happened. Governor Bush knows his election campaign might have a different result if this story had been confirmed at the time.”


    After the lawsuits were settled and the tell-tale depositions had been buried, Barnes issued a public statement saying that he did not do any favors for the Bush family. GTech bought out his interest in their company for $23million. And that was that. Or it would have been that. Except that in 2004, Ben Barnes told the whole truth for the first time to Dan Rather for a 60 Minutes II episode.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/09/...

    "I would describe it as preferential treatment. There were hundreds of names on the list of people wanting to get into the Air National Guard or the Army National Guard," he said. "I think that would have been a preference to anybody that didn't want to go to Vietnam or didn’t want to leave. We had a lot of young men that left and went to Canada in the '60s and fled this country. But those that could get in the Reserves, or those that could get in the National Guard - chances are they would not have to go to Vietnam."


    Which is pretty amazing, after all the millions Barnes had made off the citizens of Texas by not saying it. Makes you wonder why he decided to go ahead and talk to Dan Rather in 2004. Barnes was giving up his chance to extort the Bush family forever, so he was losing a lot for no return. Unless someone told him to talk to 60 Minutes to make sure that the Bush AWOL story was run, Barnes being the star witness and all.

    My own theory (as I have described before) is that Rove wanted the Bush AWOL story to run, because he planned to attack Rather and his team, in order to have them tied up during the days preceding and following the 2004 election. I believe that Sumner Redstone was party to this plan. Rove knew that the election results would provoke controversy, with the voter disenfranchisement in Ohio and Florida, and the likelihood of e-vote/exit poll discrepancies in Ohio high. The last thing that he wanted was the Rather investigative news team on the scene reporting on the stories as they happened. The fall of Dan Rather would also serve as a warning to other investigative reporters. Stick your nose into Bush family business, and it would get chopped off

    Anyway, we have come full circle, now that 60 Minutes has reported on Karl Rove’s attempt to create a bogus lottery scandal in Alabama to take out a political enemy and stage a political coup. What Siegelman is accused of doing is nothing compared to the crimes of Governor George W. Bush, who allowed a firm to overcharge the state for its lottery work so that Ben Barnes would keep quiet about a secret that would jeopardize his political career and who, when the conspiracy was uncovered, participated in a cover up with the assistance of Harriet Miers. Siegelman is charged with letting someone keep a state board appointment after he donated money to a state lottery fund. Is that even a crime? Not according to CBS.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/...

    Is Don Siegelman in prison because he’s a criminal or because he belonged to the wrong political party in Alabama? Siegelman is the former governor of Alabama, and he was the most successful Democrat in that Republican state. But while he was governor, the U.S. Justice Department launched multiple investigations that went on year after year until, finally, a jury convicted Siegelman of bribery.

    Now, many Democrats and Republicans have become suspicious of the Justice Department’s motivations. As correspondent Scott Pelley reports, 52 former state attorneys-general have asked Congress to investigate whether the prosecution of Siegelman was pursued not because of a crime but because of politics.


    Memo to Karl Rove: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

    PS

    I found another link here

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-fund/lo...

    The New York Sun has reported that Lawrence Littwin, a former executive director of the Lottery Commission, is eager to testify should the Senate subpoena him. Mr. Littwin claims that in 1997 Ms. Miers fired him after five months on the job because she was protecting GTECH, the controversial Rhode Island firm managing the lottery. GTECH had been mired in controversy for years, and in 1996 David Smith, its national sales director, was convicted in New Jersey in a kickback scheme involving a lobbyist.

    Mr. Littwin has alleged that aides to then-Gov. Bush were worried that should GTECH lose its lottery contract, its top lobbyist, Mr. Barnes, would discuss efforts he claimed to have made to push a young George W. Bush to the top of the coveted waiting list for a pilot's slot in the Texas Air National Guard.


    Littwin was precluded, by the terms of his lawsuit settlement, from discussing what he had learned about the sweetheart deal between Barnes, GTECH and Gov. Bush, but had the Harriet Miers nomination gone forward, he might have been called to testify about the role she played in covering up for W.

    No wonder Democrats were so eager to see her nomination proceed.

    Saturday, February 23, 2008

    Michael Moore says insurance industry would love Clinton's healthcare plan

    MichaelMoore.com : Michael Moore says insurance industry would love Clinton's healthcare plan


    February 23rd, 2008 4:36 pm
    Michael Moore says insurance industry would love Clinton's healthcare plan

    By Jeffrey Young / The Hill

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) proposal to mandate that all people purchase health insurance would be a boon to the industry, filmmaker Michael Moore said Friday.

    “Can you imagine, every time Sen. Clinton says that, the licking of the lips that goes on with these health insurance executives?” Moore said during a conference call with reporters.

    Moore, director of the Academy Award-nominated documentary “SiCKO” about the U.S. healthcare system, criticized both Clinton and her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), for failing to support a universal system of government-financed health coverage during their runs for the White House. “The two Democratic candidates don’t quite get it,” he said.

    Clinton's campaign responded with a shot at Moore.

    "His movie notwithstanding, Michael Moore clearly doesn’t know a whole lot about how healthcare policy works," Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said in an e-mail. He said Clinton's healthcare plan would insure every American and make sure that covering people and not profits are the top priority.

    He then took a shot at Obama, who battled with Clinton over healthcare Thursday night during a Texas debate, by stating that Obama's plan would leave 15 million people uninsured.

    Moore, a flame-throwing liberal documentarian, who previously took on the Iraq war in “Fahrenheit 9/11,” gun violence in “Bowling for Columbine” and General Motors in “Roger & Me,” released “SiCKO” last June. The movie grossed $24.5 million in the United States and is up for best documentary film during Sunday’s Academy Awards.

    Moore credited Clinton and Obama with good intentions but suggested they were too influenced by campaign contributions from healthcare interests.

    “I think in their hearts, they want to get it. But it’s not just their hearts that’s speaking, it’s their wallets,” he said.

    Moore noted that Clinton and Obama have received more campaign contributions from healthcare interests than any other presidential candidates, including all those who ran for the Republican nomination. Healthcare interests “know which way the wind is blowing” and believe the next president will be a Democrat, Moore said.

    In place of the Clinton and Obama plans, Moore touted legislation sponsored by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) that would extend Medicare benefits to the nation’s entire population. Conyers has endorsed Obama for president.

    Moore would not say whether he would campaign for the candidate who wins the Democratic nomination.

    He also said he will not offer an endorsement unless a candidate at least moves closer to his position on single-payer healthcare. Moore dismissed out of hand the healthcare proposals of presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

    But as he did in his film “SiCKO” and in recent writings on his Web site, Moore reserved some of his harshest criticisms for Clinton, who as first lady spearheaded President Bill Clinton’s efforts to enact a healthcare system overhaul in the 1990s.

    Clinton has made efforts to differentiate the healthcare proposals in her platform from those of Obama, largely by pointing out that her plan would use mandates to require people to purchase health insurance as a means of getting coverage for all people. Clinton has even said she would not rule out garnishing individuals’ wages if they failed to comply. Obama would only mandate coverage for children.

    “They’re having nutty debates about who’s going to mandate how many people,” Moore said. “We’re not cars,” he quipped, referring to the argument that health insurance mandates are equivalent to state laws requiring drivers to carry automobile insurance.

    On Obama’s healthcare positions, Moore pointed to statements the senator has made that would support a single-payer system if he were “starting from scratch,” statements the Clinton campaign has used to criticize Obama. “He needs to go back to his original position,” Moore said.

    Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor defended the senator's healthcare plan, saying it would significantly cut down on consumer costs. He also noted that Obama oes not accept contributions from federal lobbyists.

    Moore said he was pressuring friends on Capitol Hill and Hollywood who have endorsed Clinton and Obama to push them closer to single-payer healthcare.

    But, he said, the makeup of Congress could prove more crucial to the healthcare reform debate than whether Clinton or Obama is president.

    “It’s equally, perhaps even more, important on this issue that people across the country elect members of Congress who support” Conyers’s bill, Moore said. “The Democratic president is not going to veto that bill,” he said. “At that point, they’re going to have to ride the wave.”

    Moore held the conference call to promote a Capitol Hill rally scheduled for Tuesday to call for greater funding to treat the medical conditions suffered by rescue and cleanup workers who assisted on at the World Trade Center site in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, and the weeks following the terrorist attacks. Among the more than 200 workers and families expected to attend are some of the people portrayed in SiCKO," whom Moore took to Cuba to receive medical treatments.

    Time for Bill O'Racist to Resign in Disgrace

    Time for Bill O'Racist to Resign in Disgrace
    By Bob Cesca, Huffington Post. Posted February 23, 2008.

    O'Reilly should be fired for using the word "lynching" in the context of a rant about Michelle Obama, despite his faux apology.


    A cursory internet search reveals the shocking truth for those of us who weren't there: photographs depicting a variety of howling posses composed of fire-eyed redneck thugs -- terrorists, if you will -- skulking through the woods with hounds and lengths of rope; hauling with them an American citizen of African descent, and making their way to a not-so-clandestine location where a cowardly, ritualistic, vigilante execution will take place.

    Sepia-toned photographs retaining in permanent clarity the faces -- the proud, grinning white "men" gathered like hyenas around the mangled corpse of a black man who had been beaten and hanged by these reactionary monsters. As if the deeds themselves weren't shameful enough, these ghoulish lynch mobs would often take away souvenirs of their homicides: body parts, clothing, hair -- and those terrible photographs.

    There are too many of these images. There are too many stories -- more than enough to justify any thinking-person's reluctance to pledge unconditional pride in the entirety our national heritage -- a heritage which includes a 1922 U.S. Senate filibuster against an anti-lynching law.

    This isn't ancient history. These aren't isolated incidents. Perhaps as many as 4,000 American blacks were lynched in the eight decades following the end of the Civil War.

    Similar events, in practice and symbolism, occur even today. As recently as last year, nooses were used to intimidate African-Americans. The noose, it seems, has become a newsworthy issue in the fourth American century. Almost exactly ten years ago, in 1998, a black man was tied up and dragged behind a pick-up truck in Jasper, Texas until his body was so decimated it was practically unrecognizable as being the remains of a man.

    So there's no reason why Bill O'Reilly should be surprised when reasonable, rational, thinking Americans want him to be summarily fired for using the word "lynching" in the context of a rant about Michelle Obama. The outrage is righteous and justified. Words matter. And history shows that these words that Bill O'Reilly invoked cast a long, sinister shadow.

    You've probably read the quote here and on other websites, but I want to make sure Bill O'Reilly's bigotry is seared into the record, so I'll post it here again:

    And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down.

    Lynching? Party? Unless there's evidence? So we're to understand from Bill O'Reilly that if someone might be relating a certain level of dissatisfaction with America's present status and chief executive, that they deserve to be tracked down by Bill O'Reilly's Lynch Mob?

    It doesn't even matter what Michelle Obama said. We do know that FOX News repeatedly misquoted Mrs. Obama's statement and regardless of what she said, nothing -- no words, intentions or deeds justify the unhinged spike in Bill O'Reilly's bigoted, splotchy blood pressure to the point of wanting to "track it down" with his "lynching party." She could've said something like, "Bill O'Reilly is a splotchy dillweed who enjoys savory, soapy shower falafels," and it still wouldn't justify this flagrantly racist "lynching" analogy.

    And if it wasn't intentional, then it has to be pegged as gross incompetence, and this asshat -- this spastic Morton Downey Jr. throwback, this serial liar -- should, in fairness, be fired anyway. But considering Bill O'Reilly's record, incompetence only explains half of it. The rest falls in line with a pattern of well-documented bigotry.

    It's not just his flippant threat to "lynch" Michelle Obama. It's the Sylvia's Restaurant rant. It's the wetback remarks. It's the white power remarks. All of it. How many other reporters, personalities and celebrities need to be suspended and fired while Bill O'Reilly, time and time again, gets a pass? Instead, FOX News and Roger Ailes enable his prime time behavior because Bill O'Reilly's radio and TV shows are, of course, somewhat popular among similarly simplistic dolts.

    He clearly doesn't understand the repercussions of this kind of race-baiting language. And that indicates a staggering lack of understanding about what sorts of reactionary people are dialed in. Likewise, when Malkin, Coulter and Beck (among others) use Senator Obama's middle name or deliberately mispronounce his last name as a pejorative, epithetical attack -- knowing the prejudices of their ignorant far-right orcs -- they indirectly incite violence against the senator and his family. NBC reported that the hate mail the Obamas received last year prompted the U.S. Secret Service to offer protection earlier in the campaign than is usually the custom. We can only imagine the menacing content of the mail, and we'd be lying to ourselves if we assumed it didn't have anything to do with the race-baiting, epithets and rumor-mongering assaults from these far-right shmendriks.

    But I don't think Bill O'Reilly should be fired. Don Imus was fired and eventually reappeared -- moaning for braaaaiins! on another radio network. I'm sure the same pattern would occur with O'Reilly. He'd go away for ten months or so, and then like a giant, splotchy cancer he'd reemerge on CNBC, replacing Glenn Cock -- WHOOPS! I mean, Glenn Beck. I'm sorry about that. Beck he has such an unfortunate last name.

    Bill O'Reilly must resign in disgrace for the good of the nation. He should publicly apologize to the Obama family and then, on that same show, he should resign. When he leaves the FOX News building, his FOX News Goon Squad and Tubby Stalking Intern-bots should be ordered to stand down while random passers-by are asked to pelt Bill O'Reilly with eggs, tomatoes and, naturally, falafels -- live on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Then he should volunteer to walk around midtown Manhattan wearing a sandwich board that reads: "Ask Me About My History Of Racism (And Free Cell Phone Offer!)"

    This is voluntary justice. This requires you, Bill O'Reilly, to own up to your racism and your incompetence and be man for once. Do you have the dignity, Mr. O'Reilly? Or will you, by not admitting to your racism and by not resigning, vindicate those of us who agree that you're nothing but a coward? Resign, Bill. After all, unlike you and your Stalking McCarthyite Schutzstaffle -- your "Lynching Party" -- we're not a mob out for vengeance. This punishment, Mr. O'Reilly, is entirely up to you.

    Note: O' Reilly has since made an attempt at apology:

    While talking to a radio caller, I said there should be no lynching in the case -- that comment off Clarence Thomas saying he was the victim of a high-tech lynching. He said that on 60 Minutes, you may remember. I'm sorry if my statement offended anybody. That, of course, was not the intention. Context is everything.

    Top Ten Albums



    Bush's Dark Legacy Will be a Barrier to Change for the Next Administration

    By Aziz Huq, Middle East Online. Posted February 14, 2008.


    The Bush Administration is secretly ensuring that the misbegotten policies of the past eight years will haunt the next President. Tools



    The Bush/Cheney administration has opened a Pandora's box of executive branch activity -- from torture to anchoring the United States in Iraq -- making George Washington's 'Farewell Address' warnings about honesty and foreign entanglements as vital as ever, says Aziz Huq.

    Most people who cast ballots on Super Tuesday believed they were voting not just for a new face in the White House but also for sweeping new policies. Few believe a President McCain, Romney, Obama or Clinton would hew to all of the policies of Bush and Cheney -- and even fewer believe they should.

    Yet that certainty may be misplaced. When the next President is sworn in, the clammy fingers of the Bush Administration may still be wrapped around vital national policies. Even in the past few weeks, the Administration began entrenching strategic policies that are core to its ideological commitments in national security.

    Acting largely in secret, the Administration is moving to tie down the next White House -- Republican or Democratic -- in ways that will prove hard to unravel. Whether or not it succeeds depends on the vigilance of Congress and the public.

    The idea of turning over a new leaf in the Oval Office goes back to the Republic's early days. But George Washington's decision to return to Mount Vernon in 1796, eloquently explained in his famous farewell address, began a long tradition of limited tenure in the White House. Thanks to the Twenty-Second Amendment, which limits a President to two terms, we find it now profoundly obvious that an office as capacious, and potentially capricious, as the presidency should not be held by one man for too long. Indeed, even the inkling of hereditary politics is considered by many a step too far.

    But Presidents have long sought ways to embed their policies beyond their terms. In January 2006, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement gave Bush a chance to shove the Court to the right. On his way out the White House door in 2000, President Clinton fired off regulations on energy-efficiency standards for washing machines, and for workplace ergonomics. Supreme Court appointments are hard to undo, but regulations are far more easily wound back: In January 2001, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card moved quickly to freeze all regulatory actions without Bush's signature.

    So what can a President and Vice President seeking ideological immortality do? If they're Bush and Cheney, they can turn to secrecy, inertia and dubious constitutional theories.

    Inertia and ambiguity seem to be serving Bush and Cheney quite well in their effort to extend the practice of coercive interrogation. One of the Administration's enduring legacies will be the fact that the United States is now globally known to sanction and use torture. And the specific techniques that have been authorized, including waterboarding, environmental manipulation, and physical blows, are relatively well-known.

    Despite two pieces of legislation purporting to tighten or clarify rules against coercive interrogation, the next President will inherit a situation of tremendous ambiguity, with the CIA's much-vaunted interrogation practices not a smooth-running program but a train wreck.

    There is a remarkable ambiguity at the heart of the McCain Amendment and the Military Commissions Act, both of which addressed coercive interrogations. President Bush declared in September 2006 that Congress needed to "clarify the rules" for the CIA, yet the Administration has worked overtime to ensure that the rules stay murky.

    In secret legal opinions, the Justice Department has parsed recent legislation so that tactics like waterboarding can be "defined" below the level of torture, as something other than cruel, inhuman or degrading. And the Administration seems to have wriggled out of actual compliance with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which limits "cruel" acts.

    Only through these dubious legal moves can Attorney General Michael Mukasey still claim that the law about waterboarding is unclear. Responding to senators' inquiries last week, Mukasey explained that waterboarding "is not, and may not be," illicitly used by the CIA. He refused to rule it out because "any answer I give could have the effect of articulating publicly -- and to our adversaries -- the limits and contours of generally worded laws that define the limits of a highly classified interrogation program."

    Mukasey refused to discuss such "limits," even in closed session with members of the Judiciary Committee. Instead, he warned that the legality of waterboarding remained an open question that might be lawful "under the particular conditions and circumstances."

    Mukasey's position, in short, is that the Administration declines to give up its claim that waterboarding might be "lawful" in some scenarios or -- as important -- to disclose its legal analysis, even to members of Congress.

    The next Administration will thus inherit a perverse and bewildering situation: There are multiple anti-torture laws on the books. Read normally, any one of these laws would bar waterboarding and its ilk. But the law within the executive branch on January 19, 2009, will be far from normal. Everything, as Mukasey said, will depend on the "circumstances."

    Of course, there will likely be tremendous pressure on the next President to resolve this studied lack of clarity and to prohibit waterboarding clearly. But the first days and months of a new presidency will make that very hard.

    The next Administration -- especially a Democratic one -- will be acutely aware that any early pro-civil liberties move will be leveraged against it in the event of another terrorist attack. Indeed, the candidates should already know that the Bush Administration has left national security, from the ports to our national monuments, in a terrible state. Iraq and Guantánamo have also stoked anti-US propaganda while diminishing our moral and military resources for a response. The risk of another attack is not insubstantial.

    A risk-averse President -- is there any other kind? -- would be loath to do anything that could be labeled a cause of a later attack. And even a chief executive who wants to do the right thing might decide to leave the train wreck of anti-torture laws alone on the flawed theory that no harm is being done.

    And in any event, if a new President publicly repudiates the idea of torture, even if he or she deliberately does nothing about current ambiguity, the relief will be so great that the issue will soon ebb away -- leaving the law shot through with tattered holes. Leaving the law unclear will be a victory for the Bush Administration. It would leave in the legal framework what Justice Robert Jackson once compared to a "loaded weapon," just waiting for the next crisis to happen.

    More flagrant than the torture disaster, however, is the impending stitch-up of the Bush Iraq strategy. While the problem of undoing torture arises from the predictable pressures on a new President, the lock-up of Iraq policy is simply another example of Bush's tendency to snub Congress in favor of a unilateralist form of government alien to the American Constitution.

    In November, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki signed a joint declaration, which contains nothing beyond predictable pieties. The Administration has since begun negotiations with Maliki's lackeys on a permanent agreement, called a "Status of Forces agreement" (SOFA), to provide for a long-term US troop presence in Iraq.

    Speaking at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait on January 9, Bush explained that this further agreement would cement America's "enduring relationship" with Iraq, ensuring "active US engagement that outlasts my presidency." Put starkly, it would enable permanent bases, embedding the United States as an enduring military presence in Iraq and the Middle East. Further, it would close off withdrawal options for a new President.

    Like term limits for Presidents, treaties are addressed by the US Constitution. And they are not a presidential preserve. The framers, after careful debate at the Philadelphia convention, concluded that treaties could not be concluded without Senate ratification. The idea of unilateral international agreements seems inconsistent with this rule.

    But according to Lieut. Gen. Douglas Lute, the Administration point person for Iraq policy, the Iraq SOFA would be different. Despite the fact that it involves decades of military commitment of tremendous national security significance, Congress does not get to play a role in either the negotiations or the final treaty.

    The next President will thus inherit a done deal of dubious constitutionality, crafted in the backrooms of the Bush White House, which ensures that Iraq is ours for the foreseeable future. (The proposed Iraqi agreement is strikingly different from other executive agreements that do not involve Congress: It commits American tax dollars, steel, and blood for the long haul to a policy many or most Americans are dead-set against.)

    The Supreme Court is unlikely to hinder the new agreement, given its recent swing to the right. So Congress alone stands in the way. Senators Clinton and Obama have introduced the Congressional Oversight of Iraq Agreements Act, which would retard the agreement. But expect a veto threat and a signing statement. Even on this issue, the fight will be long and difficult.

    In his farewell address, Washington humbly explained his reasons for declining to serve once more. He reminded his compatriots that "honesty is always the best policy," and he warned against international agreements that would "entangle our peace and prosperity." In a different register, all of Washington's lessons remain relevant today.

    The truth about John McCain's

    Since the traditional media has obsessively focused on McCain's alleged liaison with Vicki Iseman and smearing The NY Times, we felt compelled to take action. Jason, Phillip, and Dallas raced to the editing room, turned off the phones, locked the door, and focused on the real issue about McCain's lobbyist ties.

    It's not a pretty picture. But here's our chance to get the truth out there for everyone to see.

    With inspiration from the insightful blogs of FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher, Christy Hardin Smith, and Marcy Wheeler, we found footage and music to show the story not being told.

    John McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, and yet he said "I'm the only one the special interests don't give any money to."

    Sign the petition demanding McCain return the millions of dollars raised by lobbyists.

    We use humor, we use pop culture, we use McCain's insistent use of the word "friends!" We hope you will send it along to your friends, foes, and media outlets.

    Best,
    Robert Greenwald
    and the crew at Brave New Films

    P.S. Jonathan has vowed to stay in the editing room for as long as it takes to create Fox Attacks Obama, part 2. Showing the merciless and obscene non-stop attacks from Murdoch and Co.

    Want to send a message to Murdoch? Send in $100 to help us make the video, and we'll include your name and message right in the video itself.

    https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/552/p/10040/paywhatyouwantcredits

    The first installment of Fox Attacks Obama got over 1 million views! Let's continue to get our message across.

    ---
    Brave New Films is located at 10510 Culver Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232. You can get our latest videos on email, iTunes, RSS, Facebook, and YouTube here. To stop receiving the latest videos from us, click here.

    Thursday, February 21, 2008

    ABC15 Uncovers Serious Gaps in Homeland Security

    MichaelMoore.com : ABC15 Uncovers Serious Gaps in Homeland Security

    February 18th, 2008 5:59 pm
    ABC15 Uncovers Serious Gaps in Homeland Security

    By Josh Bernstein / ABC15

    "Any major city is at risk," said David Wright of the Federal Protective Services.

    That includes Phoenix, Arizona.

    "It is a potential target for terrorism," said Arizona Congressman Trent Franks.

    Potential targets include the Federal Court House, the IRS, and hundreds of other federal buildings, but a never-before-seen Federal Protective Service audit revealed more than 100 federal buildings where security has never been assessed.

    "People in those buildings need to be secured," said Tom Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste.

    That is the job of the Federal Protective Service, an agency responsible for providing security and threat assessments at federal buildings all across the country, including 200 buildings here in Arizona.

    David Wright is the National Union President for FPS and a 21-year investigator. He was outraged when he saw the audit.

    "It is a great concern," he said. "This is inexcusable for these buildings not to have been surveyed!"

    He said the routine threat assessments of all federal buildings date back to the mid-90s.

    "To the immediate aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing," Wright said.

    As a result of that horrific day, 168 Americans died.

    Thirteen years later, that audit indicates the Federal Protective Service is putting lives at risk by failing to conduct required threat assessments and wasting millions of dollars.

    "You have to admit that is a pretty frightening glimpse into a federal agency responsible for providing security at government buildings," ABC15 Investigator Josh Bernstein said.

    "I’ve never seen anything like it," Wright answered.

    The FPS audit points out that in Phoenix, inspectors were actually recycling threat assessments.

    Not only that, inspectors would also copy and paste information from one report to another.

    "That is not acceptable," Wright said.

    Inspectors also sent out emails asking employees about security.

    They asked if there were guards on site or roving patrols, rather than inspecting the actual buildings.

    "Can you adequately secure a building when you are doing a building security assessment and you have never been there?" Bernstein asked.

    "Absolutely not!" Wright said. "It takes an onsite visit. At least one, and more likely five or six."

    And we are not just talking about federal buildings here in Arizona. The audit covered the entire West Coast including San Francisco, Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

    "All of these cities are potential targets for a terrorist attack?" Bernstein asked.

    "Correct," Wright said.

    But here is the catch. We showed that FPS audit to Arizona Congressman Trent Franks along with another security assessment.

    "This is a security assessment that was done on U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s personal $16 million home," Bernstein said

    Franks looked shocked. It's not just any home.

    The Federal Protective Service conducted a threat assessment of the California Senator Dianne Feinstein’s multi-million dollar mansion, complete with breathtaking views of the San Francisco Bay.

    According to documents obtained by ABC15, FPS spent 10 days making sure the California Senator’s home was safe and secure.

    That did not sit will with Arizona Congressman Trent Franks.

    "Well obviously I think their priority should be to protect the federal buildings," Franks said.

    David Wright said that in his 20 years with FPS, he has never seen a security assessment conducted on someone’s private home.

    Senator Feinstein’s assessment was performed at a time when FPS was strapped for cash.

    Wright said FPS was facing a $60 million deficit. FPS turned to Congress for help, directly to Senator Feinstein and her committee.

    We took the issue to Tom Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste.

    "Is there something wrong with that?" Bernstein asked.

    "That is an outrage," Schatz said. "This is a major waste of tax dollars!"

    Not only that, FPS actually classified the Senator’s home as a Level Three federal facility.

    "That is on part with some major facilities," Wright said.

    "In ten days how many buildings could they have inspected?" Bernstein asked Wright.

    "Maybe ten of the 100 buildings that are not inspected at all," he said.

    We found what an actual level three facility looks like in here in Phoenix, a 14-story building.

    Inside are the offices of the Department of Justice, the U.S. Marshall’s and hundreds of employees.

    Our investigation uncovered at least ten Level Three federal facilities in Arizona, California and Nevada that have never been assessed.

    While FPS and Senator Feinstein claimed no laws were broken, Congressman Trent Franks is calling it a waste of taxpayers’ money.

    "An abuse of taxpayers money, certainly," Franks said.

    And government watch dog groups agree.

    "Where is the Inspector General? Where is the Secretary of Homeland Security? Jumping up and down and saying ‘get these buildings inspected’? And what were you thinking when you went to inspect Senator Feinstein's home?’" Said Tom Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste.

    Our investigation has already gotten results.

    Arizona Congressman Trent Franks said his office is analyzing the audit and plans on contacting the Department of Homeland Security himself.

    FPS Union President David Wright wants Congress to review the audit and take immediate action. He also wants the Office of the Inspector General to get involved.

    Message from the Commander in Chief

    MichaelMoore.com : Message from the Commander in Chief

    uesday, February 19th, 2008
    Message from the Commander in Chief

    By Fidel Castro / Diario Granma

    Dear compatriots:

    Last Friday, February 15, I promised you that in my next reflection I would deal with an issue of interest to many compatriots. Thus, this now is rather a message.

    The moment has come to nominate and elect the State Council, its President, its Vice-Presidents and Secretary.

    For many years I have occupied the honorable position of President. On February 15, 1976 the Socialist Constitution was approved with the free, direct and secret vote of over 95% of the people with the right to cast a vote. The first National Assembly was established on December 2nd that same year; this elected the State Council and its presidency. Before that, I had been a Prime Minister for almost 18 years. I always had the necessary prerogatives to carry forward the revolutionary work with the support of the overwhelming majority of the people.

    There were those overseas who, aware of my critical health condition, thought that my provisional resignation, on July 31, 2006, to the position of President of the State Council, which I left to First Vice-President Raul Castro Ruz, was final. But Raul, who is also minister of the Armed Forces on account of his own personal merits, and the other comrades of the Party and State leadership were unwilling to consider me out of public life despite my unstable health condition.

    It was an uncomfortable situation for me vis-à-vis an adversary which had done everything possible to get rid of me, and I felt reluctant to comply.

    Later, in my necessary retreat, I was able to recover the full command of my mind as well as the possibility for much reading and meditation. I had enough physical strength to write for many hours, which I shared with the corresponding rehabilitation and recovery programs. Basic common sense indicated that such activity was within my reach. On the other hand, when referring to my health I was extremely careful to avoid raising expectations since I felt that an adverse ending would bring traumatic news to our people in the midst of the battle. Thus, my first duty was to prepare our people both politically and psychologically for my absence after so many years of struggle. I kept saying that my recovery "was not without risks."

    My wishes have always been to discharge my duties to my last breath. That’s all I can offer.

    To my dearest compatriots, who have recently honored me so much by electing me a member of the Parliament where so many agreements should be adopted of utmost importance to the destiny of our Revolution, I am saying that I will neither aspire to nor accept, I repeat, I will neither aspire to nor accept the positions of President of the State Council and Commander in Chief.

    In short letters addressed to Randy Alonso, Director of the Round Table National TV Program, -- letters which at my request were made public -- I discreetly introduced elements of this message I am writing today, when not even the addressee of such letters was aware of my intention. I trusted Randy, whom I knew very well from his days as a student of Journalism. In those days I met almost on a weekly basis with the main representatives of the University students from the provinces at the library of the large house in Kohly where they lived. Today, the entire country is an immense University.

    Following are some paragraphs chosen from the letter addressed to Randy on December 17, 2007:

    "I strongly believe that the answers to the current problems facing Cuban society, which has, as an average, a twelfth grade of education, almost a million university graduates, and a real possibility for all its citizens to become educated without their being in any way discriminated against, require more variables for each concrete problem than those contained in a chess game. We cannot ignore one single detail; this is not an easy path to take, if the intelligence of a human being in a revolutionary society is to prevail over instinct.

    "My elemental duty is not to cling to positions, much less to stand in the way of younger persons, but rather to contribute my own experience and ideas whose modest value comes from the exceptional era that I had the privilege of living in.

    "Like Niemeyer, I believe that one has to be consistent right up to the end."

    Letter from January 8, 2008:

    "…I am a firm supporter of the united vote (a principle that preserves the unknown merits), which allowed us to avoid the tendency to copy what came to us from countries of the former socialist bloc, including the portrait of the one candidate, as singular as his solidarity towards Cuba. I deeply respect that first attempt at building socialism, thanks to which we were able to continue along the path we had chosen."

    And I reiterated in that letter that "…I never forget that ‘all of the world’s glory fits in a kernel of corn."

    Therefore, it would be a betrayal to my conscience to accept a responsibility requiring more mobility and dedication than I am physically able to offer. This I say devoid of all drama.

    Fortunately, our Revolution can still count on cadres from the old guard and others who were very young in the early stages of the process. Some were very young, almost children, when they joined the fight on the mountains and later they have given glory to the country with their heroic performance and their internationalist missions. They have the authority and the experience to guarantee the replacement. There is also the intermediate generation which learned together with us the basics of the complex and almost unattainable art of organizing and leading a revolution.

    The path will always be difficult and require from everyone’s intelligent effort. I distrust the seemingly easy path of apologetics or its antithesis the self-flagellation. We should always be prepared for the worst variable. The principle of being as prudent in success as steady in adversity cannot be forgotten. The adversary to be defeated is extremely strong; however, we have been able to keep it at bay for half a century.

    This is not my farewell to you. My only wish is to fight as a soldier in the battle of ideas. I shall continue to write under the heading of ‘Reflections by comrade Fidel.’ It will be just another weapon you can count on. Perhaps my voice will be heard. I shall be careful.

    Thanks.

    Fidel Castro Ruz

    February 18, 2008

    5:30 p.m.

    Maverick Republican Drops the 'War Crimes' Bomb on Bush/Cheney ...by Dan DeWalt

    MichaelMoore.com : Maverick Republican Drops the 'War Crimes' Bomb on Bush/Cheney ...by Dan DeWalt

    hursday, February 21st, 2008
    Maverick Republican Drops the 'War Crimes' Bomb on Bush/Cheney ...by Dan DeWalt

    In a packed hearing room on Feb 19th, under a carved wooden sign reading “Live Free or Die”, the New Hampshire House committee of State-Federal Relations and Veterans’ Affairs heard testimony on Representative Betty Hall’s HR 24, which calls on the U.S. Congress to begin impeachment hearings for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

    What was most notable about the four straight hours of testimony was not that opponents of the resolution could only muster two people willing to testify against it, both Republican stalwarts using selected excerpts from Jefferson’s parliamentary manual or from the bill itself, whose arguments were embarrassingly empty.

    It was not that Kris Roberts, the committee chair, had taken this hearing seriously enough to have researched the law, history and nuances of the subject, and that he used this to inform the proceedings in a reasonably fair manner.

    It was not the fact that after the hearing ended, several pro-impeachment witnesses were approached by committee members and thanked for their clarity and useful testimony.

    It was not even the novelty of the interjections by one committee member that would periodically steer the conversation abruptly into Rockefeller/Trilateral Commission territory.

    The most remarkable moment came late in the afternoon when Republican House member Steve Vaillancourt strode into the room to testify. After passing out copies of the second chapter of Patrick Buchanan’s “Day of Reckoning” as supporting evidence, Vaillancourt opened his remarks quoting “fools rush in where wise men fear to tread”, and it sounded like a set up to condemn a rush to impeach. But instead he said that Betty Hall is neither fool nor wise man, but is a model of courage and that her impeachment resolution should be supported.

    And then the fun began.

    Member Vaillancourt then gave a short history lesson, telling the committee that until Bush/Cheney, America had never engaged in an offensive war [sic.], and pointing out that the Truman, Eisenhower. Kennedy and Reagan “Doctrines” had all been based on defense and had not been offensive in nature. Warming to the subject, he delved into the ramifications of Bush/Cheney’s actions, saying that their reckless foreign policy has been anti-American, unconstitutional, and ruinously costly to the nation.

    He was fairly thundering by the time that he pronounced that not only should Bush and Cheney be impeached, but also they should be tried as war criminals in a Nuremburg style trial for crimes against humanity. He flatly stated that the war in Iraq has provided grounds for war crimes charges against the President and Vice President. And there was not one word of protest from a single committee member. They may or may not support this resolution to impeach, but there seems to be no one left with a credible argument to defend Bush/Cheney.

    Vaillancourt said that he spoke not as a Republican, a New Hampshire citizen or an American, but as a member of humanity. His remarks made a common sense plea for an honest appraisal of our current political situation, for the acknowledgement that we have a duty to act as a decent and responsible people, and that principle be the governing factor of our government’s actions. These are all values that should, and once did, cut across party lines. If the current political parties have forgotten this, and become so degraded as to allow the lawlessness and criminality of this administration to go unchecked, the people have not.

    And at that hearing the people had their chance to speak. One member of the committee remarked that she had never before seen such a wide range of viewpoints as represented by the witnesses, to be so united on one issue.

    After deliberation the next day, loyalty to party leadership proved a stronger pull than reasoned argument, for five committee members voted to recommend the bill, with eleven voting against. Now facing an uphill battle to get it passed in a full House vote in March, Betty Hall was still encouraged by the committee hearing and vote. She has received much more support for this resolution than she did with a similar effort last year, and is already working to get grass roots supporters out between now and the vote to get their legislators’ attention.

    If the grass roots continue to pour out as they did on Tuesday, and if there were a few more politicians like Steve Vaillancourt and Betty Hall, we might see things begin to change. It’s instructive to remember that some politicians who are now leading the charge for impeachment did not want to talk about it only a few short months ago. The spotlight is now on the New Hampshire House, the third largest deliberative body on the planet, and arguably one of the more democratic representative systems anywhere as well. These representatives may listen to an outsider’s viewpoint on what to do about the Constitution, but they will be influenced most by the neighbors whom they represent. The question is, is New Hampshire angry enough and organized enough to convince the legislature to call for impeachment? For those outside of New Hampshire the question is, how can we raise the temperature everywhere else, making it all the more plausible that the Granite State will reach the boiling point.

    Dan DeWalt is a woodworker and selectboard member in the town of Newfane, Vermont, and the author of a successful town resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush.


    Wednesday, February 20, 2008

    Unilateral Strike Called a Model For U.S. Operations in Pakistan

    washingtonpost.com
    '); } //--> Click here!
    ad_icon
    Unilateral Strike Called a Model For U.S. Operations in Pakistan

    By Joby Warrick and Robin Wright
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Tuesday, February 19, 2008; A01

    In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

    The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

    Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

    Officials say the incident was a model of how Washington often scores its rare victories these days in the fight against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan's national borders: It acts with assistance from well-paid sympathizers inside the country, but without getting the government's formal permission beforehand.

    It is an approach that some U.S. officials say could be used more frequently this year, particularly if a power vacuum results from yesterday's election and associated political tumult. The administration also feels an increased sense of urgency about undermining al-Qaeda before President Bush leaves office, making it less hesitant, said one official familiar with the incident.

    Independent actions by U.S. military forces on another country's sovereign territory are always controversial, and both U.S. and Pakistani officials have repeatedly sought to obscure operational details that would reveal that key decisions are sometimes made in the United States, not in Islamabad. Some Pentagon operations have been undertaken only after intense disputes with the State Department, which has worried that they might inflame Pakistani public resentment; the CIA itself has sometimes sought to put the brakes on because of anxieties about the consequences for its relationship with Pakistani intelligence officials.

    U.S. military officials say, however, that the uneven performance of their Pakistani counterparts increasingly requires that Washington pursue the fight however it can, sometimes following an unorthodox path that leaves in the dark Pakistani military and intelligence officials who at best lack commitment and resolve and at worst lack sympathy for U.S. interests.

    Top Bush administration policy officials -- who are increasingly worried about al-Qaeda's use of its sanctuary in remote, tribally ruled areas in northern Pakistan to dispatch trained terrorists to the West -- have quietly begun to accept the military's point of view, according to several sources familiar with the context of the Libi strike.

    "In the past, it required getting approval from the highest levels," said one former intelligence official involved in planning for previous strikes. "You may have information that is valid for only 30 minutes. If you wait, the information is no longer valid."

    But when the autonomous U.S. military operations in Pakistan succeed, support for them grows in Washington in probably the same proportion as Pakistani resentments increase. Even as U.S. officials ramp up the pressure on Musharraf to do more, Pakistan's embattled president has taken a harder line in public against cooperation in recent months, the sources said. "The posture that was evident two years ago is not evident," said a senior U.S. official who frequently visits the region.

    A U.S. military official familiar with operations in the tribal areas, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the operations, said: "We'll get these one-off flukes once every eight months or so, but that's still not a strategy -- it's not a plan. Every now and then something will come together. What that serves to do [is] it tamps down discussion about whether there is a better way to do it."

    The Target Is Identified

    During seven years of searching for Osama bin Laden and his followers, the U.S. government has deployed billions of dollars' worth of surveillance hardware to South Asia, from top-secret spy satellites to sophisticated eavesdropping gear for intercepting text messages and cellphone conversations.

    Yet some of the initial clues that led to the Libi strike were decidedly low-tech, according to an account supplied by four officials briefed on the operation. The CIA declined to comment about the strike and neither confirmed nor denied its involvement.

    Hours before the attack, multiple sources said, the CIA was alerted to a convoy of vehicles that bore all the signatures of al-Qaeda officers on the move. Local residents -- who two sources said were not connected to the Pakistani army or intelligence service -- began monitoring the cluster of vehicles as it passed through North Waziristan, a rugged, largely lawless province that borders Afghanistan.

    Eventually the local sources determined that the convoy carried up to seven al-Qaeda operatives and one individual who appeared to be of high rank. Asked how the local support had been arranged, a U.S. official familiar with the episode said, "All it takes is bags of cash."

    Kamran Bokhari, director of Middle East analysis for Strategic Forecasting, a private intelligence group, said the informants could have been recruits from the Afghanistan side of the border, where the U.S. military operates freely.

    "People in this region don't recognize the border, which is very porous," Bokhari said. "It is very likely that our people were in contact with intelligence sources who frequent both sides and could provide some kind of targeting information."

    Precisely what U.S. officials knew about the "high-value target" in the al-Qaeda convoy is unclear. Libi, a 41-year-old al-Qaeda commander who had slowly climbed to the No. 5 spot on the CIA's most wanted list, was a hulking figure who stood 6 feet 4 inches tall. He spoke Libyan-accented Arabic and learned to be cautious after narrowly escaping a previous CIA strike. U.S. intelligence officials say he directed several deadly attacks, including a bombing at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan last year that killed 23 people.

    Alerted to the suspicious convoy, the CIA used a variety of surveillance techniques to follow its progression through Mir Ali, North Waziristan's second-largest town, and to a walled compound in a village on the town's outskirts.

    The stopping place itself was an indication that these were important men: The compound was the home of Abdus Sattar, 45, a local Taliban commander and an associate of Baitullah Mehsud, the man accused by both the CIA and Pakistan of plotting the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on Dec. 27.

    With all signs pointing to a unique target, CIA officials ordered the launch of a pilotless MQ-1B Predator aircraft, one of three kept at a secret base that the Pakistani government has allowed to be stationed inside the country. Launches from that base do not require government permission, officials said.

    During the early hours of Jan. 29, the slow-moving, 27-foot-long plane circled the village before vectoring in to lock its camera sights on Sattar's compound. Watching intently were CIA and Air Force operators who controlled the aircraft's movements from an operations center at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada.

    On orders from CIA officials in McLean, the operators in Nevada released the Predator's two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles -- 100-pound, rocket-propelled munitions tipped with a high-explosive warhead. The missiles tore into the compound's main building and an adjoining guesthouse where the al-Qaeda officers were believed to be staying.

    Even when viewed from computer monitors thousands of miles away, the missiles' impact was stunning. The buildings were destroyed, and as many as 13 inhabitants were killed, U.S. officials said. The pictures captured after the attack were "not pretty," said one knowledgeable source.

    Libi's death was confirmed by al-Qaeda, which announced his "martyrdom" on Feb. 1 in messages posted on the Web sites of sympathetic groups. One message hailed Libi as "the father of many lions who now own the land and mountains of jihadi Afghanistan" and said al-Qaeda's struggle "would not be defeated by the death of one person, no matter how important he may be."

    A Temporary Impact

    Publicly, reaction to the strike among U.S. and Pakistani leaders has been muted, with neither side appearing eager to call attention to an awkward, albeit successful, unilateral U.S. military operation. Some Pakistani government spokesmen have even questioned whether the terrorist leader was killed.

    "It's not going to overwhelm their network or break anything up definitively," acknowledged a military official briefed on details of the Libi strike. He added: "We're now in a sit-and-wait mode until someone else pops up."

    Richard A. Clarke, a former counterterrorism adviser to the Clinton and Bush administrations, said he has been told by those involved that the counterterror effort requires constant pressure on the Pakistani government.

    "The United States has gotten into a pattern where it sends a high-level delegation over to beat Musharraf up, and then you find that within a week or two a high-value target has been identified. Then he ignores us for a while until we send over another high-level delegation," Clarke said.

    Some officials also emphasized that such airstrikes have a marginal and temporary impact. And they do not yield the kind of intelligence dividends often associated with the live capture of terrorists -- documents, computers, equipment and diaries that could lead to further unraveling the network.

    The officials stressed that despite the occasional tactical success against it, such as the Libi strike, the threat posed by al-Qaeda's presence in Pakistan has been growing. As a senior U.S. official briefed on the strike said: "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. But overall, we're in worse shape than we were 18 months ago."

    Reggae Rising

    Blog Archive